NationStates Jolt Archive

We are planning to construct a hybrid mega battleship. A hybrid between Titanic, Bismark and the Yamamoto ships. We would like to invite serious nations to help us construct The Svea Battleship.

We are planning to construct a hybrid mega battleship. A hybrid between Titanic, Bismark and the Yamamoto ships. We would like to invite serious nations to help us construct The Svea Battleship.

Titanic was a cruise liner and would have no bearing whatsover on that program.

The Bismark Was overrated and underarmed.

Yamamoto was a Admiral, Yamato was a ship.

The Yamato would get owned by the American Iowa class due to the the superior fire control and similar penetration aspects of the 16"/50 Cal shell compared to the 18"/45 Caliber shell the Yamato uses. American Damage control and the ability to fire while maneuvering would definetly raped both the Yamato and Bismark.


Go for the Cancelled Montana class if you want a really big ship.

here's my take on it

Great Lakes Class Battleship

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h61000/h61246.jpg


Displacement
74,670 Tonnes , 80,865 Tonnes Fully Loaded

Length
922 Feet
Beam
121 Feet
Power plant
2 Nuclear Reactors, 4 Steam Turbines with 4 shafts totaling 260,000 Horsepower
Armor
12" Main Armor Belt, Consisting of a Chobahm armor setup, with Ceramic, and steel intermixed.
8" Deck Armor, Same type as Main Belt.

Armanment
12 Main Guns in Four Turrets of Three 16"/50 Cal
48 VLC(Capable of carrying SM-2 and Tomahawk Cruise Missiles)
16 Harpoon Anti-Ship Missiles in 4 quad Launchers.
4 35mm Oerlikon Millenium Guns Close in Weapons Systems
8 Secondary Guns in 4 Twin 5"/54 Caliber mounts
4 RIM-116 RAM Launchers

Aviation
Hangar Space for 4 Medium Size Helicopters and assorted UAV's
1 MH-73 Nightowl
2 SH-60 LAMPS III

7 UAV for Laser Guidance and Artillery Spotting
Electronics
Radar
AN/SPY-ID 3D
AN/SPS-67(V)3 C-Band
AN/SPS-64(V)9 I-Band
AN/SPG-62 I-J Band
Sonar
SQQ-89(V)6
AN/SQS-53C
AN/SQR-19B
Performance
Estimated 29-31 Knots
Crew
1,300 Enlisted
200 Officers
200 Marines
Cost
$4.23 Billion

A modernized Yamato would be worthwhile, but then I already have those. Adding in the inaccuracy of the Bismarck and the iceberg vulnerability of the Titanic would be stupid beyond measure.

Firstly, Titanic was not a cruise liner (they did not exist in 1912) but an ocean liner (correct terminology).

Also, why on earth would anyone want to invest in battleships these days? All the major navies in the world have decomissioned them (last was USS Missouri sometime after the Gulf War [RL]).

As for the Yamato Class Battleships from WW2, they were the largest ever constructed (the Montana does not count) and were a collossal waste of money. The reason for this, is battleships are costly, and no nation wants to put such a vessel in the line of fire. That is why so many never even saw service. They are an expensive show pony which has no relevance for modern warfare.

However just on an historical note, the largest battleship was under construction in a Hamburg naval yard during WW2 and was to be 144,000 tons (larger than an aircraft carrier even today!) but ended up ruined in the British raids during 1943.

Inaccuracy of the Bismarck? Try telling that to the crew of HMS Hood..oh wait, too late!

(This forum is beyond obsessed with Bismarck, it's either, "let's build it!" or, "such and such an American ship was better anyway!" It's frickin' old, older than the American ships its usually compared too. You can't deny that it was a mighty ship in its short-lived day, inspite of a few questionable armour arrangements. If she'd been built a few years later she'd have had decent radar instead of perfectly good optics. All right, I'm done, carry on.)

The Bismarck class Pocket Battleship was a wonder, and could easily take on an Iowa Class with severe damage taken, of course, yet survive because of its primitive yet EFFECTIVE targeting system, forgot what it was.

Anywho, American stuff, even as I AM American, can be obsolete to other nations. Already learned and accepted that face, dude.

The Bismarck class Pocket Battleship was a wonder, and could easily take on an Iowa Class with severe damage taken, of course, yet survive because of its primitive yet EFFECTIVE targeting system, forgot what it was.

Anywho, American stuff, even as I AM American, can be obsolete to other nations. Already learned and accepted that face, dude.


http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm


Read there.

Guns.
GENERAL COMMENTS: The Japanese 18.1"/45 reigned supreme as the most destructive piece of naval ordnance ever mounted afloat. However, its ballistic performance was not particularly inspiring, and the performance of its Type 91 shells was inferior to the norm, partly because they were optimized for underwater trajectories 7. Immediately below it in terms of power is the US 16"/50. Good ballistics, and superb shells, give this gun a tremendous whallop, and in combat terms I rate it as the equal of the Japanese weapon, largely because of its shells. Below that, in an upset, comes Richelieu's 15"/45, as the best all-around 15" gun, and feel the most useful in an actual combat situation. The Italian 15"/50 was an enormously potent weapon from a raw power perspective, but it sacrificed a lot in order to achieve that performance, and had decidedly inferior shells. I should note, though, that I am still investigating this particular gun and her shells in more detail; the information available on her shells is rather spotty. Bismarck's 15"/47 shell is 10% lighter than the French and Italian, although her cyclic rate is attractive, and her guns were very accurate. At the bottom of the spectrum, King George V's 14" gun clearly doesn't have nearly the oomph necessary to compete with the rest of these guys.

GENERAL COMMENTS: This was the most complex category in terms of trying to quantify and simplify a rating. After all, each of these vessels was designed to operate in a different anticipated threat environment than the others. Bismarck, for instance, was designed for combat in the North Atlantic. Her designers anticipated weather and visibility conditions such as had prevailed at Jutland in WWI. As a result, she was optimized for short-range, flat-trajectory combats. Her armor scheme reflects this, with an armor layout that makes it fantastically difficult to put a shell into her vitals at short range, but which is vulnerable to long-range fire, and which reduces the total amount of protected volume in the vessel by carrying her armor deck lower in the ship than her contemporaries. By the same token, Yamato was simply built to stand up to and utterly outclass any conceivable American or British opponent by sheer weight of gunfire, and elephant-like armor. As such, hers is a sort of 'brute force' approach to protection. Her armor layout isn't the most efficient, but she has a lot of armor, so it doesn't really matter. American and French battleships were designed to do less with more, with the South Dakota, for instance, being perhaps the best protected warship, pound for pound, ever built. One reason the Americans in particular came out with such good designs is that they could afford to. America poured tons of money into making the propulsion plants of their vessels more efficient, meaning that the resulting ships were relatively smaller and armor box correspondingly small. This, in turn, led to the ability to use the armor more heavily in the protected region. By the same token, American BBs, alone of contemporary battleship designs, had hull plating and interior works which were constructed entirely of Special Treatment Steel (STS), a very tough light armor steel, whereas contemporary designs usually reserved such steels for important splinter-proofing locales. The United States alone was capabe of affording such extravagances.

Armor
I based my ratings extensively upon the work of Nathan Okun. From his paper detailing the usage of Bismarck's 15"/47 gun to shoot at all seven of 'The Contenduh's', I extracted a quantification of the total zones of vulnerability, for both deck and belt armor, of each of the seven ships. If you want the really gory details on how I did this, click here. Suffice it to say that I am surprised as you that Iowa has the most effective belt armor of the lot; I would have bet on Yamato any day. But Iowa's combination of an inclined belt, and a highly effective STS-steel shell plate outboard of the belt (which has just enough resistance to strip the AP cap off of an incoming shell) tips the score in her favor. Richelieu also had this same design, and very good protection as a result. Bismarck, despite the reputation of her side armor, fares very poorly in this category. From a deck armor perspective, Yamato comes out on top, followed closely again by Richelieu and Iowa. Vittorio Veneto is very vulnerable to high-angle fire, and Bismarck is as well. Yamato thus emerges as the best armored of the lot, followed closely by Iowa and Richelieu. This makes perfect sense to me, as Yamato also had the distinction of carrying the only armor plates which were completely impervious to any battleship weapon ever mounted afloat -- her 660mm turret faceplates. She was, indeed, an awesome beast. It makes the American and French feats of achieving protection within a hair as good, on much smaller displacements (particularly the South Dakota, which has the second smallest displacement of the seven warships detailed here), a very impressive feat as well. On the bottom of the heap, Vittorio Veneto and Bismarck were both penalized for their inability to cope with a long-range gun duel. Bismarck also suffered from the poorest belt armor of the lot.

Underwater Protection
The basic rating is a function of the standoff width in the system. I dinged Yamato for her defective joint structure, and for not using liquid-loaded tanks outboard. I dinged Bismarck for having a shallow belt, which directly contributed to a crucial underwater hit she took at the hands of Prince of Wales. I dinged King George V for her shallow belt and the fact that the top of her system was not bounded by deck armor, which directly contributed to the loss of the Prince of Wales. And I dinged Vittorio Veneto for defective seams, inability to take multiple hits in the same location, and being a real pain to repair, due to the curved bulkheads which comprised the system. And last, I upped Iowa's and SoDak' base ratings a point, because of her deep belt, and the very efficient usage of void and liquid-loaded tanks.


