NationStates Jolt Archive

The super-dreadnaught is an odd class of warship that makes a battleship, only about 100 times larger than before, and about 1,000x more expensive. These giant ships are popular on NationStates, with many mirroring Doujin's famous Doujin-class. But why do people proliferate these behemoths?

So, I pose to you a question: Why do you continue to use these weapons? What significant advantage does having a battleship that costs as much as a fleet (all the while being condensed into one, larger, target) have? Scare factor (which is useless against the unafraid)? Shore bombardment (in which case it is extreme overkill; from what I've read, only a 155mm cannon is needed for that role, not 30 inch cannons)? Other battleships (which is also perplexing; a fleet would be better at killing one ship and able to fill many roles at once)? Sex appeal (which does not win wars)?

[/rant]

I guess they like them. Maybe acting too much like dictators gave them Hitler's big gun complex. Who knows?

Sex appeal.

I'm not joking either.

Think back to the turn of the century man. At that time, when the first dreadnoughts were being built, EVERYONE was making them. It's just a bandwagon thing.

That and SD's are freakin' hard to destroy. 2 SD's can shoot at each other all day and not sink each other.

Also, gunboat diplomacy, what would scare you more? An Iowa Class battleship 250m long, or a Zheng He Class Uberbattleship 1100m long?

Shore bombardment (in which case it is extreme overkill; from what I've read, only a 155mm cannon is needed for that role, not 30 inch cannons)

155mm? US battleships had like 406mm, the Yamato and Musashi had 460 mm i think. The more armor, the more it ordnance it takes to take it down. Maybe the guns were not used for shore bombardment, but rather to fight other battleships? Either that or people like overkill (actually, i'm guilty of a super battleship design myself)

I have to agree with Japanese Antarctica, 155mm is tiny for a battleship gun, and almost everyone loves overkill.

I've got three in my fleet with 32" Electro Thermal Guns. Anyway, it would be scary as hell to see a ship 3,300 feet long and impregnable to most ordinances. Besides, they could be used as diplomacy factors. I'd say a combo of moral, threat, sex appeal, bandwagon, show that your a super power, etc.

Well when I get around to finishing mine, she's going to be a anti-capital platform with a secondary shore-bombardment role. Which is a lot like a battleship.
Execpt she's going to mount coil guns. Big ones(20" to 25"). So she should be a highly effective weapon in her role.
And don't forget the value of intimidation.

It's the same for the real world for the nuclear club.

155mm? US battleships had like 406mm, the Yamato and Musashi had 460 mm i think. That's all you need for shore bombardment, from what I read.

Maybe the guns were not used for shore bombardment, but rather to fight other battleships? They were used to fight other battleships, but the death of the battleship made that purpose obsolete. Modern battleship supporters want the ships reactivated for shore bombardment, as that is the one thing they do better than aircraft carriers.

Either that or people like overkill (actually, i'm guilty of a super battleship design myself) People like overkill. But not such overkill that you use a nuke instead of a pistol.

That and SD's are freakin' hard to destroy. 2 SD's can shoot at each other all day and not sink each other. If you mean that the ships miss each other almost continualy, I'll buy that. According to http://www.combinedfleet.com/metalprp2002.htm a U.S. 14" Mark 16 Mod 8 hard-capped armor-piercing projectile completely penetrated in effective bursting condition (no significant lower or middle body or fuze damage) a 13.5" (34.29cm) brand-new Class "A" armor plate at 49 degrees obliquity. And that's in World War Two. Imagine what modern missiles can do. That's why modern ships do not have much armor: gunnery is on the winning side in this day and age.

Other have repeated intimidation. But what of the one who is not intimidated?

Then we're kinda fucked then huh?

In a more serious thing. I only use SDs for defense and command duties. Using SDs for attacking other ships in my opinion... is stupid. A battleship works.

That's all you need for shore bombardment, from what I read.

They were used to fight other battleships, but the death of the battleship made that purpose obsolete. Modern battleship supporters want the ships reactivated for shore bombardment, as that is the one thing they do better than aircraft carriers.

