Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Its worth noting that with Battleships, they have almost never been disabled or sunk because a precision strike was able to deliberately target a weakspot. It was always sheer dumb luck that actually led to most battleship's being sunk, it was never that the enemy actually managed to pummel their way through their armor with sheer force. The Yamato sank because a lucky attack disabled her flood controls on one side, which caused her to eventually roll. Arizona had her magazine detonated by a lucky bomb, Hood and many british ships in the Battle of Jutland also suffered from "lucky shots". Bismarck had her rudder disabled by a lucky torpedo, and she only actually sank after multiple point blank torpedoes were used to put her out of her misery. Though at the same time the Bismarck's crew had also detonated scuttling charges in the engine room, so its debatable if she was sunk by enemy fire.
So Achilles Heel lucky shot then?
And before Yamato wreck was discovered in 1985. What leads to the popular belief that the ship was sunk in one piece and the control tower was still standing?
Here's the problem with railguns vs. battleships. There is a VERY large volume inside a battleship, and not very much of it is filled with stuff absolutely crucial to the functioning of the ship. You can poke 16" holes in one for hours and not do much beyond some local flooding.
That's why battleship guns never developed stuff like APFSDS or even HEAT rounds. Punching relatively small large holes in the ship doesn't do a lot of damage relative to the size of the ship.
That's why battleship AP rounds carried an explosive charge, designed to penetrate into the ship past the armor and THEN explode. The blast of even 10 lbs of explosives is a lot worse for the structure of a ship than a 16" hole. And most BB AP rounds carried quite a bit more than 10 lbs of explosives.
No, the railgun rounds are going to ALSO have to carry explosives, so they can do decent damage per shot. Otherwise, well, it's a lot like trying to kill a bear with a high-velocity .22 instead of a 30-06 or better...
Battleships, meaning a large, heavily armed and armored, warship, is really just a specific example of what is essentially a common historical phenomenon: the capital ship (or ship of the line). Every period of naval history has had an archetype of ship which all first rate navies relied upon to be the core of their battle fleets. Triremes, galleys, men 'o war, pre dreadnoughts, battleships, and now carriers, all share that distinction. The primary weapons have changed (the USS Nimitz doesn't have a ram or archers anymore), but the only really trend line is that all systems have become more complicated, the ships have gotten larger, and thus less numerous. three primary systems have evolved dramatically over the millennia: propulsion, armament, and defense.
Propulsion has influenced tactics, as neither galleys nor battleships relied upon the weather gage (but oddly, earlier carriers often launched into the wind. Modern too, when they can.) In general, ships have gotten faster, with longer range.
The real interesting aspect is the push and pull of armament vs. defense. Early Ironclads were difficult to sink with the cannons of the time, but eventually the advances in metallurgy that made ironclads possible also lead to stronger guns, with better propellants helping a lot as well. the time from roughly 1850 through WWII was essentially a chase between thicker armor and heavier guns, with the torpedo acting as a wild car.
all of this is a prelude to understanding why battleships existed in the first place: the most powerful weapons on the high seas (and really even on land until the 40s) were big naval guns. Armor plating was effective in reducing the lethality of those guns, so it made sense to provide it. See battlecruisers for the idea that if you are faster and have longer range, you don't need as much armor. RIP HMS Hood.
For battleships in the classic sense to return, there needs to be a significant threat of some weapon, which can incapacitate the ship but against which armor is effective. Plenty of posters in this thread have suggested possibilities, but I wouldn't hold my breath on any of them.
No, the railgun rounds are going to ALSO have to carry explosives, so they can do decent damage per shot. Otherwise, well, it's a lot like trying to kill a bear with a high-velocity .22 instead of a 30-06 or better...
But the kinetic energy of a railgun round impacting at mach 5 or so is going to be vastly higher than even 16" armour-piercing rounds. Hit something hard enough and you don't need an explosive because the end result is pretty much the same.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Pyroalchi wrote: Besides sloped armor another thing I could imagine in response to the introduction of railguns would be to "go deep" and start constructing ships in a way that the majority of vital systems is below the water line.
