I'll stop you Bismark! FEEL THE FURY!

>>14710344
This will not end well.

>>14710344
Hood, don't be an idiot.

Does anyone have a copy of the WW1 supplement for this game?

>>14710384
>>14710735
Fucking lucky shots.

>>14711030
one in a million shots happen nine times out of ten. Hood was gonna lose that one. But I know Bismark's weakness

>>14711213
Actually, the crew of the Bismark had drilled for months about going up against the Hood (the best the Royal Navy had) and were frankly a little taken aback by the destruction of the hood. They had theorized a clash of Titans, and were instead treated to a shimmering fireball and turret #2 being propelled into low earth orbit. Many diaries of crewmen indicate that it was a sobering, not joyous occasion, when the Hood blew.

play navy field

>>14711375
If I wanted to be shouted at in Korean by a pre-pubescent fucktard, I'd play navyfield.

A minority of fa/tg/uys play Flames of War, which is of course the ground warfare component of WW2 for the most part. Naval battles generally aren't as interesting in the public consciousness for whatever reason. It is this that leads me to believe there is probably a grand total of three people who play naval WW2 wargames.

>>14711213

Seconded.

Battle cruisers were a stupid idea and Fisher was an idiot. If fact all big gun battleship were a stupid idea all around but that another topic altogether.

The best naval game available is battlefleet gothic.. Imperial Vs. Chaos go.

>>14711427
Please don't turn this rare wargaming thread that is neither Warhammer, Warmachine or Battletech into Warhammer.

>>14711412
>If fact all big gun battleship were a stupid idea all around

Isn't that hindsight, though? From what I understand they were a fine idea (if brutally expensive) up until effective naval air power made them useless.

>>14711427
Find me a video game representation of that and you will be my god.

>>14711449

Every battleship built after 1921 was utterly pointless due to aircraft and the ones built before that spent most of their life avoiding combat because they were far to expensive to lose. 6 times as many battleships were lost to aircraft, subs and mines than to other surface combatants.

A weapon you can not afford to use or lose is useless.

>>14711449
Dreadnought-era ships were the product of the Ruso-Japan war. They figured out that in actual naval engagements larger, long range guns were more effective than smaller ones that never got used.

WWII and the need for more anti-air guns on ships changed that a bit, but it wasn't until aircraft carriers came into the full swing of WWII that battleships became largely obsolete outside of shore bombardments.

Battlecruisers were a good concept, just badly implemented. You had ships like the Hood that died trying to take down the Bismark, then you have the German battlecruisers that were being used to attack merchant shipping.

Forever alone ;_;

It was the Washington naval treaty that made battle ships obsolete , mostly buy stunting and forcing the development of ships that would fit the treaty obligations.

if you remove the WNT , development of battleships will not be suck in the mentally of Russo-Japanese War.

>German battlecruisers that were being used to attack merchant shipping.

was a fairly good use (before aircraft) large and more powerful then a cruiser but faster then a battleship, relay that was their best place , raiding and picking on smaller shit , they kind of lack a place on the line of battle

No matter their feasability, battleships look way cooler then aircraft carriers.

Plus, who doesn't love OP's picture?

There's actually a game called Naval Thunder I'll upload for you gents.

>>14712377
awesome!

>>14712377
Anyupdates on this?

>>14716067
Still working on it.

Who wins: Bismark or South Dakota?

>>14716744

The USS Enterprise. Or more specifically, her air wing.

I'd be a liar if I said I hadn't looked at Axis & Allies: War At Sea.

But alas, I don't think anyone around here would play.

Mongoose Publishing's "Victory at Sea" is worth a look. Fast, fun, and has good detail.

>>14716744
montana class for secured victory

There is also a game called "General Quarters", which is a bit dated but quite good for both WW1 and WW2. It is a miniature game, I bought cheap ships from Nawwar to play.

>>14711412
Battlecruisers are great if you use them as battlecruisers and not as battleships. They have a specific purpose, and fighting battleships is not it.
And since you all seem to be on the subject of aircraft making battleships obsolete, I'll note that aircraft didn't sink a single sailing American battleship through the entire war. It took the combined aircraft of something like eighteen carriers to bring down Yamato.

Even during WWII, battleships were fairly resistant to air attacks. The problem is that with the exception of the US, most navies didn't have any real capability to engage aircraft with their ships. The advantage over air defense systems that aircraft enjoyed back in the 40s is long over, and these days you'd be lucky to get an aircraft within a hundred miles of an American surface ship regardless of a carrier being in the area. A battleship with modern air defense systems and an ASW helicopter would be untouchable by anything in the ocean.

>>14711412
SPEED IS ARMOR, FISHER WAS RIGHT
There is a serious amount of cognitive bias here, because one can point at a battleship that has taken hits and go "SEE HOW EFFECTIVE THE ARMOR IS" but when the speed results in the enemy missing, all you have is lack of evidence.
>Implying the lack of all big gun battleships didn't contribute to the Russians getting stomped at Tsushima

>>14711547
Don't be silly. It was only the Germans who couldn't afford to use their fleet.

>>14717293
>The advantage over air defense systems that aircraft enjoyed back in the 40s is long over, and these days you'd be lucky to get an aircraft within a hundred miles of an American surface ship regardless of a carrier being in the area. A battleship with modern air defense systems and an ASW helicopter would be untouchable by anything in the ocean.
You seriously overestimate how effective air defense is. This also misses the entire reason of why Battleships are obsolete, which is because they're shit at delivering firepower to the right spot, have limited range, and can't take the fight to aircraft.