Fire Control
GENERAL COMMENTS: The bottom line is that, after 1943 or so, having the world's best optical fire-control systems was largely irrelevant. The night battle between Washington and Kirishima near Savo pretty much settled the point; good radar usually beats good optics in a stand-up fight. And the radar used by Washington off of Guadalcanal was not as good as the sets fitted aboard Iowa.6

Then there's the fact that all radar fire-control is not created equal. Radar operating at meter or decimeter wavelengths is useful for ranging, but lacks the angular accuracy necessary for training. In practical terms, this means that a decimetric set can develop a range solution via radar, but must rely on an optical director to supply training information for the battery. This hybrid fire-control solution is, of course, limited by the quality of the optics available, and also by the visual horizon (which is closer than the radar horizon), and weather conditions. Only with the advent of 10cm and (later) 3cm wavelength sets was true 'blindfire' radar fire-control achievable, wherein the firing ship need never come into visual range of the opposing vessel. The Germans, Japanese, and Italians never developed sets of this capability (both the Japanese (despite its 10cm wavelength) and German sets were usable for fire control against a battleship-sized target only out to a range of about 27,000 yards.) The bottom line is, then, that the Allied vessels, and particularly Iowa and South Dakota, would enjoy an enormous advantage in gunfire control over their adversaries. She would have the ability to lob shells over the visual horizon, and would also perform better in complete darkness or adverse weather conditions.

The final adjusted rating also reflects the fact that American FC systems employed by far the most advanced stable vertical elements in the world. In practical terms, this meant that American vessels could keep a solution on a target even when performing radical maneuvers. In 1945 test, an American battleship (the North Carolina) was able to maintain a constant solution even when performing back to back high-speed 450-degree turns, followed by back-to-back 100-degree turns.7 This was a much better performance than other contemporary systems, and gave U.S. battleships a major tactical advantage, in that they could both shoot and maneuver, whereas their opponents could only do one or the other.

Tactical Factors
GENERAL COMMENTS: This category is tremendously subjective. All I am trying to do here is put together at least a rough index of how useful the ship might be tactically (gun platform, speed), and how much raw punishment it could absorb (displacement, damage control). Gun platform is simply a rough index of the beam of the vessel (we'll deal with actual sea-keeping in a later section). In the matter of speed, I am personally of the belief that a fast ship is a nice thing to have, but that speed in general is not a critical deciding factor in the outcome of battles. For the purposes of the rating, I put Iowa at 33 knots and subtracted .5 point per knot from there on down. Damage control is very hard to quantify. American practice, by the end of the war, was simply superb. How much better than the everybody else (especially the French, about whom I don't even have anecdotal evidence) is impossible to say. So I simply took my best guess. The end result was that these ships all scored very close together in terms of an overall rating, which 'feels' right to me. All seven of these ships were large, steady gun platforms which could absorb an enormous amount of punishment. Iowa barely edges Yamato because of her speed and superb damage control. Yamato, though, has the advantage of an enormous displacement. To my mind, for all practical purposes, they are practically the same in their usefulness -- it's largely a matter of preference. All the others display a good blend of factors, but aren't quite in the same league in their ability to absorb damage, largely because of their displacement. The deciding factor in determining their real usefulness and damage-resistance ability becomes their respective protection schemes.

This guy who did this, did a lot of research and has links on his site to reference the claims he made.

I thank you for your time

Inaccuracy of the Bismarck? Try telling that to the crew of HMS Hood..oh wait, too late!

(This forum is beyond obsessed with Bismarck, it's either, "let's build it!" or, "such and such an American ship was better anyway!" It's frickin' old, older than the American ships its usually compared too. You can't deny that it was a mighty ship in its short-lived day, inspite of a few questionable armour arrangements. If she'd been built a few years later she'd have had decent radar instead of perfectly good optics. All right, I'm done, carry on.)


The Bismarck wasn't a bad ship, just didnt have legendary accuracy. Yes, it took down the Hood with one shot, but the Hood was crap and that was a lucky shot. :wink:

Also, battleships are an extremely effective class if used correctly. They provide effective shore bombardment for fractions of the cost that a carrier can, more of it at once, and with less risk to servicemen. Besides, most ships built today aren't well enough armored to take a 16-20" shell and return to port in one piece.

HEY Clans, good taste in ships. I use the same for my fleet. Chobham/Burlington makes for good deck armor, but would suggest retaining Citadel for Torpedo Belt.

16" guns means 238mm. Know what that means. (hint, mushrooms.)

Extended range Shells designed for New Jersey during Iraq conflict offer range 50 miles. RamJet in works allow for 100 miles.

Might want to add 4 Phalanx CIWS systems. Keep (6) 5" secondary armaments for Litoral Craft.

260,000 hp equates to 29 kts. Refuel Cores for Nuclear Engines every 4 years.

Can swap crew at sea to maintain patrols. FYI

Cost is about right. Montana Class at 100 ft longer than Iowa Class. Cost estimates comparable for Iowa Class equals (1) B-1 bomber, 12 field batteries Artillery. Figure at +1/4 cost for Montana.

Two for the price of one!

If you posted the link, why'd you then copy and paste everything into the post? :?

...the Hood was crap...

I beg your pardon? HMS Hood was the largest, best battlecruiser ever built! Sure, her deck armor may have been a tad thin (and I won't go into the stupidity of carrying torpedoes on a capital ship), but she was also designed during World War I and built in 1920. And her destruction was the fault of the humans commanding her, not the ship itself.

What went wrong in the Denmark Strait:

1) Holland should have lead his line with Prince of Wales rather than Hood. Prince of Wales may have been fresh from the builder's yard, but the King George V class had probably the best armor protection of any allied battleship in World War II.

2) Holland ended up crossing his own 'tee'. His line of approach meant that both Bismarck and Prinz Eugen could bring all their guns to bear, where as Hood and Prince of Wales could only use their forward batteries.

3) Fire should have been concentrated on Bismarck. Instead, Hood engaged Prinz Eugen and Prince of Wales engaged Bismarck. Between this and the poor approach angle, only 5 14" guns (PoW had a gun out in her 'B' turret) fired on Bismarck, whereas 8 15" and 8 8" guns fired on Hood.

4) The Germans were astoundingly lucky. Prinz Eugen started a fire in Hood's anti-air ammunition at her guns maximum range, and Bismarck's salvoes repeatedly straddled Hood at well more than 20,000 yards. In fact, if it weren't for Warspite's score on Giulio Cesare at 26,000 yards, the German shooting at the Denmark Strait could be considered the luckiest of the war.

So please. Don't speak in vague generalities defended only by your own bias and lack of insight. It makes my head hurt.

EDIT: I should also mention that German optical range finders were the best ever designed, and their accuracy wasn't surpassed until the dawn of radar fire control.

That is a great explanation, I would just like to add a few facts to it:

The Hood was the pride of the Royal Navy at the time, for she was the biggest ship in the world at the time of her launch. Also, her heavy punch of 8 15in. guns also added to her glory.

The Prince of Wales was the newest addition to the British fleet soon to be followed by a class of 4 more ships: The King George 5 (this ship may have been built before the PoW, I dont know), the Duke of York, the Anson, and the HMS Howe. As it were, the Prince of Wales was not fully completed when she promptly went into battle with the Bismarck, as civilian workers were still working on her guns.

It is true that the Germans got incredibly lucky, as there aim, most notably the Prince Eugens, managed to strattle the two British ships many times. Also previously stated, the British made the mistake of confusing the Prince Eugen with the Bismarck, althought the Prince of Wales did hit the Bismarck just above her waterline (this later proved partly fatal in that it stranded alot of fuel, thus reducing the speed).

It was, in fact, the British Admiral who ordered the Hood to fall astern so her after fifteen-inch guns could fire at the German ships. At this point it can get quite controversal, a few people believe the the Prince Eugen made the kill-shot on the Hood, when it fact, (also previously stated) a 15 inch shell from the Bismarck immediatly following the Prince Eugen salvo that started the fires hit just aft of the mainmast. The rest is history.....

Aside from all that, I would also like to declare that I myself will be laying out a new battleship somewhat similar to the Yamoto, only faster and is armed with missiles and modern fire-control radar. If anyone is interested LMK.

P.S.- Nodea, the Bismarck was not a pocket battleship, nor was her sister the Tirpitz. The pocket battleships the germans had were the: Admiral Graf Spee, the Lutzow, the Scharnhorst, and the Gneisenau. (The latter two ships being slightly bigger)

Hehe, I got so far as to shout at my monitor, "EXCUSE M.." before Iansisle had pretty much delt with the problem :) And a Dancing Moose, interestingly enough.

CRAP! I should have known Iansisle would read this post. Now he knows (some) of my secrets.

Heads are gonna roll at SilveryMinnow Intelligence today.

Firstly, Titanic was not a cruise liner (they did not exist in 1912) but an ocean liner (correct terminology).

You are correct sir, completely different designs for battleship considering stress.

Also, why on earth would anyone want to invest in battleships these days? All the major navies in the world have decomissioned them (last was USS Missouri sometime after the Gulf War [RL]).

Battleships can take more damage and deliver more ordinance than Aircraft Carriers. The major weakness was range, but there are projects that equal out the playing field. Where a Battleship can take sustained damage, (example: Took 354 Avenger Dive/Torpedo bombers 5 hours to sink the Yamato,) an AirCraft Carrier/Aegis Cruiser/etc is toast in the range of 16" shells. With the addition of Helicopters, even submarines are not safe.

As for the Yamato Class Battleships from WW2, they were the largest ever constructed (the Montana does not count) and were a collossal waste of money. The reason for this, is battleships are costly, and no nation wants to put such a vessel in the line of fire. That is why so many never even saw service. They are an expensive show pony which has no relevance for modern warfare.