Wasn't this already true for most warships back during WW2 at least? Engines and ammo (the most critical parts) would be already beneath the waterline, and inside the armoured citadel.
Pyroalchi wrote: Besides sloped armor another thing I could imagine in response to the introduction of railguns would be to "go deep" and start constructing ships in a way that the majority of vital systems is below the water line.
Wasn't this already true for most warships back during WW2 at least? Engines and ammo (the most critical parts) would be already beneath the waterline, and inside the armoured citadel.
Yes, but you could go even lower if you wanted. Modern ships still have quite a lot of stuff above the waterline. Namely the radar and observation towers. Though I think that another reason ships sit fairly tall in the water is for handling in rough seas.
In my theoretical future anyway, those things would probably be lowered significantly to minimize the ship's profile. Or at the least not be critical to how the ship functions. The highest point on these ships would probably be the turrets themselves, with maybe a few retractable radar and observation towers.
These ships would probably have much smaller crews than ships in the past as well. The Iowa's turrets needed 77-94 men to operate. A railgun battleship would probably cut that down to less than 10.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/16 16:46:27
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
No, the railgun rounds are going to ALSO have to carry explosives, so they can do decent damage per shot. Otherwise, well, it's a lot like trying to kill a bear with a high-velocity .22 instead of a 30-06 or better...
But the kinetic energy of a railgun round impacting at mach 5 or so is going to be vastly higher than even 16" armour-piercing rounds. Hit something hard enough and you don't need an explosive because the end result is pretty much the same.
Yes, but that initial impact will be on the outer skin, well away from the vitals of the ship. Sure, it'll continue on punching holes, but it will also lose energy rapidly as it does so.
Of course, it's possible I'm mistaken and your assessment of the damage will be proven correct. But let's face it; as of right now neither one of us has the certain knowledge of what will happen with a railgun round in combat actually will be. We merely have what our relative experiences tell us to expect... which is not the same thing as knowledge.
Although if your assessment is right and mine wrong, it's quite likely that NO practical amount of armor will stop a railgun round from doing severe damage to a ship. Thus, there will be no revival of battleships, as they would be too big and easy to hit with railguns while being unable to absorb damage. Railgun-armed destroyers become more likely, being a smaller target, more maneuverable... and more expendable.
Pyroalchi wrote: Besides sloped armor another thing I could imagine in response to the introduction of railguns would be to "go deep" and start constructing ships in a way that the majority of vital systems is below the water line.
Wasn't this already true for most warships back during WW2 at least? Engines and ammo (the most critical parts) would be already beneath the waterline, and inside the armoured citadel.
Yes, this is correct. Engines and magazines were all below the waterline, or at least as close to it as could possibly be managed. This was for two reasons. First, to protect such things from incoming fire. This is also why these areas were heavily armored. Second, these things were heavy, and putting them below the waterline increased the stability of the ship.
This also brings up exactly how much - or more precisely, how LITTLE - of those battleships was behind that heavy armor. For most interwar and WWII battleship construction, the 'all or nothing' armor scheme was standard. Either a part of the ship was as heavily armored as possible, or was completely UNarmored. Areas heavily armored were the turrets and the main belt armor, with some armor used for secondary batteries, a conning tower for the command crew, and for gun directors and related conduits. This again was for two reasons. First, to maximize protection against BB grade AP rounds in crucial areas for a given weight of armor; not an unimportant consideration given these were seagoing vessels and all that implies. Second... well, a BB grade AP round is highly likely to blow clear through an unarmored section of the ship. Light armor might be just strong enough to set off the AP round, causing much more damage to the ship than just having a 16" hole straight through it.
The belt armor wasn't particularly high off the waterline, either - or deep below it. Foot-thick steel is HEAVY. Too much too high and your ship rolls over in high seas. This is a big part why early dreadnaughts didn't use superfiring turrets, and instead had wing-mounts, to keep weight aloft down. Once superfiring turrets became the normal, they were always used in pairs on battleships, and only quite rarely in triples on smaller ships (the Atlanta class cruisers come to mind).