>>14717348
It's not so much the enemy missing as the enemy never getting into range in the first place. Battlecruisers are designed to outgun anything they can catch and outrun anything they can't curbstomp. They're cruiser hunters and commerce raiders, and little else.

>>14717382
A phased array radar and a few hundred VLS tubes would be more than enough to protect the ship from anything anyone could reasonably throw at it, as well as allow it to use cruise missiles to extend its engagement range when maximum firepower isn't required.

The real reason battleships are obsolete is because there are no targets for them. Nobody in the world has a navy capable of engaging our destroyers, let alone the rest of the fleet. Battleships wouldn't really accomplish anything until that changes.

>>14717420
Tell me, have you found a reliable way to get the stains off your flag after you're done fucking it?

>>14717382
Agreed, the air defenses of a single surface ship can be rather easily overwhelmed by enough aircraft (which cost a fraction of the ship). Also anti-ship cruise missiles launched from naval bombers fuck up your day from beyond most your anti-air systems. Carrier Group with planes on alert, screen of smaller ships etc is a whole other topic of course.

>>14717456
Good luck finding anyone with enough aircraft to throw away just to sink one ship. I like how you assume that the battleship would be alone too.

By the way, those cruise missiles would have to come to the ship. That'd put them within the range of the ship's air defense systems.

>>14717420
>Aircraft launch missiles from beyond effective air defense range
>Run off and reload, come back and shoot more until ship is sunk
>Problem, battleship?

There are no targets for battleships because any targets they can hit can be better hit by carrier-launched aircraft.

>>14717470
You really should read up on Soviet doctrines concerning air attacks on US warships. Then again I guess that's all filthy communist prpoaganda to you.

>>14717474
Missiles can be shot down. Try again.

>>14717420
>The real reason battleships are obsolete is because there are no targets for them.
No I'm pretty sure its because of cruise missiles, torpedoes and aircraft, as with all modern naval vessels. Well, and because they're too short-range to actually contribute to any modern military engagements, a drawback cruise missiles and aircraft also do not have.

>>14717420
No, they fucking weren't. Read a goddamn book. Battlecruisers/Pocket Battleships were intended to be able to ships of the line. It wasn't until a couple of them got sunk the navies drew the wrong conclusions and pulled them back.

>>14717481
You idiot. The point is that the bombers can keep reloading and coming back for more, and there is NOTHING a battleship can do to stop them from keeping it up until they run out of missiles or a lucky leaker gets through. A carrier can take the fight to the enemy by launching its own fighters after the bombers. A battleship just sits there and tanks hits.

>>14717481
Let me enlighten you on something:
>Warship without air cover
>Launch squadron of naval bombers
>Fire anti ship cruise missiles from beyond air defense range
>Overwhelm ships' CIWS with sheer quantity
>Return to base
>Repeat

Once air cover gets into the equation that changes, but without air cover modern surface ships are easy targets as long as we are talking about to roughly equal factions

>>14717510

>He's never heard of point defense systems.

>>14717480
>You really should read up on Soviet doctrines concerning air attacks on US warships
My favourite example of how these massive juggernaught vessels are obsolete comes from some wargames the US Military ran based in the Strait of Hormuz in the 2000s. The US General playing the opfor decided to field dozens of small dinghys running on outboard motors, crewed with a handful of guys with RPGs. They didn't show up on radar, could hide in reeds, were almost impossible to target, and if any of the Huge Murder Ships came near shore they swarmed out and mobbed them. There was no real counter as you could only detect them visually, they were a tiny fraction of the cost, and could rapidly sink a ship. The brass got all pissed off with him when he trashed the guy playing the Navy, and forced him to rerun the exercise but to play 'fair'.

Iran learnt from that one, it's why their navy is lots of small boats. Although they are trying to do stupid shit like those low-altitude ground lift effect flying boats, so... they clearly haven't learnt much.

>>14717420
Battleships are too thick-skinned to be effected by modern anti-ship weapons outside of torpedoes(even then, the new detonation systems they were talking about a while back wouldn't do much). The only real threat to them would come from JDAM's.

They are relics from another era though. They burn diesel instead of running on nuclear reactors, their guns, while accurate, are outdated and largely useless in an era where $2 million cruise missiles and long range fighters are the way to go.

Its sad, really. Battleships are, in my opinion, what a warship is supposed to look like: strong and invincible. Modern warships are so fragile in comparison.

>>14717517
holy shit you're stupid

ITT Defense systems for Carriers? I am 12 and what are these

Also apparently we're talking about battleships despite the year being 2011. Nobody runs battleships anymore, fellas. Like, seriously.

>>14717517
>He thinks PD systems are 100% reliable and can engage multiple targets from all angles simultaneously.
You should probably not take all your information from marketing pamphlets, bro.

>>14717517
It takes a decent anti ship cruise missile (which has a velocity around Mach 4 for its final approach) roughly 2 seconds to go through the maximum range of your CIWS (not maximum range - not optimal range). Guess what happens if you have some 5 to 10 missiles flying at you.

>>14717580
>(not maximum range - not optimal range)
was meant to say (note: 'maximum' range - not 'optimal' range)

>>14717536
Ripper is just a media whore. The best analogy is like that annoying 12 year old online RPer who god-modes everything away.

>>14717544
Wrong.
Even a light anti-ship missile would deal lots of damage to an armored battleship, never mind one of those huge Soviet monstrosities. Modern warships aren't armored because it's a fucking futile effort.

