NationStates Jolt Archive

Is it a battleship? Destroyer? Air craft carrier? Looking at storefronts, they all seem to be some weird, expensive, combination of the above. What does a "superdreadnaught" have going for it? Could such a device even float? what is to stop a diseal-powered 1 screw sub from launching a nuclear tipped torpedo directly at it? What about anti-naval bombers from (much cheaper) Nimitz class carriers or smaller? What about guided missle destroyers/frigates/cruisers?

Basically the super dreadnaught is a floating fortress. The thing that would stop the sub you were talking about is the vessels own huge escort and ASW equipment that ofte n includes helis. Its allmost unsinkable due to its size and can take immense amount of damage.

Do you think it's feasible?

Its allmost unsinkable due to its size and can take immense amount of damage.

False data, super dreadnoughts are just as sinkable as anything else. I lost a Zealous class at the Battle of Otium Aqua Sea recently, costing me 7,000 lives.

In any case, a super dreadnought is something that resembles a huge battleship, normally between the 600K tonnes to 3M tonnes range. Some even hit 14M tons, but that's beyond my liking.

presuming they are supposed to be MT
1) How do they work with current naval doctrine (carrier battle group)
2) What advantages do they have over a mix of cruisers/destroyers and a carrier that can be built for the same cost?
3) What benefits does a large battleship provide anymore? Wouldn't more plentiful cruisers/subs be more effective for the cost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship

There is a section about super dreadnoughts, starting with the Orion

Although not a dreadnought, the USS Nimitz is a very large supercarrier. If you are interested in looking at that, search for that here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz

Actually they, along with other naval gunnery vessels (battleships and cruisers) are to my understanding more PMT, because a PMT nation can use railguns as the main weapon.

How do you take these things up to 20 knots, or even 30 knots, and expect them to turn? How much money did you spend expanding your port facilities to hold them? What is their draught (how deep is the water the can stay in without running aground)? :eek:

Well if you take the standart battleship and turn it to xxl size...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship

There is a section about super dreadnoughts, starting with the Orion

Although not a dreadnought, the USS Nimitz is a very large supercarrier. If you are interested in looking at that, search for that here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Nimitz


We're talking about NS Superdreadnoughts. Our battleships are larger than the Orion. :)

How do you take these things up to 20 knots, or even 30 knots, and expect them to turn? How much money did you spend expanding your port facilities to hold them? What is their draught (how deep is the water the can stay in without running aground)? :eek:


Ummm... proportionally, our budgets are also a lot bigger. How many times have you tried to argue against super dreadnoughts and lost? A lot. In any case, velocity has more to do with proportions of the ship than with tonnage - in other words, assuming you have enough horsepower at the shaft a super dreadnought can hit close to thirty knots. That won't be a problem. Turning...well... in the open sea battlefields these will be fighting at it's not a big problem, although admittedly, it is a disadvantage when trying to outmanuever torpedoes or missiles or even gunfire. But you can always add waterjets. :)

"Captain!"

"What!?"

"That Fat-Mary-oh is in our sights!"

"Fire all torpedoes!"

*big explosion*

-=Problem Solved=-

Well, for those of you who have read the book "nimitz class," an intelligent diseal powered sub (diseal is suprisingly quiet compared to nuclear) could commit a nuclear-tipped strike against one of these bad boys. and even if he were caught, once the torpedo is in the water (which could potentially destroy an entire battlegroup), how is this colossal ship going to avoid it? And still, even with the fleet there, how would it defend against repeated, concentrated cruise missle fire? Even AEGIS misses occassionally!

Given the proliferation of more and more advance SONARs, it would be very hard, even for a diesel, to get close enough, not to mention the massive anti-submarine warfare perimeters set up around fleets on NationStates, meaning there's more of a chance of a run in between a ASW frigate or cruiser, than a full fledge super dreadnought.

Super dreads are not bullet-proof, and can be destroyed. Mid-sea manoeverability (sp? please) is no problem, as they will have a good 20 miles around them in which to turn. They are certainly feasible, especially with our budgets on NS, and with populations in some cases bigger than our own worlds to fund them.

Feasible, true. (as i remember they were first spawned in WWII or just before, may have been WWI)
Bullet-proof and indestructible, hell no.

This just dawned on me:

The Arsenal Ship
Using wikipedia, its basically a cheap (500,000,000) floating missle battery, controlled by an AWACS or a Ticonderoga Cruiser. It basically lauches 500 missles at a time. Even with the most sohisticated of defences, imagine if 10 (only 5 billion, the cost of a Nimitz + or -) launched 500 each, with a 90% success rate, that would still leave 500 fully active missles flying through the air. That alone would cripple ANY fleet, much less one ship.

Lets say that a super dreadnaught is simply far too well pretected. You will lose an awful lot of your own to even get to it. Even after that getting past the turrets and the armor which is extremely thick will be a troublesome. And what? You think i'd be watching while you waste my ship? The superdreadnaught is designed specifically to work as a tank and sustain the damage. How may cruisers exactly will have to fire their missiles to put a dent on the hull?

This just dawned on me:

The Arsenal Ship
Using wikipedia, its basically a cheap (500,000,000) floating missle battery, controlled by an AWACS or a Ticonderoga Cruiser. It basically lauches 500 missles at a time. Even with the most sohisticated of defences, imagine if 10 (only 5 billion, the cost of a Nimitz + or -) launched 500 each, with a 90% success rate, that would still leave 500 fully active missles flying through the air. That alone would cripple ANY fleet, much less one ship.



