Search found 42 matches

by Steve-M
Wed Apr 20, 2016 4:48 pm
Forum: World Navies Today
Topic: What is needed to replace the Battleship?
Replies: 29
Views: 6812

Re: What is needed to replace the Battleship?

IMHO, the BB concept of old is pretty well dead. OTOH, a large surface combatant may again become a significant factor in force projection as things like railguns and high-powered lasers for CIWS continue to develop. I envision a ship more akin to an enlarged, futuristic Zumwalt class, i.e. a stealt...
by Steve-M
Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:59 pm
Forum: Naval History in General
Topic: Battlecruisers: Flawed or not?
Replies: 38
Views: 4106

Re: Battlecruisers: Flawed or not?

One question I have: is why those three? Was the ammunition and the handling fundamentally different from the other British capital ships at the time? Ammo/powder handling practices are reputed to have been aimed at higher rate of fire at the expense of safety in Beatty's squadron, though I don't k...
by Steve-M
Thu Apr 14, 2016 8:22 pm
Forum: Naval History in General
Topic: Battlecruisers: Flawed or not?
Replies: 38
Views: 4106

Re: Battlecruisers: Flawed or not?

So, considering all the ships and the battles they participate, do you guys think that the Battlecruisers in general, from all nations, were flawed, either in concept or design? I'd say the German BCs were pretty much ideal in terms of their balance of speed, firepower, and protection for their tim...
by Steve-M
Thu Apr 07, 2016 4:11 pm
Forum: Military Conflicts Today
Topic: Got to be kidding
Replies: 9
Views: 4142

Re: Got to be kidding

It's already happened in some ways: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/261283-ex-cia-chief-fear-for-environment-stays-us-hand-on-isis-oil-wells I'd consider that a matter of long term strategic planning. We can bomb the wells, but whose going to foot the bill to clean everything up after t...
by Steve-M
Wed Apr 06, 2016 6:59 pm
Forum: Military Conflicts Today
Topic: Got to be kidding
Replies: 9
Views: 4142

Re: Got to be kidding

I would suggest that the climate change aspect is more PR than anything else. More efficient equipment, so long as it doesn't compromise performance, is always desirable as fuel may not always be plentiful, particularly at a local level. It's also good in that it reduces logistical requirements, whi...
by Steve-M
Mon Mar 21, 2016 4:13 pm
Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
Topic: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF
Replies: 49
Views: 4304

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

And cruiser displacement was restricted at 10.000 tons. Displacement was limited to 10,000 tons, and armament was limited to 8" guns. As such, IMO an upgraded Panzerschiffe that are better protected against 8" gunfire would make some sense with respect to what Germany needed at the time. In their s...
by Steve-M
Mon Mar 21, 2016 2:20 pm
Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
Topic: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF
Replies: 49
Views: 4304

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

On a design basis, one could say a substantial tonnage was allocated to diesel fuel (2700 tons), while armor scheme was minimal (Deutschalnd - 80mm belt and up to 40mm armor deck). For Baltic domination, 1500 tons of fuel would have been more then enough, while allocating the rest of 1200 tons to a...
by Steve-M
Sat Mar 19, 2016 10:37 pm
Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
Topic: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF
Replies: 49
Views: 4304

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

Graf Spee and her sister ships were launched as 10.000 tons ships, and not battleships. They were not included in the Washington Treaty, AFAIK. If Germany is included in the WNT, then Graf Spee is a capital ship by virtue of its 11" guns. That means: a. Germany can't build them. b. Germany builds t...
by Steve-M
Sat Mar 19, 2016 7:04 pm
Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
Topic: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF
Replies: 49
Views: 4304

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

... Historically Britain planned to replace many of her old battleships / battlecruisers with new builds - Lion, Vanguard, KGV. The same would be done by Germany as well, with Bs/Tz proposed as obvious replacements for the modernised Bayerns. True enough, though this could presumably be offset by t...
by Steve-M
Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:44 pm
Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
Topic: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF
Replies: 49
Views: 4304

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

2. What exactly do you think the relevance of AGNA is under your hypothetical scenario, given that the German fleet is already at a 35 : 100 aka 1.75 : 5 ratio with the UK? PS: Given that AGNA wouldn't make much sense in your hypothetical, that also means German tonnage isn't tied to UK constructio...
by Steve-M
Sat Mar 19, 2016 12:38 pm
Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
Topic: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF
Replies: 49
Views: 4304

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

... After signing the Anglo German treaty , Britain started building 5 KGVs, 1 Vanguard, 5 Lions, in effect increasing own BB/BC tonnage to ~ 1 million tons (existing 530.000 tons already built + 450.000 tons new builds). 1. Construction of Vanguard only began after the war started, and only 2 Lion...
by Steve-M
Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:01 pm
Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
Topic: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF
Replies: 49
Views: 4304

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

... I think it's very plausible to reconstruct 5 or 6 WW1 ships in 9 or 10 years (starting , say, with 1930, like other major powers did) with the available resources, then to build 5 or 6 new capital ships from scratch. It's completely different. How different it is depends on the scale/scope of t...
by Steve-M
Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:56 pm
Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
Topic: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF
Replies: 49
Views: 4304

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

... The main resource, which AFAIK, was not improvable or modifiable in a reasonable amount of time, was dockyard space to build additional capital ships. Launching 5 more capital ships pre-requires having 5 more dockyar-spaces for them, which AFAIK did not exist anywhere in GErmany. I guess anyone...
by Steve-M
Fri Mar 18, 2016 1:58 pm
Forum: Hypothetical Naval Scenarios
Topic: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF
Replies: 49
Views: 4304

Re: Germany get 1.75 to 5 on Washington treaty and keeps part of HSF

Building from scratch took them 5 years for 2 Bismarcks and 4 years for 2 Scharnhorsts. With unlimited resources, it's obviously better to build from scratch, but those resources were NOT unlimited. Resources weren't unlimited, but under your scenario, Germany would have more of the most important ...