>>14717580
>>cruise missile
>>anti-ship
>>Mach 4
doesn't exist

>>14717594
Hate to tell you, but anti-ship missiles are useless against a battleship's armored belt. They confirmed this back when the were recommisioning the Iowa class back in the 80's.

>>14717604
The Soviet Raduga Kh-22 accomplished that in the sixties already. So yes, it does exist.

>>14717580

>He doesn't know about the Aegis module onboard all Combat Air Pat-
>Missile
>Mach 4

Uh huh. Okay.

>>14717636
That's not a cruise missile

>>14717604
>>14717640
YJ-91

Mach 4.5, sea skimming

>>14717655
It is however an aircraft deployed anti-shipping missile with sufficent range to fuck you up major time if you do not have air cover. Don't argue semantics, it really doesn't change the fact that a surface ship without air cover is fucked against a decent air attack

>>14717668
>>solid rocket fuel booster
Sorry, but I'm still waiting on this Mach 4 cruise missile

>>14717696
What exactly do you think a cruise missile is?

>>14717696
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmos

>>14717636
>>14717680
>Cruise missile
>marked by long range
>Kh-22
>range, 220 nmi.
>Tomahawk
>range, 1350 nmi

man, that Russian cruise missile is going to hate air cover.

The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviation to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was is now the position that it isn’t.
In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn’t, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is and where it wasn’t. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was. The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn’t, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn’t, or vice versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn’t be and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.

>>14717739
would you have the decency to read the thread already? I am trying to convince the idiots that claim a ship WITHOUT air cover could survive an attack by naval bombers armed with decent antt-ship missiles. Of course air cover is going to fuck up their day.

>>14717668
>Operational range, 5-120km

>>14717715
Cruise missiles have extremely long range and usually have jet engines

>>14717760

Sort of dumb postulates to pick, though.

"Oh well there isn't any ship in modern navies that either don't come with their own air squadrons or have enough SAMs to make Heavy Arms Gundam jizz itself but just to be funny we'll say that the HMS Big Metal Box has none of these."

>>14717760
Not until you chill the fuck out and stop having a hissy fit, bro. This is 4chan.

>>14717739
>>14717739
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RK-55
Range: 1600nm

What Air Cover?

>>14717655
>>14717696
Somehow I don't think the exact classification as "rocket", "cruise missile" or wherever is going to do much about the big, burning hole that it left in the ship it was pointed at.

>>14717805

>Speed: 720 km/h

>>14717781
A cruise missile is a long range payload carrying guided weapon that generates its own lift rather than follow a ballistic trajectory.

That's what it is. It's why they have wing struts and empennage.

>>14717819
And? What's your point? That it is faster then a Tomahawk?

>>14717832

Just so we're clear, 120 km does not equal long range.

>>14717801
Look you might not like the original concept I was arguing against which pretty much was: 'A modern surface ship by itself is pretty much immune to air attacks'.
Nevertheless someone still posted this and that's what I was arguing against, and that it is a pretty dumb concept doesn't change a thing about the fact that 'airpower > surface ship without air cover'

>>14717805
I thought the discussion was about cruise missiles with operational mach 4 speeds.

Mach 4 isn't 447 mph.

>>14717875
Anything with a 60km range or greater is a cruise missile, you can't seem to wrap your head around that.

>>14717801
>Sort of dumb postulates to pick, though.
That anon picked slightly wrong ones, but NH4NO3 (the guy who kicked this whole thing off) is arguing battleships are essentially invulnerable in and of themselves, without air support beyond a single helecopter to look for subs. Which is something of an exaggeration.

>>14717875
no the discussion was about whether a surface ship by itself could stand up to an air attack.

>>14717869

Ok, I guess that is true. It's still got the disadvantage of literally not ever happening in a combat situation except in the most extreme of circumstances. Try next time to argue that such a scenario is ridiculous, instead.

>>14717902
well I assumed that was rather obvious anway

Anyone who has played Harpoon, or Fleet Command knows that the Russian Missile boats are essentially endgame, since the US CBG can't survive an attack from them.

>>14717897
And I was replying to someone who was jizzing their pants about cruise missiles that could hit 3000 mph. This was to be included in the general discussion about how air cover is necessary in modern naval warfare, in which it seems everyone pretty much agrees is a damn nice this day and age and should never be taken away if you can ever help it.

Thanks for pointing out a Russian cruise missile design, though.

Hi guys, you wanted a 1000km Mach 2.8 Missile?

So I guess we are done?
Air cover is necessary.
There are no cruise missiles with Mach 4
There are anti-ship missiles with a terminal velocity of Mach 4

>>14717972
Yeah. Guess so.

Wait what? Battleships are obsolete because there are no targets for them? Are you fucking high? Anti-ship missiles launched by other ships massively out-range any gun. What the fuck is the point of your big gun battleship when its guns cant hit anything?

Battleships are obsolete because they no longer have a reason to exist. Why bring a single huge ship when for the same cost (or less) you can bring more ships with the same or greater firepower that are faster and more maneuverable.

>>14717536
Those boats wouldn't be able to damage a battleship, and they wouldn't be able to get in close enough. The Hormuz trick only worked because modern warships don't have the guns to target a large number of small craft at once. Battleships do.

>>14717578
>>14717580
You're both assuming one or two CIWS being all it has to defend against incoming missiles. A battery of 5" DP guns with modern tracking systems could pick off incoming missiles at far longer range than CIWS, and it'd be foolish to design a modern battleship without its own battery of SAMs.