They were not a waste of money. The pursuit of the Yamato by the Americans and the Bismarck by the English proved that these Battleships were considered very dangerous. The Bismarck sank only after sustained shelling by 8 English Capital ships and Torpedo Bombers. The Bismarck was also forced to sail a straight course due to Rudder damage by a torpedo. Not a problem with a four propellor system. Battleships can also be used as platforms for intelligence gathering missions (can base Seal teams,) and can be updated with Predator Drones.

However just on an historical note, the largest battleship was under construction in a Hamburg naval yard during WW2 and was to be 144,000 tons (larger than an aircraft carrier even today!) but ended up ruined in the British raids during 1943.

You are speaking of the "H" Class Dreadnaught being built by Germany that was bombed while still under construction in its shipyard.

Facing a squadron of jets off a carrier, a battleship does not stand a chance, also if you launched a missile(s) at one, there goes a very pricey and unecessary vessel. They are in modern warfare a colossal waste of money and anyone with the will to become a serious naval power would be wise to invest in carriers and faster, smaller vessels like cruisers, frigates and destroyers. The battleship is finished as a ship of war.

(In RL they did a brilliant documentary on the history of battleships and anyone considering building them in NS would be wise to watch the doco to get a realistic understanding of the technology and how it is a waste of time and money in today's world)

Yeah I saw that on the History Channel, but it basically reflected the History of the Battleship then... There is no equation for the Battleship now. Its like saying "The Pilot is finished with the invention of Drones."

The documentary touched on the battleship and the 21st century (where it is irrelevent)...you may not have seen this particular doco then.

Battleships today are a waste.

Hehe, I got so far as to shout at my monitor, "EXCUSE M.." before Iansisle had pretty much delt with the problem :) And a Dancing Moose, interestingly enough.

((Aw, man...I actually had to shout the full thing (and add an expletive at the end, for good measure) ;)))

CRAP! I should have known Iansisle would read this post. Now he knows (some) of my secrets.

((Um..I beg your pardon?))

The Bismarck sank only after sustained shelling by 8 English Capital ships ...

((I know Rodney and King George V were great vessels, but come on, they only SEEMINGLY worth four capital ships in other navies! :)))

Remember to keep your combined arms, and a Battleship will do great. Good luck.

Bah i still stick with my decision to use Vangaurd as the base for my battleship designs although i will conceed that the Lady Victoria is a little light on primary weapons (9 12" guns, even if they are very long rnage rapid fire weapons, really doesn't cut it but in defence they were inteneded to be ETCGs and she is more of a command ship, perhaps a refit with auto loaded 14-15" guns might be in order).

Benicius: you needs lots and lots of missiles to effectively dmage a battleship.

Most air launched ASMs bar a few of the truely massive soviet ones will have a minimal effect on battleship armour and most of the effective ones need to be laucnhed from inside the engagement envelope of modern SAMs and would be hideously vunerable to decent CIWS's.

Now bombs might have a chance but with them you have to get very close or use glide attachments which make the weapon vunerable to CIWS fire.

Gun based attack units are central to future US navy tactics as seen by the 155mm AGS and 5" submarine VGS programs these weapons using extended rnage muntions can hit targets that normally would be only hitable by aircraft. Yet these weapons still only carry a very limited payload compared to what would be capable using similar muntions from a battle ship priamry gun.

If battleships were so useless then why are the US marines and to an extent the army literally begging for them to be returned to use?

Hmm, If I recall correctly battlecruisers were not designed to go up against battleships. Which makes the question of why the Hood actually engaged the Bismark in the first place.

Second, Any 'modern' battleship would need to have:
Superior anti-air
Superior anti-missle

In reality besides the United States who else could even maintain a battleship program? Maybe if the EU if it had a joint military program but then why the only other advisary is the U.S. In the end the absence of the battleship is more from an absence elsewhere (The carrier allows the projection of power at a longer rage which is why it has been more dominant over the past 50 years, if a battleship could get a carrier in gun range, we know what the outcome would be).

In N.S. terms I'd say that battleships make sense since there is a massive number of 'world powers'.

In reply to Carrier vs. Battleship.

In a modern Naval Battle, successful Detection of enemy ships is a first priority. Battleships (especially Montana Class,) are capable of using the same ECM/ Degaussing systems enjoyed by AirCraft Carriers. When Detection is made, Squadrons must be formed on AirCraft Carriers, these Squadrons usually form into Wings to improve firepower being brought to bear on a enemy vessel. (Big Wings vs. Squadrons, "Dowding-Battle of Britain.) This takes time.

Battleships only require Detection, and can go into combat immediately if a enemy vessel is within range of its main araments. If not, then the battleship can use missile weapons.

Battleships under fire can continue a combat mission if possible due to their ability to sustain damage. Aircraft Carriers only have to have a faulty Rocket launch, or a sleepy sailor nod off on a launch button to be taken out of combat for hours. Armor is a consideration in both cases, as Battleships are surrounded in Armor, and only the Decks of AirCraft Carriers are Armored.
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/fires/

Battleships in Contrast can take a serious explosion INSIDE of their superstructure and still continue to fight.
http://www.combie.net/webharbor/museum/bb61-2.html

Wonder when the filter of this forum is going to join the 21st Century?

Die repeating script.

This post under destruction.

How many times did I push that post button?

Of course theres no delete on any of these.

If whiskers need trimming,

Theres only one name., Oh nevermind this is the last one.

Hmm, If I recall correctly battlecruisers were not designed to go up against battleships. Which makes the question of why the Hood actually engaged the Bismark in the first place.

True, the Hood was a battlecruiser, but in many ways a battlecruiser is similar to a battleship. The Hood is equal to the Bismarck in many ways, for example, they both had 8 15in guns. The only thing the Bismarck had in advantage of the Hood was a new and supperior fire control system. But overall, the ships had been destined to fight each other, and when it came down to it, it was sheer fate.

Also, when it comes down to the main arguement, a modern day battleship can be an extremely powerful weapon of war, but only if deployed correctly, while still retaining sufficent defense against enemy aircraft.

Silvery: Nice uber-mega-poly-multi-post.

A few points I'd like to make clear:

The Bismarck was not forced to sail a straight course, it was forced into a circular one, so it couldn't escape period.
It also had several pierced fuel tanks and was leaving an oil slick wherever it went, making it pretty much impossible to get away even in the fog.

Now, as to battleships vs whatever:
The battleship is genuinely done. There is no way a modern naval task force would allow an armored dreadnought to get anywhere near gun range.
A battleship would be routed from incredible ranges, either by aircraft, cruise missile, or submarine.
Face it; battleships are inadequately equipped to deal with air and torpedo attack. There are no CIWS to defend against torpedoes, and torpedoes strike below the waterline. All that needs to be done is forcing aside the belt armor to flood the lower decks of the ship. And I'm sure modern torpedoes, like the Russian Type 65 650mm, with its 900 kg HE warhead- could penetrate the waterline armor of any battleship.

Against missiles, well, the battleships may have heavy deck armor, but a 1000 kg SAP warhead traveling at Mach 3 will stand a very good chance of blasting through into the superstructure.

Air attack is another matter. Armor is primarily designed to deflect and prevent penetration by oncoming shells, missiles, bombs, whatever. We all know that the shallower the angle, the weaker the point strain on the armor is.

When you attack a ship with bombs, the idea is to drop them straight down on the target, so they strike perpendicularly to the armor for maximum effect. A 2000 pounder striking your deck armor at 90 degrees anywhere near your gun magazines means sayonara, comrade. You only need to look at the USS Arizona for your proof.

And since battleships are so woefully ill-equipped for anti-air duties, what's to stop a fighter from simply dropping a bomb straight down the boiler or exhaust stacks?

Or what about nuclear attack? What happens if someone decides that the battleship is a serious threat, and attacks with nuclear-tipped torpedoes or antiship missiles, or even nuclear gravity bombs? (not likely, but possible.) A 350 kT nuclear explosion 300 meters over the deck will capsize a battleship so quickly the crew would never even have time to finish what they were doing before the ship sank.

A carrier, on the other hand, is slightly better equipped. It has air defenses to aid in shooting down oncoming missiles, and some carriers have torpedo decoy systems.

The battleship just can't compete with missiles that can reach hundreds or even thousands of miles to strike with devastating force, nor torpedoes that can exceed speeds of 65 knots while carrying a 700 pound armor-piercing warhead 50 nautical miles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but an aircraft carrier or a mass of destroyers is just as liable to be destroyed by a nuclear blast as is a battleship, and if an aircraft carrier can carry decoys then so can a battleship, no? Battleships aren't looking to me any more vulnerable than carriers, unless you send one out on its own, and who would do that today with a carrier, let alone a battleship?

(As for putting bombs down the stacks, that has been done, yes- the Germans dropped some of the first guided bombs against defecting Italian warships, I think, and it worked ..I expect there are defences of some sort, today, such as covers over stacks, and so on. And there's nothing that says battleships need be powered by fossil fuels today, anyway..)

I think that your problem, Mr. Kelanis, is that you pit a lone, unmodified WWII era battleship against a modern carrier battlegroup. That's more or less like saying that a SMLE is far better than a matchlock; the two cannot simply be compared without allowing for technological advances. With the proper modifications, or even built keel up with modern technology, a battleship would be able to mount far more AA weaponry than any aircraft carrier; working in combination with a flotilla, it could be every bit as well protected as a carrier. Besides, in a modern navy, the carrier and the battleship fill two seperate roles - a battleship, for instance, being much better suited for close in beachhead support, and a carrier for long range assualt.