In the Real World. When the Doujin came out, someone wanted a super dreadnought of their own to fight it. Then another person wanted one, then another, and now we all have them.

People like overkill. But not such overkill that you use a nuke instead of a pistol.

I guess with bunkers it wouldn't be so overkill.

If you mean that the ships miss each other almost continualy, I'll buy that. According to http://www.combinedfleet.com/metalprp2002.htm a U.S. 14" Mark 16 Mod 8 hard-capped armor-piercing projectile completely penetrated in effective bursting condition (no significant lower or middle body or fuze damage) a 13.5" (34.29cm) brand-new Class "A" armor plate at 49 degrees obliquity. And that's in World War Two. Imagine what modern missiles can do.

The harpoon missile is much smaller than a 14" shell, and it flies at a lower velocity i think. And you can't shoot a shell down with CIWS.

OoC: Story value, nothing more. I don't RP to win, I RP to write (most of the time) and the soon-to-be-released Floating Fortress (drawn by ZMS - I'm a lucky bastard!) will be a good centrepiece for the fleet. 'Tis my two pence.

Well, I'd engage the battleship in question beyond its gun range(with the coil guns flinging those big shells o' doom at it). It could still engage me with missiles, but my anti-missile systems would have a chance of engaging it successfully; unlike big dumb metal slugs(which I could do with a laser, but that leaves a bunch of technical problems).

The 155mm thing is just part of the infighting in the navy. Really, that's just an excuse to avoid bigger guns and keep the current projects while dumping the Iowas. The reality is that the 5" and 6.1" systems, regardless of what they tell you, are wholly insufficient for the shore bombardment role. Heck, I can name nations that still maintain shore batteries of 12" guns that these would be worthless against, and would survive attacks from most missiles.
The reality is that the battleships are the best shore bombardment platforms ever built, and their guns are brutally effective and would be a boon to any amphibious operation. The marines, who actually fight on the shore, have been practically begging to have the Iowas back in service ever since they've been decommissioned, and former Soviet officers have repeatedly stated that the Iowa was the one US vessel they feared, as they doubted their ability to sink it, even with their best missiles. It's annoying, as the Iowa is the only effective shore bombardment vessel we've had since the WWII cruisers were dumped. An armored vessel with at least 8" guns should be used for bombardment, not a vessel vulnerable to machine gun fire with a 5" pea-shooter or a 6" pop gun.

As for SDs, it's mostly an image/bandwagon thing really. Though quite a few nations have gone way overboard with it. Even with all the pressure, I still have only 28 combat vessels exceeding 150,000 tons, and no battleships exceeding 450,000

Well, I'd engage the battleship in question beyond its gun range(with the coil guns flinging those big shells o' doom at it). It could still engage me with missiles, but my anti-missile systems would have a chance of engaging it successfully; unlike big dumb metal slugs(which I could do with a laser, but that leaves a bunch of technical problems).
The problem with coil guns and ETC guns is that they're more of direct fire weapons, so they begin to have less effectiveness at longer ranges. At about 50 km, a traditional gun has the advantage of a better arc, and thus strikes against the more vulnerable deck armor. At longer ranges, you'll still be missing with most shots, and most that don't will likely snap from the impact force and angle, reducing effectiveness. There are always trade-offs, and an ETC or Coil gun will still have its weaknesses.

Steal penis.

The biggest gun in my navy is a 12", which our Shore Class bombardment ships carry 24 of, along with 36 6" cannon.

The problem with coil guns and ETC guns is that they're more of direct fire weapons, so they begin to have less effectiveness at longer ranges. At about 50 km, a traditional gun has the advantage of a better arc, and thus strikes against the more vulnerable deck armor. At longer ranges, you'll still be missing with most shots, and most that don't will likely snap from the impact force and angle, reducing effectiveness. There are always trade-offs, and an ETC or Coil gun will still have its weaknesses.

Oh okay, thanks for telling me. I supposed I could always get the sucker with a KE weapon(*evil laughter*). The coil guns would still work for shore bombardment though?

