From The Depths - Forum
Battleships - Printable Version

+- From The Depths - Forum (https://forum.fromthedepthsgame.com)
+-- Forum: Community (https://forum.fromthedepthsgame.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Off topic (https://forum.fromthedepthsgame.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=27)
+--- Thread: Battleships (/showthread.php?tid=875)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15


Battleships - lemmington - 2014-04-18

This is a discussion thread about battelships in the moderen area


Almost everyone will say that battleships are something that just don't have anymore use in modern warfare.

I say false, test have proven that the tomohawk missels that modern navy uses as anti-ship missels lack the punch to do any serious damage to and heavly armored battleships from WW2.
Then they just need to use a bigger missels right? Well a bigger missel means a bigger target and if you equip a battleship whit modern missels defence systems then those missels won't even reach the battleship.

The next point is aircrafts, yes they where the downfall of the battleships but just as the missels we now have much better technologie for taking down aircrafts.

But does a battleship have enough space for all these new systems. The awnser is: remove all the sub-caliber guns and you would have more then enoegh place for any new system you want to instal


post your thoughts here


RE: Battleships - SangerZonvolt - 2014-04-18

I´ll have to go with no, at least not for western countries. In asymetrical battles like iraq or afghanistan warships can´t do anything usefull except for pounding the land with artillery for a lot of civilian casualties. Blocking see routes and patroling is more effectively done with a net of lighter ships like frigates and the like. If you need a precision strike then aircraft carriers are your main choice.

In symetrical battles like america gainst russia battleships wouldn´t even get close to the other country before getting nuked. A good modern battleship allways has a fleet around it for support which is a perfect target for a nuke (lots of soldiers and expensive equipment, no civilian deaths on sea). For a battle like this subs are more usefull. That´s why most modern countries buy subs instead of battleships.

The only use I see would be in a symetrical battle without the access to any higher tier modern weapons. So if some countries on the african coast wage war against each other a battleship WILL make a difference. Of course only as long as no western country interventes.


RE: Battleships - h0yer - 2014-04-18

Besides of nukes...
You can easily saturate the defensive capabilities of any existing close-in defense systems with either state of the art tech or cheap old katyusha tubes or even homebrew tricks.
And there are several anti-ship missiles in existence, that can not be intercepted due to their speed and fractal evasive patterns, and can even sink a Nimitz with one single hit. Sadly.
I've seen several "realistic" scenario simulations of this. The BBs and CVNs always lost...


RE: Battleships - Tchou - 2014-04-18

Lots of modern weapons are useless because of Nukes including Big Battleship.
As Sanger said, frigates can be useful to block sea routes or pirates, but in war, they are useless.


RE: Battleships - lemmington - 2014-04-18

You know nukes are againts the geneva convention (i know americka didn't sing it), and if someone dare to use one then the whole world is just *obscene word*.

And sanger could you give me an example for a modern battelship? I know they make command ships (huge ships whit lots and lots of supplies but whit almost no offensife cababilities or very weak ones).
A battleship could fill in the role of command ship because of its durability, firepower and huge storage capabilities.


Hoyer
As for the rocket that sunk the Nimitz ( a super carrier i googled it), yes it may give a BB some problem but no it won't sink it. A BB is made to take hits, a carrier not so much. Also don't forget the fact that a carrier has less armor and (i think) more explosive cargo.
Yes BB's will have a lot of explosive shells in their ammo storages, but if one of those storages blows up the ship just won't sink that easly. A carrier on the other hand has huge and i mean huge storages for the missles and rockets and not to mention jet feul tanks for the aircrafts.
Also how much would one of those missles cost? 25000 dollar per missel? A battleship whit a 16 inch guns (yhea i am talking about an IOWA class BB) can fire 11 inch sabot that have an effective range of around 80 km (also found on google). And whit modern technologie we can make it a pretty presice weapon (not as presice as an missel) and one of these sabot would cost around 500 dollars. And i have yet to see or find a system that can take a 500kg sabot whit mach 3 out of the air.

Yes i know these are all theories but i truly belive battleships are not that useless as most people think they are. And please stop talking about them nukes, it is pretty unrealistic that they ever will use one. And if they did WW3 wil start and the world will be doomed.


RE: Battleships - SangerZonvolt - 2014-04-19

Well if they keep to the geneva convention. But even without nukes Battleships age just too big and easy to hit from a distance. A B-2 Bomber can surely give enough of a punsh with conventional weapons to render an battleship useless with one or two bombing runs. Maybe not sink it but destroy the main weapons. Or drop an Aerosol bomb on it and kill the crew.


And sure you could use it as a command ship. it´s just not as effective as say, build a command ship. If you want a seabased HQ Carriers are better. Or just build a new class of ship which is basically a giant plattform which can be made stationary and act as a mobile HQ.


I think you have a funny concept about how much things cost. A ship sinking missle for 25000 dollar? A Milan Rocket the german army uses costs 12000 Euro /16500 dollar per shot (with about 100000 Euro for the launcher). And those a infantry based anti-tank rockets for distances up to 3000 m. A mark 48 Torpedo costs about 2,3 Million dollar per shot. A tomahawk missile between 600000 and one million dollar. I haven´t found any sources telling me how much one shot with a ships cannon costs, but one 120mm projectile fired from a leopard 2 costs about 4000 to 6000 Euro (at leastthat´s what the turks and greece had to pay per grenade to germany when they bought it). I think you can imagine how much a shot from a ships cannon costs, as it´s caliber is much higher, at least more than 500 dollarSmile. Maybe you found sources stating their cost during WW 2 which haven´t been inflationcorected. Also you have to see the costs for the ship itself and the fuel. One ship of the USS New jersey class costs 58 mio dollar per year in times of peace (which is quite cheap considering it´s size).