I believe it was Confucious who said "He who compares apples with oranges...is an idiot." Or maybe not.

Battleships are finished. If they are so good, then tell me why the US Navy decommissioned the last one after the Gulf War?

With 12 CVBG's (aircraft carrier battle groups) the USA is quite capable of defending itself and attacking. Carriers are true maritime fighting forces, whereas battleships are very limited in their capabilities.

The largest battleships ever constructed (the Yamoto Class) did not even have the fire power one US carrier has. Even the USS Missouri, only decomissioned after the Gulf War was not as powerful as 1 US Carrier.

For the sake of argument, 1 US carrier (just the carrier, not the fleet surrounding it) could wipe out China; destroy 1 billion people. Now, excuse me, but I would argue this is pretty scary and at the same time impressive. 1 battleship could never do that and as someone else pointed out, 1 missile (possibly nuclear tipped) could wipe a battleship out totally.

Carriers are surrounded by 12 other vessels, including submarines which are the most dangerous vessels ever made. Battleships, in a world of speed, precision and power simply do not qualify as necessary.

As for those marines asking for battleships back, Id be asking why? The marines have nothing to do with Naval warfare per se. And marines are not exactly the ones qualified to know such things. For this I would ask an Admiral or someone who decides on such things. As far as the world is concerned, battleships are finished...if I am wrong, please post the link from the pentagon which states battleships are necessary. (I assure you, if battleships were better than carriers, the US govt would invest in them - especially with a republican in office who loves his military!)

Oh! Oh! Hold on a moment, I've my new favorite quote of all time! (trust me, this is even better than that "Hood is crap because I don't know anything about naval history" one:

The marines have nothing to do with Naval warfare per se. And marines are not exactly the ones qualified to know such things.

*falls over laughing*

Are you at all familiar with the marine corps? Not just of the United States, but any country throughout history, from Athens to Rome to Britain? The marines (think about it...like maritime, 'marine' comes from the latin mare (which probably has its roots in Greek...all the freakin' indeclinable ones do), which means 'sea' (for example, mare nostrum = our sea)) are the gound fighting force of, you guessed it, the navy. And who better qualified to talk about the effects of close-range fire support by a battleship's big guns than naval infantry?

To address the rest of your alleged ‘points’ (most of which I addressed in my previous post, but shall rehash here for redundancy’s sake), a nuclear tipped would take out ANY ship, battlegroup, or fleet. And why does everyone always assume that battleships have to operate alone, whereas carriers always have a fleet surrounding them? A battleship is just as capable of being escorted by a destroyer, isn’t it? :?

Now, I admit that a battleship’s role in modern naval combat is limited at best; frankly, it would be better employed as an armored gun/missile platform. Now, if you’re operating a 60,000+ ton giant, I can see why that’s not practical - I think something more akin to Iansisle’s Behemoth class (9x16”/45 3x3; 46,000 tons) or Crown class (8 x 15”/42 4x2; 42,000 tons) would do the trick just fine. And, with modern automation and anti-air defense, their crews could be brought down to an acceptable rate. The battleship has a role in modern combat; the SUPER battleship does not.

Missed my post about the 238 mm's. That's the size needed for Nuclear Artillery shells. (106mm Davy Crocketts not excluded.) The problem now with guided missles is that ECM barriers are being developed that literally shut down a missle before it hits. Hard to shut down a incoming artillery shell, cuz it just follows the trajectory. (Popular Mechanics)

(I was looking for the url to the article, but its in this months issue, (upgraded RPG's)

The point I am trying to make is "Why Aircraft Carriers over Battleships?" The answer is the AMRAAM Net the aircraft use. The Navy believes massed firepower with the net is more effective than Artillery Salvos. It also works into their fire control. Britain/Falklands War, why big AirCraft Carriers are better than little ones.

HOWEVER, Planes on a Carrier aren't very effective. Planes without a Carrier are in serious trouble without a safe landing place. Submarines are becoming more detectable, (organics can be tracked.) A Vessel that can take a pounding may be the answer to breaking up Carrier Fleets.

Aircraft carriers can carry out a more powerful strike compared to a single battleship barrage. But, a Battleship can reload and fire within a few minutes while aircraft have to return to base, rearm, refuel, land and take off. and while they are doing this the Battleships guns are still firing at whatever targets they have.

The government isn't perfect, a lot of politics come to play in decisions on ship building. It's almost the same politics that almost prevented the Battleship Dominating navy to accept the Aircraft Carrier as anything more than a toy during the 20's and 30's

The Iowa's were decommissioned due to the fact they were built 60 years earlier and further refitting would be wasteful. Also they were considered unsafe by the public after the Fire onboard the USS Iowa in 1989.


And tell me how a Single Aircraft carrier of roughly 80 aircraft are capable of killing a billion people. The same could be said about a guy with a musket and unlimited Ammunition, he COULD kill all of the world. IF nothing broke, IF no one resisted, If a chinese submarine sneaks up on the carrier and hits it with a nuclear torpedo. Whole lot of If's isn't it.

Short of Nuclear weapons from ICBM's that kind of devastation takes a bit of time and overcoming defenses.

Speed. Iowa was capable of 33 Knots, which is actually greater than a Nimitz class carrier.

Precision. Laser Guided Sabot Shells were used on the Iowa in the 80's

Power. Hurling 2700lb shells over 30 miles. Or carrying BGM-109 Nuclear Tipped Tomahawks. With a range of over 1,000 miles.

And you obviously know NOTHING about military procurement. The pentagon is not infallible. If battleships were so worthless why the hell did they revive and update them in the early 1980's? Why bother?

The marines (think about it...like maritime, 'marine' comes from the latin mare (which probably has its roots in Greek...all the freakin' indeclinable ones do), which means 'sea' (for example, mare nostrum = our sea)) are the gound fighting force of, you guessed it, the navy. And who better qualified to talk about the effects of close-range fire support by a battleship's big guns than naval infantry?

The infantry forces of the US Navy. I know this. As I stated, they have little to do with Naval Warfare. Now I shall clarify the term. It is referring to actual naval battles and attacks from sea by vessels. The marines do a fantastic job, do not get me wrong, however they are not qualified in the realm of naval strategy etc. This is and always will be left up to the Admirals who run the show. Now, any Admiral of any military power is likely to tell you that a battleship has no place in modern warfare. The marines are not the people who decide on what kind of vessel the govt builds. In fact, as stated many many times, that is up to the strategists and top ranking naval personel who all concur that the battleship is obsolete...hence no major naval power today possesses one. If you believe the marines make decisions like whether to build a carrier or not, then you are gravely mistaken.

Everyone knows battleships are obsolete. There is no argument here. The opinions of a few marines, who have no deciding power on such matters nor advise world leaders (unlike scientists, academics and naval strategists) matter very very little. They are the manpower, not the firepower. Fact is, Aircraft Carriers are virtually invincible, and dont forget, if a missile was launched at a carrier, it would never make it. A carrier is surrounded by 12 other vessels, including frigates, cruisers, destroyers and most importantly submarines. A missile would not get anywhere near the carrier. A battleship however would be easy pickings for any fast missile.

The people who control the US Navy and even other world navies are not stupid people. You may wish to take the word of a few marines over the recognised views of leading technicians and naval strategists but that is your problem. Battleships have been proven obsolete. If they are not, then why would the USA invest in aircraft carriers rather than expensive show ponies (battleships)?

And tell me how a Single Aircraft carrier of roughly 80 aircraft are capable of killing a billion people.

Well, there are 87 aircraft for starters. Then, the aircraft carrier possesses nuclear warheads, missiles etc (yes it is true) Meanwhile it would not take much to fit some nuclear tipped warheads to a some of the missiles attached to those 87 aircraft and launch against an enemy. Still, there are bigger missiles on board. Everyone knows this, it is not a big secret or anything. Carriers are not defensless, you are not giving enough credit to those who insist on building them.

Meanwhile, if anyone was going to strike another country, they would use ICBM's. It would be a lot easier. Also, add the combined fire power of the remainder of a carrier's forces and you have one heck of a problem (if you are about to be hit).

But, a Battleship can reload and fire within a few minutes while aircraft have to return to base, rearm, refuel, land and take off. and while they are doing this the Battleships guns are still firing at whatever targets they have.

One large missile, one strike, one hit against a battleship and it will not return fire. However, the chances of a missile hitting a carrier are extremely slim; these days anyway.

The marines (think about it...like maritime, 'marine' comes from the latin mare (which probably has its roots in Greek...all the freakin' indeclinable ones do), which means 'sea' (for example, mare nostrum = our sea)) are the gound fighting force of, you guessed it, the navy. And who better qualified to talk about the effects of close-range fire support by a battleship's big guns than naval infantry?

The infantry forces of the US Navy. I know this. As I stated, they have little to do with Naval Warfare. Now I shall clarify the term. It is referring to actual naval battles and attacks from sea by vessels. The marines do a fantastic job, do not get me wrong, however they are not qualified in the realm of naval strategy etc. This is and always will be left up to the Admirals who run the show. Now, any Admiral of any military power is likely to tell you that a battleship has no place in modern warfare. The marines are not the people who decide on what kind of vessel the govt builds. In fact, as stated many many times, that is up to the strategists and top ranking naval personel who all concur that the battleship is obsolete...hence no major naval power today possesses one. If you believe the marines make decisions like whether to build a carrier or not, then you are gravely mistaken.

