It's impossible to make good figther weapons

    sayerulz

    Identifies as a T-34
    Joined
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages
    616
    Reaction score
    179
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    I think that at the moment, in modern warfare, we are at sort of a point where on one really knows what works well, because no where are there two forces with modern weapons fighting each other. We have ways we think things will turn out, but until shots start being fired, no one is really sure. I am reminded of the battle of tsusima, which was the first major engagement between pre-dreadnought warships, and it didn't turn out at all how people expected, and the fallout was major changes in warship design and the eventual rise of the dreadnought.

    I think that if the worst should happen, and war should break out between two major powers, then we could see a return of the battleship. That is, if everyone isn't dead from all the nukes, which might be more likely.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Brokengauge

    Az14el

    Definitely not a skywanderers dev
    Joined
    Apr 25, 2015
    Messages
    848
    Reaction score
    325
    • Legacy Citizen 2
    • Purchased!
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    We know very well what a modern missile volley can do to modern armor
    Which is why destroyers are fast & carriers carry. Why do we still use 30mm cannons? because planes go fast & warheads cause collateral.
    But honestly if we could use a missile in a situation we would normally use a machinegun, we might also have the option of just gassing the place. Because we're probably breaking the whole "don't blow up the wrong house or you're literally a war criminal" rule by then.
     
    Joined
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages
    457
    Reaction score
    158
    I think that at the moment, in modern warfare, we are at sort of a point where on one really knows what works well, because no where are there two forces with modern weapons fighting each other. We have ways we think things will turn out, but until shots start being fired, no one is really sure. I am reminded of the battle of tsusima, which was the first major engagement between pre-dreadnought warships, and it didn't turn out at all how people expected, and the fallout was major changes in warship design and the eventual rise of the dreadnought.

    I think that if the worst should happen, and war should break out between two major powers, then we could see a return of the battleship. That is, if everyone isn't dead from all the nukes, which might be more likely.
    All very true. I just don't think we'll see a return to huge massive battleships. The dreadnoughts, and post dreadnought battleships were all built around their main guns. The Yamato was such a huge monster because that's exactly how big it had to be to be able to safely use those massive 18" guns. Same with the Iowa's which didbfire a smaller 16" bullet, but pushed them out with more velocity.

    So in order to deal with their size, they also had to have thick armor, lots of AA, secondary, tertiary, and other batteries to try and protect themselves.

    However, all that mass and manpower and explosives in one container is a HUGE liability, one that every major navy operated with out of necessity. The battleship had a strategic role that no other vessel of the time could fill: seaborne artillery.

    Even before guided missiles were regularly used, battle ships could still be brought down by much smaller destroyers and destroyer escorts (think like a battle frigate, for those who don't know) carrying torpedoes. Ww2 showed how effective airpower actually was at taking them down. Suddenly, the main role of the battle ships went from bombarding coast line targets and other capital ships, to screening friendly carriers against fighters.

    A vessels available firepower has grown vastly over the years, but a ships defense against it only marginally by comparison. I feel that any navy that spends the resources to make a battleship again will only lose it, quickly, along with any poor souls who would be its crew.

    You just don't need the size to field that type of firepower anymore. The battleships role is filled by cruisers and destroyers now, and they do it while being sleeker, more mobile, with less operating costs.

    Of course, I'm sure what you're getting at is a wholly modern design. Smaller than its ww2 predecessors, with the absolute latest in defensive measures and most high tech weapons (railgun from earlier, maybe? Not as effective as a missile, but a fraction of the cost to use). I can't imagine what such a vessel would be like, but if they called it a battleship, I doubt it would bear anything other than the most superficial of resemblances to the old battleships.

    Oh god. Text dump. What have I done?
     

    sayerulz

    Identifies as a T-34
    Joined
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages
    616
    Reaction score
    179
    • Community Content - Bronze 1
    • Legacy Citizen 3
    We know very well what a modern missile volley can do to modern armor
    Which is why destroyers are fast & carriers carry. Why do we still use 30mm cannons? because planes go fast & warheads cause collateral.
    But honestly if we could use a missile in a situation we would normally use a machinegun, we might also have the option of just gassing the place. Because we're probably breaking the whole "don't blow up the wrong house or you're literally a war criminal" rule by then.
    They also knew what a 120 cannon could to to ye olde face-hardened steel backed by homogeneous steel armor, but actual battle is more complex than what a given weapon can do to a metal plate on a testing range. Large-scale warfare is even more so. In fact, it's so complex, that I really doubt that anyone can fully predict everything that might happen.
     
    Joined
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages
    457
    Reaction score
    158
    They also knew what a 120 cannon could to to ye olde face-hardened steel backed by homogeneous steel armor, but actual battle is more complex than what a given weapon can do to a metal plate on a testing range. Large-scale warfare is even more so. In fact, it's so complex, that I really doubt that anyone can fully predict everything that might happen.
    It's fun to talk about though! And hijack threads over...
     
    Joined
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages
    923
    Reaction score
    292
    • Community Content - Bronze 2
    • Purchased!
    • Thinking Positive
    The world's navies will soon have hypersonic missiles deployed. Imagine a two thousand pound missile moving as fast as a tank's kinetic penetrator, with an armored nose capable of deflecting glancing hits from CIWS, attacking with evasive maneuver and active countermeasures. Now imagine them attacking in a swarm. Such a missile would cut through a battleship's armor like it wasn't there, and deliver a massive explosive payload that would detonate inside it's target. Versus such weapons, the last thing you want is a lot of eggs in a single basket. Battleship guns will be (are) even more obsolete than battleship armor.

    Given that at least the US will continue to field large egg baskets with their aircraft carriers, they are going to want lots of active countermeasures to protect those carriers. That means lots of ships carrying several CIWS each, short range anti-missile missiles, long range missiles and really good anti-submarine and anti-torpedo gear as well (watch out for supercavitating torpedoes). Battleships are ill suited to such defense, and serve little function otherwise except as targets. Light cruisers in the 5-10 thousand ton displacement range are the ideal platform.
     

    AtraUnam

    Maiden of crashes
    Joined
    Oct 15, 2013
    Messages
    1,121
    Reaction score
    869
    • Railman Gold
    • Competition Winner - Small Fleets
    • Wired for Logic Gold
    For the record, for the price of a single supercarrier any other country can build 1000 missiles that are virtually impossible to intercept with even a single one being completely capable of scuttling the entire ship.