>>14717544
Stop assuming 70 year old battleships. Just because battleships designed in the 1930s didn't have nuclear reactors or guns with ranges beyond 45,000 yards doesn't mean that a modern battleship wouldn't.

If battleships are dead, why is the Navy designing a Railgun for their new BB-X project?

>>14718747
You might want to look up the longest range at which a battleship hit has been recorded before spewing nonsensical ranges.

You've still never addressed the fact that NAVAL BOMBERS CAN LAUNCH MISSILES OUTSIDE EFFECTIVE AIR DEFENSE RANGE OVER AND OVER AGAIN UNTIL A LUCKY LEAKER GETS THROUGH AND A BATTLESHIP CAN DO JACK SHIT ABOUT IT OTHER THAN TAKE IT LIKE A BITCH THE ENTIRE TIME

>>14718962
The Iowa's 16" guns had a max range of 41,622 yards. Yamato's 18.1" guns had a max range of just under 46,000 yards. They more or less never fired at those ranges, but they could.

Your bomber scenario is irrelevant, as it'll take more than one or even a small handful of hits to seriously compromise a battleship.

By the way, the RIM-161 has a range of greater than 500km and a speed of mach 9. Good luck launching anything at the battleship from beyond that range that can't be easily intercepted by the DP guns and point defense.

I expect all big ships are on their way out.

The chinese developed an anti-ship ballistic missile. You can't really defend against that.

What can you do with a battleship that you can't do with a missile cruiser that costs significantly less?

>>14719242
Take hits. Fight at ranges below 100km. Support beach landings. Provide a serious show of force to diffuse international incidents.

We've gotta sink the Bismark!
Cause the world depends on us!

Fuck dat shit. Railguns and Defensive Lasers...

DOITFAGGOT!

>>14718962
First, anti-missile defenses don't care at what range you launch the missile from. The just shoot it down when it gets sort of close. A battleship is so big that it can be COVERED with anti missile systems.

2nd, a battleship's guns. Today we have all kinds of new gun technology, like GPS and satellite guided shells that would vastly increase the range and accuracy of any guns fired. Not only that, we are developing a naval railgun project.

Also, you fail to realize how weak today's ships are. Today's cruisers and other fleet ships are thinly armored and can be sunk by a pathetic Harpoon missile. Have you ever seen those fleet tests where they were going to turn an old WWII ship like an aircraft carrier into a reef? They did gunnery practice for the fleet and let them practice shooting their weapons at it. The guns did nothing, the missiles did nothing. It was a torpedo from a submarine that made the killing blow, AND ALL WATERTIGHT DOORS WERE OPENED AND EVERYTHING. If an escort carrier could take that sort of punishment, imagine how much damage a heavily armored battleship like the Iowa could take. You could hit it 20 times with Harpoons and not sink it. On the other side of the coin, 16 inch naval guns can obliterate any ship in any world's navy with a single salvo easily, with the possible exception of the Nimitz carriers, but even those would be sunk easily. What you are forgetting is that while anti-ship missiles can be shot down, or aircraft can be intercepted, nobody can intercept a 16 inch naval gun. The only thing that is a threat to battleships like the Iowa class (which are still in service by the way) are submarines. But of course, the same goes for the Nimitz carriers, and obviously the Battleship would be at the center of a whole Battlegroup, protecting the aircraft carrier, and where an enemy submarine would find it almost impossible to get close enough to attack.

>>14719270
>Take hits.
Then you're saying they get hit?

>Fight at ranges below 100km.
Why, when you can fight from further away? I see no reason to have to go get up close, especially when smaller ships tend to be faster.

>Support beach landings.
Wasp-class ships with air support can do this better than a bunch of guns; if you're going to tell me a big ass cannon is better CAS than an attack heli or on-station jet, I think you're mad.

>Provide a serious show of force to diffuse international incidents.
Carriers can already do this, provide aide, support, C4R, and reach further inland and with more capability than a battleship can do with pew pew guns.

I know I said just cruisers, but really, anything a battleship can do, another ship can probably do better for cheaper, or at least do more.

The main use for a battleship in today's world situation (where all out war is unlikely) is that it functions as naval artillery support for the Marines. It's guns can reach for miles inland, and it has enough ammunition to keep it firing nonstop for days. Also, it can stay "on station" forever. It's MUCH more reliable than air support from a carrier, because airplanes have to rotate in and out to rearm and refuel, and it also takes time to reach the target. With an Iowa class supporting your amphibious operation, your close support is as simple as radioing the coordinates and the few seconds/minutes it takes for the shells to reach the target.

>>14719444

With this being the primary role for a big gun ship, it's probably something that can be done without a battleship, and rather just a large gun ship with no need for the ship-to-ship capability of a battleship.

Not that there is much call for that kind of artillery support, particularly one limited to within a few miles of coastline.
I have a feeling at least half the thread here is arguing that they're agreeing with each-other.

>>14719381
ACTUALLY, battleships are very fast. Smaller does not automatically equal faster when it comes to ships.

>>14719444
A small diameter bomb can be used in more situations, more accurately, and with less collateral damage than a big gun. It can also reach -hundreds- of miles inland, and has the benefit of being shot by somebody with eyes and sensors directly on the target, not on a grid reference number.

Additionally, with today's asymmetrical threat, an attack helicopter provides better close air support than a large cannon ever would - again, with eyes and sensors on the target, and with a variety of weapons to engage instead of just a big ass gun.

Why are people saying a big gun battleship is viable in the modern day?