Everyone knows battleships are obsolete. There is no argument here. The opinions of a few marines, who have no deciding power on such matters nor advise world leaders (unlike scientists, academics and naval strategists) matter very very little. They are the manpower, not the firepower. Fact is, Aircraft Carriers are virtually invincible, and dont forget, if a missile was launched at a carrier, it would never make it. A carrier is surrounded by 12 other vessels, including frigates, cruisers, destroyers and most importantly submarines. A missile would not get anywhere near the carrier. A battleship however would be easy pickings for any fast missile.

The people who control the US Navy and even other world navies are not stupid people. You may wish to take the word of a few marines over the recognised views of leading technicians and naval strategists but that is your problem. Battleships have been proven obsolete. If they are not, then why would the USA invest in aircraft carriers rather than expensive show ponies (battleships)?

Right because you know a Battleship would travel alone.</sarcasm>

Also what about the other jobs BBS do? They: Refuel other ships, act as hospitals, are extrememly protected, provide shore bombardment, shield other ships from harm, take multiple hits and still keep coming, launch spec ops forces, carry cargo, launch cruise missiles, anti-sub with Helos, launch UAVs, and the sheer intimidation factor of seeing a BBS off your coast

Once again, Mr. Benicus, you've managed to COMPLETELY AVOID SAYING ANYTHING NEW. You continue to rehash old arguments that have been countered time and time again; it's like trying to debate with a brick wall.

Now, I have claimed that, as a member of a joint strike force in a combined force operation, a battleship would be extremely useful in a shore bombardment capability. It can fire 2x9 (or 8, depending on gun configuration) 15-16" shells PER MINUTE. That's some serious heavy artillery. During a beach landing, the enemy forces would have to keep their heads down, no matter what, giving the marines coming ashore some breathing space. Sure, missiles could fill the role - but they've only one shot a piece, and cost millions of dollars each. An airplane from a carrier could, but their ordinance and fuel is expensive, they have to refuel after every strike, and they can be shot down, costing millions of dollars.

Did I ever say that a battleship could replace a missile cruiser or aircraft carrier in an anti-ship role? NO. At no point, did I even imply anything like that. Look back at my last few posts, and please stop putting words in my mouth. I said that they would be useful in a limited shore bombardment role, and that modern design/automation would reduce the crew requirments. I also imagine that a battleship would be very good for 'showing the flag' and 'sabre rattling.' They're a hell of a lot more majestic looking than a carrier.

Now, as for the defensive capabilities, I'm not going to do anything expcept for slap you upside the back of the head and ask you to read posts before you reply to them. That question has been answered three times over.

But, a Battleship can reload and fire within a few minutes while aircraft have to return to base, rearm, refuel, land and take off. and while they are doing this the Battleships guns are still firing at whatever targets they have.

One large missile, one strike, one hit against a battleship and it will not return fire. However, the chances of a missile hitting a carrier are extremely slim; these days anyway.

One hit against a battleship? wtf?

do you KNOW ANYTHING!!!!! thats one of their primary things, they have friggin foot of steal armor with the Iowa sloped 19 degrees. And with damage control they can keep on fighting, don't forget these things displace over 50,000 tonnes.


AND THE SAME SHIPS CAN ESCORT A BATTLESHIP AS CAN ESCORT A CARRIER!!!!!!!!! NEED THAT POINT BE READDRESSED!!!!!!!??????????


THE NAVY IS NOT INFALLIABLE!!!!!!!! they saw the need for a battleship to counter the Kirov Class Cruiser, so they brought back the Iowa, They decommissioned the Iowa class because of the age of the ships.

Carriers can only carry missiles and gravity bombs that their aircraft can launch. and there is only a limited number of nuclear warheads aboard. When it comes to missiles, the Nuclear tipped Tomahawk launched from a carrier strike aircraft are essentially the same as that can be launched from one of the 8 box launchers of an Iowa class battleship. Your arguing in circles and seeing one documentary on battleships you have written them off. But funny how everytime the US navy gets in a major fight, they recommissioned the Iowa class. Korea, Vietnam and Persian Gulf one. and then decommission them afterwards. Iraq and Afganistan did not need the Iowa class to bombard shore targets. Since the Iraqui's weren't sitting in Kuwait this time around. But you know if we attacked Iran i bet you the Mighty Mo might sail once again (depends on how far she has been decommissioned)

Battleships are also one of the few if any vessels that can survive for long periods of time in Littoral warfare.

HEY Clans, good taste in ships. I use the same for my fleet. Chobham/Burlington makes for good deck armor, but would suggest retaining Citadel for Torpedo Belt.

16" guns means 238mm. Know what that means. (hint, mushrooms.)

Extended range Shells designed for New Jersey during Iraq conflict offer range 50 miles. RamJet in works allow for 100 miles.

Might want to add 4 Phalanx CIWS systems. Keep (6) 5" secondary armaments for Litoral Craft.

260,000 hp equates to 29 kts. Refuel Cores for Nuclear Engines every 4 years.

Can swap crew at sea to maintain patrols. FYI

Cost is about right. Montana Class at 100 ft longer than Iowa Class. Cost estimates comparable for Iowa Class equals (1) B-1 bomber, 12 field batteries Artillery. Figure at +1/4 cost for Montana.

I'm keeping the CIWS in place as well as the limited amount of guns.

if 260,000hp equals 29kts how does 220,000hp equal 33?(thats what the 8 boilers in the Iowa put out)

Yeah...I have a question....is this a debate on the relevance of Battleships or are you bulding one?

Hmm, three things...
First, if you want to do this right figure out your overal naval stratagy (The U.S. and Russia had very diffrent ones which explains the massive diffrence in their naval forces)
Second, if you think that building battleships makes sense...do so...if not build carriers like crazy.

Third, Iansisle please note thread.

Third, Iansisle please note thread.

((ooc: Oh, jeez, I thought you were on vacation. :oops: Sorry, I'll have a response up tonight.))

OOC:No, I wish...work sends me cross state sometimes (no massive hurry I just thought we were both enjoying it. :) )

But, a Battleship can reload and fire within a few minutes while aircraft have to return to base, rearm, refuel, land and take off. and while they are doing this the Battleships guns are still firing at whatever targets they have.

One large missile, one strike, one hit against a battleship and it will not return fire. However, the chances of a missile hitting a carrier are extremely slim; these days anyway.
You know what the funny thing is? They don't make missiles like that any more. In fact, they haven't since the Vietnam era. And even then, no one was sure if they'd actually be effective. The Soviets certainly didn't think so.



Some other notes:
1) A battleship, over time, delivers more firepower than an aircraft carrier. In one hour, an Iowa battleship can deliver over 2 million lbs of ordnance. A current Nimitz air wing would be hard pressed to deliver even half that in the same time. A continuous bombardment is also better for close support operations, where the goal is to keep the enemy pinned. A carrier cannot sustain such an operation effectively.
2) Lesson from Vietnam: battleships are very good for bombarding heavily defended coastal installations that are too well protected for air attack. Nothing can stop a 16" shell, and it costs less to launch. Plus, there won't be the risk of friendly losses. In fact, the ship could pay for itself just through the aircraft losses such operations can prevent. Advantage: battleship.
3) BATTLESHIPS ARE ESCORTED TOO!!!! This has been the case even in WWII. There's nothing stopping a battleship from having the same escort force as a carrier, though a much smaller one will do.
4) Carriers are far more vulnerable than battleships. With the higher amount of flammable and explosive materials on board, no armor, and far weaker internal structure. Plus, they have the same amount of air defense as an Iowa, which could easily mount much more if wanted.
5) WWII battleship shells are limited. Conceptual modern ones that were cancelled, on the other hand, would have made the Iowas a powerful bombardment and antisurface unit capable of crippling enemy ships out to 185 km. That is equal to the range of many antishipping missiles.
6) Despite all the crap said, THERE ARE NO MISSILES CURRENTLY IN PRODUCTION THAT CAN HURT AN IOWA. The only effective one in service that stands much of a chance is the Granat (SS-N-19 Shipwreck). Still, that's a chance, not a guarantee.
7) Battleships have often been more effective than carriers as a psychological weapon. Soviet naval officers that were perfectly fine with carriers were absolutely terrified of the Iowas. They knew very well that they had nothing in their arsenal that could be considered truly effective against them. The North Vietnamese had no problems with 3 US carriers off their shores (after all, they shot down the planes with horrifying frequency), but they wouldn't even consider negotiations with even one battleship in the area.
8) Battleships are the good units for situations where there are heavy torpedo and mine threats. The Iowa itself could sustain underwater explosions equivalent to 700 lbs TNT (equal to many light and medium torpedoes and mines) with no ill effects, and with proper intelligence, would have been far better protected. A modern ship that can shrug off just about any torpedo ever built isn't that much of a stretch.
9) Only an idoit thinks that just because something was cancelled or decommissioned, it wasn't effective. Politics play a very big role in that, and that is what killed the Iowas. Politics, in fact, killed the first attempt at building a class of supercarriers (CV-58 United States), and came close to scrapping naval aviation several times, notably the whole F-111 fiasco, the A-12. In fact, the whole Nimitz class was almost cancelled because of the costs. Since your wonderful carriers aren't immune to the hand of politics, why should a stroke against the battleships mean anything at all?
10) And finally, only an idiot uses battleships instead of carriers. They make an excellent complementary unit though. Similarly, only an idiot discounts them completely. Remember that even in the real world, they can be very effective, and NS is NOT the real world. While there are no facilities that can build a battleship today, there can be in NS, and while many of the situations where a battleship is most effective won't be found in the real world, they will be guaranteed to appear in NS. Think about it.