At any rate, the main armor belt rarely covered much more than half the freeboard of a battleship. Literally, they used the minimum height of belt armor to cover the machine spaces and magazines and not one inch more. Everything else - crew compartments, much of the fuel (when it wasn't stored behind the belt as additional protection to the machinery), other supply spaces, all of that sort of stuff - was completely unprotected. The primary armored deck sat right on top of the belt, sometimes with a lighter armor deck at the 'main deck' level, again to save weight aloft.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/16 18:16:31
Grey Templar wrote: Those aren’t F35s. We do not make planes that can take damage anymore. Modern fighters and bombers are paper.
It’s a good argument for keeping A10s around. They can take a beating. Other newer stuff simply can’t.
So we're going to change the IRL war meta game? Omg lasers too OP vs aircraft pls nerf!!! Maybe we'll just armor up aircraft then.
As far as battleships go the only thing I remember hearing is the U.S. Navy is ridiculous compared to all the other navies of the world esp. with aircraft carriers. I wonder if there's a youtube video comparing world navy sizes for the most powerful countries. I think for now we're one of the only countries with multiple aircraft carriers and they have a slingshot mechanism that saves on jet fuel for the U.S. variants.
Of course with a change of IRL meta we won't be using as many aircraft if what you say is true but doesn't the usa have like the largest aircraft fleet (or is that china now?). I thought aircraft were an American specialty ever since they first came into service.
Regarding railguns punching holes: I might well be very wrong, but wouldn't a projectile out of a very soft material (lead for example) theorethically "squish" against the harder steel instead of piercing, thus transfering its very high kinetic energy onto the ships hull?
So more creating large dents instead of small holes?
I seriously don't know if soft projectiles still work that way at that speed
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/18 06:02:58
The lead would deform from the speed or melt in the barrel from the heat generated. Tungsten is used in the projectiles because it's both durable and has the highest melting point of any element.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
If it hasn't penetrated, it will likely just be converted to kinetic energy which will push the ship back a little; likely doing less damage than even an overpenetration leaving a hole on both sides.
As far as I understand, we are nowhere near relativistic weapon velocities (<~14% the speed of light projectiles).
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The lead would deform from the speed or melt in the barrel from the heat generated. Tungsten is used in the projectiles because it's both durable and has the highest melting point of any element.
Yeah. Though the Tungsten would probably have a similar effect against thick armor. It would either punch through OR it would deform a large area of hull meaning the next shot might have a better chance.
And even if the shot does punch through the armor layer, it might not have the kinetic energy to keep punching through the ship and thus might come to a relatively slow(and messy) stop which would be more damaging than if it kept going. And you could always add explosives to the railgun shell if you wanted to so that it exploded after penetration. Though that might not be necessary due to how objects that impact each other at high speeds act. The kinetic energy of a railgun shell designed to break apart after penetration(without explosives) would be just as nasty as an actual bomb.
You could have a railgun slug with an armor piercing tip that deforms after impact which causes the entire shell to break apart into a few smaller pieces that spread out within the target like a fragmenting bullet. Possibly a Tungsten shell surrounding a core of softer steel. The tungsten is strong enough to be fired and penetrate the enemy armor, but after that it deforms and spreads out within the target.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
You absolutely do not want explosives in your railgun shells if you can avoid it; not having to have an "instant death if hit" spot on your ship is one of the major advantages of railguns in the first place.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You absolutely do not want explosives in your railgun shells if you can avoid it; not having to have an "instant death if hit" spot on your ship is one of the major advantages of railguns in the first place.
And how many dreadnaughts blew up from such a hit? Leaving aside Beatty's squadron, where the battlescruisers exploded from many, many levels of safety barriers being removed to increase rate of fire, I can only think of one offhand. The Arizona comes to mind. On the other hand, you have ships like the Bismark taking hundreds of hits and no ammo explosions.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You absolutely do not want explosives in your railgun shells if you can avoid it; not having to have an "instant death if hit" spot on your ship is one of the major advantages of railguns in the first place.
