NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm confused, what is a super dreadnaught and why is it a godmod ship that is accepted? I find it unreasonable to allow a 20th century ship to be immune to everything in my arsenal except nukes.

Just what the heck are they!?

Most real-life modern ships are thin-skinned electronics warfare platforms.

Think of an Iowa class: designed to take a hit from a car-sized shell. A harpoon or exocet missile would, quite literally, bounce off of it.

Now scale an Iowa up to about a kilometer and a half: you have a heavily armored ship which could take a regular anti-shipping missile and laugh at it. There is very little godmoddish about it; there ARE purpouse-built weapons designed to pwn them, such as most munitions from ZMI.

Generally, it's an extremely large warship, possessing guns of very large caliber, usually over 24" or 610mm, large batteries of missiles, often in the thousands, and extremely thick armoring, often exceding one meter in thickness.

While they aren't totally immune to being sunk, they are extremely difficult to sink, and doing so generally requires one or several of the following:

1. An equivalently armed superdreadnought.
2. Very heavy keelbreaker torpedoes.
3. Very large anti-ship missiles, some of which are as big as ICBMs.
4. Nuclear weapons.

Also, there's nothing godmod about a superdreadnought on its own. They really are very difficult to sink. Although people always refer to battleships being rendered obsolete by air power, that didn't make them any easier to sink. For example, the Japanese battleship Musashi took 20 torpedoes and 17 bomb hits as well as 18 near misses before sinking in the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

That is so weak though! The Iowa has thick armor, but would that stop most missiles nowadays? I don't think so.

That is so weak though! The Iowa has thick armor, but would that stop most missiles nowadays? I don't think so.

Actually, it would, because most warships today have very little or no armor plating whatsoever. Thus, anti-ship missiles are built only to penetrate a few inches of armor plating. The Iowa-class battleships had somewhere around 18 inches of armor plating, as I recall.

Edit: The armor plating scheme for an Iowa-class battleship:

Belt: 12.1 in (307 mm)
Bulkheads: 11.3 in (287 mm)
Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (295 to 439 mm)
Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm)
Decks: 7.5 in (191 mm)

oh dear not another SD rant, battleship vs carrier or armour vs missile debate, have we not had enough of these threads?

I'm confused, what is a super dreadnaught and why is it a godmod ship that is accepted? I find it unreasonable to allow a 20th century ship to be immune to everything in my arsenal except nukes.

Just what the heck are they!?
Technically too, Eralineta, SDs are doable in real life. That is, if any nation wanted to go to the effort of constructing a harbor and logistical chain for even one ship that displaces up to or over 20 million tonnes (e.g. Questers' Hood (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/HMS_Hood), usually considered the "super-dreadnought" of the NS world due to its iconic style, superb service record, and sheer power) and watch as it got pwned by a massive carrier-spam.
The reason they're accepted is actually quite fundamental to RP. Simply put, you dictate your own losses and nobody else; unlike in the real world where certain things will always happen if you use the same inputs within the same general circumstances. Now although it is possible to godmod the defense too, since NS point defenses for ships benefit most from this article of roleplay canon, battleships are VASTLY harder to missile- or bomber-spam than in the real world. Combine that with the sort of point defenses on Hood or other typical SDs, meant to show more realistic naval roleplayers up for trying to ape RL tactics, and you see how fantasy ships suddenly become workable in what is after all a fantasy world.
As an example I've learned through personal RP experience, in the Circum-Zansk War linked in my sig I tried three missile-spams in the hundreds specifically targeting two New Nicksyllvanian SDs as much as any other ship in that fleet of theirs I defeated off Zanski. I got more than my share of other ships and drove the fleet into neutral internment at Havvy, but because NN has a fundamental right to dictate his losses, he (apparently) chose to sacrifice many escorts and even the aircraft carrier Tadamichi in a massive explosion (me = :D) so that both of his SDs (one already crippled by a torpedo hit) could survive; not that its done him much good so far in the overall war. Bottom line, Eralineta, this is NS not the real world; and if players want to build gigantic battleships which would never work (or never work well anyway) IRL, that's their right so long as they're not invincible-as-such (which is godmodding). Wanky, yes; but not godmodding since a properly-done (read: massive, multi-axis, &c) torpedo/super-torpedo, super-bomb or super-missile attack can pwn most SDs easily if a player can bring that sort of attack to bear.

Generally, it's an extremely large warship, possessing guns of very large caliber, usually over 24" or 610mm, large batteries of missiles, often in the thousands, and extremely thick armoring, often exceding one meter in thickness.

While they aren't totally immune to being sunk, they are extremely difficult to sink, and doing so generally requires one or several of the following:

1. An equivalently armed superdreadnought.
2. Very heavy keelbreaker torpedoes.
3. Very large anti-ship missiles, some of which are as big as ICBMs.
4. Nuclear weapons.

Also, there's nothing godmod about a superdreadnought on its own. They really are very difficult to sink. Although people always refer to battleships being rendered obsolete by air power, that didn't make them any easier to sink. For example, the Japanese battleship Musashi took 20 torpedoes and 17 bomb hits as well as 18 near misses before sinking in the Battle of Leyte Gulf.

The Yamato was a superior battleship to the Iowa that was also sunk by air. Modern systems would only enhance the destruction of the ships.

A key flaw in the Iowa class ships was the torpedo defense and the weakness from the air. Seriously such defenses as a meter thick of armor on the sides is a joke. Aerial weapons would puncture through and burn out the ship. Attack the bridge and the ship is damaged. Battleships are jokes when met with precision.

Super dreadnaughts seem like floating scrap heaps when you use a couple of artillery barrages or pin-point guided cluster bombing on key pieces.

Am I right?

The Yamato was a superior battleship to the Iowa that was also sunk by air. Modern systems would only enhance the destruction of the ships.

A key flaw in the Iowa class ships was the torpedo defense and the weakness from the air. Seriously such defenses as a meter thick of armor on the sides is a joke. Aerial weapons would puncture through and burn out the ship. Attack the bridge and the ship is damaged. Battleships are jokes when met with precision.

Super dreadnaughts seem like floating scrap heaps when you use a couple of artillery barrages or pin-point guided cluster bombing on key pieces.

Am I right?

The Iowa-class ships were by no means weak against air attack, in fact, I recall seeing a show where it was said that Missouri on her own shot down nine Japanese aircraft in one engagement. The Iowas also were often accompanied by lots of air cover, being escorts for the fast carrier task forces in the Pacific.

Now if a battleship entirely lacks proper air cover, like Yamato did, as well as Prince of Wales and Repulse, they sure as hell are vulnerable to air attack. Most NSers who use battleships/dreadnoughts/superdreadnoughts are well aware of this fact, and generally their capital ships don't go around without air cover.

The Yamato was a superior battleship to the Iowa that was also sunk by air. Modern systems would only enhance the destruction of the ships.

A key flaw in the Iowa class ships was the torpedo defense and the weakness from the air. Seriously such defenses as a meter thick of armor on the sides is a joke. Aerial weapons would puncture through and burn out the ship. Attack the bridge and the ship is damaged. Battleships are jokes when met with precision.

Super dreadnaughts seem like floating scrap heaps when you use a couple of artillery barrages or pin-point guided cluster bombing on key pieces.

Am I right?
Not entirely.

The flaws in your logic are two fold:

1. The Yamato, while on paper superior, had miserably poor aa defense (only 5 inch guns, and 25mm guns, the former were slow to track, while the latter lacked both stopping power, range, and rof), and thus was in no way superior against air attack than the Iowa, which was literally bristling with superior aa weaponry.

2. No capital ship, be she a carrier, or a superdreadnought, sails alone. While the ship's own aa defenses might be inferior to say a large missle cruiser (lets face it, those big turrets take up a whole lot of space, both above and below decks), her escorts should make up for it.

The Iowa-class ships were by no means weak against air attack, in fact, I recall seeing a show where it was said that Missouri on her own shot down nine Japanese aircraft in one engagement. The Iowas also were often accompanied by lots of air cover, being escorts for the fast carrier task forces in the Pacific.

Now if a battleship entirely lacks proper air cover, like Yamato did, as well as Prince of Wales and Repulse, they sure as hell are vulnerable to air attack. Most NSers who use battleships/dreadnoughts/superdreadnoughts are well aware of this fact, and generally their capital ships don't go around without air cover.

Indeed. Battleships without aircraft covering them could be compared to tanks without infantry support. In such a state, the tanks are vulnerable because enemy antitank teams can get in amongst them and shoot them holy. However, with infantry support, the tank is much more formidable, a nearly unstoppable powerhouse, when used right. Battleships are essentially the same way. Without aerial cover, they are dangerous but vulnerable. With it, it's probably safe to say they can be almost unstoppable.

Think about it this way: An Exocet carries a 165 kilogram warhead. Meanwhile, the Iowa's 16 inch guns fired a shell that massed 1225 kilograms, over seven times heavier than the Exocet's warhead. An Exocet isn't too much better than a six inch gun, which won't even scratch an Iowa's deck armor, let alone it's belt.

Then we factor in the fact that NS Superdreads are rather more armored than the Iowa. Quester's HMS Hood, for example, has deck armor a full 2.5 meters thick, with a belt of almost four meters of armor, capable of bouncing 16" shells. A 2000 pound bomb is going to do pretty much the same thing. And then there's the problem of actually getting close enough to drop the bomb on the thing: With 230 45mm AA guns and 20,000 VLS cells, the Hood can fight off aircraft reasonably well on its own. With a full fleet surrounding it, a Hood is going to be virtually impervious to air and missile attacks.

Rofl. Eralineta, you're hilarious.

You should've seen his thread disproving the usefulness of the Longbow RADAR system. Now THAT was hilarious.

Rofl. Eralineta, you're hilarious. Like Hataria, except you can spell.

Btw, I'm not gonna claim Hood is impervious to aerial attack - but attacking a group of ships properly configured to defend a Hood (adn a Hood of course) only by air will mean that you will take more losses than its worth to do so.

You should've seen his thread disproving the usefulness of the Longbow RADAR system. Now THAT was hilarious.

Eh? What the Hell!? Longbow's effectiveness on the battlefield has been proved in combat on multiple occasions.

He can't spell super dreadnought...

As I said, Eralineta is like Hataria mk2, the difference being Eral can actually spell...

Am I right?

No. No, you're not.

For future reference, here is the NS Wiki page on Super Dreadnoughts (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Super-Dreadnoughts), and a scaled comparison diagram between the Iowa Class Battleship and the Doujin Class (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v195/The_Freethinkers/DoujinBBCNsmall.jpg) Super Dreadnought. As you can recognize in the Iowa-Doujin diagram, direct comparison of the capabilities of a battleship like the Iowa against the capabilities of a Super Dreadnought are difficult to make since the size difference is so massive, and this is further made more difficult by the advances in material technology, guided missile weapons, and point defense systems since 1945. Suffice it to say, a modern Super Dreadnought can take much more punishment then an Iowa, but with the advanced defenses of today, in combination with a competent battlegroup escort, it might not even have to.

As I said, Eralineta is like Hataria mk2, the difference being Eral can actually spell...

More effectively than Hataria can, anyhow.