Yes, I fully agree C S J except with the last part. "No facility to build a battleship in RL, maybe not an Iowa or a Montana but perhaps one of the smaller classes. (Oh, and my statement about if no one else has a battleship, why build one holds for the modern RL day. Which is one reason for the battlewagon has died off. They are also expensive to maintain and were found a bit lacking in WWII...of course development of most of them stopped from 1920(?)-1935)

Australia has a battleship.

Australia has a battleship.

Australia......do we need to say more?

Australia doesnt have a battleship presently in sevice.

Yes, I fully agree C S J except with the last part. "No facility to build a battleship in RL, maybe not an Iowa or a Montana but perhaps one of the smaller classes. (Oh, and my statement about if no one else has a battleship, why build one holds for the modern RL day. Which is one reason for the battlewagon has died off. They are also expensive to maintain and were found a bit lacking in WWII...of course development of most of them stopped from 1920(?)-1935)
Yes, I mean the large battleships. How many NS players use smaller ones?
You are way off on when development stopped. The US was still developing battleships through WWII, as were Japan and Germany. The Soviet battleship projects continued into the 1950s (they really wanted something that could stand up to an Iowa), but they eventually scrapped the idea in favor of more subs (the Soviet Union has a horrible track record with large warships, and had no effective and reliable surface ships over 10,000 tons).

There seems to be some misunderstanding about missiles and battleships. Point is, there are missiles which could take out a battleship and the USA for example does not care if one missile costs 3 million dollars. They used a 2 million dollar missile to blow up a car with a terrorist inside not that long ago.

Do not try and argue on the financial side. Battleships are obsolete.

Perhaps you kids should leave reality naval warfare up to the big guys who actually know what they are doing.

Once again, battleships are obsolete. They are majestic someone said, well big deal! Majestic, but obsolete. What good would a battleship be as the centre piece of a fleet? No aircraft and quite useless really since you do not want to put ur most expensive pride and joy in the enemy's firing range. That is exactly what happened with the British Dreadnoughts and even in WW2 - few battleships ever engaged in serious warfare. Nobody was willing to risk such expensive vessels (although this happened several times in history and more fool them).

In fact since several nations are using WW2 as an example, a period where the battleship was paramount to every major navy, could someone explain why the USA went all out in carrier production? By 1943 the USA possessed some 31 aircraft carriers. Now, if the battleship is so good, why were they being ignored in favour of carriers?

It is not just a matter of politics, but commonsense. Battleships simply did not do the job required by the navy. Aircraft carriers do. There is no denying the fact that carriers are the supreme naval vessel, in competition with the submarine of course.

If you want to persist in claiming the battleship is so fantastic, by all means do, but at least the people controlling our navies know better and thankfully do not listen to those living in the past.

(as for one documentary, I used that as an example, not as my only source)

Benicus, missiles lack penetration power against battleships.

Second, the battleship and the carrier woud function together, not either/or.

missiles lack penetration power against battleships.

Wow, so you are saying that a missile which can turn an entire city to ashes cannot wipe out a battleship?

Please, try and be realistic. A battleship could easily be wiped by a powerful missile (we are not talking about a grenade launcher here). By powerful, well a tomahawk could easily do the trick. Now if the battleship was made of aluminium, or at least the superstructure like a lot of vessels these days then a missile attack would melt the thing as well as destroying it. Not a pretty sight.

Australia has a battleship.
Ah looking at the naval lists Australia does not have anything heavier than a missle frigate on their list. What is the name of this power of the waves?

C S J
1) Yes but I was thinking RL not NS at the time.
2) I do agree that development on battleships occured through WWII but the Washington Treaty appears to have put both a hold on building new battleships as well as their development for 10+ years. (The Iowa's were originally designed as 'fast-battleships' and development began in the 1935, a year before the experiation of the washington treaty.) At the same time, carriers and aircraft capabilites increased dramaticly in payload, range, and speed. So by the dawn of WWII only a few battleships had adequate anti-air protection. Most were vunurable to an increased air threat that had not existed before the Washington Treaty. Battleships were seen as vunarable to air attack, especially after Pearl Harbor. Yet most of those were pre-WWI battlewagons that had not been developed or protected against the fire power of the present air-craft of the day. (Iowa's and refitted older battleships tended to have more anti-air, but the carriers were effective in the island hopping of the Pacific War in the first place.) In the end, I think both Pearl and the Washington Treaty did a one, two punch that led to the modern theory that battlewagons are obsolete.

Benicius, a missile that can wipe out a city will put a carrier to the bottom of the sea just as quickly as it will a battleship- will you effectively refute that or stop talking about anti-shipping missiles as a battleship's weakness compared to carriers?

You really aren't refuting many of the points put forward by CSJ and Iansisle amongst others, and seem to be stuck on the fact that nobody in reality fields battleships anymore. CSJ's points seem to quite comfortably support the potential for battleships to operate in modern environments if only there was a need for them. In the wartorn universe of NS there are still roles for them to fill, this is perfectly evident. I can't understand why you're arguing against it.

missiles lack penetration power against battleships.

Wow, so you are saying that a missile which can turn an entire city to ashes cannot wipe out a battleship?

Please, try and be realistic. A battleship could easily be wiped by a powerful missile (we are not talking about a grenade launcher here). By powerful, well a tomahawk could easily do the trick. Now if the battleship was made of aluminium, or at least the superstructure like a lot of vessels these days then a missile attack would melt the thing as well as destroying it. Not a pretty sight.

Hmm, tomahawks are designed for ground based targets. Not moving sea targets and I don't know what the armor peircing ability of a conventional warhead is. A nuclear tipped one of course would be effective but then you have to be willing to accept the consequences of using tactical nukes. Like having nuclear ICBM's heading your way.

Australia has a battleship.
Ah looking at the naval lists Australia does not have anything heavier than a missle frigate on their list. What is the name of this power of the waves?

Perhaps I can clear this one up. Australia does not possess a battleship.

It does have currently a modest number of frigates and will be constructing 3 air warfare destroyers in the next 10 years. Australia decomissioned its last aircraft carrier in 1982.

Hmm, tomahawks are designed for ground based targets. Not moving sea targets and I don't know what the armor peircing ability of a conventional warhead is. A nuclear tipped one of course would be effective but then you have to be willing to accept the consequences of using tactical nukes. Like having nuclear ICBM's heading your way.

Well agreed, but you get the point. There are missiles capable of wiping out a battleship. For example a Harpoon Missile should do the trick.

Hmm, tomahawks are designed for ground based targets. Not moving sea targets and I don't know what the armor peircing ability of a conventional warhead is. A nuclear tipped one of course would be effective but then you have to be willing to accept the consequences of using tactical nukes. Like having nuclear ICBM's heading your way.

Well agreed, but you get the point. There are missiles capable of wiping out a battleship. For example a Harpoon Missile should do the trick.

*cough*Phalax, Goalkeeper *chough*

Wow, so you are saying that a missile which can turn an entire city to ashes cannot wipe out a battleship?

Why don't you be realistic? If you his anything with a nuclear missile, except maybe a decent sized island, it will sink. Yes, even one of your all-mighty aircraft carriers; especially, in fact.

I don't think there's an anti-shipping missile built today that could penetrate a proper battleship's belt armor.

CSJ, I agree with you completely. Very well spoken. (I still like KGV, though :P..even if she was wet in calm seas)

Benicus, be reasonable. No one's on your side, and I consider CSJ and A+H to be among NS's foremost naval authorities; you've lost this argument.

A+H: It may be an hour or two in coming; I'm sorry about that, but, well, it's friday night ;). I am enjoying the thread extremely, and was actually taking the break to start work on a spin-off thread. Not that I'm in any mood to abandon the current one, of course! I just want to settle what happens to Dubois.

EDIT: a harpoon carries what, a 450ish lb warhead? I'd like to see that against 12+ inches of steel.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about missiles and battleships. Point is, there are missiles which could take out a battleship and the USA for example does not care if one missile costs 3 million dollars. They used a 2 million dollar missile to blow up a car with a terrorist inside not that long ago.

Do not try and argue on the financial side. Battleships are obsolete.

Perhaps you kids should leave reality naval warfare up to the big guys who actually know what they are doing.

Once again, battleships are obsolete. They are majestic someone said, well big deal! Majestic, but obsolete. What good would a battleship be as the centre piece of a fleet? No aircraft and quite useless really since you do not want to put ur most expensive pride and joy in the enemy's firing range. That is exactly what happened with the British Dreadnoughts and even in WW2 - few battleships ever engaged in serious warfare. Nobody was willing to risk such expensive vessels (although this happened several times in history and more fool them).

In fact since several nations are using WW2 as an example, a period where the battleship was paramount to every major navy, could someone explain why the USA went all out in carrier production? By 1943 the USA possessed some 31 aircraft carriers. Now, if the battleship is so good, why were they being ignored in favour of carriers?

It is not just a matter of politics, but commonsense. Battleships simply did not do the job required by the navy. Aircraft carriers do. There is no denying the fact that carriers are the supreme naval vessel, in competition with the submarine of course.

If you want to persist in claiming the battleship is so fantastic, by all means do, but at least the people controlling our navies know better and thankfully do not listen to those living in the past.