Um, CSJ, electro-thermal chemical guns most certainly are not line of sight weapons, not even the tiny little 5" "pea shooters".

Izistan: Coil guns are KE weapons, they're just a variation on your standard EM railgun.

EDIT: My navy has 95 dreadnaughts and superdreadnaughts, including several of the infamous Doujin class (although they're called the Gehenna class in my navy.) Excepting the Doujins, my other ships are used to hunt down and destroy other 100,000+ ton lineships. Although they do have a secondary role as shore bombardment ships, I generally use my battlecruisers for that mission.

Well, me and Witzgall threw around an idea about half a year ago. It was the idea of a battleship, submerging underwater and fighting like a submarine. This ship could also deploy it's own invasion forces...

I got the idea from watching an anime, called Blue Submarine No. 6. It had this battleship very similar to the Yamato that could submerge and fire its main cannon underwater. Well what we did was use railguns...magneticly propelling the rounds underwater and such. Very cost effective.

Basically, I had three of them built for my modern navy. Viscious, Merciless, and Condor. The ships were roughly three times the size of the Yamato, three times the armor and guns. It was in a sense a floating fortress. And with it's ability to deploy a landing force, quite valuble.

What Witz and I did, was alter the role of the battleship, thus making it more cost-effective. And believe me, I had some good role plays with that monster.

If you guys really like building ships, I suggest you check out a game for playstation 2. Its called; Naval Ops: Commander. I suggest you all check it out, its amazing what you could do.

Izistan: Coil guns are KE weapons, they're just a variation on your standard EM railgun.

Oh, oops. I have a habitat of refering to ortillery as KE weapons(I mean I simply call them KE weapons, but I should call them orbital KE weapons and not just KE weapons when the term falls across everything from firearms to swords. D'oh). I think I picked it up from Footfall.
*kicks self*

Um, CSJ, electro-thermal chemical guns most certainly are not line of sight weapons, not even the tiny little 5" "pea shooters".

Izistan: Coil guns are KE weapons, they're just a variation on your standard EM railgun.

EDIT: My navy has 95 dreadnaughts and superdreadnaughts, including several of the infamous Doujin class (although they're called the Gehenna class in my navy.) Excepting the Doujins, my other ships are used to hunt down and destroy other 100,000+ ton lineships. Although they do have a secondary role as shore bombardment ships, I generally use my battlecruisers for that mission.
In terms of engaging battleships in a gunnery dual, yes they are. The primary role for such weapons is long range bombardment, and because of that, they become less and less effective as the target gets closer (due to the trajectory), up to the point that line of sight is established, at which point they have excellent belt penetration. However, at just beyond visual range, ETC guns are at their weakest. It's a downside to the high velocities.

It's much like howitzers compared to field guns. Like field guns, ETC weapons have a longer range, but a flatter trajectory, which isn't as good for striking battleships beyond visual range (a good high-angle deck hit is MUCH better). Regular weapons lob the shells, which allows for higher angle strikes that take advantage of thinner deck armor.

Just because they have a flatter trajectory at a given elevation doesn't make them poorer gun fighters. I sincerely hope you aren't forgetting that higher velocities mean better penetration. I have the excel spreadsheet on my other computer, but if I remember corrently a DN or SD would need at least a couple meters of steel armour or equivilant to stop a 22" AP shell fired from an ETC. The only reason plunging fire is better on conventional guns is that it represents the path of least resistance to critical systems, with an ETC that becomes a moot point.

EDIT: I went back and checked my table to find what the penetration would be for the 22" guns on most of my DNs and SDs. Turns out it's only 34", so anything with about 870mm of armour at the point of impact could get away with only having a hole blown into their ship.

The 155mm thing is just part of the infighting in the navy. Really, that's just an excuse to avoid bigger guns and keep the current projects while dumping the Iowas. The reality is that the 5" and 6.1" systems, regardless of what they tell you, are wholly insufficient for the shore bombardment role. Heck, I can name nations that still maintain shore batteries of 12" guns that these would be worthless against, and would survive attacks from most missiles.