Oh yeah and I would be watching those FLOATING(easy target bro) batteries and politely wait for them to fire instead of sending some aircraft to show you waht happens when so much ammunition is stored in one place.

This just dawned on me:

The Arsenal Ship
Using wikipedia, its basically a cheap (500,000,000) floating missle battery, controlled by an AWACS or a Ticonderoga Cruiser. It basically lauches 500 missles at a time. Even with the most sohisticated of defences, imagine if 10 (only 5 billion, the cost of a Nimitz + or -) launched 500 each, with a 90% success rate, that would still leave 500 fully active missles flying through the air. That alone would cripple ANY fleet, much less one ship.


The problem is that huge concentrations of missiles tend to cause missiles to collide against on another, and make very good targets for high burst rounds like my CAPMES, which would take them down in droves. NationStates is the resurgence of gun warfare. :) In any case, except for my larger super dreadnoughts [the Aristaqis and the Feathermore classes] I'm designing more dreadnoughts [~400,000 tons], since I am a fan of electromagnetic armaments, meaning I can keep range, at the cost of mass, but with a much cheaper warship, and simply use high burst and submunitions to destroy a superdreadnought's sensors - of course, assuming smaller guns also means more turrets and more guns in general.

In any case, missile spam = not good idea.

Well, for those of you who have read the book "nimitz class," an intelligent diseal powered sub (diseal is suprisingly quiet compared to nuclear) could commit a nuclear-tipped strike against one of these bad boys. and even if he were caught, once the torpedo is in the water (which could potentially destroy an entire battlegroup), how is this colossal ship going to avoid it? And still, even with the fleet there, how would it defend against repeated, concentrated cruise missle fire? Even AEGIS misses occassionally!
NO, just no

NO, just no
Yes, just yes. Diesel submarines can shut down their main turbine and run on the battery alone, which is nearly silent. Nuclear submarines cannot do such a thing.

Also, it's easy to take out SDs if you know how. /cough/cluster munitions to the sensors and then drop a few conventional bunker busters on the thing/cough/ ;)

Or, you could attempt to refine Pythogria's method and make an accurate rod from god. And yes, battery power is what I was referring to (which, again, is amazingly quiet, especially in the hands of a competent captain). Are we also to assume that a SD is invincible/resistant to shaped charges? What about delayed explosives (i.e. bunker busters)?

Yes, just yes. Diesel submarines can shut down their main turbine and run on the battery alone, which is nearly silent. Nuclear submarines cannot do such a thing.

Also, it's easy to take out SDs if you know how. /cough/cluster munitions to the sensors and then drop a few conventional bunker busters on the thing/cough/ ;)


Problem is, like I said before, fleet escorts are going to run into them first, and with better magnetic anamoly detection methods on NS it's easier to catch one, as opposed to simply going right over it. Furthermore, NS fleets tend to be larger, meaning there's more of a chance a ship will pick up the submarine. Getting into a fleet is really hard on NS, and that says a lot, considerng it's really hard to get into one in real life.


Or, you could attempt to refine Pythogria's method and make an accurate rod from god.


Errr... a ballistic missile?

And yes, battery power is what I was referring to (which, again, is amazingly quiet, especially in the hands of a competent captain).


At the terminal velocities a rod from god would be travelling at it would be incredibly hard to manuever it, without it having its fins ripped off or utterly destroyed by friction.


Are we also to assume that a SD is invincible/resistant to shaped charges? What about delayed explosives (i.e. bunker busters)?


Bunker busters work, although you have to get close enough. A shaped charge wouldn't be able to penetrate enough armor, and big shaped charges aren't possible since the HEAT warhead would not be able to heat itself up fast enough to have any impression on impact.

I'm aware a rod from god is unrealistic, but then again...

As for shaped charges: if we have an unrealistically large ship, who is to say we can't modify or make a version of the HEAT that would be large enough?

Because ships of this size aren't unrealistic in the sense that they are beyond the scopes of physics. A ship this size can be built, especially considering the size of this Earth [NS Earth], size of nations, and sheer purchasing parity power. A huge HEAT shells just is not physically impossible.

Proabably the best way to sum up a NS sueor dreadnaught is to think of it as a medieval castle with a large number of really big seige weapons mounted on the walls.
Due to the terrain conditions the castle's weapons will at least match the range of your seige implements so you engage it you have to go into hards way. Eventually if you biuld/bring enough weapons and mean you willr ecude the walls enough for a breach and it is quite possible you can starve the inhabitants out (yes you can actually stave a SD crew if you cut it off from supplies). Unfortuantly it isn't just the castle you have to worry about either you had to fight through a fairly large feild army to get there or that army is still prowling around.


Not the best analogy i willa dmit but it works to a degree.

The simplest thing I can think of is to ignore it and its attending fleet and go commerce raiding, if the supporting fleet goes to stop you then you can use a submarine or bombers to stop it.

or you could just wait till it rolls over as most i've seen are dangerously top heavy and if there was a strong wind they'd roll over.....

There is no such thing as Superdreadnaught. That is just an imagination in alot of players minds. There are, however, superdreadnoughts, and I'll cover that now.

The only effective method, and I repeat, effective, of killing an 'SD' (I'll move noto that later) is to engage it with guns of similar or larger calibre. Missiles, meh, they get taken down in droves becuase people launch waves, and there are some of us (me and mac especially) that use large airburst rounds on lots of DP guns to down these well easily. Torpedoes, yeah yeah, but sneaking a snub under a huge battlefleet is reallyreally hard and even with a nuclear tip they're still damn hard to sink.

