Nuclear powered Battleship?

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by lwd » Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:20 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Legend,

With such a ship and such technology, why stay with 16" guns? The Germans demostrated with their H Class that such a ship could easily carry 18" and 20". Even by 1921 the British already considered their new BB and BC with 20" guns.

By the way, I like the Phalanx.
Did they really? The latter H class designs were paper studies from what I recall. There are some very significant problems as the guns get bigger. Just the muzzle blast can induce significant own ship damage. Depends on what the opposition was likely to be. If you want a balanced design the US 18" with a superheavy is probably about as big as you can go on a hull of this size.
Phalanx was good for it's time but today I'd go with an advanced Goalkeeper. That 30mm from the A-10 really packs a punch.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by lwd » Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:23 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:With nowadays fire controls and a 20" guns you don´t need to reload, need a board where to strike out your enemies.
If one hit from a 16" will do the job why not stick with it rather than go to 20"
You can go with more guns, more rounds, and/or more armor and be as if not more lethal.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:33 pm

Did they really? The latter H class designs were paper studies from what I recall. There are some very significant problems as the guns get bigger. Just the muzzle blast can induce significant own ship damage. Depends on what the opposition was likely to be. If you want a balanced design the US 18" with a superheavy is probably about as big as you can go on a hull of this size.
Phalanx was good for it's time but today I'd go with an advanced Goalkeeper. That 30mm from the A-10 really packs a punch.
Your contest answer is out of place. I was just refering to the fact that, maybe, the 120,000 ton H Class study would suit what Legend was refering. I was not mentioning any advantage of such impossible ship in favourable light over USS Montana.

Just for the record: the Montanas are a design that I´m very fond to. They are the demostration of the prior USN classes weaknesses.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:35 pm

If one hit from a 16" will do the job why not stick with it rather than go to 20"
You can go with more guns, more rounds, and/or more armor and be as if not more lethal.
Your indirect defense to the "all american battleship" doctrine is very patriotic, I must agree to that.
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by lwd » Sat Nov 28, 2009 10:54 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
Did they really? The latter H class designs were paper studies from what I recall. There are some very significant problems as the guns get bigger. Just the muzzle blast can induce significant own ship damage. Depends on what the opposition was likely to be. If you want a balanced design the US 18" with a superheavy is probably about as big as you can go on a hull of this size.
Phalanx was good for it's time but today I'd go with an advanced Goalkeeper. That 30mm from the A-10 really packs a punch.
Your contest answer is out of place. I was just refering to the fact that, maybe, the 120,000 ton H Class study would suit what Legend was refering. ...,
those were paper desing studies. The ships couldn't even float in any of the German harbors. Saying that the designs proved you could put 20" guns on a BB based on them is suspect.

lwd
Senior Member
Posts: 3810
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 2:15 am
Location: Southfield, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by lwd » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:00 pm

Karl Heidenreich wrote:
If one hit from a 16" will do the job why not stick with it rather than go to 20"
You can go with more guns, more rounds, and/or more armor and be as if not more lethal.
Your indirect defense to the "all american battleship" doctrine is very patriotic, I must agree to that.
I'ts hardly a defence of that design or patriotic. If your opposition can't take a 16" round there's no reason to use an 18 or a 20. If they are armored vs a 16 but not an 18 then you want to step up to the 18. However It's not clear however what a balanced design would look like if you use Say the US 18" gun with a super heavy projectile? Can you do it with 120,000 tons? and still maintain say 30 knots? Another option for this role might simply be a fast monitor. Say one 2 gun turret and armored vs 5" shells and a decent amount of AAW.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:21 am

those were paper desing studies. The ships couldn't even float in any of the German harbors. Saying that the designs proved you could put 20" guns on a BB based on them is suspect.
Lee, you are quite a remarkable smart guy so it amazes me how you don´t get what I was refering: I JUST say that the H could fit Legend´s design when he mentioned the Nimitz Class hull. Only that. I was not making any apology for that ridiculous 120,000 ton ship or whatever. Everybody knows it was an impossible thing by those days. OK?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:27 am

I'ts hardly a defence of that design or patriotic. If your opposition can't take a 16" round there's no reason to use an 18 or a 20. If they are armored vs a 16 but not an 18 then you want to step up to the 18. However It's not clear however what a balanced design would look like if you use Say the US 18" gun with a super heavy projectile? Can you do it with 120,000 tons? and still maintain say 30 knots? Another option for this role might simply be a fast monitor. Say one 2 gun turret and armored vs 5" shells and a decent amount of AAW.
I concur with your logic and, as a matter of fact, that kind of balancing convinced more than one not to escalate even further. Raeder used the 120,000 ton ship to try to explain Hitler why such a monstruosity couldn´t be built in the 40ies... at least.

Also the use of 18" guns in the Yamato Class were part of the idea of having a sea superiority weapon that could beat the 16" armed threats in the Pacific theater. Which is why they went with three triple turrets, in order to reduce as much as possible the citadel and getting a 70 K ton ship instead of a 90 K ton one which they couldn´t even built if being the case. So, you are right.

But Legend´s ship is nice, anyway... and nuclear.