Then we factor in the fact that NS Superdreads are rather more armored than the Iowa. Quester's HMS Hood, for example, has deck armor a full 2.5 meters thick, with a belt of almost four meters of armor, capable of bouncing 16" shells. A 2000 pound bomb is going to do pretty much the same thing. And then there's the problem of actually getting close enough to drop the bomb on the thing: With 230 45mm AA guns and 20,000 VLS cells, the Hood can fight off aircraft reasonably well on its own. With a full fleet surrounding it, a Hood is going to be virtually impervious to air and missile attacks.

That’s why I love my Hood!

That’s why I love my Hood!

...Excuse me, I just fell off my chair laughing at how dirty that sounds out of context...

Eh? What the Hell!? Longbow's effectiveness on the battlefield has been proved in combat on multiple occasions.
That's what we told him. Apparently his opinions on the ineffectiveness of millimeter band RADAR outweigh real-world data.

Think about it this way: An Exocet carries a 165 kilogram warhead. Meanwhile, the Iowa's 16 inch guns fired a shell that massed 1225 kilograms, over seven times heavier than the Exocet's warhead. An Exocet isn't too much better than a six inch gun, which won't even scratch an Iowa's deck armor, let alone it's belt.

Then we factor in the fact that NS Superdreads are rather more armored than the Iowa. Quester's HMS Hood, for example, has deck armor a full 2.5 meters thick, with a belt of almost four meters of armor, capable of bouncing 16" shells. A 2000 pound bomb is going to do pretty much the same thing. And then there's the problem of actually getting close enough to drop the bomb on the thing: With 230 45mm AA guns and 20,000 VLS cells, the Hood can fight off aircraft reasonably well on its own. With a full fleet surrounding it, a Hood is going to be virtually impervious to air and missile attacks.

That's why the best way to combat SD's is with dedicated anti-SD submarines. SD's tend to be slow, due to their immense mass, so it's a relatively simple procedure for a submarine to scoot out ahead of the SD taskforce and then wait for them to cruise through the cross hairs, so to speak. Fire a full spread of keelbreakers and run like hell. Another even more effective, if more difficult way is to create wolfpacks when you know an SD is on the move. Five submarines stand a better chance than one.

...Excuse me, I just fell off my chair laughing at how dirty that sounds out of context...

LOL

I’m here to make people laugh and it does sound dirty. Maybe I would have said ‘That’s why I like my Hood SD.’ Sounds better, right?

That's why the best way to combat SD's is with dedicated anti-SD submarines. SD's tend to be slow, due to their immense mass, so it's a relatively simple procedure for a submarine to scoot out ahead of the SD taskforce and then wait for them to cruise through the cross hairs, so to speak. Fire a full spread of keelbreakers and run like hell. Another even more effective, if more difficult way is to create wolfpacks when you know an SD is on the move. Five submarines stand a better chance than one.

Assuming you can actually penetrate the ships escort fleet ;)

Assuming you can actually penetrate the ships escort fleet ;)

Read what I wrote again. The only way to detect a submarine that's just sitting at all stop in your path is with constant active sonar searching, and even then you can't be sure there's not a gap in your defenses, because the sub captain knows exactly where all you're sonar equipped escorts are, and he can look around and find himself a way in.

That's why the best way to combat SD's is with dedicated anti-SD submarines. SD's tend to be slow, due to their immense mass, so it's a relatively simple procedure for a submarine to scoot out ahead of the SD taskforce and then wait for them to cruise through the cross hairs, so to speak. Fire a full spread of keelbreakers and run like hell. Another even more effective, if more difficult way is to create wolfpacks when you know an SD is on the move. Five submarines stand a better chance than one.
There is a counter method to this, you know..

Since a superdreadnought taskforce is already so huge that they will be heard for miles around on sonar, then you can just use rings of asw escorts to counter attempts at this sort of trick.

Heck, the in close escorts could be running with active sonar banging away, as the noise from the ships drive shafts alone is enough to be heard for miles around..(yet another case for never sailing a capital war ship on her own, period)

There is a counter method to this, you know..

Since a superdreadnought taskforce is already so huge that they will be heard for miles around on sonar, then you can just use rings of asw escorts to counter attempts at this sort of trick.

Heck, the in close escorts could be running with active sonar banging away, as the noise from the ships drive shafts alone is enough to be heard for miles around..(yet another case for never sailing a capital war ship on her own, period)

That's a seriously huge fleet then, you're talking dozens and dozens of escort ships in order to detect a sub far away enough. If you pull in too close to the SD, the sub can launch torps on wires and guide them in under the thermocline layer. You won't hear em until it's too late, and when all your ships go crazy, the sub cuts the wires and runs.

Mate, that is how I'd sail a superdread, myself..

Those things are a enourmous investement in funds (both to aquire, and train the crews), and you do not want to risk loosing a one just because you didn't escort her properly.

Point taken, but I know that a wolf pack coordinating their efforts to draw escorts away could get in and make the kill.

That's what we told him. Apparently his opinions on the ineffectiveness of millimeter band RADAR outweigh real-world data.

Doesn't let reality interfere with how he sees the world, eh? I know the kind only too well...

That's a seriously huge fleet then, you're talking dozens and dozens of escort ships in order to detect a sub far away enough. If you pull in too close to the SD, the sub can launch torps on wires and guide them in under the thermocline layer. You won't hear em until it's too late, and when all your ships go crazy, the sub cuts the wires and runs.
Mate, that is how I'd sail a superdread, myself..

Those things are a enourmous investement in funds (both to aquire, and train the crews), and you do not want to risk loosing a one just because you didn't escort her properly.

Read what I wrote again. The only way to detect a submarine that's just sitting at all stop in your path is with constant active sonar searching, and even then you can't be sure there's not a gap in your defenses, because the sub captain knows exactly where all you're sonar equipped escorts are, and he can look around and find himself a way in.

Well, yes, typically my inner layer of heavy DDs will have their active sonar blaring out and it will cover all the entrances in. I'm pretty sure that if you fire a torp to hit one of them then one of two things will happen:

1. You'll be picked up and killed, cos torps are loud.
2. DDs from the outer or middle picket will move into cover that - or HELOs will do the job, and in any case by doing that you're showing which path you're going in.

Not that I think you'd be stupid enough to try that. But my SDs /are/ escorted by dozens of DDs with overlapping SONAR ranges and lots and lots of HELOs.

Point taken, but I know that a wolf pack coordinating their efforts to draw escorts away could get in and make the kill.
The escorts wouldn't fall for it. You don't have to send a dd after a contact any more, it's helo can do the job just fine (even better, often) in it's place.

And trust me, a force this large is going to have a whole lot of heloes on board to answer this sort of threat..

That's a seriously huge fleet then, you're talking dozens and dozens of escort ships in order to detect a sub far away enough. If you pull in too close to the SD, the sub can launch torps on wires and guide them in under the thermocline layer. You won't hear em until it's too late, and when all your ships go crazy, the sub cuts the wires and runs.

Don't most NS ships today have some sort of Underwater CIWS to defend against a torpedo spam? Like supercavitating minitorps to kill oncoming torpedoes?

How feasible would an underwater Metal Storm unit be as a last defense against torpedoes be? Contact fused explosive rounds.

What is with the trend of upgunning CIWS guns to impossibly large calibers. 20mm is the low end, with 30mm the current MT side. I can understand 40mm shells being used, but I saw a 60mm CIWS system. That is mortar sized, I doubt it can fire fast enough.

Isn't the point of CIWS to fire so many damn rounds it will fill the skies with ammo and ensure the missile has to run into something?

The durability of SDs is rather overstated.

I won't bother to argue about it as people have been over this again and again and again and I wouldn't be bringing anything new to the table.

Suffice it to say that a lot of modern heavy ASMs can hurt an SD, as can any modern torpedo.

What is with the trend of upgunning CIWS guns to impossibly large calibers. 20mm is the low end, with 30mm the current MT side. I can understand 40mm shells being used, but I saw a 60mm CIWS system. That is mortar sized, I doubt it can fire fast enough.

Isn't the point of CIWS to fire so many damn rounds it will fill the skies with ammo and ensure the missile has to run into something?

it really depends, the use of 35mm and 40mm weapons for CIWS is more dependent on the capacity of individual rounds and fancy fuzing options than rate of fire, bofors are pushing thier 57mm gun system as a CIWS using 3P ammo and i belive that is more or less what the pair of 57mm guns on the DDG-1000 Zumwalt is for.

Oerlikon with thier 35mm AHEAD rounds and bofors with thier 40 and 57mm 3P roudns both have lots of demonstrations and litreature about how thier solutions are superior to existing 20 and 30mm systems. Personally i find the claims of 35mm AHEAD a bit more belivable but that is just me.

As for rate of fire there are rl 60mm guns firing at over 100rpm and 57mm weapons at 220rpm so a push to fast forty levels (about 300rpm) might not be impossible.

You should note that sub-millimeter systems are ineffective compared to new technology. By this I mean 340 Ghz. This sees through fog and cannot be hindered. The signal is produced through augmenting four 85 Ghz wavelengths into one. This way the signal is not losing range for sensitivity. It carrys both the range and higher sensitivity for only a slightly larger system. The draw back is the back it is more expensive, but generation is easier.

The longbow's poor range of 9 Km is an example of this. Using submillimeter wavelengths the range would be double that easily. Also the advantage of submillimeter radar would be increased as that it would be even harder to jam (against say PMT jamming means). It will be more effective and as long as you have the propulsion you can make a better missile that will have a better window of firing and better means to track as a whole.

Don't mock it, its far better then you joked about.
Read the article for yourself: http://www.physorg.com/news95937386.html

Also for aerial attack I meant actual bombing from a distance (say other ships or coastal defenses) that do not employ air superiority over the fleet, since there will be no air superiority if you get close.

I'm referring to using railguns and heavy missiles to carry large amounts of high explosive cluster bombs or using precision guided missiles to strike the ships and reduce the effectiveness. Crippling the ships.

Escorts are annoying, but most escorts could be taken care of fairly quickly with railguns as well. I am annoyed that a SD in a RP can be expected to take a three-ton railgun projectile and have it 'bounce off into the water with only a tiny dent to show for the impact'.

Destroying SD's by powerful bombardment as they enter the waters will give ample time to destroy the force. As long as air superiority and threat elimination from long-distance weaponry is maintained the threat of a SD should be relatively small.

When dealing with SD's and their escorts I'm going to use heavy damaging weapons, like the kind for bunker busting. MOAB and tactical nuke cannons or missiles. No SD should be able to laugh them off as I've seen.

Don't most NS ships today have some sort of Underwater CIWS to defend against a torpedo spam? Like supercavitating minitorps to kill oncoming torpedoes?

How feasible would an underwater Metal Storm unit be as a last defense against torpedoes be? Contact fused explosive rounds.

I was wondering that myself. However the ability of supercavating missiles results in very poor turning and very short distances, this would be rather impractical unless it was a special build for an enemy fleet coming into a very specific area.

Underwater attack seems unlikely without having special USVs to do this task. I consider this to be a secondary option to deal with them as you can effectively detonate a nuke under the ship without the threat of being destroyed as well. The USV would essentially be able to go under and use a nuke to sink the SD and many nearby ships by rising up from deep down and if attacked could still detonate and take everything out with it.

Eralineta: You could probaly use a nuclear-tipped torpedo to punch far greater into an SD then a conventional torp would; and as far as I know, nuke torps aren't illegal yet.