Sizes can be anything ranging from larger than a historical battleship, to the largest 'SD' in history, the Hood which is 1,876m long and displaces near 15m tonnes.

Don't ever try to missile wave one, it's boring, missiles are inneffective against big armour, and they're easily shot down in waves.

Just build your own or buy someones (prefferably mine, link is on the sig :p) some people don't like 'SD's, they think they ruin RPs/ are physically impossible, these people are silly and haven't yet come to terms with how outrageous NS is, and hey, if you think 'SDs' are bad, what about multi million man standing armies? heh. You won't have a respected navy unless you have at least one, that's for sure (actually, I can think of a few exceptions but they're exceptional cases).

btw, in NATO wargames, a dutch SS snuck through a whole US battlegroup and sunk the CV inside and half its escort before escaping.

You can't do that in NS because the size of fleets is far too large.

Oh and btw, if you think anytthing displacing 1 million tons is going to roll over, you have no clue.

It's better to have a super dreadnaught because, as Macbees has stated, they avoid "spaming" and "godmoding" to a degree. He also stated, since everyone is spamming with missiles, everyone has gone back to the ways of the gun. Damn you missiles! You have failed me! If you want to sink a super dreadnaught, use nuclear weapons. Even though Preatonia considers it childish.

I'm saying most of the ones that i've seen are top heavy and would roll over as well as being a bitch to sail in.

and yes I do no things about battleships due to reading about them for large parts of my life

If Prinz Eugen survived two atomic tests, what makes you think a 'Superdreadnought' (God I hate that word with a passion) will sucumb to a nuclear strike and is it worth it to use tactical nuclear weapons on enemy military targets, when they will probably do the same to you

Bronidium,
1.) Uh, top heavy doesnt' matter if it has a high beam and draught and it displaces enough,
2.) And where did I say you didn't have a knowledge of battleships?

If Prinz Eugen survived two atomic tests, what makes you think a 'Superdreadnought' (God I hate that word with a passion) will sucumb to a nuclear strike and is it worth it to use tactical nuclear weapons on enemy military targets, when they will probably do the same to you


Never thought of it like that. Yes it is worth it, if your in war. But your right, the cost of developing and deploying a nuclear weapon would screw me.

Well if the SD can withstand a direct hit by a tactical nuclear weapon, then it is probably a godmod. I don't care how much armor it has there is no way it can withstand a explosion of that size. Just to let you know they are not invincible.

Well if the SD can withstand a direct hit by a tactical nuclear weapon, then it is probably a godmod. I don't care how much armor it has there is no way it can withstand a explosion of that size. Just to let you know they are not invincible.


It would probably have to be a direct impact.

Well if the SD can withstand a direct hit by a tactical nuclear weapon, then it is probably a godmod. I don't care how much armor it has there is no way it can withstand a explosion of that size. Just to let you know they are not invincible.

Hahahaha, bullshit. Nukes aren't really that effective against ships because an atomic weapon is all about the blast, not the penetration. The Nagato, a damaged battleship, shrugged off a nuclear blast relative to its size, nukesa aren't that effective.

Well, there are a few things that seem sorta godmoddish about the whole thing, but two more things popped into mind:

What if you had a cluster of HEATS? While in and of itself may not penetrate the (how think is the armor?) armor, what if multiple heads were focused on one point? What of a very large Self-Forging Fragment?
What drives these things, and how fast can they go? Wouldn't the propellor, should it be damaged, make the behemoth almost unmoveable? Sure it could be towed, but for a ship that big...
What does it take to dock/refuel such a beast? By its very nature, wouldn't large dock facilities required to anchor the ship be hard to build/come by, stranding the ship at sea?
And again, if a nuclear tipped torpedo was to hit the stern, near the propellor, wouldn't it not only cripple the ship, but make it radioactive as well, dooming a good portion of the crew?

Well, there are a few things that seem sorta godmoddish about the whole thing, but two more things popped into mind:

What if you had a cluster of HEATS? While in and of itself may not penetrate the (how think is the armor?) armor, what if multiple heads were focused on one point?
What drives these things, and how fast can they go? Wouldn't the propellor, should it be damaged, make the behemoth almost unmoveable? Sure it could be towed, but for a ship that big...
What does it take to dock/refuel such a beast? By its very nature, wouldn't large dock facilities required to anchor the ship be hard to build/come by, stranding the ship at sea?
And again, if a nuclear tipped torpedo was to hit the stern, near the propellor, wouldn't it not only cripple the ship, but make it radioactive as well, dooming a good portion of the crew?

...Stop talking about HEATs. Besides, it'd be extremely hard to concnetrate them on one little area.
Waterjets. Nothing else, noone uses screw driven 'SDs.'
It takes alot of money invested in large drydocks.

But what about the radiation issue? Hit it with, for example, a really hard pulse of Gamma rays. Convert the crew to d3d in just a few seconds.

What if you had a cluster of HEATS? While in and of itself may not penetrate the (how think is the armor?) armor, what if multiple heads were focused on one point?


You'd have a hard time getting these HEAT warheads hitting in the same spot... a very hard time. You'd need a lot of warheads as well - more than a tri-tandem warhead...way more. You're better of using a standard naval round... an armor penetrator warhead with a HUGE HE explosive behind it... beautiful.

What drives these things, and how fast can they go? Wouldn't the propellor, should it be damaged, make the behemoth almost unmoveable?


Yep, but most SDs have a back up number of propellors..as well as a back-up rudder.. that said, you'd be best served going for the rudder...but that still involves getting into torpedo range.

What does it take to dock/refuel such a beast?