RE: Battleships - h0yer - 2014-04-19

Some more financial fun-facts:

A Nimitz (empty, without airplanes and stuff) 4.5 billion USD (1998)
A B-2b Stealth-Bomber 4,8 billion (2004)
A Virginia-Class-Submarine 85 billion (2013)
An Arleigh-Burke-Missile-Destroyer 105 billion, currently the most expensive "weapon" on the market (2013)
Those are all billions, not millions (For Germans: English billion is ne Milliarde)

A Finnish speed-patrol-boat (don't know the exact type) cost the same like 2 Volvo 770S cars, but you can mount every existing ASW to it, they are made of plastics and wood and are so small, fast and agile that AEGIS/Phalanx have serious problems recognizing them as combattant vessels^^
Get 300-400 of those boats, each with 4 fancy missiles, this saturates the close-in defensive capability of an entire carrier strike group Big Grin


RE: Battleships - lemmington - 2014-04-19

sanger i agree whit the cost of the bullet may be higer but still it will be cheaper then a advanced missle

But about the bombing runs whit a bomber, you know that a modern variation of a BB would have missle launchers and also probably sam launchers and CIWS. I doubt a singel bomber could do 2 bombing runs before it get shot down.

As for the cost, are we talkign about building a whole new ship or refiting the exsisting ones? refiting would cost around a few million dollar, but then the ship is top notch, advance active missle defence and one of the best passive defence on the sea (passive defense= just plain armor). Also the USS IOWA is actuly faster the modern command ships (they already exsist).

Building a new one would cost around a few billion dollars and the armor would be of worse quatlity, because they just don't have the knowledge anymore how they should make gaint armored ships (today example of this phenomen: old building in europe made in 'ghotische' style. Modern builders have a really hard time to recreate those bautifull sculputers that you can see on the outside and suchs).

(2014-04-19, 10:31 AM)h0yer Wrote: Some more financial fun-facts:

A Nimitz (empty, without airplanes and stuff) 4.5 billion USD (1998)
A B-2b Stealth-Bomber 4,8 billion (2004)
A Virginia-Class-Submarine 85 billion (2013)
An Arleigh-Burke-Missile-Destroyer 105 billion, currently the most expensive "weapon" on the market (2013)
Those are all billions, not millions (For Germans: English billion is ne Milliarde)

A Finnish speed-patrol-boat (don't know the exact type) cost the same like 2 Volvo 770S cars, but you can mount every existing ASW to it, they are made of plastics and wood and are so small, fast and agile that AEGIS/Phalanx have serious problems recognizing them as combattant vessels^^
Get 300-400 of those boats, each with 4 fancy missiles, this saturates the close-in defensive capability of an entire carrier strike group Big Grin

As proven in WW2 quantity will win from quality.


RE: Battleships - Antypodish - 2014-04-19

Very interesting discussion to read. I have no expertise in this subject, but keep writing guys Smile


RE: Battleships - SangerZonvolt - 2014-04-19

(2014-04-19, 10:42 AM)lemmington Wrote: sanger i agree whit the cost of the bullet may be higer but still it will be cheaper then a advanced missle

But about the bombing runs whit a bomber, you know that a modern variation of a BB would have missle launchers and also probably sam launchers and CIWS. I doubt a singel bomber could do 2 bombing runs before it get shot down.

As for the cost, are we talkign about building a whole new ship or refiting the exsisting ones? refiting would cost around a few million dollar, but then the ship is top notch, advance active missle defence and one of the best passive defence on the sea (passive defense= just plain armor). Also the USS IOWA is actuly faster the modern command ships (they already exsist).

Building a new one would cost around a few billion dollars and the armor would be of worse quatlity, because they just don't have the knowledge anymore how they should make gaint armored ships (today example of this phenomen: old building in europe made in 'ghotische' style. Modern builders have a really hard time to recreate those bautifull sculputers that you can see on the outside and suchs).

[

I am quite sure we could produce a very good armored ship with modern technique. What you said about the gothic structures only holds true if you want to let modern people build soemthing with old technology, since they don´t have any experience with it. But with modern technology we can build buildings more than 700 meter high. I don´t think there will ever be a gothic skyscraper made out of stone Big Grin.

And again the main problem isn´t the raw firepower. I agree that a battleship could whipe the floor with almost anything in a fair 1 vs 1 faceoff. But that´s not how modern war works. You have to keep your forces secret or they become jsut easy target (and no amount of armor can protect you against aerosol bombs or chemical attacks). This will be even more true once stronger direct firse systems get implemented. For example railguns and lasers, both in development right now. Lasers are already used against drones and rockets and the USA wants railguns working by 2017. Then your armor is probably either useless or you have to make it so thick that it´s to expensive. And there are also new kinds of torpedoes in development, some of them traveling at mach 2. At the moment there is no way to defend against a mach 2 torpedo actively.

So, how easy is it to detect a battleship? Germanys latest sub sonar can detect the AIDA cruiser from a distance of 3000 km (I didn´t even know sound could travel that far without getting erased completely).

Another problem of battleships is that you can´t split them up. One boat is staying one boat, while many smaler boats can be split up for precision strikes.

So yeah, battleship can be usefull, it´s just that there are other ships that can do the jobs more efficient/effective.

If you want to create a new direct strike ship then I say they should wait till railguns get advanced enough to be mounted on a bit smaller ships and build a sub/battleship hybrid. I mean even japanese in WW2 had working sub-carriers.