However, SDs are far greater assets than you make them out to be.

There's a reason everyone likes them. They have incredible armor, and with the argument for missiles-don't even bother. The CIWS and defensive screens are far too good to punch into the SD. You'd have to wipe out the escorts first. As for Railguns-limited range. The SD, be contrast, could simply pound with either missiles or guns from a great distance.

If you want an effective solution, spam a missile barrage in the six-digit range, then use a swarm of subs to get underneath and launch a flurry of heavy torps. There's no way that the fleet, even if it's giant, can fend off both at once, because the missiles obviously are going to preoccupy a force if there's that many being launched. This will give the subs precious time to get in, shoot, and get out fast. This'll take out either the SD itself or a bunch of escorts, clearing the road for your force to actually start doing damage.

They ain't invincible; they're just really good.

I have to agree with all my naval shipping designer companions here. While the SDN is generally over used and seen too often as indestructable.
The theories on sinking an SDN from underwater are well founded but are fundelmentally flawed in places.

To sink an SDN with torpedoes you have to assume you can get close enough to do it with any sort of under water weapon. Any self-respecting nation with an SDN should and would give it an extremly heavy escort, have ASW counter-measures on full both under water and in the air. The sub or underwater attacker will be killed.

Sinking it at port is easy. Independent Hitmen scored a great victory for the Haven Pact in the Golden War of Succession by sinking the Macabeian SDN Feathermore in harbour. LIkewise with the Macabees, he sunk one of my Catholic Class SDN with nuclear weapons while in harbour.

The best tactic i've found isn't to over whelm it with missiles (although it does work sometimes), but simple bunker buster bombs achieve wonders.

To comment on the CIWS rant- 35mm straight is what i use. Not overly large and is extremly reliable. I think i remember readin on this thread somewhere someone commenting that the purpose of CIWS is to throw loads of rounds at incoming missiles. I use a thing called ILMS/CIWS cannons which do this but with extremly accuracy. But the principle is the same- shoot lots of bullets at a target and you're bound to get it.

More recent are super capital ships. While i consider these things as ridiculous and completly unfeasible (although i do have a single class) the same offensive techniques are used against tjem as SDNs. SDNs are huge things and are uber cool and effective- that's why i have them. They add character to my Royal Navy and i think everybody else who has them can agree with me on that point.

I was wondering that myself. However the ability of supercavating missiles results in very poor turning and very short distances, this would be rather impractical unless it was a special build for an enemy fleet coming into a very specific area.

Underwater attack seems unlikely without having special USVs to do this task. I consider this to be a secondary option to deal with them as you can effectively detonate a nuke under the ship without the threat of being destroyed as well. The USV would essentially be able to go under and use a nuke to sink the SD and many nearby ships by rising up from deep down and if attacked could still detonate and take everything out with it.

Irrelevant as a CIWS. The idea is I'm probably going to be firing a sub-80mm Torpedo, perhaps even an elaborate spike as a last resort to prevent the torpedo strike.

An ounce of prevention is worth at least $2-4 billion US for the current market price of a carrier or battleship.

I have to agree with all my naval shipping designer companions here. While the SDN is generally over used and seen too often as indestructable.
The theories on sinking an SDN from underwater are well founded but are fundelmentally flawed in places.

To sink an SDN with torpedoes you have to assume you can get close enough to do it with any sort of under water weapon. Any self-respecting nation with an SDN should and would give it an extremly heavy escort, have ASW counter-measures on full both under water and in the air. The sub or underwater attacker will be killed.

Losing one, or even a handful of subs is a small price to pay for destroying or even heavily damaging an SD.

Losing one, or even a handful of subs is a small price to pay for destroying or even heavily damaging an SD.

i agree but the subs have to get past that screen of destroyers, cruisers and frigates. They won't get near the fleet let alone the SDN. I make it common naval formation of my fleets to have the SDNs at the centre with the escorts fanning outwards protecting the SDN from such underwater threats.

There's a reason everyone likes them. They have incredible armor, and with the argument for missiles-don't even bother. The CIWS and defensive screens are far too good to punch into the SD. You'd have to wipe out the escorts first. As for Railguns-limited range. The SD, be contrast, could simply pound with either missiles or guns from a great distance.


As well as being a penis replacer or augmentor, the Superdreadnaught takes advantage of something the US Navy found really valuable in the invasion during Desert Storm.

A cruise missile is a million a shot. Airplanes can be shot down, and those things cost multimillions for dropping thousand dollar bombs.

Take the delivery vehicle out of the equation, just fire a damn shell that far. An unopposed Superdreadnaught can unleash a deadly rain of fire onto an enemy shoreline. Possibly even single handedly crushing a shore defense to pave the way for an invasion.

It also remains a powerful surface combatant. Some of the newer ones are the ultimate capital ship, containing both guns, missiles, helicopters and carrier aircraft.

Just remember the Resource to Kill Ratio. Is the RTK Ratio good? $200 billion US SD vs $200 billion US SD? 1:1? Fuck that.

2000 $1 million US cruise missiles vs $200 billion US SD? 100:1? Hell yes.

I'm referring to using railguns and heavy missiles to carry large amounts of high explosive cluster bombs or using precision guided missiles to strike the ships and reduce the effectiveness. Crippling the ships.

Escorts are annoying, but most escorts could be taken care of fairly quickly with railguns as well. I am annoyed that a SD in a RP can be expected to take a three-ton railgun projectile and have it 'bounce off into the water with only a tiny dent to show for the impact'.

Destroying SD's by powerful bombardment as they enter the waters will give ample time to destroy the force. As long as air superiority and threat elimination from long-distance weaponry is maintained the threat of a SD should be relatively small.

When dealing with SD's and their escorts I'm going to use heavy damaging weapons, like the kind for bunker busting. MOAB and tactical nuke cannons or missiles. No SD should be able to laugh them off as I've seen.

1. Nobody's saying heavy missiles aren't effective at sinking an SD. Problem is, you have to get through the defenses first. And that includes the missile defenses of both the SD and its escorts, as well as close-in gun systems of the SD and its escorts. Generally, people consider the NS anti-aircraft/anti-missile defenses to be wanked to hell, but that's just how we do it on here. This is why you will often see one combatant fire tens of thousands of anti-ship missiles at a fleet in order to get a few dozen hits.

2. You don't use cluster bombs against ships. Cluster bombs are anti-infantry weapons. There are anti-SD weapons which use multiple warheads, but they aren't usually referred to as a "cluster bomb" because they serve a completely different purpose.

3. A three-ton projectile against an SD honestly isn't that much. I think I recall reading that the projectiles that Hood fires are in the neighborhood of 10 tons, and the ship is armored to withstand hits from similarly-sized projectiles.

4. Yes, if you have air superiority then you stand a better chance of taking out an SD. This does require that you actually have air superiority, because as I mentioned before, SDs generally don't go around without air support.

5. A MOAB is not a bunker buster. It's basically a big, thin shell full of as much explosives as they can possibly fit inside, and the actual method of detonation is an airburst, not after penetration of hard targets (which it isn't intended for use against anyways). If you are going to use a bomb against an SD, you'd be better off using something similar to ones which actually have been used against capital ships, namely, the Tallboy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tallboy_bomb) and Grand Slam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_bomb).

6. You certainly could use nuclear weapons against an SD to take them out. However, one very important thing to take into account is the nuclear weapons doctrine of the country which happens to own that SD. If you happen to tac-nuke their SD, they might only tac-nuke your military targets, or they might completely incinerate your entire country. Be sure to keep that in mind.

The effectiveness of ASW systems and escorts are rather overstated, as is the effectiveness of active sonar.

The only reliable way to find a sub is to listen for it, and even that doesn't work all the time. Witness recently when an ancient Chinese diesel sub left over from the cold war managed to get right next to one of our carriers and surface.

If the US and China were at war, that'd be a dead carrier.

It will do nothing at all to pick up a submarine just sitting quietly on the bottom, as said sub will just be lost in the background clutter. You also cannot positively identify a target with active sonar.

Active sonar aslo has a MUCH shorter range than passive, which means if your ship captains are dumb enough to sail along banging away, they're actually making themselves more vunerable to attack since the range they'll be able to detect a submarine at is greatly reduced.

How exactly are you going to defend a submarine from a torpedo? You can't really armor one, and the armor would not help in any case.

Irrelevant as a CIWS. The idea is I'm probably going to be firing a sub-80mm Torpedo, perhaps even an elaborate spike as a last resort to prevent the torpedo strike.

An ounce of prevention is worth at least $2-4 billion US for the current market price of a carrier or battleship.

I said USV.

Its not a torpedo, its a submarine packed with about 50+ megatons or more of a nuclear weapon and incredible defenses for eliminating the fleet. It would go under the fleet and detonate, but if destroyed (not entirely) the thing goes off and explodes as close to the fleet as possible.

Also... I think EMP would shut down the systems. They would be unable to counterattack or make most communications. I don't see how my attack would fail. I'm talking damaging the ship, not getting through the defenses. Or is their some godly protection against EMP on the entire fleet that people want to say exists (which it doesn't on any system in MT at least).

How exactly are you going to defend a submarine from a torpedo? You can't really armor one, and the armor would not help in any case.

Close-in protection systems. IIRC, these are developed and being researched in real-life. It's been a while since I've looked into it. Here's a PDF on torpedo defense (http://files.filefront.com/Torpedo_Defencepdf/;7301876;/fileinfo.html).

I said USV.

Its not a torpedo, its a submarine packed with about 50+ megatons or more of a nuclear weapon and incredible defenses for eliminating the fleet. It would go under the fleet and detonate, but if destroyed (not entirely) the thing goes off and explodes as close to the fleet as possible.

Also... I think EMP would shut down the systems. They would be unable to counterattack or make most communications. I don't see how my attack would fail. I'm talking damaging the ship, not getting through the defenses. Or is their some godly protection against EMP on the entire fleet that people want to say exists (which it doesn't on any system in MT at least).

OOC: Well I think going nuclear has most people reacting with glee as you've just authorized them to use tactical nuclear weapons on a large scale.

Expect every single one of your naval yards nuked, every last damn submarine pen, every single port, any single military base.

Without those facilities, the submarines will not have any faculties to make more torpedoes, rendering them into useless tubs after a while. Subjugation quickly follows.

OOC: Well I think going nuclear has most people reacting with glee as you've just authorized them to use tactical nuclear weapons on a large scale.

Expect every single one of your naval yards nuked, every last damn submarine pen, every single port, any single military base.

Without those facilities, the submarines will not have any faculties to make more torpedoes, rendering them into useless tubs after a while. Subjugation quickly follows.

*sigh* I guess I have to spell EVERYTHING out for you.

The secondary measure would only exist if the EMP attack did not work in the first place. Also not all EMP are nuclear, it is cheap and hell...even I myself could produce an EMP weapon. The design is simple, the technology is old, the cost is very very cheap. While cruise missiles are on the order of $1 mil a shot. These are $1000-$2000 in cost each and can be lobbed, shot, dropped, or rocketed over the target, they go off in the air to do damage, so being shot and destroyed is relatively ineffective to causing physical damage. Only a single bomb is needed to shut down the systems, the rest would be overkill and fry the circuitry by producing very high current and voltage. Such things on highly sophisticated systems would render them useless. Espically on CMOS and FET based technology.