A huge port...with a deep enough draft. Plenty of them exist on NS, however...give our massive budgets.

And again, if a nuclear tipped torpedo was to hit the stern, near the propellor, wouldn't it not only cripple the ship, but make it radioactive as well, dooming a good portion of the crew?

A nuclear tipped torpedo would sink the ship. The problem, once again, is getting into torpedo range. Nevertheless, a nuclear explosion below the hull would create a big enough shockwave to rupture the keel. Other people use keelbreaker torpedoes, as they tend to be called, or 1000mm+ torpedoes.

updated above post to include SFF's. How the hell do you propell a 1 million ton vessle with water jets to speeds of 30 km/h? And one last point: Wouldn't firing the large guns (to a degree) damage the vessel itself, especially sideways (much like the origional Dreadnought)?

But what about the radiation issue? Hit it with, for example, a really hard pulse of Gamma rays. Convert the crew to d3d in just a few seconds.

Ample NBC controls are your friend.

updated above post to include SFF's. How the hell do you propell a 1 million ton vessle with water jets to speeds of 30 km/h? And one last point: Wouldn't firing the large guns (to a degree) damage the vessel itself, especially sideways (much like the origional Dreadnought)?


Self-forging penetrators actually have less penetration capability than a HEAT warhead. They are simply used in armored warfare because you can store a lot of them as submunitions and drop them to penetrate roof armor. The same goes with explosive forged projectiles.

And given modern recoil mechanisms, and the sheer displacement of the ship, recoil would only be an issue if there are too many guns for the displacement.

Ample NBC controls are your friend.

I'm thinking like Neutron Bomb writ large style Gamma Pulse here. Even in FT NBC has issues with that kind of gamma.

I'm thinking like Neutron Bomb writ large style Gamma Pulse here. Even in FT NBC has issues with that kind of gamma.

Then you risk retaliation.

updated above post to include SFF's. How the hell do you propell a 1 million ton vessle with water jets to speeds of 30 km/h? And one last point: Wouldn't firing the large guns (to a degree) damage the vessel itself, especially sideways (much like the origional Dreadnought)?

Easy, anything can move, anything can float, anything can propell as long as it has enough SHP and the dimensions are correct.

Just thinking of this: presuming a dreadnought is traveling with an escort, couldn't a battery operated/diseal hide below the thermocline (which, If my memory serves me) prevent a lot of active sonar from hitting it, and have other forces track the location, with the submarine surfacing to destroy the rudder/keel? I imagine it would be very, very hard for a SD to avoid a torpedo.

Problem is that the SD might very well have its own submarine escort. I know mine do.

Then you risk retaliation.

Tain't a nuke. Not even a Tac Nuke if you get really technical. It's just a radiation weapon in the end, with minimal blast. You retaliate to my irradiating your ship with HOW many nukes? Cause that looks real reasonable.

Note I'm not saying it won't happen, simply pointing out the "reasonable" argument.

Just thinking of this: presuming a dreadnought is traveling with an escort, couldn't a battery operated/diseal hide below the thermocline (which, If my memory serves me) prevent a lot of active sonar from hitting it, and have other forces track the location, with the submarine surfacing to destroy the rudder/keel? I imagine it would be very, very hard for a SD to avoid a torpedo.


Yes.. but that's why I deploy verticle towed arrays with my ships. :) Putting an active hydro array on the deep sound channel axis will not create the 'shadow zone' looking through the mixed layer will create... meaning the submarine can't hide. :) Yay.


Problem is that the SD might very well have its own submarine escort. I know mine do.


The problem with that is the confusion that can arise if you do get warnings of a submarine within the perimeter. A torpedo might hit a friendly, and not the enemy, which is generally why U.S. SSNs don't operate with larger fleets.

Tain't a nuke. Not even a Tac Nuke if you get really technical. It's just a radiation weapon in the end, with minimal blast. You retaliate to my irradiating your ship with HOW many nukes? Cause that looks real reasonable.

Note I'm not saying it won't happen, simply pointing out the "reasonable" argument.

A neutron bomb does create an explosive shockwave when all the particles are blasted out. And it is a NBC attack... and NBCs, rationally, are normally retaliated against.

Two points - they made be unfeasible but meh, so is Nationstates RP :D

ScramJets? Nuclear ones? I'm pretty sure that given enough research, these could exist. And with the new times of Nuclear Warheads that also could be produced in the modern world (Purified Hydrogen Bombs) etc, this could be feasible even if a direct strike was nice achieved, by say, a couple of hundred meters or so.

I'd also like to point out that the bridge, outhouses and other buildings on top of the ship are exposed, are they not? A nuclear detonation above the ship would not sink her, but would rip apart the top of the ship. And before we start going into uber-bulletproof glass, even if the buildings were not destroyed, you CANNOT operate with a totally fragmented bridge area.

I would be particularly fond of this method - it's the only way a small, Air Force based nation can make its way. But meh, maybe an investment in an SD sooner or later.

What say you, Mecca?

Type 212 submarine uses hydrogen fuel cells and has a 12 week overall time out. This makes it silent and heatless. Lets not forget that active sonar systems do give many false readings, making it possible for a contingent (hell, improve on the design to make it more resistant to sonar) of these subs to breach perimeter security before wrecking loose with all havock?

I'm not trying to incite flames, just trying to figure out what and where the weekness is in a "super fleet" that is apparently immune to all forms of modern warfare.

Type 212 submarine uses hydrogen fuel cells and has a 12 week overall time out. This makes it silent and heatless. Lets not forget that active sonar systems do give many false readings, making it possible for a contingent (hell, improve on the design to make it more resistant to sonar) of these subs to breach perimeter security before wrecking loose with all havock?

