NationStates Jolt Archive


Hitler's Super Battleship

Nycton
27-03-2005, 06:33
I was watching the History Channel a bit ago and it mentioned after the defeat of the USSR, Hitler had already drawn up plans to make a super battleship with 20" or 22" guns. I was wondering if anyone knew a website that had information on this battleship. Greatly appreciated thanks.
Potaria
27-03-2005, 06:33
I heard about this on the History Channel, and they showed a CG model of it. It would've been one difficult bastard to sink, that's for sure.
Ryanania
27-03-2005, 06:36
It would've been one difficult bastard to sink, that's for sure.Only until the advent of sea-skimming missiles.
Eris23
27-03-2005, 06:37
And just like the Bismark and Japanese Super-Battleships it would have proven to be a waste of resources in the era of naval based aircraft.
Greater Valia
27-03-2005, 06:38
Well, look at the Bismark. The pride of Hitlers Navy, done in by a torpedo to the rudder. And what purpose would a battleship that big have anyway?
Nycton
27-03-2005, 06:40
Well, look at the Bismark. The pride of Hitlers Navy, done in by a torpedo to the rudder. And what purpose would a battleship that big have anyway?
It was immobilized, but it took a small fleet battering it down with round after round of direct hits to sink her. If they had a better way of propulsion, it probably would have thrown some damage out before it could be sank.
Ryanania
27-03-2005, 06:42
Well, look at the Bismark. The pride of Hitlers Navy, done in by a torpedo to the rudder. And what purpose would a battleship that big have anyway?None, but a lot of younger boys think, "OMG battleships r 1337 coz they have teh biggest gunz!!!!"
Greater Valia
27-03-2005, 06:47
None, but a lot of younger boys think, "OMG battleships r 1337 coz they have teh biggest gunz!!!!"

Hmmm, ham. :D
Omz222
27-03-2005, 06:49
The problem still doesn't quite lie in the battleships themselves, but rather the usage of them. With the Bismarck, it was clear that one problem was the lack of escorts, not mentioning that the ships were rather used for raids agaisnt convoys rather to directly confront the whole of the Royal Navy. This same thing could happen to the aircraft carrier anyways if it was placed in the middle of the ocean without multiple escort vessels. With the sinking of the Yamato in April 1945, Operation Ten-Go was a suicide mission anyways, and it was planned so that the Yamato would beach itself and act as a shore gun battery against American naval forces before it is destroyed.

With that, to break a popular myth, battleships does have a role. Without the shore bombardment capabilities of the battleship, D-Day would be more difficult for the allies (a fact that is exposed by the Germans themselves), the Americans wouldn't be able to capture the islands in the Pacific so quickly, the North Vietnamese and the Soviets wouldn't be so scared of it, nor would the Gulf War go that successful. As much as the battleship's obsolete as a weapon against other ships, it does have its own uses as a weapon that is used against land.
Greater Valia
27-03-2005, 06:52
The problem still doesn't quite lie in the battleships themselves, but rather the usage of them. With the Bismarck, it was clear that one problem was the lack of escorts, not mentioning that the ships were rather used for raids agaisnt convoys rather to directly confront the whole of the Royal Navy. This same thing could happen to the aircraft carrier anyways if it was placed in the middle of the ocean without multiple escort vessels. With the sinking of the Yamato in April 1945, Operation Ten-Go was a suicide mission anyways, and it was planned so that the Yamato would beach herself and act as a shore gun battery against American naval forces before it is destroyed.

With that, to break a popular myth, battleships does have a role. Without the shore bombardment capabilities of the battleship, D-Day would be more difficult for the allies (a fact that is exposed by the Germans themselves), the Americans wouldn't be able to capture the islands in the Pacific so quickly, the North Vietnamese and the Soviets wouldn't be so scared of it, nor would the Gulf War go that successful. As much as the battleship's obsolete as a weapon against other ships, it does have its own uses.

I guess we're fucked wince the US navy decommissioned all BS's somne time ago. Never mind Aegis or Nuclear Submarines.
Potaria
27-03-2005, 06:53
I guess we're fucked wince the US navy decommissioned all BS's somne time ago. Never mind Aegis or Nuclear Submarines.