Real-fucking-life severely disagrees

... Seriously guys.

Anti-ship ballistic missiles. Look it up. It's the reason why any really large ship is a bad idea, no matter how much anti-missile defense you stick on them.

>>14719158
Yeah, they never fired at those ranges because YOU'D NEVER HIT ANYTHING AT THAT RANGE. The max recorded range for a hit from Battleship guns is about 25000 yards. Carrier range is literally dozens of times greater. Furthermore, this greatly narrows down the range the enemy has to search to find your fleet.

Even a modest missile will eat a battleship fucking alive, never mind the supersonic ones that weigh thousands of kg. As a very simply comparison, look up the typical armor thickness of tanks and range of mass and velocity of anti-tank projectiles. Then look up the armor thickness of battleships and the range of mass and velocity of anti-ship missiles. Compare energy/thickness. As a final nail in the coffin, the missiles have even more fuel and explosives.

And you're still too fucking stupid to understand the point that THE BATTLESHIP CANNOT TAKE THE FIGHT TO ENEMY. Regardless of how effective attacks beyond the Battleship's range are, they are more effective than the ZERO shots the Battleship can fire back. Merely defending forever does not result in victory.

Holy shit you Battleship proponents are as every bit retarded as you are ignorant

Battleships were kept as dicks to swing.

They are just big, cool looking ships, awesome for Navy propaganda.

A single missile destroyer carries enough firepower to sink ten battleships, naval combat is about stealth, evasion and protecting the carriers, not about slugging matches between giants.

>>14718901

For destroyers. It will even further imbalances the attack/defense ratio, most modern ships arent even armored that much because it wont protect them. Systems like Goalkeeper CIWS work much, much better and they work by counterattacking, not defending.

Static defense is dead on the seas.

>>14719675
>Even the united states navy, with their staggering military budget only keeps two Iowa class battleships maintained and ready for combat.

No they don't. They're all museums.

>>14719381
>Then you're saying they get hit?
In a littoral engagement, anything in the area is going to get hit. The difference is that the cruiser would be crippled or sunk and the battleship won't care.

>Why, when you can fight from further away? I see no reason to have to go get up close, especially when smaller ships tend to be faster.
You don't always get to choose your engagement range, and size has nothing to do with speed when ships are concerned.

>Support beach landings.
Wasp-class ships with air support can do this better than a bunch of guns; if you're going to tell me a big ass cannon is better CAS than an attack heli or on-station jet, I think you're mad.
LHDs are assault ships. They put men on the beach. They don't pound the beach to soften it up for the landings. A 1900lb HE shell does that far better than any helicopter or harrier can hope to do.

>Provide a serious show of force to diffuse international incidents.
Carriers can already do this, provide aide, support, C4R, and reach further inland and with more capability than a battleship can do with pew pew guns.
Carriers don't have nearly as much intimidation value as a battleship. Japan wasn't forced to open up to Western trade by a carrier, and didn't sign the surrender on a carrier's deck. Iraqi soldiers didn't surrender to a UAV from a carrier, they surrendered to a UAV from a battleship.

Unlike a carrier, a battleship can sail into a hostile port and tell the locals to calm the fuck down and not have to worry about getting gangraped.

>I know I said just cruisers, but really, anything a battleship can do, another ship can probably do better for cheaper, or at least do more.
Then you clearly have no clue what ships are capable of.

The point that nobody seems to grasp is that the vulnerability of ships has to be balanced with what we get out of them. A Carrier is more or less just as vulnerable as a Battleship to missiles, but it can do a lot fucking more in the form of providing air superiority, C4ISR aircraft, bombing, ASW, etc, and has a lot more fucking range.

>>14719675
The US Navy doesn't maintain the Iowas anymore.

>>14719615
Modern naval doctrines were drawn up at a time when the whole world expected everything to be about nuclear exchanges. Carriers could deploy nukes inland, and guided missile destroyers were designed explicitly to protect the fleet from flights of Soviet bombers armed with nuclear weapons. The F-14 was designed with the same purpose in mind. Conventional war wasn't seen as a possibility.

Today, people understand that nuclear war isn't very likely and any conflict is going to require a more traditional approach. This is where a battleship becomes viable again. Especially when a lot of the world's hotspots are in places with narrow or enclosed waterways where you don't get the option of just spamming aircraft and missiles from hundreds of miles away.

>>14719656
We already have a number of ways to intercept ballistic missiles. Our ship-launched SAMs can even take out satellites. Furthermore, you clearly don't understand how ballistic missiles work if you really think hitting a ship with them is actually a valid option. They're not accurate in any sense of the word.

>>14719691
They could hit things at that range no problem. They simply didn't because they'd be far outside of the engagement range of the rest of the battle group.

By the way, taking out a tank with an anti-tank missile is not the same thing as taking out a ship with an anti-ship missile. Tanks are large crew compartments with an engine and a gun attached. You penetrate that crew compartment, the crew dies. On the other hand, simply putting a tiny hole in a battleship's belt isn't going to do anything. They're designed to take hits, and you actually have to blow something up inside the ship instead of just penetrating the hull. This is why armor piercing naval shells penetrated with kinetic energy and then exploded instead of using a shaped charge.

>>14719692
>A single missile destroyer carries enough firepower to sink ten battleships
With what? Hopes and dreams?

>>14719818
>A single missile destroyer carries enough firepower to sink ten battleships
>With what? Hopes and dreams?

With missiles.