I'm not trying to incite flames, just trying to figure out what and where the weekness is in a "super fleet" that is apparently immune to all forms of modern warfare.

It's immune to modern warfare. That's the point. Try WWII style tactics. It works better.

ScramJets? Nuclear ones?


Whaaa? Scramjet is a type of propulsion system, not a weapon.

I'm pretty sure that given enough research, these could exist.


Scramjet driven nuclear tipped missiles can exist, but it's a poor inter-continental missile, since air-breathing engines sorta...fail... above 100,000 feet, and simply don't work in exo-atmospheric designs... you're stuck with a rocket engine, sorry.


I'd also like to point out that the bridge, outhouses and other buildings on top of the ship are exposed, are they not?

Superstructures also generally have very high armor values as well.

A nuclear detonation above the ship would not sink her, but would rip apart the top of the ship. And before we start going into uber-bulletproof glass, even if the buildings were not destroyed, you CANNOT operate with a totally fragmented bridge area.


Thank god that visualizations are rarely needed now.


Type 212 submarine uses hydrogen fuel cells and has a 12 week overall time out.


Do you have any idea as on how many fuel stacks you would need? Here's a good thread on hydrogen fuel cell stack engines:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403654

That's by Verdant Archipelago. I've driven a hydrogen fuel cell powered car. Power output by mass is horrendous..they're just quiet, and you don't need fuel to power them. :)

What about mines?

I probably overlooked something considerably, but what about them?

(sorry to burst in)

What about mines?

I probably overlooked something considerably, but what about them?

(sorry to burst in)

Easy to detect, easy to dispose of.

CAPTOR type mines using a passive ladar/sonar array [small array] aren't a bad idea, actually...they're just a bit expensive, and you can't really lay them out quickly. They would have to be organised into pre-arranged blocks and such.

From what I know about mines, mines are cheap (cheaper than an SD anyway), relatively easy to deploy, and on the contrary, a pain in the ass to dispose of. True, they can be easy to dispose of but when under fire by a considerable force, no little minesweeper is going to risk going out and getting rid of mines. Plus look at the other thing that it just takes so much time.

If i recall one of the problems with the War in Iraq in 2003 was the issue of mines guarding the entrance way to Basra, blocking traffic for two weeks before the port was sufficiently opened again. Now I'm not inferring a SD would be parking in some enemy port but the time consuming process to catelogue, destroy, and dispose of mines would slow down any fleet.

Is it a battleship? Destroyer? Air craft carrier? Looking at storefronts, they all seem to be some weird, expensive, combination of the above. What does a "superdreadnaught" have going for it? Could such a device even float? what is to stop a diseal-powered 1 screw sub from launching a nuclear tipped torpedo directly at it? What about anti-naval bombers from (much cheaper) Nimitz class carriers or smaller? What about guided missle destroyers/frigates/cruisers?
A money pit.

You can do it the NS way and depth charge the sea floor :)

You can do it the NS way and depth charge the sea floor :)

True.

I don't RP with people who say that SDs are MT.

okay...

...What about napalm? :confused:

okay...

...What about napalm? :confused:

Really... the best way to deal with a SD is to have a bunch of cruisers and destroyers with VLS, fire them and then get the heck out. Plus... a few carriers loaded to the hilt with bombers doesn't hurt.

I don't RP with people who say that SDs are MT.

I don't RP with people that whine because they think that there are boundaries between MT and 'PMT' to escape the fact they have no idea how to counteract such things.

Really... the best way to deal with a SD is to have a bunch of cruisers and destroyers with VLS, fire them and then get the heck out. Plus... a few carriers loaded to the hilt with bombers doesn't hurt.

Because of course, the defendent doens't have any VLS?

The best way to deal with a tank is to jump out with a two man ATGM and take aim to its rear. Now, why hasn't the US army thought of that and scrapped all the Abrams?

Oh, wait...

I don't RP with people who say that SDs are MT.