(as for one documentary, I used that as an example, not as my only source)
No one's claiming it's fantastic. We're just pointing out that it's not useless. In fact, the usefulness of the battleship has actually increased over time. The protection it has makes it better suited to high-threat environments than anything else afloat. I also challenge you to name ONE non-nuclear missile currently in service outside the former Soviet Union that can hurt a battleship. You keep spouting this whole missile thing, but you've yet to show you know anything about it. And for the record, there isn't any non-nuclear missile that can reliably cipple a battleship with one shot.

Battleships were built by both the US and Japan during WWII, which were the two primary proponents of airpower. In fact, the amount of money spent on them compares rather well to carriers. In the range of 25-40% (probably closer to 33) of the all the money the US spent on building large naval vessels during the course of WWII was spent on battleships, with 7 completed from 1941 to 1945. The 26 Essex carriers cost less than half as much, which is why so many more were built. If they'd been building United States class carriers instead, there wouldn't have been much more than 15 or so.
Battleships did not engage each other very often, and that owes a great deal to changing naval tactics. However, to say that they were not used is utter stupidity. They were found to be supremely effective in the bombardment and fleet defense roles, the former of which was performed frequently by every allied and Japanese battleship, and they were so effective that all the Iowa class were recommissioned several times (at least one brought back for each major US conflict from 1950 to 1991), and several other battleships were maintained so they could be recommissioned as well if needed. If they were so obsolete, I tend to wonder why they were recommissioned (that actually being more of a military rather than political decision) every time a major war broke out.
The cost of a battleship is an issue, but it's a very stupid one to use for them being obsolete. Any ship that old is going to be a lot more expensive to operate relative to modern vessels (Nimitz carriers are already beginning to fall down this path too). A modern battleship could be made to be much more efficient and cost effective.

and an easier target. CIWS's can only do so much, if you fire enough missles some will get through.

and an easier target. CIWS's can only do so much, if you fire enough missles some will get through.But that is true of all vessels.

Benicus, a battleship is actually far more effective at taking punishment than a carrier. It's designed to slug it out, where as the carrier is all about projection. And yes, a nuke will sink it...A NUKE WILL SINK ANYTHING...so that's not a valid point. Also, shells have MORE penetrating power than missiles, and cost far less.

I wish Clarca was around. Between CSJ and him we would have some of the best tactical-scientific minds on this. But before I go to bed I just want to point out that the youngest battleship at Pearl (which demonstrates something) still had casement guns, was orginally designed in 1918 and commissioned in 1923.

The non-casement battleships, which had more anti-air and a better deck and torpedo protection had just been comissioned only four months before and was in the Pacific.

I'm just helping to support my earlier point, but then what does it matter? I'm an uber tech nation with gravships (note: however they do look like some odd version of a battleship, just use gauss guns in place of chemical propellents 8) )

For fun:

Almost any modern naval VS Iowa:
1) Assume escorts fail to shoot missile down
2) Assume CIWS fails to do same

Missile strike: depending on the type, the missile will either strike the belt a few meters above the waterline (most missiles, especially sea-skimmers), will strike the belt just at the waterline (Penguin), will go for the superstructure (some older air launched units like the AS-4), or will pop up and dive down into the deck.

Missile penetration: all missiles are designed to penetrate into the ship before detonating. This is for the obvious reason that if it detonates against the side of the ship, damage will be minimal. There appears to be a slight problem however. Apparently, almost all missiles in service cannot penetrate the armor! How can this be? Well, a Harpoon, for example, can go through 3-4 inches. But wait, even the deck armor of an Iowa is better than that. What about the antishipping version of the Tomahawk? Not much better. Exocet? 2.75. Yakhont? still well under 10. Hmm. It appears that the missiles can't penetrate the armor, so they detonate against the hull.

Missile detonation: Now the warhead go boom. The warhead is actually behind the nose (penetrator), so the detonation is likely a little ways away from the ship. There is a large pressure wave as gasses expand. This slams against the armor once, but is immediately deflected with minimal damage The expanding gasses take the path of least resistance, in this case, the open air away from the ship.

Result: For almost all missiles, from the Penguin to the Tomahawk, there is little more than an indentation, or possibly a crater, in the armor. There has been minimal internal damgage, with maybe a few things getting jarred lose by the shock. Nothing more.

What if . . .
The missile does penetrate? Possibilities include AS-4, Granat, etc. These are all older missiles, and Soviet to boot, so their explosive filler is not going to be quite as good. Plus, only the Granat has much chance of getting past defenses (others are all very easy to intercept). Well, the missile manages to penetrate into the ship, and detonates. There's a big explosion, and a decent amount of damage is done. HOWEVER, the interior of the battleship is made of tempered steel, which makes it very resistant to damage. Again, much of the explosion is vented outside or contained by the bulkheads, leaving the ship in relatively good condition, so long as a critical area such as a magazine or engine room isn't hit.
For battleships from any other nation, the damage will be greater (only the US could affored temered steel bulkheads), but the result is generally similar. A strike that would sink a carrier might not even cripple a battleship.

Also, shells have MORE penetrating power than missiles.....

Ah, sometimes...but shells are effective in terms of sending several dozen on a location in a short period of time. (reloading the gun is faster than reloading the missle tube.)

I.. think the debate finished when Benicius suggested that one Harpoon could sink a battleship. Evidently he was wrong to state that he knew what he was talking about and that everyone else was ignorant, because that is the most stupid thing I have ever read. A Harpoon's far from assured of sinking a modern (and as such all but unarmoured) warship ten times smaller than a battleship, for baby Jesus' sake!

I.. think the debate finished when Benicius suggested that one Harpoon could sink a battleship. Evidently he was wrong to state that he knew what he was talking about and that everyone else was ignorant, because that is the most stupid thing I have ever read. A Harpoon's far from assured of sinking a modern (and as such all but unarmoured) warship ten times smaller than a battleship, for baby Jesus' sake!

A Harpoon Missile could easily sink a large destroyer or even a battleship. Meanwhile where do people get off acting as if ships reload missiles? While reloading shells on a battleship, missiles are often loaded in a way that a lot more than one can be launched quickly. Next you will be saying submarines have to reload a torpedo one at a time or that every world naval power is ignorant...haha

Well, you kids can all claim the battleship is best and fantastic and that I am wrong. Go ahead, but as I said before, thankfully there are intelligent people who work for world governments that know battleships are obsolete.

If several of you were to talk about battleships in use in today's naval warfare, you would be laughed out of the pentagon or any other place of the like.

If you are all so sure, why do you not write to the Chief of Naval Operations and see what one of the worlds key experts has to say. Given that the US Navy overly favours carriers I already know the response.

Happy hunting, oh and you can waste your money on obsolete vessels, just means intelligent nations can easily pick you off one by one.

---Final Posting---

Again you've repeated your complete lack-of-a-point. For God's sake, everything in that has already been laughed out of the thread. Jesus. As I say (although I seem to have unknowingly changed accounts), you haven't addressed any of the points raised, and you're just spouting absurdity-on-repeat.

"A Harpoon Missile could easily sink a large destroyer or even a battleship"

A large destroyer maybe, but there's no certainty that one Harpoon missile, even if it scores a hit on what is likely a screening vessel, will sink a large destroyer. To assume that it'll take out a battleship which is not only several hundred percent heavier, but also heavily armoured as opposed to not moderately armoured, not lightly armoured, but essentially unarmoured and rather than unscreened or actively providing a screen probably benefits from a screen.. why on earth can't you just accept that an argument you happened to take-up has been proven severely flawed? It must be an exercise in winding people up or something, and I don't understand that.

Argh, I want to dismantle another vague point from that post, but I've already done so, and you've countered by repeating it again.


-cries-

---Final Posting---

Hooray! By cutting off the debate, he's admitted that he's wrong!

That is exactly what happened with the British Dreadnoughts and even in WW2 - few battleships ever engaged in serious warfare. Nobody was willing to risk such expensive vessels (although this happened several times in history and more fool them).




There were 9 Battleship to Battleship engagements in WWII while only 4 carrier to carrier engagements.

Just as a Carrier, you would have to through alot of ordinance at a Battleship in order to do even the least bit of damage (due to the CIWS Phalanx system). However, on a Battleship, that missile would not only have to get through those systems (which have like a 2 mile range), but also (as previously noted on) 12 inchs of steel, unlike a carrier.

But, a Battleship can reload and fire within a few minutes while aircraft have to return to base, rearm, refuel, land and take off. and while they are doing this the Battleships guns are still firing at whatever targets they have.

One large missile, one strike, one hit against a battleship and it will not return fire. However, the chances of a missile hitting a carrier are extremely slim; these days anyway.

One hit against a battleship? wtf?

do you KNOW ANYTHING!!!!! thats one of their primary things, they have friggin foot of steal armor with the Iowa sloped 19 degrees. And with damage control they can keep on fighting, don't forget these things displace over 50,000 tonnes.


AND THE SAME SHIPS CAN ESCORT A BATTLESHIP AS CAN ESCORT A CARRIER!!!!!!!!! NEED THAT POINT BE READDRESSED!!!!!!!??????????


THE NAVY IS NOT INFALLIABLE!!!!!!!! they saw the need for a battleship to counter the Kirov Class Cruiser, so they brought back the Iowa, They decommissioned the Iowa class because of the age of the ships.