Best regards,
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by yellowtail3 » Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:35 am

Karl Heidenreich wrote:Man, I like rhoward´s battleship. But such a powerfull ship has a great enemy, and it´s not a Kirov Class BC... it´s call budget.
everything costs. How much do you want to spend, and do you want to get a good bang for your buck? Heck... battleships in WW2 were a poor value for the dollar, they'd be much poorer now. Battleships are interesting, but not very good value when it comes to warfighting for the dollar. Some people, otherwise intelligent, actual think recommissioning an Iowa - again??? - is a good idea. Sigh...
Karl Heidenreich wrote:Nowaday goverments would not expend that kind of money in such a ship, even if likely unvulnerable as it is. If we see the fate of the Iowa Class BBs, which had a lot of service until they were 100 years old,
they're only about six-some years old, most of that time in storage...
Karl Heidenreich wrote: ...in comparison to tiny and weak destroyers as USS Cole and the such goverment officials and profesional officers would go for the Cole even if they can´t withstand a 1/100th of a blow a BB could stand and deliver a payload a fraction of the 16" shell.
Cole is a Burke - and they're neither tiny, nor weak. They're about the size of cruiser from olden days; and strongly built. And they'd handily scupper Bismarck, wouldn't they??
Shift Colors... underway.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:52 am

The last photo I saw of USS Cole she was on the back of a Norwegian salvage ship on it´s way to be repaired because of some camel drivers´home made bomb. Hardly a naval feat, don´t you think?
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Legend » Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:58 am

Pff, Yellowtail, besides the fact that the burkes have missiles, Bismarck could ravage them as a terrier takes out rats. Bismarck doesn't have the radar and accuracy, but it can take targets out with superior firepower and armor. The missiles would do damage, but the 5in guns of the Mk45 wouldn't do shit to a battlehip like Bismarck, let alone anything we could come up with.

lwd, I had the impression that the Goalkeeper was the obsolete one... why the newer Nimitz Classes have both Phalanx and the new RAM. I used the same system with my design, mixing a missile based CWIS with the classic Phalanx system, a point I have repeatedly made is that while the RAM system may be very accurate, it only has a limited amount of missiles, which can also be fooled my countermeasures.
lwd wrote:
Karl Heidenreich wrote:With nowadays fire controls and a 20" guns you don´t need to reload, need a board where to strike out your enemies.
If one hit from a 16" will do the job why not stick with it rather than go to 20"
You can go with more guns, more rounds, and/or more armor and be as if not more lethal.
I have to agree with this statement fully, sorry Karl.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by yellowtail3 » Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:05 am

Legend wrote:Pff, Yellowtail, besides the fact that the burkes have missiles, Bismarck could ravage them as a terrier takes out rats. Bismarck doesn't have the radar and accuracy, but it can take targets out with superior firepower and armor. The missiles would do damage, but the 5in guns of the Mk45 wouldn't do shit to a battlehip like Bismarck, let alone anything we could come up with.
yes, besides the fact that the burkes have missiles - that's one heck of qualifier, isn't it? No, keeping out of battleship's way is easy - just keep outside of about 30,000 yards. Easy when you've got more speed and radar, not to mention missiles.

Heck, and forty years agoTalos cruiser would have scuppered Bismarck handily. Battleships are pretty - they're romantic, they're dramatic! - but they're not very capable, compared to modern ships. Lots of dollars for not much return on those dollars.
Karl Heidenreich wrote:The last photo I saw of USS Cole she was on the back of a Norwegian salvage ship on it´s way to be repaired because of some camel drivers´home made bomb. Hardly a naval feat, don´t you think?
you're about a decade out of date, Karl, if that's the last photo you saw of Cole. I'll be interested in seeing how this feat you refer to, makes a Burke tiny or weak.
Shift Colors... underway.

User avatar
Legend
Senior Member
Posts: 325
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 12:46 am
Location: Tomahawk, Wisconsin

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Legend » Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:15 am

Yellowtail, I believe you are forgetting one fine fact... In Bismarck's time there was no such things as reliable guide missiles. Why do you think the USN added two Phalanx CIWS on the Iowa ships after their recomissioning? If we were to make this THEORETICAL ship then we would have it protected as heavily with CIWS as a CVN.

If a mine had hit a BB, BBN, or a CVN... then it would obciously take far less damage than the Cole, or the Stark. TDS is a privelage that only capitol ships can afford to have. It has always been that way, you simply can't put absorbtion systems into a hull the size of a destroyer or cruiser.
AND THE SEA SHALL GRANT EACH MAN NEW HOPE, AS SLEEP BRINGS DREAMS.

User avatar
Karl Heidenreich
Senior Member
Posts: 4808
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 3:19 pm
Location: San José, Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by Karl Heidenreich » Sun Nov 29, 2009 1:25 am

you're about a decade out of date, Karl, if that's the last photo you saw of Cole. I'll be interested in seeing how this feat you refer to, makes a Burke tiny or weak.
That doesn´t change the fact at all, isn´t it? Again: hardly a naval feat.. .
An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
Sir Winston Churchill

yellowtail3
Senior Member
Posts: 408
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:50 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Re: Nuclear powered Battleship?

Post by yellowtail3 » Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:26 am

Legend wrote:It has always been that way, you simply can't put absorbtion systems into a hull the size of a destroyer or cruiser.
True, so far as it goes... but you can buy a lot of smaller hulls that can be more places doing more useful things than a BB, even back when BBs were semi-relevant in naval warfare.
Legend wrote:Why do you think the USN added two Phalanx CIWS on the Iowa ships after their recomissioning?
because they were otherwise defenseless against modern weapons?
Karl Heidenreich wrote:
you're about a decade out of date, Karl, if that's the last photo you saw of Cole. I'll be interested in seeing how this feat you refer to, makes a Burke tiny or weak.
That doesn´t change the fact at all, isn´t it? Again: hardly a naval feat.. .
I'm slow tonight, Karl - I'm not following your reasoning - by what standard do you pronounce a Burke as 'weak' and 'tiny'? Ever been on one? All steel, and pretty big, actually, for a destroyer. Are you thinking structurally weak? Got back and look at that photo, and measure the hole - the ship stayed afloat. Are you thinking... weak in terms of firepower? If so... compared to what???
Shift Colors... underway.

Post Reply