>>14719837
Nope. Nothing they can carry with the exception of torpedoes can actually harm a battleship. Try again.

>ctrl+f "Millenium Challenge"
>Nothing

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35

Read up, I'd like to hear some opinions.

>>14719853
Actually, nevermind. Not even their torpedoes can do more than scratch the paint. I forgot that surface ships stopped carrying torpedoes for use against anything other than submarines.

>>14719777
>In a littoral engagement, anything in the area is going to get hit. The difference is that the cruiser would be crippled or sunk and the battleship won't care.
The difference is that a Carrier is sitting hundreds of miles further away and less likely to be discovered, and by extension, damaged.

>Carriers don't have nearly as much intimidation value as a battleship. Japan wasn't forced to open up to Western trade by a carrier, and didn't sign the surrender on a carrier's deck. Iraqi soldiers didn't surrender to a UAV from a carrier, they surrendered to a UAV from a battleship.
What. The. Fuck. Holy shit you're a fucking retard. There isn't a single valid example any of what you listed. Did you seriously expect FUCKING PERRY IN THE 1800S TO HAVE A CARRIER?! Intimidation value comes from capability, and a Carrier far outshines the Battleship in this respect.

>>14719853
Modern Destroyers and Cruisers can fuck up a target from 500 kilometres away

Couple of missiles get taken down by point defenses? Each ship has ninety more.

>>14719853

Reality denial at its best.

If Battleships are really the ultimate ships you make them out to be, then tell me, oh wise one, why no navy in the world has any of them anymore?

Even the US navy, wich has the budget to maintain 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and support vessels, dont have any single battleship on their fleet.

In fact, no battleship has been built since the end of the World War II.

Why is it that all the militery in the world seem to have retired that weapon that you make sound so absurdly better than anything else they field today?

>>14719886
>>14719829
>>14719675

Stop.Posting.

>>14719853
>Nothing missle ships can carry with the exception of torpedoes can actually harm a battleship.
>Hilariously explodey missles that can blow apart bunkers can't blow up a floatin' hunk of metal.

What a delightful world you must live in.

>>14719853

A single, aging exocet could easily oneshot a battleship or atleast make it incapable of battle.

A single destroyer or even a single patrol boat can mount one.

I dont get why all the people are falling into this whoe BIGGER IS BETTER mindset when it comes to ships, its just another paradigm shift. Remember when admirals couldnt believe how a 2 gun monitor could sing a 120 gun ship of the line?

http://www.demonoid.me/files/details/260188/54052304/
Torrent of Jane's Fleet Command.

The game is a little dated, but still quite good. The weapons and sensors are decently detailed, and the controls are still simple enough to learn in your first 5 minutes playing the game. Think of it as Harpoon minus the masochism.

Gives a pretty good impression of how modern fleet combat works. I think both sides of this debate would benefit from messing around with it a bit, rather than trusting what they've regurgitated on some neckbeard's milblog.

>>14719886
Anything packing enough firepower to actually damage a battleship will be big enough to destroy before it can hit and can't be launched in large enough numbers to overwhelm the anti-aircraft defenses of a modern battleship, and nothing with the speed to get in before it can be intercepted will have the range to be launched from outside the range of the battleship's anti-air defenses.

>>14719965
>modern battleship

Now it's all clear. You're actually talking about a super advanced invincible magical ship that lives in your head.

> Missiles can't hurt a battleship
> Air power can't hurt a battleship

>>14719818
>Today, people understand that nuclear war isn't very likely and any conflict is going to require a more traditional approach. This is where a battleship becomes viable again. Especially when a lot of the world's hotspots are in places with narrow or enclosed waterways where you don't get the option of just spamming aircraft and missiles from hundreds of miles away.
...uh.... what? That's exactly where you have the luxury of spamming aircraft and missiles from a distance, because you have bases on land. You can sit 100 miles inland at your big missile silo and press the "Launch every missile" button and overwhelm the battleship, and it can't do jack. Apart from launch cruise missiles, of course, which you don't need to be a battleship to do. Are you assuming a symmetric naval engagement in these narrow channels between two foreign forces neither of which has any ground assets or facilities anywhere within 300 miles? If so, are you retarded, or do you just not care that your arguments are utterly inapplicable to the real world.

Also:
>Today, people understand that nuclear war isn't very likely and any conflict is going to require a more traditional approach. This is where a battleship becomes viable again.
Today conflict is asymmetric and takes place intertwined around civilian areas, and accuracy is paramount to avoid fucking up the locals and making them start an insurgency against you. Good luck precision targeting that power station 20 miles inland in the middle of a city with battleship artillery.

>>14711547

As fine a case of after-the-fact armchair quarterbacking as I have seen.

>> use youlater

What's that, Captcha? "Tonight...You?"

>>14719932
You may as well go fire a .22 at a tank while you're at it. Those missiles can't do anything to the battleship.

>>14719958
Exocets are shit. They can't take out anything that isn't a shitty British ship made out of aluminum with no fire suppression system. They would scorch the paint and nothing else.

>>14719956
Bunker busters are bombs, not missiles. The launching aircraft would never get into range.

>>14720008
There was one successful air attack on an Iowa through all of World War II.

>"On 11 April, a low-flying kamikaze, although fired on, crashed on Missouri's starboard side, just below her main deck level. The starboard wing of the plane was thrown far forward, starting a gasoline fire at 5 in (130 mm) Gun Mount No. 3. The battleship suffered only superficial damage, and the fire was brought quickly under control."