Nice argument.

~~~~~

In any case, as I said before, the best way to deal with a SD if you seriously are looking for an easy way to win a battle... although 'easy' and 'battle' should be mutually exclusive.... is to simply outgun the SD with a ship with smaller guns... using rocket assisted shells or EM acceleration you can easily get similar ranges, and more shells = better chances of coming out victorious. And once you knock out those sensors you can pepper the ship with missiles [ what good is a missile defense without sensors?].

Really... the best way to deal with a SD is to have a bunch of cruisers and destroyers with VLS, fire them and then get the heck out. Plus... a few carriers loaded to the hilt with bombers doesn't hurt.

my thought was that the napalm would kill the crew, perhaps from the heat permeating through the material, or suffocation since the air would be sucked out or the air system can't bring in air from outside and eventually the crew would suffocate.

A looong shot. I know, I know. :(

The big thing I have against SDs is that though the individual technologies may be partly feasible within 10-20 years, the feasibility of integrating such technology and making infrastructure large enough to accomodate such ships is questionable. I would put SDs up there with arming every infantryman with railguns. Remember that 90% of technology is implementation.

You guys want big fleet engagements on massive scales that will probably never ever happen in real life. I've nothing against people who agree to have crazy naval battles, but just keep that stuff away from me.

In my opinion, modern naval battles will probably be really quick and short and so deadly that no one will really want to press an engagement. I cite the fact that in both World Wars, the major naval powers never engaged in a massive decisive battle using gunfire. Jutland really didn't decide anything, and in WW2 gunfights did not involve entire navies.

The big thing I have against SDs is that though the individual technologies may be partly feasible within 10-20 years, the feasibility of integrating such technology and making infrastructure large enough to accomodate such ships is questionable. I would put SDs up there with arming every infantryman with railguns. Remember that 90% of technology is implementation.


Ummm... except arming railguns on SDs is completely more feasible than arming a soldier with a railgun... partly..uh... because.... uh SDs tend to have A LOT of power generation.


You guys want big fleet engagements on massive scales that will probably never ever happen in real life. I've nothing against people who agree to have crazy naval battles, but just keep that stuff away from me.

Hmmm...why? Because you find it hard to fight against it conventionally? It will never happen in real life because there is no nation that can possibly arm a fleet of battleships, and those that can't don't really want to since..uh... we're all allied anyways.


In my opinion, modern naval battles will probably be really quick and short and so deadly that no one will really want to press an engagement.


Of course, since modern naval battles are between the United States' fleet and the river boats of Iraq. Hardly a reason worth noting.

I cite the fact that in both World Wars, the major naval powers never engaged in a massive decisive battle using gunfire. Jutland really didn't decide anything, and in WW2 gunfights did not involve entire navies.

Because the German navy in WWII hardly had the ships to do so. But uh, I guess you completely forgot about the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of the Phillipine Sea... which is...umm...the largest naval battle in modern history. One could also note the absolutely massive allied Armada in the Channel on June 6th, 1944.

So please, offer your reasons on why a SD is not feasible and I will rebuttle them.

One can see the great numbers of arguments on here: http://s13.invisionfree.com/The_NS_Draftroom/index.php?act=idx

Honestly, I don't like SDs. IMO, it would be in drydock all the time, either from some stupid malfunctioning system or too much crap on the hull, in which case by time you clean up one half, it'll be time to clean the other half. Seaweed and sea garbage must be a real pain too for all those jets, eventually they'll get clogged.

Additionally, no ship ever runs at 100%; there always something wrong. In battle, barrels jam more often than many people think, it just that you don't often hear such details because it doesn't make for 'exciting history' and whatnot. And although I have no proof, sometimes I wonder by the reactivity of metals or materials touching each other. Sometimes all the extra protection seems great on paper but some metals and materials don't like to tocuh each other. salt water doesn't like many things either and while great on some lumbering land tanks, sometimes I ponder exactly what the salt water would do to some SDs.

Maintaining such a ship must be a real bitch. Keeping hordes of spare parts, missles, ammo, etc. as well as food, clothes, and other crap to mantain the crews are a real headache. Of course, so does a fleet.

It's biggest asset IMO lays in power projection. An "OMG freakin' floating death star" offshore of any country is great for fear.

If i ever RP against somebody with SDs, i'd bombard them from land with similar ordinance. But I wouldn't send my fleet against them. Instead, while fleets are busy protecting their precious SDs, I'd go commerce raiding. Because if I can't exert control of the seas, I can at least deny my opponent of the same right.

Of course, since modern naval battles are between the United States' fleet and the river boats of Iraq. Hardly a reason worth noting.

I think the Falkland Islands showed the impact and speed of modern naval warfare.

RANDOM BRITISH GUY: Is that a flash from shore I see?

ANOTHER BRITISH GUY: Yep. From an Exocet missile launcher. We got four seconds to live

***explosion***

THE END

(I WANT an Emmy for this!!! :upyours: )

Just a question: I see a lot of dreadnought specs with aircraft on them.... wtf? That, and what is anchoring such large guns? How would it not damage the superstructer of the ship by just firing salvos of those gigantic rounds?

Ummm... except arming railguns on SDs is completely more feasible than arming a soldier with a railgun... partly..uh... because.... uh SDs tend to have A LOT of power generation.

Show me the specs on any SD you want and I will tell you how unfeasible it is.

Hmmm...why? Because you find it hard to fight against it conventionally? It will never happen in real life because there is no nation that can possibly arm a fleet of battleships, and those that can't don't really want to since..uh... we're all allied anyways.

No. I don't RP hoping to always win. I don't really feel like RPing with someone who says the only way to destroy someone's ship is to do some Star Wars-esque run through the smokestack with an H-Bomb or something. Nobody's going to fight a big naval battle in real life because modern naval combat is too deadly, so they'll just sort of sit there negating each other. No one has really fought a naval battle between modern ships, so it's difficult to say how it's going to happen, though.