Oh noes, we're SCREWED!!!
Greater Valia
27-03-2005, 06:54
Oh noes, we're SCREWED!!! *sarcasm* ;) :o
Potaria
27-03-2005, 06:55
*sarcasm* ;) :o

Oh, I had no idea...
Omz222
27-03-2005, 06:57
I guess we're ****ed wince the US navy decommissioned all BS's somne time ago. Never mind Aegis or Nuclear Submarines.
It's not that the USN would be "f-ed" without a battleship, but is that the battleship, unlike what many believe and imply, is still an extremely useful ship as a platform. However, they were still simply too expensive for a post-Cold War USN (where the mission is to fight the terrorists rather than conventional forces), thus the battleship - along with its unprecedented shore bombardment and amphibious operation support capabilities - would be unnecessary. However, what many people are implying is that the battleship is completely useless in modern warfare, but that is still far from true. The logic of "battleships are completely obsolete because they can destroyed by aircraft" is still seriously flawed; heck, the same could be said for the aircraft carrier.
Nycton
27-03-2005, 06:57
I've been googling around and found this site that mentions the H-Class, or basically a enlarged version the Bismark with 16" guns compared to 15"...but none of THE Super-Battleship i'm searching for.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/super_battleships_projected.htm
Potaria
27-03-2005, 06:59
The fact is that a Battleship would be a very sturdy, capable Carrier Defense Vessel, along with a Submarine and/or an AEGIS Cruiser. A Battleship would also be an effective land bombardment tool.
Omz222
27-03-2005, 07:04
The fact is that a Battleship would be a very sturdy, capable Carrier Defense Vessel, along with a Submarine and/or an AEGIS Cruiser. A Battleship would also be an effective land bombardment tool.
It still depends on what type. Battleships, as an air defence platform assuming that it would be fitted with modern detection and weapon systems (at least, that is what you seem to imply), can be possible; however, a cruiser or destroyer with a modern air defence system (like Aegis) can be equally good as air defence platforms, though at a cheaper price. As an surface bombardment platform, the strength lies in the fact that its shells are more than capable to destroy things such as on-shore fortifications and other coastal targets (to support amphibious operations) at a cheaper cost, while other systems such as a Tomahawk missile are much more expensive.
Potaria
27-03-2005, 07:06
Exactly. Shelling, pound-for-pound, is better than a bunch of expensive rockets and missiles. And, they can't be intercepted by advanced anti-missile systems.
Greater Valia
27-03-2005, 07:09
Exactly. Shelling, pound-for-pound, is better than a bunch of expensive rockets and missiles. And, they can't be intercepted by advanced anti-missile systems.

The US actually has a anti-artillery shell laser in field tests now. Now I dont know if this would apply to battleship shells, but it shows that no matter what, theres probly a counter-measure for it.
Niccolo Medici
27-03-2005, 07:09
It still depends on what type. Battleships, as an air defence platform assuming that it would be fitted with modern detection and weapon systems (at least, that is what you seem to imply), can be possible; however, a cruiser or destroyer with a modern air defence system (like Aegis) can be equally good as air defence platforms, though at a cheaper price. As an surface bombardment platform, the strength lies in the fact that its shells are more than capable to destroy things such as on-shore fortifications and other coastal targets (to support amphibious operations) at a cheaper cost, while other systems such as a Tomahawk missile are much more expensive.

...Wow. You know your stuff, both tech-wise and tactics. I'm quite impressed. Where did you come by this considerable body of knowledge?
Omz222
27-03-2005, 07:12
Exactly. Shelling, pound-for-pound, is better than a bunch of expensive rockets and missiles. And, they can't be intercepted by advanced anti-missile systems.
Well, it still depends on how you can define "rockets", as rockets can be rather cheap as a form of artillery weapon, where with missiles, advanced guidance and propulsion systems would multiple the cost by a huge factor. With the interception of them, there are very few nations who would possess such systems, though the MTHEL high energy laser system being developed by the US and Israel had successfully intercepted both artillery shells and rockets, including if I'm not mistaken, an rocket carrying a live warhead.

Niccolo Medici: Well, I still have a long way to go, though my current knowledges about military matters still originated from the demand that forces you to know these things, as an RPer in the NS and II forums for a bit less than 2 full years. However, depending on how you look for the stuff, they are many in NS who knows a lot more about the military.
Automagfreek
27-03-2005, 07:20
Battleships can lob artillery rounds up to 33 miles, and add on rocket assisted shells, and you can go way higher. In todays world of advanced missile defense, a rocket assisted battleship round could prove rather useful.