These days we have surface-to-air missiles and radar systems that make air attacks against ships all but impossible. That wasn't the case in WWII, and look how well it worked then.

>>14720083

GO FUCKING STUDY MILITARY NAVY AND STOP WASTING TIME PONDERING THIS SHIT HERE.

>>14720023
while I agrea the guy is an idiot for thinking battleships of that sort is still relevant, I must point out that there are ways of making artilery file extremely accurate. Basically they file a guided artillery shell that can navigate like a missile, but is instead of carrying any fule it is launched from a cannon.

>>14719958
There is no paradigm shift. Most of the missile boats aren't even fucking seaworthy outside calm waters. Larger ships are simply more cost and volume efficient.

>>14720097
>Exocets are shit. They can't take out anything that isn't a shitty British ship made out of aluminum with no fire suppression system.

You really have no idea how effective ASM's are. It's embarrassing to see you go on, really.

> You may as well go fire a .22 at a tank while you're at it. Those missiles can't do anything to the battleship.

>>14719937
>If Battleships are really the ultimate ships you make them out to be, then tell me, oh wise one, why no navy in the world has any of them anymore?
No it's okay, he covered this earlier: Nobody is willing to go into a stand-up fight with a battleship because they are so CHO VERY AWESOME and they would lose instantly, so as a result nobody bothers building battleships anymore because nobody will fight them. This isn't a circular argument.

>>14720139

Plus I think the only british ships ever hit by exocets are reconverted merchentmen we turned into carriers for our (now sadly, stupidly, discontinued) Harriers. I could be wrong though, my knowledge of the Falklands is shakey.

>>14720139
And the Stark, an unarmored destroyer, was pretty much fine. Care to try again?

NH4NO3 has a lot of good points. There is no weapon in the world that can sink a battleship.

Because no one fields a battleship.

>>14719818
Well guys, obviously we need some battleships to intimidate all the other countries.

What is the intimidation value of a squadron of air superiority aircraft anytime, almost anywhere in the world, when compared to the intimidation value of firing guns at their beaches? THINK OF ALL THE SURFERS.

We don't "pound beaches" anymore. If we're going to hit something on a beach, we'll hit it with precision guided munitions dropped from aircraft operating in an environment of air superiority.

Also, hit the belt armor of a battleship? Eat a JDAM on the top of your deck. Modern anti-ship missiles "pop up" to hit above the armored belt of a ship now.

Interesting curiosity: I wonder how effective a battleship would be after having a few cluster-bombs dropped on it. Oh wait, I'm sure this magic battleship could shoot down all the sub-munitions when they're dropped from an almost completely top-down angle.

You just don't understand the hatred that an aircraft can bring to a ship at sea.

>>14720083
It can intercept it before separation. There's a lot of problems with anti-ship ICBMs and they're largely a paper tiger. The US Navy probably plays it up so they can go to Congress, point at it and go "GIVE US MORE FUNDING"

>>14720181
>pretty much fine

Disabled, on fire, THIRTY SEVEN DEAD

AND THE FUCKING MISSILE DIDN'T EVEN DETONATE

>>14720192

Well come on, with the economy the state it is now, you would wouldn't you?

>>14720198
Yet the ship, an unarmored destroyer, survived. What makes you think a heavily armored battleship, capable of taking hits from 3000lb shells, is going to be phased by something that can't even sink an unarmored destroyer?

>>14720217
>What makes you think a heavily armored battleship, capable of taking hits from 3000lb shells

What magic fucking vessel are you on about?

>>14720217
>survived
>Tilted to the side and limps back home for repairs, mission-killed

And as >>14720198 stated, didn't even detonate.

>>14720187
Modern ships don't have armored belts, and anything going slow enough to "pop up" isn't going fast enough to avoid interception. JDAMs are bombs, which require the launching aircraft to be above the target and thus well within range of modern DP guns and SAMs.

>>14720225
Battleships built 70 years ago.

>>14720229
>>14720230
Unarmored destroyer. It's the same thing as shooting a humvee with a rifle and only damaging the engine and expecting the same weapon to destroy a tank.

>>14720261
>Unarmored destroyer

It was a Guided Missile Frigate

>>14720261
>Battleships built 70 years ago

Yeah, battleships built 70 years ago were fucking immune to 3000lb shells

Just ask the Yamato here

>>14720297
As far as the protection scheme is concerned, they're the exact same thing. (There is none.) An OHP-class frigate and Spruance-class destroyer take hits about as well as each other.

It being a smaller frigate just makes your case even worse.

>>14720309
Yamato was sunk by aircraft from 18 different carriers and went down because they focused torpedo attacks all on one side, causing her to roll over and explode when flames reached her magazines.

>>14720333
>Not even their torpedoes can do more than scratch the paint
I thought you said battleships are immune to torpedoes?

>>14720261
require the launching aircraft to be above the target and thus well within range of modern DP guns and SAMs.

And stealth technology, SEAD, and EW/ECS birds don't exist.

Brb guys building invincible ship that can never get hit by bombs or missiles, and if it does, it doesn't matter. That's easy, right? Besides, invincible ships have always triumphed in the past.

>>14720355
Modern ASW torpedoes aren't the same thing as WWII air-dropped torpedoes. One is designed for sinking fragile submarines, the other is designed for sinking armored warships.

It still took 386 aircraft, ten torpedo hits to the port side, and seven bomb hits to sink Yamato by making her capsize. Musashi took nineteen torpedo hits and seventeen bomb hits before sinking.