Now.. second issue, nuclear weapons are a joke, ICBMs are annoying, but nukes make any RP go down the tubes fast. Its mutual assured destruction, no one wins.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most military electronics, communications, and computer systems protected in some way against the effects of an EMP?

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't most military electronics, communications, and computer systems protected in some way against the effects of an EMP?

Yeah, actually, military ones of higher-level protection due have some limited electronics protection to prevent against massive surges (like what an EMP would launch).

EMP shielding does indeed exist. They use either passive copper shielding or active electrically charged layers to stop the pulse. Of course, this will only stop so powerful a pulse, though thousand dollar emitters surely fall below that threshold.

I also think that SD's simply wouldn't work as portrayed, though my voice does little to stem the tide.

You say the EMp would knock out the enmeny's abilty to respond with a full nuclear strike?

Do you really think that the gequipment that guides, and launches nuclear weapons, would not be EMP shielded? Or a 1 km+ super dreadnought would not have its critical systems sheilded against such an attack? also, if they detected the EMP it will kost likely be interpreted as a nuclear attack and will be responded with the nations full asrenal.

Depending on the nation, some regard an EMP strike as WMD's which means they would respond. Also, some nations consider godrods a WMD strike, even though they will take out an SD, especially in port.

Depending on the nation, some regard an EMP strike as WMD's which means they would respond. Also, some nations consider godrods a WMD strike, even though they will take out an SD, especially in port.

Yeah...Godrods are equal to nukes in my opinion. I woulda responded to Hataria with Tac Nukes when he shot Godrods at me, but I know that woulda gone bad (OOCly, not ICly).

You say the EMp would knock out the enmeny's abilty to respond with a full nuclear strike?

Do you really think that the gequipment that guides, and launches nuclear weapons, would not be EMP shielded? Or a 1 km+ super dreadnought would not have its critical systems sheilded against such an attack? also, if they detected the EMP it will kost likely be interpreted as a nuclear attack and will be responded with the nations full asrenal.

You do not belong here. Take your childish BS back to FT. You stole my ideas and slandered my name, I have no business to discuss with the likes of you.

--------

Soulforge Cathedral, that is not quiet true. Its with the internal systems. Very few things are protected entirely on the ship, and such things like radar and communications by nature are very suspectible to it. It would overload the system and crash the power. Its a very real threat.

Also copper is a good conductor of it, so I don't know what you are getting at, but the wiring is more then suitable for causing the damage to cripple the ships systems. There exists a very REAL threat about the entire ship and all means of the ships wiring. Even if the ship is protected it would do very little unless it was designed with that purpose in mind, and even then only to a point.

The fact of the matter is, despite what people say about aluminium or copper shielding (a cheapo way is tinfoil) is really very ineffective. Even the hardening systems against nuclear generated EMP are weaker to microwave generated EMP. Using what we know of electrical systems and materials on their absorbing and transmittance curve we can easily see that some materials are hardened to lower frequencies and some are higher, but no material covers the entire spectrum.

This leaves a large spectrum of ranges and weaponry to use. A couple $2000 EMP bombs can do the work a $160,000,000 nuclear EMP weapon couldn't. Moreover a couple varients in different pieces of the spectrum can make sure that things like copper conduct poorly and the shielding fails to protect the system.

Also the entire ship would have to be designed from scratch as a hardening system, which is utterly impossible by design and would result in a very poor weapons platform. It is impossible that the fleet would be able to protect itself with the vast array of very sensitive and easy targets of EMP weaponry. Actual protection on the base systems would require a move back to something that is hard to kill like vacuum tubes (which are terrible anyways). As the adoption of FETs become a larger and larger part of the technology the more the vunerablity grows.

Its only natural to use weapons like these to hard kill the communications and defensive ability of an entire fleet and just pound them into nothing then.

Yeah...Godrods are equal to nukes in my opinion. I woulda responded to Hataria with Tac Nukes when he shot Godrods at me, but I know that woulda gone bad (OOCly, not ICly).

Same here, someone tried that on me in MT already. They took it in their post as an auto-kill and godmodded it as well. Though I doubt few people actually realize just how long it takes for them to fall from geo-sync. Even at the bare minimum of 12 minutes that is plenty of time for a nation to respond. (the satellite is moving and would be easy to track and anticipate the release and then intercept for my forces).

Though 'god rods' are expensive, I think they are still a waste and a cheap way to RP. Its like they are pissed and just decide to obliterate everything, thinking its 100% ensured to hit.

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

' god rods' themselves aren't what is expensive, the expensive part is creating the orbital weapons platforms to house them.

Yeah...Godrods are equal to nukes in my opinion. I woulda responded to Hataria with Tac Nukes when he shot Godrods at me, but I know that woulda gone bad (OOCly, not ICly).

God rods actually don't do that much damage unless you get into say, ~70 tonne honest-to-god translunar ZMI style ortillery range. Thor/godrods are like really focused 250 kilogram bombs damage wise, useful for some applications but not exactly a end-all weapon.

God rods actually don't do that much damage unless you get into say, ~70 tonne honest-to-god translunar ZMI style ortillery range. Thor/godrods are like really focused 250 kilogram bombs damage wise, useful for some applications but not exactly a end-all weapon.

Wikipedia would say otherwise.

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

Project Thor sums that up.

But, wouldn't a couple ton depleted uranium armor-piercing rod, dropped at a certain speed, easily penetrate and sink an SD?

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

Vary by makeup and the wavelength they are supposed to protect against. Thus all you need to do is find where it won't be absorbed. It is not a be all end all solution.

Depends entirely on mass and speed of the projectile. And the target not fucking around with the projectile.

This is assuming it wasn't intercepted or shot off course. It seems from the wiki article that the " Telephone pole" would have enough force to do this.

But, wouldn't a couple ton depleted uranium armor-piercing rod, dropped at a certain speed, easily penetrate and sink an SD?

It depends, especially on where they hit. The problem with using kinetic energy penetrators with no explosive values on a ship is compartmentalization. A KE attack on a ship will do less damage than it would on an enclosed and dense target (like a tank).

But, wouldn't a couple ton depleted uranium armor-piercing rod, dropped at a certain speed, easily penetrate and sink an SD?

Depends entirely on mass and speed of the projectile. And the target not fucking around with the projectile.

Also the entire ship would have to be designed from scratch as a hardening system, which is utterly impossible by design and would result in a very poor weapons platform. It is impossible that the fleet would be able to protect itself with the vast array of very sensitive and easy targets of EMP weaponry.


I'm not quite understanding your point anymore, or how this relates to your thesis. You say that Super Dreadnoughts are godmods, and that a Super Dreadnought is a "joke" - there can be arguments made both for and against this, but your latest argument about EMPs doesn't really further the idea of SDs as godmods. If Super Dreadnoughts are vulnerable to EMPs, then they are not godmods since they can be defeated in a reasonable manner, yes? And if it is "utterly impossible" to design a ship totally hardened against EMPs, doesn't that mean that it is navies and warships in general that are "a joke", and not Super Dreadnoughts in particular?

I'm not quite understanding your point anymore, or how this relates to your thesis. You say that Super Dreadnoughts are godmods, and that a Super Dreadnought is a "joke" - there can be arguments made both for and against this, but your latest argument about EMPs doesn't really further the idea of SDs as godmods. If Super Dreadnoughts are vulnerable to EMPs, then they are not godmods since they can be defeated in a reasonable manner, yes? And if it is "utterly impossible" to design a ship totally hardened against EMPs, doesn't that mean that it is navies and warships in general that are "a joke", and not Super Dreadnoughts in particular?

RPing that railguns, full assault barrages and everything except a nuclear strike does absolutly nothing but literally bounce off the side of a dreadnought. Realistically they do have many weaknesses, but everyone godmods them as being unstoppable. I have yet to see a realistic depiction of an SD that wasn't completely impossible or a godmod.

Wikipedia would say otherwise.

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

Project Thor sums that up.

I'm familiar with Thor (everyone needs to go read Footfall), but I've seen a RAND study and it wasn't that promising against hardened underground targets. :/ For a SD I'd want something on the scale of the Grand Slam size wise, because in my opinion overkill is never a bad thing...

RPing that railguns, full assault barrages and everything except a nuclear strike does absolutly nothing but literally bounce off the side of a dreadnought. Realistically they do have many weaknesses, but everyone godmods them as being unstoppable. I have yet to see a realistic depiction of an SD that wasn't completely impossible or a godmod.

Then it's not the super dreadnought that is a godmod, it is the player who is godmodding.

RPing that railguns, full assault barrages and everything except a nuclear strike does absolutly nothing but literally bounce off the side of a dreadnought.


That's why you don't aim for the armor belt, you aim for the upper works and destroy it from the top down. Once it's a burning hulk you can sink it freely, just like any other battleship.

How about instead of mindlessly arguing tech feasibility, you do some actual RPing? I think you'll find that most people are reasonable with how they employ tech, since to a lot of people a good story line is more important than rambling on about pointless statistics.

I'm always looking to RP if you want to do something with me, I'll include SD's to show someone properly RP's them.

In order for the godrod to be an effective anti-shipping weapon it must strike and break the target's keel, other wise it makes a nice clean hole that can be patched up (at least temporarily) by damage control teams.

And you'll certainly find that most military electronics are protected and resistant against EMP, and that it isn't a super weapon by any means.

That's why you don't aim for the armor belt, you aim for the upper works and destroy it from the top down. Once it's a burning hulk you can sink it freely, just like any other battleship.

How about instead of mindlessly arguing tech feasibility, you do some actual RPing? I think you'll find that most people are reasonable with how they employ tech, since to a lot of people a good story line is more important than rambling on about pointless statistics.

Great point here: there are weaker points in any ship, and they can be exploited by large railguns, missiles (if they can break through), or some type of kinetic weapon that I haven't thought of.

You do not belong here. Take your childish BS back to FT. You stole my ideas and slandered my name, I have no business to discuss with the likes of you.



WTF?
I don't even know you. Please provide evidence before making such acusations.

They are EMP shielded (at least the US ones are) from nuclear generated EMP (low band), but are suspectible to microwave at least in some amount. It was in research paper, but the hardening is not equal protection across all ranges.

WTF?
I don't even know you. Please provide evidence before making such acusations.

You stole my thread and info on the Pykrete Carrier. Now kindly remove yourself from this thread. You had no respect for me and my designs then, and you certainly mock what I say and try to start conflict. I told you before I wanted nothing to do with you.

Still, while an EMP might take out alot of systems on a ship, it shouldn't completely immobilize it. Any reasonable shipbuilder is going to incorporate back-up systems on the ship which wouldn't be subject to EMP-related damage.

You stole my thread and info on the Pykrete Carrier. Now kindly remove yourself from this thread. You had no respect for me and my designs then, and you certainly mock what I say and try to start conflict. I told you before I wanted nothing to do with you.

Just because I saw something on TV on it means I stole your design? That does not mean I stole it. I saw it on a show on the history channel, which many people saw, and wanted to use it on NS.

Still, while an EMP might take out alot of systems on a ship, it shouldn't completely immobilize it. Any reasonable shipbuilder is going to incorporate back-up systems on the ship which wouldn't be subject to EMP-related damage.