Well when you think about it. Even with the battleships that did explode, it wasn't the artillery shells that exploded. It was the cordite propellant that exploded. Even if you have explosive railgun shells, you're still eliminating the main source of danger due to magazine detonation. The explosives that are used in artillery warheads are far more stable than cordite. They have to not detonate in the barrel afterall.
But yes, you would be slightly backtracking one of the main advantages of railguns, though I think the danger reduction is still significant enough to be an overall major advantage.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
And how many dreadnaughts blew up from such a hit? Leaving aside Beatty's squadron, where the battlescruisers exploded from many, many levels of safety barriers being removed to increase rate of fire, I can only think of one offhand. The Arizona comes to mind. On the other hand, you have ships like the Bismark taking hundreds of hits and no ammo explosions.
IIRC off the top of my head (There may be more, not sure without looking it up), HMS Hood, HMS Barham and the Yamato all suffered magazine explosions, admittedly Barham and Yamato were already sinking when that happened and it wasn't as a direct result of a hit to the magazine, but magazine explosions are still a not insignificant risk.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/10/19 07:21:18
It’s not just the risk of explosion, it’s the weight and volume of all of the protective measures you have to put in place to minimise the risk of explosion and the compromises it forces on the design of the ship.
Zed wrote: *All statements reflect my opinion at this moment. if some sort of pretty new model gets released (or if I change my mind at random) I reserve the right to jump on any bandwagon at will.
If we're going smaller than BBs the Blücher essentially got crippled from having her AA ammo storage get hit, causing a widespread fire that would've likely doomed her even if the Norwegians hadn't had a retired colonel sitting with two torpedoes in a shed.
In the case of railguns though, if it is already the case that you can't armour against them then having explosives on board is a tremendously bad idea.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You absolutely do not want explosives in your railgun shells if you can avoid it; not having to have an "instant death if hit" spot on your ship is one of the major advantages of railguns in the first place.
But explosive shells are neccessary to perform bombardments or NLOS attacks. particularly against mob targets.
Did explosive agents used in modern artillery shells and rocket artillery today too volatile to move with superspeeds railgun has.
IF there's a logic to reinstate battleships. there need to be proper reasons like superpowers have finally developed a giant combat walker. (or tactical ship-ship missles that outranges modern jet air fighters)
Did modern Supercarrier gets the same armor thickness or grades that Battleships could have? and how well did Soviet 'Battlecarrier' (ones that have main guns to the starboard side (the bridge side) and airpad to the port side) do in modern days?
If anyone really cares, Nathan Okun is usually considered the grandaddy for making these sorts of calculations. He has a lot of programs and formulae for calculating stuff if you're so inclined and mathematically schooled.
Out of curiosity with the sheer amount of drone weapons, cruise missiles and the like out there. To say nothing of the science fictiony 'Rods from God' type weapons...
Do surface warships have much of a future?
Sure we need patrol ships for anti-piracy/smuggling stuff but won't future capital ships just be submarines with cruise missiles and maybe a railgun (to fire when surfaced)?
And how many dreadnaughts blew up from such a hit? Leaving aside Beatty's squadron, where the battlescruisers exploded from many, many levels of safety barriers being removed to increase rate of fire, I can only think of one offhand. The Arizona comes to mind. On the other hand, you have ships like the Bismark taking hundreds of hits and no ammo explosions.
IIRC off the top of my head (There may be more, not sure without looking it up), HMS Hood, HMS Barham and the Yamato all suffered magazine explosions, admittedly Barham and Yamato were already sinking when that happened and it wasn't as a direct result of a hit to the magazine, but magazine explosions are still a not insignificant risk.
DOH! I can't believe I forgot about the Hood!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/19 22:33:56
A lot of misunderstanding of railgun dynamics. The current prototypes have solid tungsten projectiles penetrating upto 2' of solid steel and layered composites. The damage caused to an enemy warship would come from the spalling flying around inside the vessel as the projectile passed through the armour, bulkheads etc. If the power problems could be solved to make them viable future railguns could potential have a rate of fire comparable to the Metal Storm weapon system.