However, this is taking into consideration that there is water near where ever this would be happening. Like North Korea for example, a battleship with RA rounds could actually be quite useful.
Noreala
27-03-2005, 07:20
I've been googling around and found this site that mentions the H-Class, or basically a enlarged version the Bismark with 16" guns compared to 15"...but none of THE Super-Battleship i'm searching for.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/super_battleships_projected.htm
in relation to this there's a whole archive of the Z-plan ships at http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battleships/index.html ; don't know if this is any more help. when did you see the show?
Nycton
27-03-2005, 07:20
Nother site. I found the ship though, it's the H44.
http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battleships/schlachtschiffh/history.html
Niccolo Medici
27-03-2005, 07:21
Niccolo Medici: Well, I still have a long way to go, though my current knowledges about military matters still originated from the demand that forces you to know these things, as an RPer in the NS and II forums for a bit less than 2 full years. However, depending on how you look for the stuff, they are many in NS who knows a lot more about the military.

Perhaps, but I have yet to meet more than a few of those who do. And I doubt many would combine knowledge and tactical sense as well as you seem to.

To explain myself; I'm a military theorist and foreign affairs advisor. My interest is purely non-professional right now though. I just happened to notice someone who seems rather bright in a field I happen to enjoy.
Automagfreek
27-03-2005, 07:24
Perhaps, but I have yet to meet more than a few of those who do. And I doubt many would combine knowledge and tactical sense as well as you seem to.



In the RP element of NS, especially in I.I, you have to be very knowledgeable about military tactics, weapons, and how to apply them.
Niccolo Medici
27-03-2005, 07:27
In the RP element of NS, especially in I.I, you have to be very knowledgeable about military tactics, weapons, and how to apply them.

Is that so? Perhaps I should lurk around there a bit. I've been on this board for how many years now, and I never go anywhere other than General. NS is something of a guilty pleasure for me to begin with ;)
Nycton
27-03-2005, 07:32
Is that so? Perhaps I should lurk around there a bit. I've been on this board for how many years now, and I never go anywhere other than General. NS is something of a guilty pleasure for me to begin with ;)
There lay 3,300 ft Super-Dreadnoughts with 30" guns and over 2 million ton displacements. It's a scary place.
Automagfreek
27-03-2005, 07:32
Is that so? Perhaps I should lurk around there a bit. I've been on this board for how many years now, and I never go anywhere other than General. NS is something of a guilty pleasure for me to begin with ;)


Yes, there are some RPers in I.I that only RP with stats and other real world logic. Definatly worth checking out if that is something you enjoy.
Ancient and Holy Terra
27-03-2005, 07:33
AMF is quite right. If you don't have a modicum of military knowledge, in the realms of equipment and tactics, you likely won't be taken seriously.

As an aside, there is a website that lays out the reasons for reactivating the battleship. Although it puts out some very good points, it is fairly biased. The Battleship, as it stands, now has a very specific purpose: Shore Bombardment. Apparently 2 of the Iowa-class can be recommissioned relatively quickly, so if the need for that capability presents itself, the vessels can be reactivated.
New Shiron
27-03-2005, 07:35
all of Hitlers battleships were a massive waste of resources and designed to win at sea in the First World War (basically super sized versions of the Bayern class battleship built in 1916 and scuttled in 1919).

The Bismark was crippled by a torpedo hit from a biplane launched from a not very efficiently laid out British carrier (the British carriers and aircraft were very inferior to both Japanese and American designs) but a brave pilot, in really crappy weather (basically a gale) managed to get in and score a hit in the rudder, dooming the Bismark to be caught by a couple of British battleships, some cruisers and destroyers.

The Tirpitz never even really engaged in a sea battle at all. It was at various times bombed or torpedoed by submarines until finally after it was no longer even fully operational (because of a carrier strike) it was attacked by a squadron of Lancasters using 10,000 pound bombs and essentially blown on her side and completely wrecked.

Bigger German battleships would have simply been a bigger waste of German resources. They should have used the steel and other equipment to build more submarines and added more long range maritime attack aircraft as well.'

Then and only then they might have managed to win at sea.