If that is true, it is still no where near the 30" guns that many love to field with their SDs. And I am aware of the battleship in the amphibious assault role, and that is the one role that I can see a battleship as welcome in. That is why I maintain two battleships: Visigoth and Ostrogoth (the names of these ships appear often in my navy; in my FT existance, they are carriers)

It's really very simple.

Doujin > All your battleships

Other major naval powers think "We can't destroy this easily. We need a counter."

*designs new ship*

Cue superdreadnaught arms race. The interesting thing is that the only nations really capable of building something bigger and more powerful than the Doujin have chosen not to, which is odd. I suppose that's because they're allied to Doujin / Freethinkers.

The interesting thing is that the only nations really capable of building something bigger and more powerful than the Doujin have chosen not to, which is odd

Or it could be because, like me, they realize that for the cost of one Doujin they could have an entire fleet.

Or it could be because, like me, they realize that for the cost of one Doujin they could have an entire fleet.
Or, like me, you might have plenty of fleets as it is.

One of my expeditionary fleets costs $447.8 billion, of which I have eight. Double that for each of my home fleets, which I have three. So for every dollar I've spent on a Doujin, I've also spent $1.87 on the fleets they command. This of course doesn't even get into my assault fleets or my SSBNs and their escorts.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that Doujins are expensive, but they're nowhere near as expensive as building a proper navy.

A Doujin costs around $300 billion or so dollars. Doujin himself built 17 (?) of these vessels. That's $5.1 trillion dollars, if I remembered the price correctly. If he replaced those with your home fleets (using a cost of double your expeditionary fleets), he would have had about 5.7 home fleets, which goes quite a long way in building a navy.

Well, I made a submercipal super-dreadnaught, only becouse my whole fleet needs to be submergable or I lose a lot of forgein agreements in a few past wars (which nipped them in the butt when I made submarine carriers, destroyers, and battleships).

It is very expencive, yes, cut my fleet numbers down drastically, but in all, a four-boat Oseat (the name of the boat) fleet has enough power and scare-factor to win me a few conflicts, many times over. I have actually put most of my normal ships into reserve, having the four in active duty on constant missions. They are usually the first to the scene with the Aoure (Special Forces - Airforce).

So yeah, scare factor, and I like the big guns I put on it.

Imagine what modern missiles can do. That's why modern ships do not have much armor: gunnery is on the winning side in this day and age.Actually, that's inaccurate. Modern missiles are designed to penetrate no more than four inches of steel armour, so many of the anti-ship missiles in use today have little effect on even an Iowa-class battleship. Add to it a more advanced armour scheme and sturdier hull construction techniques and you have ships that are very difficult to take down.

The other problem with your statement is your assertion for the reason behind the lack of armour on modern ships. The reason ships are built with thin skins is to save money on construction to get more hulls in the water. In addition to that, less armour means they're easier and less expensive to repair than the heavily armoured behemoths.

NationStates warfare CAN NOT be compared to RL warfare conditions because of the insanely large populations of NS countries. Sarzonia would be far and away the world's largest country if it were somehow transplanted to today's RL Earth. However, Sarzonia is not even the 10,000th largest country in NS.

The other chief reason warfare is so different on NS compared to RL is the fact that an overwhelming majority of "modern tech" countries use technologies and weapons platforms that are well beyond that of 2005 RL technology. Even those folks who use "2005" technologies are using tech that is feasible right now but may or may not be implemented by countries for various reasons.

For me its going back to the days when they ruled the sea.

Although saying that my fleet has 3 dreadnoughts and about 30 battleships, compared to nearly 80 full size carriers.

So yeah probably sex appeal and overkill in the shorebombardment.