Of course, since modern naval battles are between the United States' fleet and the river boats of Iraq. Hardly a reason worth noting.

We haven't seen any real modern naval battles so anything we say is speculation.

Because the German navy in WWII hardly had the ships to do so. But uh, I guess you completely forgot about the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of the Phillipine Sea... which is...umm...the largest naval battle in modern history. One could also note the absolutely massive allied Armada in the Channel on June 6th, 1944.

The German navy in WWII was not my example. In World War I, the battle in Jutland was inconclusive because nobody really wanted to lose so they just broke off before there were many losses. The Battle of the Coral Sea was entirely decided by aircraft. Nobody(or very few, to cover my bases) in NS centers their navy around CVs like modern Western powers. The Battle of the Phillipine sea was a much better example but it doesn't really show much. The Japanese command bordered on the insane ordering a gun battle here and it showed. Save the heroics of Taffy 3, the big part of the battle was basically a slaughter of the Japanese battleships by US battleships due to extremely poor tactics and poor choice of moves.

Honestly, I don't like SDs. IMO, it would be in drydock all the time, either from some stupid malfunctioning system or too much crap on the hull, in which case by time you clean up one half, it'll be time to clean the other half. Seaweed and sea garbage must be a real pain too for all those jets, eventually they'll get clogged.


By that logic every ship would be in drydock all the time, so there would be no point to ships in general. That's a horrid exaggeration of logistical requirements.. especially since minor malfuncitions can be fixed at sea.


Additionally, no ship ever runs at 100%; there always something wrong.


ok?


In battle, barrels jam more often than many people think, it just that you don't often hear such details because it doesn't make for 'exciting history' and whatnot. And although I have no proof, sometimes I wonder by the reactivity of metals or materials touching each other. Sometimes all the extra protection seems great on paper but some metals and materials don't like to tocuh each other. salt water doesn't like many things either and while great on some lumbering land tanks, sometimes I ponder exactly what the salt water would do to some SDs.


Ok, so there's no point to anything bigger than a cruiser then...and no point to naval guns in general. Normally you mix vanadium with steel to reduce creep to salt water, while metalloids do tend to mix well... which is why most armored schemes have low levels of vanadium, manganese and carbon; on both naval vessels and tanks (rolled homogenous armor). And, something that has been said before, length of ships has nothing to do with increased fatigue, since fatigue would not be collective, it would be individual on certain length fibers...so it has more to do with the plate, as opposed to the ship as a whole.


Maintaining such a ship must be a real bitch. Keeping hordes of spare parts, missles, ammo, etc. as well as food, clothes, and other crap to mantain the crews are a real headache. Of course, so does a fleet.


Yay for 173 trillion dollar budgets and a 6.1 billion population!


It's biggest asset IMO lays in power projection. An "OMG freakin' floating death star" offshore of any country is great for fear.


Yep.. and the power of a 25" gun firing a 6 ton projectile into your ship... although, personally, I'd rather go with 300,000-400,000 ton dreadnoughts.


Instead, while fleets are busy protecting their precious SDs, I'd go commerce raiding. Because if I can't exert control of the seas, I can at least deny my opponent of the same right.


What stops them deploying similarly fast ships to stop you?

Show me the specs on any SD you want and I will tell you how unfeasible it is.


http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10646417&postcount=1326

Go for it.


No. I don't RP hoping to always win. I don't really feel like RPing with someone who says the only way to destroy someone's ship is to do some Star Wars-esque run through the smokestack with an H-Bomb or something.


Ok, don't RP with them... but don't put all SDs into that horrid generalisation. I've lost a dreadnought before... 7,000 dead... not all people who use SDs are wankers... believe it or not.

Nobody's going to fight a big naval battle in real life because modern naval combat is too deadly, so they'll just sort of sit there negating each other.


When Admiral Rickover was interviewed by Congress and they asked him what a Tomahawk would do to an Iowa, he said that the next day they would have repaint the ship. No, it's not that deadly...get over it. That's why the Marines want their Iowas back.
.



In World War I, the battle in Jutland was inconclusive because nobody really wanted to lose so they just broke off before there were many losses.


Ummm....so what does this have to do with us? There are plenty of people who don't mind loosing a few SDs.

Nobody(or very few, to cover my bases) in NS centers their navy around CVs like modern Western powers.


Actually, a lot of people do... I use a correlation between both... combined arms doctrine is always superior.


The Battle of the Phillipine sea was a much better example but it doesn't really show much. The Japanese command bordered on the insane ordering a gun battle here and it showed. Save the heroics of Taffy 3, the big part of the battle was basically a slaughter of the Japanese battleships by US battleships due to extremely poor tactics and poor choice of moves.

Yay for US battleships...another reason for big guns!

Hooray for the Tin Can Sailors. Screw the BBs, it's all about Taffy 3 man.

*no more off topic from me*

By that logic every ship would be in drydock all the time, so there would be no point to ships in general. That's a horrid exaggeration of logistical requirements.. especially since minor malfuncitions can be fixed at sea.


My logic was bigger the ship= longer to clean.


ok?


More complex systems= higher chance of error and breakdonws. I was trying to get at that. If one cruiser gets shut down for something. Okay. The fleet moves on. The SD has a majpr problem, you got a bigger problem, because that is the fleet.


Ok, so there's no point to anything bigger than a cruiser then...and no point to naval guns in general. Normally you mix vanadium with steel to reduce creep to salt water, while metalloids do tend to mix well... which is why most armored schemes have low levels of vanadium, manganese and carbon; on both naval vessels and tanks (rolled homogenous armor). And, something that has been said before, length of ships has nothing to do with increased fatigue, since fatigue would not be collective, it would be individual on certain length fibers...so it has more to do with the plate, as opposed to the ship as a whole.
Good point. See, its people like you that make NS great. Its great that you help to explain the logic behind things before people run off to RPs and have dissing matches because they can't understand each other.


Yay for 173 trillion dollar budgets and a 6.1 billion population!


Right on dude!