Carriers can only carry missiles and gravity bombs that their aircraft can launch. and there is only a limited number of nuclear warheads aboard. When it comes to missiles, the Nuclear tipped Tomahawk launched from a carrier strike aircraft are essentially the same as that can be launched from one of the 8 box launchers of an Iowa class battleship. Your arguing in circles and seeing one documentary on battleships you have written them off. But funny how everytime the US navy gets in a major fight, they recommissioned the Iowa class. Korea, Vietnam and Persian Gulf one. and then decommission them afterwards. Iraq and Afganistan did not need the Iowa class to bombard shore targets. Since the Iraqui's weren't sitting in Kuwait this time around. But you know if we attacked Iran i bet you the Mighty Mo might sail once again (depends on how far she has been decommissioned)

Battleships are also one of the few if any vessels that can survive for long periods of time in Littoral warfare.

Redesign and build the Montana Class, if it were up to me.

HEY Clans, good taste in ships. I use the same for my fleet. Chobham/Burlington makes for good deck armor, but would suggest retaining Citadel for Torpedo Belt.

16" guns means 238mm. Know what that means. (hint, mushrooms.)

Extended range Shells designed for New Jersey during Iraq conflict offer range 50 miles. RamJet in works allow for 100 miles.

Might want to add 4 Phalanx CIWS systems. Keep (6) 5" secondary armaments for Litoral Craft.

260,000 hp equates to 29 kts. Refuel Cores for Nuclear Engines every 4 years.

Can swap crew at sea to maintain patrols. FYI

Cost is about right. Montana Class at 100 ft longer than Iowa Class. Cost estimates comparable for Iowa Class equals (1) B-1 bomber, 12 field batteries Artillery. Figure at +1/4 cost for Montana.

I'm keeping the CIWS in place as well as the limited amount of guns.

if 260,000hp equals 29kts how does 220,000hp equal 33?(thats what the 8 boilers in the Iowa put out)

Weight. Montana is larger than a Iowa and has a greater displacement. Figure the Displacement of the Iowa at 50,000+ tons 220,000 hp = 33 knots. Iowa uses Diesel fuel Engines. (Smoke a problem.) Montana Class listed at 75,000 tons displacement 2 Nuclear Steam powered engines with gearing for 4 shafts (guessing used AirCraft Carrier simulation) 260,000 hp. 25,000 ton difference for 40,000 hp. 220,000 divided by 33 = 6,666 hp for 1 knot. 260,000 / 6,666 = 39 knots! My bad, Forgot to carry the one. :oops:

Original PowerPlant Montana Class BB.

Boilers 8 Babcock & Wilcox 2 drum express type
fitted with 2 furnaces and double uptakes
Pressure 565 psi
Temperature 850 degrees F
Turbines 4 sets Westinghouse geared steam
Horsepower 172,000 forward
43,000 reverse
Shafts 4
Ships Generators 10 x 1,250 KW turbo generators
2 x 500 KW diesels
Endurance 15,000 NM @ 15 knts
Speed 28.0 knts @ 166 rpm
Bunkerage 7,500 tons oil

There seems to be some misunderstanding about missiles and battleships. Point is, there are missiles which could take out a battleship and the USA for example does not care if one missile costs 3 million dollars. They used a 2 million dollar missile to blow up a car with a terrorist inside not that long ago.

Do not try and argue on the financial side. Battleships are obsolete.

Perhaps you kids should leave reality naval warfare up to the big guys who actually know what they are doing.

Once again, battleships are obsolete. They are majestic someone said, well big deal! Majestic, but obsolete. What good would a battleship be as the centre piece of a fleet? No aircraft and quite useless really since you do not want to put ur most expensive pride and joy in the enemy's firing range. That is exactly what happened with the British Dreadnoughts and even in WW2 - few battleships ever engaged in serious warfare. Nobody was willing to risk such expensive vessels (although this happened several times in history and more fool them).

In fact since several nations are using WW2 as an example, a period where the battleship was paramount to every major navy, could someone explain why the USA went all out in carrier production? By 1943 the USA possessed some 31 aircraft carriers. Now, if the battleship is so good, why were they being ignored in favour of carriers?

It is not just a matter of politics, but commonsense. Battleships simply did not do the job required by the navy. Aircraft carriers do. There is no denying the fact that carriers are the supreme naval vessel, in competition with the submarine of course.

If you want to persist in claiming the battleship is so fantastic, by all means do, but at least the people controlling our navies know better and thankfully do not listen to those living in the past.

(as for one documentary, I used that as an example, not as my only source)
No one's claiming it's fantastic. We're just pointing out that it's not useless. In fact, the usefulness of the battleship has actually increased over time. The protection it has makes it better suited to high-threat environments than anything else afloat. I also challenge you to name ONE non-nuclear missile currently in service outside the former Soviet Union that can hurt a battleship. You keep spouting this whole missile thing, but you've yet to show you know anything about it. And for the record, there isn't any non-nuclear missile that can reliably cipple a battleship with one shot.

Battleships were built by both the US and Japan during WWII, which were the two primary proponents of airpower. In fact, the amount of money spent on them compares rather well to carriers. In the range of 25-40% (probably closer to 33) of the all the money the US spent on building large naval vessels during the course of WWII was spent on battleships, with 7 completed from 1941 to 1945. The 26 Essex carriers cost less than half as much, which is why so many more were built. If they'd been building United States class carriers instead, there wouldn't have been much more than 15 or so.
Battleships did not engage each other very often, and that owes a great deal to changing naval tactics. However, to say that they were not used is utter stupidity. They were found to be supremely effective in the bombardment and fleet defense roles, the former of which was performed frequently by every allied and Japanese battleship, and they were so effective that all the Iowa class were recommissioned several times (at least one brought back for each major US conflict from 1950 to 1991), and several other battleships were maintained so they could be recommissioned as well if needed. If they were so obsolete, I tend to wonder why they were recommissioned (that actually being more of a military rather than political decision) every time a major war broke out.
The cost of a battleship is an issue, but it's a very stupid one to use for them being obsolete. Any ship that old is going to be a lot more expensive to operate relative to modern vessels (Nimitz carriers are already beginning to fall down this path too). A modern battleship could be made to be much more efficient and cost effective.

Actually there have been just as many Battleships built or commissioned since WWII as Aircraft Carriers (today). Note nomenclature (BB-71 Montana Class Louisiana.) Some interesting notes on protection. 1940 Montana Class.

Protection

Side Belt 16.1" tapering to 10.2" on 1" STS plate inclined 19 degrees
Lower Side Belt 7.2" tapered to 1" inclined 10 degrees
Bulkheads 18" forward
15.25" aft
Deck Main 0.75"+1.5"
2nd 5.8"+1.25"
3rd 0.62" to 0.625"
splinter 0.625"
total 10.454"
Barbettes 21.3"
18" rear
Turrets face 18"+4.5"
sides 10"
back 12"
roof 9.15"
Conning Tower 18" sides
7.25" roof
Immunity 18,000 yards to 32,000 yards vs 16"/50 2,700 lb shells
16,500 yards to 34,500 yards vs 16"/45 2,245 lb shells

Comparison with Iowa Class that seems to be target (no pun intended,) of standard for Battleships, (easier to because of the fact that it has actually gone into service.)

http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/IowaClass/Statistics.htm

I do agree with Benicius on one point of Strategy though, after the escorting Craft of a BB under fire had deployed their Decoys, I would position the BB's (group of 2) to take the brunt of a missile attack. Mainly because they would be the more likely to survive the storm of missiles. Turrets turned away when Anti-Ship missiles came into striking range. P.S. there is also such a thing as Anti-Missile artillery. 16" guns could fire such shells at a much greater distance. Estimated rate 3 salvos per minute.

Ok, im trying to convince my friend on the relavance of battleships, and his only defense it, "If there so good, then why dont any countries use them anymore?"......... Someone please give me something good to tell him.....

Well, there's no need right now. Most nations don't field fleet carriers anymore, though they could, and who argues that carriers are out of date?

Yes, there's no need now, but if the US were to go to war against another country with sizeable defenses and up to date ones. I can see the Battleship being remade. Maybe not in the same form.

I'm thinking something along the lines of about 30,000 tonnes, Nuclear powered. 4 or 5 MK 41 VLS, maybe a turret of 8 inch guns and stealth features to boot.



(Hmm i think i may develop a new ship.)

While an 18" main gun belt would provide massive power and such, firing broadside would present a serious problem in that the ship could tip. Think of the Iowa when it fires broadside, it lists. You have to take this into account if you're putting massive 18" guns on this sucker and also the weight. The 16" guns are just more managable.

yes, thats why the beam on a Yamato which employed those massive batteries was 121 feet not 108.2 like the Iowa.

Other Countries don't use Battleships because of NATO. Most members of NATO spend more on butter than guns. They rely on the U.S. for their primary defense. Nuclear Missiles have also made large conventional forces obsolete. The U.S. for instance plans to eventually switch to small units to provide for "Police actions." Were there no nuclear warheads, I think that more nations would use battleships. Another indication of "downsizing," military forces is the building of litoral ships. AirCraft Carriers remain because they give the necessary "Air Supremacy," to complement Police action operations.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but recently the Wars have been against Nations with poor Air Power. Iraq outnumbered our forces in Tanks, but we outnumbered Iraqs Airforce by 6 to 1.

Yes, there's no need now, but if the US were to go to war against another country with sizeable defenses and up to date ones. I can see the Battleship being remade. Maybe not in the same form.

I'm thinking something along the lines of about 30,000 tonnes, Nuclear powered. 4 or 5 MK 41 VLS, maybe a turret of 8 inch guns and stealth features to boot.



(Hmm i think i may develop a new ship.)

Search Engine, "Litoral Ships." Active paint. Stealth features. 8" turret gun. Missile and helicopter Capability.

tag

A most interesting thread, to be sure...