And how many dreadnaughts blew up from such a hit? Leaving aside Beatty's squadron, where the battlescruisers exploded from many, many levels of safety barriers being removed to increase rate of fire, I can only think of one offhand. The Arizona comes to mind. On the other hand, you have ships like the Bismark taking hundreds of hits and no ammo explosions.
IIRC off the top of my head (There may be more, not sure without looking it up), HMS Hood, HMS Barham and the Yamato all suffered magazine explosions, admittedly Barham and Yamato were already sinking when that happened and it wasn't as a direct result of a hit to the magazine, but magazine explosions are still a not insignificant risk.
DOH! I can't believe I forgot about the Hood!
Hood was also IIRC simply an outdated design. Despite being recently refitted, she had a vulnerability in her top armor which meant she was not properly equipped to be in a long range shootout with a battleship. She might as well have had no armor from the Bismarck in the situation she was stuck in. Prince of Wales was better armored to deal with Bismarck.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Hood never got the refit in the first place. Admiral Holland knew the Hood hadn't had the upgrade to her deck armour and was moving at high speed to close the gap with the Bismarck to avoid plunging fire, but RNGesus hated his guts.
Prince of Wales was so fresh out of the shipyards that she still had builder's reps on board to fix the guns if they jammed. The King George V-class was literally brand spanking new and a 20 years more advanced design than the Hood; of course Prince of Wales was better protected.
Regardless, the Germans got very lucky, they were significantly outmatched in that fight but between Prince of Wales' not being broken in properly yet and Hood's sudden critical existence failure the Germans got away.
And as far as I understand it the current problem with railguns isn't so much the power supply as the fact that they melt after firing because of the heat.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Out of curiosity with the sheer amount of drone weapons, cruise missiles and the like out there. To say nothing of the science fictiony 'Rods from God' type weapons...
Do surface warships have much of a future?
Sure we need patrol ships for anti-piracy/smuggling stuff but won't future capital ships just be submarines with cruise missiles and maybe a railgun (to fire when surfaced)?
What in case of Amphib assault. There are still less cruise missiles than gun shells. And look at Zumwalt. Even it has missile tubes mounted in the same spot as Space Yamato. It also has classic mainguns that uses the same tech NLOS Cannon (Called 'cannon' instead of 'howitzer' due to barrel lenghts )
Rolsheen wrote: A lot of misunderstanding of railgun dynamics. The current prototypes have solid tungsten projectiles penetrating upto 2' of solid steel and layered composites. The damage caused to an enemy warship would come from the spalling flying around inside the vessel as the projectile passed through the armour, bulkheads etc. If the power problems could be solved to make them viable future railguns could potential have a rate of fire comparable to the Metal Storm weapon system.
2" of steel covers a lot of ground. 2" of mild steel is not 2" of structural steel is not 2" of the latest face-hardened battleship armor... not that any battleship ever mounted only 2" of armor. Even the Glorious and Courageous had 3". So... cruiser-killer at best. Battleships routinely had a foot or more of main-belt and turret armor, these railguns would be more like 6" guns in lethality.
Of course, one could theoretically scale the railguns up to defeat battleship armor, I presume. Eventually...
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Out of curiosity with the sheer amount of drone weapons, cruise missiles and the like out there. To say nothing of the science fictiony 'Rods from God' type weapons...
Do surface warships have much of a future?
Sure we need patrol ships for anti-piracy/smuggling stuff but won't future capital ships just be submarines with cruise missiles and maybe a railgun (to fire when surfaced)?
If you have enough juice to power a railgun, you have enough juice to power a laser. If you have enough juice to power a really big laser, airforce ceases to be a threat. Not a factor in the immediate future of course, but if we optimistically assume we still have technologically advanced civilization in a 100 years, we could see atmospheric-flight assets become as useless as triremes.
~6550 build and painted
819 build and painted
830 
)