I never said immobilize it, but it would prevent electrical systems from working properly. This would not affect the drive shaft, the engines and other deep inside structurual piece, but it would cripple the exposed radar and communications and radar systems like CIWS (they are vunerable from the computer targeting). I'd expect the bridge and almost all of the ship functions above the deck that are not completely sealed off would be rather difficult to affect.

Airtight seals and sealed shielded wiring is natural for the part below water, but above the waterline the ship has sensitive equipment exposed which makes for the perfect path into the communications and bridge and all other networked system. Perhaps a network that is improperly built to deal with surging and drops and other attacks from within itself would cause the entire ship to go out. (This is commonly seen with older high-tech ships that use regular wiring instead of fiber optics).

Just because I saw something on TV on it means I stole your design? That does not mean I stole it. I saw it on a show on the history channel, which many people saw, and wanted to use it on NS.

You posted in my thread. You made your own thread, and you took my sources only two days after I had released my project that I was talking about for a month. You stole it, cause you went to purchase the technology from me and then sold it to other people behind my back and took my extra work (that was modernized) and used it to.

Your the only stupid reason I never brought them back because I was ashamed I let you get away from the mods for copycatting and stealing my work to promote yourself. Seriously, those measurements and weight, temperature to melt and timing. All the information was mine. Unless you yourself can prove that you actually used a mixture of 14% and 86% water and could actually put it together as I did.

You purchased the technology from me under contract and you broke that contract, ignored the technology and abused it. You are a disgrace. The episode that airred about it is three years old and mine came first even before the show airred. Even if you did use it from the TV, the fact you took my data and my IC contract and abused it to create your own version using more then my scaled up designs.

OK, so you manage to take out alot of communications/radar equipment. Fact is, the ship is not only still afloat but is still moving. So you've certainly significantly reduced it's ability to defend itself, but sinking it is another matter entirely.

So we go back to square one. Sinking the SD. So you're either gonna need your own SD, some ginormous anti-ship missiles, ginormous torpedoes, or tac-nukes. Tac-nukes are too risky, and you seem to be dead-set against SDs, so I'd guess you'd go for missiles or torpedoes.

Nobody's saying an SD is impossible to sink, and anybody who RPs as such is obviously godmoding. But they are very difficult to sink.

I'd say you really 'ought to look up the specifications of the kinds of conventional NS weapons which are designed to combat SDs, so you can fully understand the sheer amount of power needed to inflict damage on an SD.

You posted in my thread. You made your own thread, and you took my sources only two days after I had released my project that I was talking about for a month. You stole it, cause you went to purchase the technology from me and then sold it to other people behind my back and took my extra work (that was modernized) and used it to.

Your the only stupid reason I never brought them back because I was ashamed I let you get away from the mods for copycatting and stealing my work to promote yourself. Seriously, those measurements and weight, temperature to melt and timing. All the information was mine. Unless you yourself can prove that you actually used a mixture of 14% and 86% water and could actually put it together as I did.

You purchased the technology from me under contract and you broke that contract, ignored the technology and abused it. You are a disgrace. The episode that airred about it is three years old and mine came first even before the show airred. Even if you did use it from the TV, the fact you took my data and my IC contract and abused it to create your own version using more then my scaled up designs.

Give me a link to that thread.

Or you could simply torpedo the thing. Armor is useless against modern torpedoes, which use shockwaves to do their damage.

Oh... it was over a YEAR ago. My mistake. (I been on NS longer then these 03 nations I think.)

OOC: Fine screw it....

IC: Asbena will donate 50% of the funds required for the project as long as 1010102 promises not to sell or give away or lose the ships through any method to any other nation. This is a contract made by Father Nashira of Asbena and breaking it is grounds for war. Asbena takes its research programs seriously.

of course you must also never use them agiast me. because i know designed them so i know every last weak point.


Here's the nice whole happy thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476609&highlight=Pykrete+Carrier

Lol Pyth.. I forgot I made the IC agreement with him to....

Nevermind...he washed himself of this because of this thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476746&highlight=Pykrete+Carrier

Before me there was three minor mentions of the word Pykrete. Leafanistan had the original use several months before me. The God Falltothzu had an earlier idea as well.

Clearly the Pykrete Carrier idea (failed as it ever was) was a dismal moral breaker for me, but IC threads about it...not sure. I used different names and sometimes referred to it by the ship name.

Give me a link to that thread.

He tried to sell the design to me, and from what I saw, it was the same damn stats I have in 'My Tank is Fight!'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Habbakuk
http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_Habbakkuk.htm

Information about the Habbakkuk is freely available.

Just because I bought Iowas initially, when I made my Iowa derivative entry-level battleship, doesn't mean I was robbing him. It is open source at this point.

Or you could simply torpedo the thing. Armor is useless against modern torpedoes, which use shockwaves to do their damage.

They have liquid compartments in most cases I'd think. They effectively asborb most of the shock, but repeated blasts could break through in time. Sadly it is one of the stronger defenses of the SD, but I do not see why a torpedo with over 2000 kg of HE would fail.

They have liquid compartments in most cases I'd think. They effectively asborb most of the shock, but repeated blasts could break through in time. Sadly it is one of the stronger defenses of the SD, but I do not see why a torpedo with over 2000 kg of HE would fail.

Arguably a super dreadnought would be easier to sink with a torpedo. A super dreadnought has a longer hull. It should succumb easier to being broken by the bubble of pressure applied by a modern 21" torpedo. Whether the torpedo impacts or not is a non-issue, given that modern torpedoes (at least, the Mk 48) don't defeat warships by impacting. They defeat warships by breaking them down the middle by using large bubbles of air.

Possibly, spacing in the lower hull and keel should help in regards to protection. Either that, or hard-kill systems (I point to that PDF I provided the thread).

He tried to sell the design to me, and from what I saw, it was the same damn stats I have in 'My Tank is Fight!'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Habbakuk
http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_Habbakkuk.htm

Information about the Habbakkuk is freely available.

Just because I bought Iowas initially, when I made my Iowa derivative entry-level battleship, doesn't mean I was robbing him. It is open source at this point.

Yes, his original thing was terrible. However he took the design and systems from me directly.

Nuclear batteries, 20 inch steel plating on the side and the defenses. The design was almost a carboncopy in developement from my earlier use of it bring together the systems in a modernized way. His editing removed most of it (as witnessed in posts after his that remained unedited) Such as the number of planes and many other things (such as the speed issue) were solved previously, but did not keep with his final product.

As it stands I am the only one to combine them as so, the other thread clearly shows IC contract and work as well as an exchange of ideas that he never credited to me and stopped selling only after much fighting

Arguably a super dreadnought would be easier to sink with a torpedo. A super dreadnought has a longer hull. It should succumb easier to being broken by the bubble of pressure applied by a modern 21" torpedo. Whether the torpedo impacts or not is a non-issue, given that modern torpedoes (at least, the Mk 48) don't defeat warships by impacting. They defeat warships by breaking them down the middle by using large bubbles of air.

Possibly, spacing in the lower hull and keel should help in regards to protection. Either that, or hard-kill systems (I point to that PDF I provided the thread).

Depends as mentioned before, but if going for the center I would think more reinforcement is put there to reduce the likelyhood of that. Installing a double brace on each quarter of the ship would reduce this chance largely, but I guess it would be too costly or too awkward for most designers to use.

I see the name thrown around a lot with SD and aside from the one image which I do remember (something around $450 bil) it would not succumb to that type of attack realistically, but had its own realistic weaknesses that make it better. Most of the SDs I see are well...someone's interpretation of Ares on the warpath with the Aegis and Mojinor.

Yes, his original thing was terrible. However he took the design and systems from me directly.

Nuclear batteries, 20 inch steel plating on the side and the defenses. The design was almost a carboncopy in developement from my earlier use of it bring together the systems in a modernized way. His editing removed most of it (as witnessed in posts after his that remained unedited) Such as the number of planes and many other things (such as the speed issue) were solved previously, but did not keep with his final product.

As it stands I am the only one to combine them as so, the other thread clearly shows IC contract and work as well as an exchange of ideas that he never credited to me and stopped selling only after much fighting

Nuclear Batteries? You actually tried to use Radioisotopic Electrothermal batteries on this thing? Nuclear reactors heat the fuck up.

Though I don't really know how much heat something like a submarine generator creates for the ambient air versus a diesel though.

Nuclear Batteries? You actually tried to use Radioisotopic Electrothermal batteries on this thing? Nuclear reactors heat the fuck up.

Though I don't really know how much heat something like a submarine generator creates for the ambient air versus a diesel though.

It uses the S4 engine which is a contained nuclear reactor that is safe and does not need to be cooled by external means, it has very low heat output. Though I guess a more modern idea would be to use Betabatt...but that is a terrible idea in of itself on fuel and output.

I still have the old designs. I'm going to be handing them over to someone soon though for their use.

Eralineta, I believe the copper disperses the wave, though you can't shield radar and the like. And all modern vessels have at least some measure of EMP shielding, so I'd imagine that a SD would most definitely as well. However, like you said, it would be quite good at elimnating com gear. I most certainly agree that it's a threat, but not one of sufficient calibur to render a ship totally defenseless. (Just largely so)

http://www.cecer.army.mil/facts/sheets/FL16.html

In that page they mention using copper foils to shield, though that has only a limited effectiveness.

Blast my computer for randomly posting!!

Depends as mentioned before, but if going for the center I would think more reinforcement is put there to reduce the likelyhood of that. Installing a double brace on each quarter of the ship would reduce this chance largely, but I guess it would be too costly or too awkward for most designers to use.

I see the name thrown around a lot with SD and aside from the one image which I do remember (something around $450 bil) it would not succumb to that type of attack realistically, but had its own realistic weaknesses that make it better. Most of the SDs I see are well...someone's interpretation of Ares on the warpath with the Aegis and Mojinor.

What's unrealistic about a super expensive weapons system being taken out by a cheap one? Happens all the time.

Dead because I posted. Curse the Fates!

Actually the large battleships like the Iowa would indeed be sunk by the average plane launch large AS missile. In fact its a proven fact, and the reason we dont use them anymore in anything but beachhead landing support, because they are useless. A 70 meter frigate with heavy AS missiles can destroy a gun heavy battleship from beyond line of sight, why bother building such a big ship for combat.

If this is MT we dont have the armour to stop the large AS missiles. However in PMT superdreadnoughts could be feasible. I would find it hard to believe a superdreadnought would survive against a few air wings with heavy AS missiles myself, not from actual EVIDENCE i have seen to the contrary about MODERN anti ship missiles. Not WW II era shells and torps, which ships had been built to defeat..right now armament has outstripped armour. So therefore its PMT that superdreads can exist, MT superdreads would be floating supply and air bases.. One shipwreck missile on the top of the Iowa or Missouri would see that ship on the bottom of the ocean. Making it bigger will just keep it afloat, blazing away for a little while longer.

I agree with DVK. Modern SD arent really possible, but in a PMT nation, such as myself, the armor could withstand hits from almost any maritime missles. A major weakness SD usually share is orbital weapons. Just recently Vetaka hit my flagship SD with an Excalibur laser system, it survived because I actually thought of this ahead of time. A second hit would destroy it. Also, SD can carry hundreds of missles. These have the same capabilities as any other ship missles and they usually hold many many more.