Yep.. and the power of a 25" gun firing a 6 ton projectile into your ship... although, personally, I'd rather go with 300,000-400,000 ton dreadnoughts.


Even a frigate has some sort of power projection. My Naval science teacher (yes i have "naval science" at my school) tells we students how the frigate he was serving on once impressed Guatemalans because they never saw a ship like that before.


What stops them deploying similarly fast ships to stop you?

Your mom.

...Okay seriously, uh, hmmm... *ponders*

Well since my fleet would be sortied nearby the ships going against the commerce, I might be able to outgun or destroy such fast ships. And there's always submarines.

Actually, my mother is quite the powerful woman... you'd be suprised at her ability to stop naval orders... she's from Spain and she has a Spanish accents and a very high pitch voice.... yes.

Actually, my mother is quite the powerful woman... you'd be suprised at her ability to stop naval orders... she's from Spain and she has a Spanish accents and a very high pitch voice.... yes.

Well then... forget SDs!!!

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.p...postcount=1326

Go for it.

That's quite a bit better(in terms of realism) design than I've seen before, for an SD. I wouldn't mind seeing it in an RP if they were more of a one or two-off sort of thing. There are parts of it I find a little off, but I like it far better than the trimaran wank-ships I usually see.


When Admiral Rickover was interviewed by Congress and they asked him what a Tomahawk would do to an Iowa, he said that the next day they would have repaint the ship. No, it's not that deadly...get over it. That's why the Marines want their Iowas back.

I think Rickover was exaggerating with his quote there in order to try and bring the Iowas back. The Marines want the Iowas back for the big guns in fire support, which, in my opinion, is a valid complaint but I don't think bringing back BBs is the right answer. That would be like me quoting somebody who said that the Bismarck was unsinkable.

Anyway, Macabees, you seem to be a good RPer, and anything can be made okay to me if it's a good RPer, but NS is filled with RP-to-win types who run wankships. The balance here is the tech levels. I suppose I'm just a strict guy when it comes to tech eras.

I think I could probably destroy any SD on NS with a much cheaper strike group of attack submarines. It's almost impossible for something that big to evade torpedoes, and even with its amazing size and capacity for damage, getting hit with, lets say, four torpedoes adds up to over 2000 pounds of high explosive.

I think the Falkland Islands showed the impact and speed of modern naval warfare.

RANDOM BRITISH GUY: Is that a flash from shore I see?

ANOTHER BRITISH GUY: Yep. From an Exocet missile launcher. We got four seconds to live

***explosion***

THE END

(I WANT an Emmy for this!!! :upyours: )

Untrue, they have fired off virtually every single non-nuclear anti-ship missile in the world against the IOWA-Class Battleship... none ever penetrated the armor, even when hitting the same place continously. They found that Armored Piercing Bombs would BARELY do the trick... and on NS, battleships and SDs are WAY more armored then the Iowa.

The main three reasons the Major Powers no longer field battleships are...

1: Expensive, however, on NS with our multi-trillion dollar defense budgets, this is not an issue. 2: Manpower requirements, again, the 3 billion+ nations on NS, this is not an issue. 3: Need, last time I checked, the only wars currently going on were being waged either BY piss poor, third world countries or AGAINST piss poor, third world countries who are not capable of fielding ANY sort of reasonable Navy. Therefore, the battleship simply isnt needed in the real world. But this is NS... major powers and superpowers are at war with each other all the time. Therefore there is a need for these ships.

all you need is one of the new DDX destroyers with rocket propelled 5-inch armor piercing rounds, or a trident missile from a ohio and i think youre good to go. :mp5: shwing.

Untrue, they have fired off virtually every single non-nuclear anti-ship missile in the world against the IOWA-Class Battleship... none ever penetrated the armor, even when hitting the same place continously. They found that Armored Piercing Bombs would BARELY do the trick... and on NS, battleships and SDs are WAY more armored then the Iowa.

That's a load of crap. No Iowa-class ship has been used for targeting practice/SINKEX. Furthermore, that's an obvious load of crap. The Fritz-X of WWII fame had 28 inches armor penetration when dropped from 20,000 feet, one went right through the bottom of the HMS Warspite. Do you propose that we can't do any better than that?


Therefore, the battleship simply isnt needed in the real world. But this is NS... major powers and superpowers are at war with each other all the time. Therefore there is a need for these ships.

By that logic we should bring back good old fashioned galleys. Airplanes & missiles > guns. Planes and missiles project power farther and more accurately than any gun can (ignoring theoretical possibilities like railguns and scramjet rounds, though I wouldn't vouch for the accuracy of those).

There is no simple answer. As most people have said, the best solution is pretty much massing smaller ships with guns against the larger ship, and pinpricking it to death.

Personally, I try to keep a few satellites above my nation with rods from gods. Massing these on an SD will defidentally do some damage, to say the least(direct impacts). While not well guidable, they have limited ability to do so, and use high speed to hit the SD before it can really start moving(depends on acceleration of the SD, of course).

Not a fool-proof plan, but we consider it our anti-SD plan, not that we get into war anymore really.

That's a load of crap. No Iowa-class ship has been used for targeting practice/SINKEX. Furthermore, that's an obvious load of crap. The Fritz-X of WWII fame had 28 inches armor penetration when dropped from 20,000 feet, one went right through the bottom of the HMS Warspite. Do you propose that we can't do any better than that?

Meh... my source was another NSer. Thanks for the correction though.

Okay, what is the penetration on the SS-N-26, Tomahawk, HARPOON, and Exocet? I am looking and I am not seeing any penetration data on these.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/tomahawk.mpeg

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/tomahawk-ani.gif

A single Tomahawk with a Bunker Buster warhead could probably sink an Iowa...

Meh... my source was another NSer. Thanks for the correction though.

Okay, what is the penetration on the SS-N-26, Tomahawk, HARPOON, and Exocet? I am looking and I am not seeing any penetration data on these.

No idea, but no one has thick armor belts anymore so there's no purpose to putting high penetration on them (and hence they don't have them). I'd imagine that if you put an armor piercing cap on the SS-N-26 it'd punch through just about anything given it's Mach 4 dive.

Honestly, there's not much to punching through battleship armor. TOW goes through 30+ inches as it is. Not impossible to put that warhead on an anti-shipping missile (which is what I've partly done with one of mine).