Really though, it depends on the mission of your navy and the policy of your government and military. For me, primarily a defensive navy with secondary offensive and amphibious capabilities, I generally prefer more ships that are smaller than a super-dreadnaught rather than even fewer SDs, to provide me with more flexibility and versatility, where "get the work done right and swift" and achieving efficency is more important than injecting the fear factor and achieving the audacity. However, this is not to sat that SDs are useless by all means: they are a potential power projection tool for large NS nations seeking to spread influence, just like how much influence and psychological impact the twelve American aircraft carriers has in RL.

Ehh, I love dreadnaughts becouse half of my fleet is in pin, reserve, and I want to keep a good and daring presence, thus the Oseat was what I designned, to meet my goals.

I suggest one to anyone needing a small, yet powerful, navy.

Actually, that's inaccurate. Modern missiles are designed to penetrate no more than four inches of steel armour, so many of the anti-ship missiles in use today have little effect on even an Iowa-class battleship. Add to it a more advanced armour scheme and sturdier hull construction techniques and you have ships that are very difficult to take down.

Ah, you say modern missiles are designed to penetrate no more than 4" of armor. Does that then imply that a modern missile designer could design a missile to penetrate the absurd amounts of armor on NationStates? I would say so.

I also agree partialy with the rest of your arguements on the armor. However, I must disagree with you in that real warfare cannot be compared to real life warfare simply because of population. I would agree if you had said modern warfare, as NationStates is something dug deep from the grave of history, what with battleships and empires and enough mass murders to make Hitler cry.

The armour isn't absurd; it's just the result of the usage of modern technologies (read: newer alloys, composites, and armour application techniques). However, I would partially agree with Sarzonia in regards to the comparison between RL warfare and NS warfare, since NS is comparatively a much larger world where wars and other arms conflicts are very frequent, and where conventional conflicts between two or more large nations are typically more common than assymetric warfare, low-intensity conflicts and terrorism; however, the reverse is commonly true in RL, especially in the 21st century.

Yes, it is possible to make missiles that can defeat the armour of a Doujin, but to do so makes the missiles easier to intercept. Keep in mind that the Doujin's armour doesn't come anywhere close to defying, much less breaking, the laws of physics, but a missile going Mach 4 at sea level that is also super-manueverable absolutely shatters those same laws. The basic tenant that defending is easier than assaulting applies nearly everywhere, and especially where ship design is concerned.

Think about this. An SD and a D come face to face, and the admiral of the D doesn't back down. The SD and the D battle each other, and the SD comes out on top. Wouldn't it be worth it to have the extra ammo to shoot the sinking D and say, "Feelin' lucky, punk?"

And that is why SDs exist.

I used 27 Battleships, each with roughly 12 22" guns, thats around 324 22" guns give or take, as I had several different classes in there, to utterly flatten a city. Over the period of a day, and several billion dollars later in ammunition, the city no longer exists, and 1,750,000 Roach-Busterians were dead. So excuse me, but I still see a role for these Battleships.

OOC: We still typically uses smaller guns (14"-18") for the most part, for more accuracy and a better firing rate while still being able to put out a good degree of firepower. Aside from shore bombardment, they are also good for supporting ground forces in general, as there has been various times in history when the large guns of battleships were intended to hold off an objective against ground forces (for example, the Soviet battleship Marat used as a floating battery against German forces). In addition, one additional use that is quite popular is to serve as a command ship, as a modified battleship with the necessary command facilities can serve as a very capable and heavily protected command center for naval commanders.

Indeed, my Gehennas (modified Doujins) are more valuable to me as command ships and floating bases than anything else, if they're ever in the thick of a knife fight then something has gone horribly wrong.

On the missile / armour issue, a missile will never be able to be as good as a shell. Why? Simply because the bigger the payload it carries, the heavier and large it needs to be to carry enough fuel to travel the same distance at the same speed, and that in turn means that the missile needs to be bigger and heavier to carry the extra fuel. A 16" shell, which the Iowa and Vanguard Class battleships of late WWII were protected against (not immune, but protected against) carried 1275lbs of HE at a speed of about a mile per second. To get a missile to do this... well... it would have to be a massive missile... possibly too big to be launched from a ship, but I don't know.