A superdreadnaught is a Juki.

Leocardia's most powerful naval ship ever built, only three still remain alive today, and thoughts of improving a newer design of it is still in development.

It is actually quite possible to take out superdreadnoughts; it simply requires some imagination, some knowledge of SD design, and a reasonable opponent. I gather that multiple torpedo impacts would eventually break a SD’s hull apart, even with compartmentalisation, shockwave absorbing materials, and a double keel design. The trick would be getting the torpedoes through the escort net and the SD’s own sensors; it should be possible to, for instance, engage the escorts and keep them busy while a SSK squadron creeps along the depths; the escorts’ sensors will be already overloaded with information and their crews will be too busy responding to missile, gun, and aircraft attacks to notice something so quiet. Meanwhile, cluster munitions can be used to take out the superdreadnought’s sensors and leave it floating blind; that way, when the submarines do fire their torpedoes, they won’t be noticed until they impact.

Bunker-busters and very large NS style anti-shipping missiles (such as ZMI’s Khan) won’t hurt either. Well, at least hurt you. And simply dropping something large on it from orbit could at very least mission-kill it, allowing you to wreak the required further damage with conventional missiles and guns.

If that fails, build your own superdreadnought; or don’t go to war against the handful of nations economically and militarily powerful enough to field one. (Well, theoretical handful; in NS every man and his grandmother has a superdreadnought, even if they can’t use them very well beyond “They’re big, invincible, and have lots of guns!”)

Actually the large battleships like the Iowa would indeed be sunk by the average plane launch large AS missile. In fact its a proven fact, and the reason we dont use them anymore in anything but beachhead landing support, because they are useless. A 70 meter frigate with heavy AS missiles can destroy a gun heavy battleship from beyond line of sight, why bother building such a big ship for combat.

Um, no.


I would find it hard to believe a superdreadnought would survive against a few air wings with heavy AS missiles myself, not from actual EVIDENCE i have seen to the contrary about MODERN anti ship missiles. Not WW II era shells and torps, which ships had been built to defeat..right now armament has outstripped armour. So therefore its PMT that superdreads can exist, MT superdreads would be floating supply and air bases.. One shipwreck missile on the top of the Iowa or Missouri would see that ship on the bottom of the ocean. Making it bigger will just keep it afloat, blazing away for a little while longer.

Modern Anti-Shipping missile lack the explosive power to penetrate battleships, whose armor values (at least on the Iowa's) exceed 300mm, surpassing the RHA penetration by the Shipwreck, so you lose.

I am eager to hear you "Evidence" as I do not recall modern anti-shipping missile being hitting battleships. Hell, it's already been established that the the Iowa is in effect impregnable to any western anti shipping missile.

Anyway, I am sick of arguing over this, as we have been over it before (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10478374&postcount=558)

Actually the large battleships like the Iowa would indeed be sunk by the average plane launch large AS missile.

No, they wouldn't. Most modern air-launched ASMs are designed to penetrate by sheer kinetic impact and the explode internally, which workes nicely with 1/4 to 1/2-in modern ship armour, but noticably less well with 12+ inches of WW2 battleship armour.

Did someone just say that Khans and very large bunker busters won't hurt SDs? If someone did, please leave. /sarc

Seriously, Khans and Bunker Busters will hurt, alot, khans especially, khan, with it's massive tungsten warhead, mach 11 speed and huge explosive/incendiary charge, will overly armed SDs (too much guns for the size, mags are a good target, same with VLS), I think it would take less then six khans to sink/mission kill a well built, well damaged controlled and smartly armored 1000m+ SD. Consider the Khan is built to mission kill/sink anything under like 400,000tons displacement with a single hit. Why? Because it's designed to penetrate lots of armor. Same with bunkerbusters, but you'd probably need scaled up ones.


Naestoria, your last statement basically sums it up. Play against someone who can't RP naval very well and the SD is a slow floating target.

After much consideration I have come to the conclusion that the Super Dreadnaught is the product of uncreative minds. Consider that only 3 RL navies operate anything larger than a DD. Why? DD's are smaller, faster, easier to build and repair, and can be armed well enough to easily sink most larger opponents and provide fire support along shorelines. Big guns are old hat for the high seas, the weapon of the now is the missile. A guided explosive charge, often with greater range than shells, is a much more flexible and deadly weapon.

Super-ships also tend to suffer something called Golden Fish Syndrome. This where a military or government, having made a huge investment, will not be willing to sacrifice or even risk the loss of such a prize. The primary problem with this is that it will often be held back from participating in the battles where it could do the most good and will instead end up being used as a last line of defense in a hopeless battle. The ship itself will turn out a near total waste. Just look at what happened to the Mushashi and the Yamato. Huge battleships, the largest ever built, neither making any significant contribution to the war, each sunk in a none to glorious fashion by torpedoes dropped by aircraft. Even then it was possible to sink super-sized battleships with little effort, just drop around 10-15 torpedoes and she's what we call a goner.

Aircraft carriers and destroyers are what make the difference in modern naval combat. That's just the way it's been since WW2.

Now it's important not to carry this over to space combat because a manned fighter needs to have enough fuel to go out, complete its mission, and come back while a missile or drone only needs to go out and make the kill. Nukes in space will also pretty much kill anything within a kilometer no matter what so unless you're fighting the Death Star or some similarly volumed battlestation it'd be kinda pointless to bother. In space, the carrier will likely be dropped, leaving just the DDG's on down through corvette's.

After much consideration I have come to the conclusion that the Super Dreadnaught is the product of uncreative minds.

Yeah, no creative mind would ever design anything big. Clearly everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. Dur.

Or you're monstrously arrogant, one of the two.

Big guns are old hat for the high seas, the weapon of the now is the missile. A guided explosive charge, often with greater range than shells, is a much more flexible and deadly weapon.

Also a much more expensive weapon, and one that can be shot down by modern point defence, which still can't kill large shells. A battleship with rocket-assisted main gun rounds or even normal ones is a far more cost-effective platform in the long run for laying down fire, and is also more survivable.

Aircraft carriers and destroyers are what make the difference in modern naval combat. That's just the way it's been since WW2.

How much naval combat has there actually been since World War 2, again? Oh yeah: almost none. How many new battleships have been built with modern technology since World War 2? Again, almost none, and none that ever saw combat. The jury's still out on the carrier; air defence has advanced immensely since WW2, as have detection systems and anti missile and anti torpedo systems. So, would a modern battleship with a modern escort group be as difficult to defend as those old WW2 ships were? Doubtful.

Actually the jury is not out on the carrier. The falklands war proved that, they were modern enough. More so if air defense has evolved so much, please do remember that aircraft defenses have evolved as well. Better radar's that are harder to detect, stealth, better ECM and defenses. Do remember that three russian made, Modern ECM systems slowed the entire american advance for three days in the second iraq war. I remember watching it on TV and having it being mentioned thoroughly on CNN that it took three days to neutralise it. In that time they stopped the advance so they could continue to use their digital warfare technology. That showed a decided weakness in digital warfare.

You may have these lovely missiles and phalanx guns to kill fighters, but it wont do you a lick of good if those fighters or bombers are able to evade your return fire. They have the superior position, they also have superior evasive ability to the ship. You can fire your missile up, and that fighter plane can do all sorts of lovely things to evade it, especially considering the missile has to travel up in the air to catch that plane. It may be fast but it gives the plane the edge it needs to evade. Its return fire is equally coming from a steeper angle, possibly even too steep for the Phalanx to return effectively. Its also coming down from higher up so its much more painful, and it could have friends. Do remember a fighter can launch all 4-8 of its AS missiles at once, or in waves.

Superdreadnoughts are entirely possible, however their role would NOT be that of a heavy fighting ship of D00m. The reason for this is because they are infinitely more expensive then other ships. In WW I the Germans and British were reluctant to commit their battleships, they were simply too expensive. In PMT they may become cheaper due to better modular construction techniques, and much tougher thanks to dedicated Laser Anti Air defenses and superior materials in the armour.

However an SD in modern tech whose job is anything more then floating military base and support platform is silly. Yes those missiles may be very expensive and hard to produce. Thats why if you wish to use them you could use this big ship that basically mass produces the things and flings them out of launchers. However a giant gun carrier is dead in MT. It may be more cost effective to use super bazooka shells, but the missile is still far superior in a tactical application.

Consider this in a war game between the Canadian navy and the American navy, the Frigate HMCS Regina sunk a cruiser and a battlecruiser. It did this by going full bore towards the both of them, firing missiles like crazy, it in return was sunk. However it killed a billion dollars worth of much larger ship as easily as it was killed, thanks to these "expensive" missiles. In this case these missiles are not expensive at all, considering their ability to sink billions of dollars of war material. Building a large rocket assisted cannon is not necessarily going to match the explosive power of these missiles, nor is it going to match the impact from descending vertical on a target.

Naval warfare is two dimensional. Missiles are superior to cannon rounds as its possible to fire a missile up, then have it land straight down on an important part of the ship, like say the bridge. The cannon is only going to achieve this if it gets lucky, like Bismarck did. Now lets be honest here, you could argue, yes you can use a missile launched from a gun barrel. However that is a missile and in using such a device, you concede the point that missiles pown giant guns and pretty much make Modern tech super dreadnoughts relegated to the role of Ubar-carrier.

PMT is a different story, as i said everything from super materials to electromagnetic shields to defense lasers make them more then valid, if unfeasibly large to use in the worlds waterways. However a modern tech super dreadnought will always be more like a supercarrier, its just too vulnerable to survive frontline combat. Remember its 1km long, it cant hide easily at all and it definetly cant hope to evade. Every missile fired at it is going to have to be shot down. I can have entire carrier battlegroups for that one ship. My carrier battlegroups will indeed blast them to hell with missiles from every direction, overwhelming their prodigious defenses the same way a swarm of hornets finds a way to sting.

In MT you could have a superdreadnought, but its definetly not something to be so feared it can only be nuked. It needs only to be found and killed by a dedicated air wing. Unless it can launch its own to intercept, and is thusly an aircraft carrier, it wont win.

However in MT it would be possible to build a superdreadnought zeppelin with cannon. Firing from say oh 50 000 feet up it would pretty much own just about any naval assets it could see. Missiles coming up towards it could be intercepted by flak and other weapon systems, considering the time it would take to reach the airships. These cannons would hit so hard it wasnt funny considering how high up they are, almost god rods.

This technology has been available for a hundred years almost, so it could be concievable that a Zeppelin dreadnought would be of much more concern then any kilometer long hulking piece of metal that might not be able to make it around cape horn, let alone through the panama canal.

Actually the jury is not out on the carrier. The falklands war proved that, they were modern enough.

The Falklands war was a low-intesity, small-scale battle without a major fleet-to-fleet engagement, mainly involving land-based aircraft on one side. There have been no major engagements between two first-world, blue-water fleets since the end of WW2.

Better radar's that are harder to detect, stealth, better ECM and defenses.

ECM works both ways: ships can use it too. And your fighters aren't going to be very useful if they can't hit their target, even if their target also can't hit them.

Do remember a fighter can launch all 4-8 of its AS missiles at once, or in waves.

Fighters can't carry 4-8 anti-ship missiles at once, the carrier-based Flanker is regarded as being overloaded when carrying one Sunburn missile. The only Soviet-era missiles seriously regarded as being a threat to the Iowas were the AS-3 and AS-4, both of which were gigantic missiles [AS-3 the size of a MiG-15] which could only be carried by strategic bombers.

Ah, yes, aircraft carriers and destroyers rule, now.

Wait, was that Chinese Song Class submarine (the one that surfaced within 8km of USS Kitty Hawk) a carrier, or a destroyer? I'm confused.

Wait, no, sarcastic, that's the word I'm looking for ;)

(Well, Yugoslavia can't afford anything bigger than mini-subs and frigates, gotta keep the faith somehow!)

Even in WWII, arguably the Zenith of the aircraft, coming as it did just before SAMs and at the height of pre-jet aircraft development, no battleship with a carrier escort was ever sunk by aircraft. Clearly protecting battleships from aircraft is therefore not an impossible task. Far from it, now that thanks to SAMs you can largely forget about the aircraft carrier, and defend the battleship with missiles mounted on the battleship itself and on small and relatively cheap escorting destroyers.

So the only question we must ask ourselves is: how useful is a battleship? Well, a superdreadnought carries a huge complement of missiles, guns that can devastate anything that comes into range (particularly useful for shore bombardment) all on a platform that is immensely hard to kill. So I would say so.

Wouldn't it be useful defence aganist SD to use simply few very big coastal defence guns at strategically importnant locations(as SD would be used for shore bombardment)? 800 mm railway guns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Gustav) were used already in WW II so any nation with few hundred millions population should be able to build enough big land-based guns to outgun any ship.

You definitely can, and in almost every age, the largest ports of the great powers have been pretty much impervious to attack from each others' navies. However I dont think you should think it's a simple task to build such fortifications, and they cannot practically be built to cover an entire coastline as some people suppose, only key strategic sites.

That is so weak though! The Iowa has thick armor, but would that stop most missiles nowadays? I don't think so.

Modern missles were never designed to penetrate 17 inch thick armour plate belts. A modern anti tank missle with HEAT shaped charge would put a hole thru it, just not a very big hole. If you want to know about WW2 warship armour, during the battle for Crete the light cruiser HMS Orion took a 1000 pound bomb which blew off her forward turrets, another 1000 pounder straight down thru her bridge into the bowels of the ship which opened a huge hole and left her out of control at 30 knots. Lastly a 2000 pounder near missed the stern and dented it in by 4 feet over 100 feet in length. She survived to be rebuilt in the US with the last human remains found six months after her ordeal. Compare that to HMS Sheffield, sunk from one Exocet missle that did not even go off!! By the way , the Iowa class of battleships were classed as superdreadnoughts during WW2 as was Yamato.

You definitely can, and in almost every age, the largest ports of the great powers have been pretty much impervious to attack from each others' navies. However I dont think you should think it's a simple task to build such fortifications, and they cannot practically be built to cover an entire coastline as some people suppose, only key strategic sites.

I dunno. The nice thing about railroad guns is that they're on tracks and can move quite quickly if need be. I bet that if you build a few lines of military railroads for the guns along the coast you could indeed cover the entire coastline, but not all at once. With satellites and aircraft it should be a trivial task to get the guns in place and set up in time to meet the enemy fleet.

Problem with Railway gun is that you can't armour is very well. But static coastal defence gun can not only outgun biggest ships, it can be also have a lot heavier armour.

I can't overstate how much I hate railroad guns. All it takes is one bomb in a critical railroad track to render the entire arsenal of them utterly worthless.

Self-propelled artillery, on the other hand, can simply go around a crater in the road. I know Sarzonia makes a wonderful 280mm (11") ETC SPG, I have thousands of them in my own arsenal. If I'd had them during the Doomie invasion instead of a bunch of Middle Eastern stuff, the war would have taken a whole different course.

Olmedreca;12619132']Problem with Railway gun is that you can't armour is very well. But static coastal defence gun can not only outgun biggest ships, it can be also have a lot heavier armour.

No need for armor when you're both over the horizon and mobile. Not to mention protected by your own AA defenses.

I can't overstate how much I hate railroad guns. All it takes is one bomb in a critical railroad track to render the entire arsenal of them utterly worthless.

Self-propelled artillery, on the other hand, can simply go around a crater in the road. I know Sarzonia makes a wonderful 280mm (11") ETC SPG, I have thousands of them in my own arsenal. If I'd had them during the Doomie invasion instead of a bunch of Middle Eastern stuff, the war would have taken a whole different course.

Nothing you can mount on self-propelled vehicles can stand up to an SD, and railroad tracks can be repaired quickly.

They can't be repaired at all when the enemy bombers hit your repair crews, and any reasonably intelligent enemy commander will want to make sure those tracks stay out of commission until their forces land.

Now, an 11" shell probably won't do much damage to an SDN, if you hit its armor belt, but hitting the radar antenna or other electronics as AMF suggested might work.

They can't be repaired at all when the enemy bombers hit your repair crews, and any reasonably intelligent enemy commander will want to make sure those tracks stay out of commission until their forces land.

Now, an 11" shell probably won't do much damage to an SDN, if you hit its armor belt, but hitting the radar antenna or other electronics as AMF suggested might work.

If your air defenses are flimsy enough that your tracks can be disabled for any significant amount of time, you've already lost the war in the first place and this is an entirely moot point.

That’s why I love my Hood!

...Excuse me, I just fell off my chair laughing at how dirty that sounds out of context... Or gang like.

That's why the best way to combat SD's is with dedicated anti-SD submarines. SD's tend to be slow, due to their immense mass, so it's a relatively simple procedure for a submarine to scoot out ahead of the SD taskforce and then wait for them to cruise through the cross hairs, so to speak. Fire a full spread of keelbreakers and run like hell. Another even more effective, if more difficult way is to create wolfpacks when you know an SD is on the move. Five submarines stand a better chance than one. Or a couple dozen tiny automated subs filled with explosives. I've watched them blow the screws and rudder off a dreadnaught in one RP.

I can't overstate how much I hate railroad guns. All it takes is one bomb in a critical railroad track to render the entire arsenal of them utterly worthless. In real life, the German armored trains were using tracks that were bombed almost every other day, with a good enough repair crew they would rebuild bombed tracks, even over massive crateors, within a day.

Seriously, Khans and Bunker Busters will hurt, alot, khans especially, khan, with it's massive tungsten warhead, mach 11 speed and huge explosive/incendiary charge, will overly armed SDs (too much guns for the size, mags are a good target, same with VLS), I think it would take less then six khans to sink/mission kill a well built, well damaged controlled and smartly armored 1000m+ SD. Consider the Khan is built to mission kill/sink anything under like 400,000tons displacement with a single hit. Why? Because it's designed to penetrate lots of armor. Same with bunkerbusters, but you'd probably need scaled up ones.
That's what I was saying, in less detail. :p (As I think you gathered.)

Naestoria, your last statement basically sums it up. Play against someone who can't RP naval very well and the SD is a slow floating target.

They can't be repaired at all when the enemy bombers hit your repair crews, and any reasonably intelligent enemy commander will want to make sure those tracks stay out of commission until their forces land.
If the enemy can deploy enough aircraft to the theatre to maintain total air superiority—the only way I can see it being possible to continually harass repair crews on railroad tracks—you may as well surrender. It is almost impossible to win a war without having at least some hold on the skies. Bombers shouldn't be able to penetrate your defences so easily once, and especially not multiple times; they shouldn't be allowed to get close enough to spot the repair crews (because it's quite difficult to make out repair crews from 50,000 feet up and a few dozen miles out). I suggest investing in a lot of mobile SAM launchers and flak cannons, or some other dedicated anti-aircraft armament, if you fear that your air force is not powerful enough to defend your skies on its own.

The toughness and utility of SDs are rather overestimated.

Consider the following:

-Shells can be shot down. They have more predictable courses and speeds than missiles, and the only reason no technologies in real life have been developed to do it is because they are not considered a serious threat in a naval engagement.
-If you make a shell that has a rocket booster and a guidance package, suprise suprise, you've just made a missile that carries less explosives and is fired from a gun. So much for being cheaper.
-Guns are always much shorter range than missiles.
-Missiles can always hit a ship where the armor is weakest. This is how the Fritz-X was able to easily heavily damage and sink battleships that were considered modern at the time it was deployed.
-A simple armor piercing cap will make even most MT missiles effective against SD armor. Khans are simply ludicrously overdoing it.
-Missiles may be more expensive, but they almost always hit unless they get shot down. Guns have a VERY low hit rate.
-It's much cheaper to build a ship with lots of missiles and very little armor than it is a floating island of metal for carrying big guns. You don't need armor if you arn't getting in a gun battle, and armor against missiles is pointless, especially on smaller vessels.
-NS anti-air capabilities are severely wanked, especially in the department of CIWS guns. They're considered last chance weapons for a reason, that reason being that they have a somewhat low probability of successfully intercepting an incoming missile.
-Shore bombardment is better done by an aircraft with PGMs. Why toss big shells all over the county when a guided bomb or two in the right place will achieve the same results?

The toughness and utility of SDs are rather overestimated.

But who cares? They're hilariously funny and have a massive propaganda value.

Consider the following:

Must I? Such effort. :(

Shells can be shot down ... they are not considered a serious threat in a naval engagement.

They can, yes. So what? So can rockets. As far as shells not being a serious threat, the Belgrano was sunk because its old-fashioned guns could sink the entire RN Task Force without breaking sweat. Modern ships are not armoured to take the hits of huge naval guns. Thus, a cocking massive shell is, when it hits, better than a rocket.

If you make a shell that has a rocket booster and a guidance package...

You're wasting money. Just fire lots of shells! :D

Guns are always much shorter range than missiles.

Pfft. Who cares. They're funkier.

Missiles can always hit a ship where the armor is weakest.

Unless it has no weak spots! :p

A simple armor piercing cap will make even most MT missiles effective against SD armor.

An AP cap will put, say, Exocet through 40 foot of composite armour? Unlikely to "PFFT NO LOL"

Missiles may be more expensive, but they almost always hit unless they get shot down. Guns have a VERY low hit rate.

More shells, more hits, and damn the misses!

It's much cheaper to build a ship with lots of missiles and very little armor than it is a floating island of metal for carrying big guns. You don't need armor if you arn't getting in a gun battle, and armor against missiles is pointless, especially on smaller vessels.

Floating gun-island = Kewl and Leet points.

NS anti-air capabilities are severely wanked

True. Since when is that news?

Shore bombardment is better done by an aircraft with PGMs. Why toss big shells all over the county when a guided bomb or two in the right place will achieve the same results?

Pfft, no it's not. More shells = more damage = more bodies = higher bodycount = victory! :D

Who said anything about an Exocet? I'm referring more to large Soviet antiship missiles.

Like what? The 3M-54 Klub?

I defy it to punch through forty feet of composite armour plating, travel through thirty feet of steel, and then retain enough energy to penetrate 680 feet of compartments to reach the centre of something like the Primo Frank, just because it has an AP cap on it. :p

Oops, the missile just went for your deck instead of your main belt. So much for 70 feet of armor (which is more than any NS SD has in any case).

The main deck has a mere sixty foot of armour. :)

The Primo Frank may only have a few guns, but by god it's built like a brick shithouse. :D Tech-wank? Yes. Slow, manouverable as a brick in free-fall? Yes. Hilariously funny? Hell yes!

And that's all that's needed...

Also the superstructure tends to have a lot less armour than that..

And if you destroy a ships superstructure, she is effectively dead, even though she may be afloat.

I agree. A combat-kill is easier to achieve than sinking it. I merely refute the argument that missiles are better than guns.

Kinetic-kill weapons are the best, I reckon.

You reckon incorrectly, then.

You reckon incorrectly, then.

O RLY!?

NO U LOL

Clue: Explain why :p

Missiles bounce off armour of sufficient thickness.
Kinetic kill weapons go through armour.

At the end of the day, however, the final word in SD sinking is the nuclear bomb. :)

I dunno. The nice thing about railroad guns is that they're on tracks and can move quite quickly if need be. I bet that if you build a few lines of military railroads for the guns along the coast you could indeed cover the entire coastline, but not all at once. With satellites and aircraft it should be a trivial task to get the guns in place and set up in time to meet the enemy fleet.
They also have no effective armour, and the rails themselves are especially easy to destroy.

An effective coastal defence gun has to have its magazine buried deep in the ground, with only the turret protruding, which must be made of very thick steel (thicker than on the ships it will be fighting). THis simply cant be made mobile.

And if you destroy a ships superstructure, she is effectively dead, even though she may be afloat.
Um, why?

Um, why?
Last time I knew those guys down in the hull can't exactly fight a battle well when all the radars, weapons, and other systems up in the superstructure are gone.

Last time I knew those guys down in the hull can't exactly fight a battle well when all the radars, weapons, and other systems up in the superstructure are gone.

No, don't you understand? SDs are so l33t that every turret has it's own independent bridge! :mp5:

Atopiana, it is not structurally possible to construct a ship in the fashion you describe. I suggest you talk to Vault 10 for an explanation as to why.

Atopiana, it is not structurally possible to construct a ship in the fashion you describe. I suggest you talk to Vault 10 for an explanation as to why.

Pah! We're talking about an era of supertensile materials, carbon nanotubes, and self-repairing nanonic materials. What is currently structurally impossible will become possible in the future, and as the Primo Frank was launched in 2228... ;)

EDIT:

In other words, in answer to the OP's question, a Superdreadnought is "unashamed tech-wankery".

All problems relating to "unashamed tech-wankery" such as a pesky reliance on realism can be overcome by RPing only MT periods, where facts and figures are readily availiable. It is hard to decide if an AP-capped Klub can penentrate 90 million miles of soopaarma (tm) but it is easy to decide if a Vulcan can fly to the Falklands from Ascension Island or not. :)

Atopiana, it is not structurally possible to construct a ship in the fashion you describe. I suggest you talk to Vault 10 for an explanation as to why.

And neither is building a giant space elevator, but nobody gives you shit about that.

Look, the people who honestly care enough to argue the feasibility of SD existance are probably the same people who think NS is all about 'winning'. Personally, I could care less if someone makes a ship the size of Rhode Island so long as it makes for a good story, which is what I.I. is lacking as of late.

NationStates RP isn't meant to be the 'techology discussion/debate hub', it's meant to be a freeform RP environment. Simply by playing this game we all acknowledge that we are actively wanking on at least some level, since my nation alone has more people than planet fucking Earth. If someone wants to write about having mammoth SD's, powered armor, orcs, magic, Communism, and other fantastical things, then just let them. Who gives a shit as long as it's written well and within at least some bounds of reasonability, I say.

Look, the people who honestly care enough to argue the feasibility of SD existance are probably the same people who think NS is all about 'winning'. Personally, I could care less if someone makes a ship the size of Rhode Island so long as it makes for a good story, which is what I.I. is lacking as of late.

NationStates RP isn't meant to be the 'techology discussion/debate hub', it's meant to be a freeform RP environment. Simply by playing this game we all acknowledge that we are actively wanking on at least some level, since my nation alone has more people than planet fucking Earth. If someone wants to write about having mammoth SD's, powered armor, orcs, magic, Communism, and other fantastical things, then just let them. Who gives a shit as long as it's written well and within at least some bounds of reasonability, I say.


Applause! I agree, well said - and more eloquently than I, too. :) Now that that's over and done with, I shall return to having my Fourth Army annihilated by nuclear bombardment. :D

-snip-

Amen.

And neither is building a giant space elevator, but nobody gives you shit about that.

Look, the people who honestly care enough to argue the feasibility of SD existance are probably the same people who think NS is all about 'winning'. Personally, I could care less if someone makes a ship the size of Rhode Island so long as it makes for a good story, which is what I.I. is lacking as of late.

NationStates RP isn't meant to be the 'techology discussion/debate hub', it's meant to be a freeform RP environment. Simply by playing this game we all acknowledge that we are actively wanking on at least some level, since my nation alone has more people than planet fucking Earth. If someone wants to write about having mammoth SD's, powered armor, orcs, magic, Communism, and other fantastical things, then just let them. Who gives a shit as long as it's written well and within at least some bounds of reasonability, I say.

Actually, space elevator are possible to build (not currently, but the basic technologies for the most part all exist). I'm referring to that particular "SD" which supposedly has 40 feet of armor, not all SDs (though I am convinced that most SDs are rather more structurally weak than is claimed).

I'm referring to that particular "SD" which supposedly has 40 feet of armor...

Honestly, get your facts right.

It's 40 foot of composite armour all over, including main gun turrets. Underneath that is 20-30 foot of steel and concrete. Then you get to the compartments, rooms, and so on and so forth.

The bloody thing's over a kilometre long, is - from keel to top of the bridge - about 750m tall, and around 600m wide.

Yet you complain about the armour!? :p Goon...!

Good grief..I have seen smaller capital space ships than that monster than you're describing, mate..

Well, I only have one, and she's not particularly well armed. Currently she's steaming at 25 knots into a rad-zone to try and find anyone left alive from a multi-megaton event... :(

EDIT: You should see my FT spaceships if you think the Primo Frank is big. ;)

lol. Mate, I have seen stat's for space ships nine miles long, with enough firepower to turn any two planets into radioactive slag (might take a while, but they can)

Just because I am not active in ft (currently), doesn't mean that I don't know what is possible, and has been done, in it.

Only nine miles? Bah, my mainstay are ten vessels that are 270km long and on the totally batshit insane level, there's one that's 90 million miles long* with one gun** and ten crew. ;) :p

* and made from gold foil... essentially!
** it's a superheavy turbolaser for point-defense...

Something that supporters of SD's seem to miss is that despite their superior armor and big guns, no BB is in service in any navy today in RL. Wanna know why? Post-dreadnaught battleships are not cost effective. They are the biggest, most complicated, most heavily armored ships. All of that means a big investment. And they can be sunk with less than 20 missile or torpedo hits. Just 1 nuclear torpedo. Just 1 or 2 nuclear missiles. And shells cannot change direction once fired like missiles can. Shells do not have the range of missles. MT navies can simply launch hundreds of UCAV's, each armed with a few conventional warhead missiles and cripple or sink a BB no matter how many AA guns it has trained on the skies. They also can't be in more than one place at a time which a small fleet of FFG's can do. BB's are no longer worth the investment, especially when you could commit those resources to attacking enemy weaknesses such as blocking importation of food or other critical resources with satellite weapons and submarine attacks.

The point of war nowadays is not to be the biggest but the best. The best at killing your opponent without getting touched yourself. Strike from a distance, beyond their range so they can't fight back. That was the mentallity behind using airships as sub hunters. A sub can't see it coming and can't fight back without surfacing and risking direct hits.

The super-dreadnaught is a weapon of terror. It's made to intimidate the enemy. The guided weapons destroyer is a weapon of war. It's made to kill your enemy.

Um, every person who compared aircraft carriers to battleships (and is biased towards the carriers), tends to forget that battleships can and do have escorts, too.

Um, every person who compared aircraft carriers to battleships (and is biased towards the carriers), tends to forget that battleships can and do have escorts, too.
I'm not talking about the escorts. I'm talking about the planes. The planes, boss, the planes. Especially UCAV's, which are basically remote controlled missiles with more missiles and sometimes guns. If a manned fighter goes down it's a huge loss because you lose a skilled pilot and a multi-million dollar piece of equipment. But if you lose the UCAV you just shoot off another and get back in the fight while piloting it from the safety of the sidelines.

Something that supporters of SD's seem to miss is that despite their superior armor and big guns, no BB is in service in any navy today in RL. Wanna know why? Post-dreadnaught battleships are not cost effective.

No. That's the biggest steaming pile of bullshit I've ever read.

Wanna know the real reason why battleships are gone and armor is paper thin these days? Because after WWII, the only powers with navies were the Allies and to a far lesser extent, the Soviets. At the time, the biggest threat to any warship was the atomic bomb, be it Soviet or Allied. Against nukes, armor wasn't going to help much, so the naval designers of the world basicly scrapped the armor and switched their focus to air defense so that they could fend off enemy bombers armed with nukes. Thus, the world was graced with such wonderful technologies as the missile cruiser, F-4 Phantom, F-14 Tomcat, Aegis, and E-2 Hawkeye.

Naval combat wasn't even on the radar, meaning that modern vessels aren't designed to fight other ships. They're designed to fight planes and fend off the bomb.

Actually, space elevator are possible to build (not currently, but the basic technologies for the most part all exist). I'm referring to that particular "SD" which supposedly has 40 feet of armor, not all SDs (though I am convinced that most SDs are rather more structurally weak than is claimed).

AN, considering you build and deploy supposed airships that operate against the laws of physics, you're being rather hypocritical.

If it makes a good story and a good RP, and the player's don't wank...then so what? Hell, Matt sunk the Hood and several other players have had theirs sunk as well. Who gives a damn if they're nigh-on invicible? As long as they're RPed well by their players, thats all that should matter.

Wanna know the real reason why battleships are gone and armor is paper thin these days? Because after WWII, the only powers with navies were the Allies and to a far lesser extent, the Soviets. At the time, the biggest threat to any warship was the atomic bomb, be it Soviet or Allied. Against nukes, armor wasn't going to help much, so the naval designers of the world basicly scrapped the armor and switched their focus to air defense so that they could fend off enemy bombers armed with nukes. Thus, the world was graced with such wonderful technologies as the missile cruiser, F-4 Phantom, F-14 Tomcat, Aegis, and E-2 Hawkeye.

Wrong. Battleships are gone because they cannot control the seas or project power. The best they can do is send a few shells inland a very short distance. Their armor, while nice, did not protect them from AP bombs and torpedoes, which were achieving about 8" of armor penetration and were rapidly improving. By the end of WWII, the US had an AP bomb penetrating 12" of armor. Furthermore, one could always drop a Tallboy or Grandslam, using the guidance system from Dove (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/asm-n-4.html) or just a simple Tarzon or Razon.


Naval combat wasn't even on the radar, meaning that modern vessels aren't designed to fight other ships. They're designed to fight planes and fend off the bomb

Again, a complete load of nonsense. Ship-launched Harpoons, Exocets, Gabriels, Styx, Granits, Moskits, etc. are all intended for surface to surface warfare. That was the point of the large missiles on the Kirov class after all, surface engagements with American CVBGs. The entire purpose of Fast Attack Craft is surface warfare.