>>14720454
Stealth doesn't work with external ordinance or the bomb bays open. AWACS can't really do anything to a powerful ship-borne radar. SEAD missions aren't used against ships because there's no terrain to hide from radar behind and no HARMs can be launched from outside the range of modern ship-launched SAMs.

How exactly is your magical battleship going to defend itself from the air, anyhow?

>>14720571
>>14720571
SAMS. SAMs everywhere.

>>14720571
The same way destroyers and cruisers do. There's nothing stopping anyone from putting Aegis and a few hundred VLS tubes on a battleship.

If battleships are immune to anything besides dropping a nuke on them, why no one fields them anymore?

Also, whats to stop someone from nuking one if thats the only thing that can stop it?

>>14720610
Thank God the Russians still make Battleships.

>>14720611
>There's nothing stopping anyone from putting Aegis and a few hundred VLS tubes on a battleship.

Then where are you going to fit the big guns and their ammunition?

This kind of retarded tinking costed the united states millions of dollars by keeping the Iowa class battleships in service for decades. They were floating museums and propaganda all along. All they had to do is to say "HEY IMMA BIG SHIP THAT LOOKS COOL" while all the destroyers, frigates and carriers did the job.

They spent millions on a floating recruitment ad, just to catch attention with pictures of broadsides. How could the layman even guess that a little, inconspicous looking missile tube does far more damage in measly one shot than an impressive but nonetheless useless broadside.

A modern military shouldnt be about spending millions just to LOOK useful but actually being useful. I found hillarious that nearly all the "groundbreaking" technology of the US navy was bought from France and Germany who just wanted to have an up-to-date coast guard and we wo want global power projection use battlehships just because they are big. Why not break out the Merrimac and some paddlewheel steamers while at it?

>>14720664
You'd be surprised just how little space a really good VLS SAM system takes.

>>14720611
And link the 5" DP guns to Aegis and the AA suite is even better.

>>14720626
Nukes won't do it either. Read up on Operation Crossroads.

People don't field battleships because there's no naval warfare anymore. Everybody but the US, China, and the USSR pretty much liquidated their militaries after WWII.

>>14720641
Battlecruisers, actually. They pack a ton of firepower, but can't take hits.

>>14720664
The same places they're already at. VLS don't take up a whole lot of space and can be put on the foc'sle and fantail just before and aft of the main battery. You could even put them amidships if you so choose. With a nuclear reactor you can save deckspace by not including funnels.

>>14720641

thats a heavy missile cruiser bro

>>14720702
The USS Missouri could fit thirty-two launchers on the deck, and that was with the old guns removed for space.

Aegis systems are HUGE. The launcher, the ammunition, the radar system. You aren't just going to cram one in there.

ITT: Yet further proof that /tg/ is utterly incapable of staying on-topic in a discussion thread without bitching at each other about something mostly-unrelated. Bonus points for more than half of the posters not actually knowing what they're talking about.

>>14720702

If there is no more naval warfare, then why there are any sort of warships in the world? WOuld be much cheaper to just keep large transport ships to transport your ground forces from one side to the other.

>>14720694
The Iowas were expensive to maintain because they were old as hell. Those ships were commissioned nearly seventy years ago. It'd be like retaining the USS Texas in 1990.

If the Lexington were still in service she'd be just as expensive and even more obsolete.

>>14720702
Have you read about the armour ratings on a Kirov? They're stronger then the Iowa or similar.

>>14720741
Those were Tomahawk ABLs, for one, and that was refitting an an antique ship. Aegis is just a radar and targeting system and doesn't take up any extra space, and you can cram a VLS anywhere. They're very compact.

>>14720765
Defense of shipping lanes and national waters. Most navies are just token fleets of a few light ships these days.

>>14720741
No, they took off the old Secondary armament (which was useless) to put the VLS system onboard.

And take a look at the Sa-n-6, lot of missiles in a small space.

>>14720811
Oh, so you're still talking about your magical ship that is nuclear powered, immune to missiles and bombs, has the missile launch system of a missile cruiser, an Aegis system and somehow manages to find space for a battery of 16in cannons?

Can we pause the Troll & Tard show while I go get some popcorn?

>>14720786
Not at 28,000 tons it isn't. The armor itself may be stronger on a pound for pound basis thanks to more modern materials, but it's in no way comparable to the Iowas and Yamatos.

>>14720830
They removed the old Bofors and Oerlikon mounts four 5" turrets and replaced them with ABLs for Tomahawks and launchers for harpoons. This is not the same as a VLS.

This is a 61-tube Mk. 41 VLS installed on a Ticonderoga-class cruiser. The Ticonderogas each have two of these. They don't take up much space at all, and could be easily incorporated into a newly designed battleship while still retaining a full battery of 16" or larger guns.

Stop talking about shit you don't understand.

>>14720926
>newly designed battleship

How convenient that your magical ship can keep adapting to all these changes!

Next you'll find a way to put a hangar and helicopters on there to make sure it doesn't just get raped by submarines, I'm certain

>>14721013
That's easy. It's been done.

Of course, it would be even easier to just install ASROCs or other ASW torpedo launchers. They take up next to no deckspace and the ASROCs can even be fired from the Mk. 41 VLS.

Care to keep trying, or are you going to give up?

>>14721013
>Next you'll find a way to put a hangar and helicopters on there to make sure it doesn't just get raped by submarines, I'm certain
Aren't those standard issue on any post-WWII battleship?

>>14721064
>>14721074
So now your ship has:
>Heavy magic armour immune to torpedoes and missiles
>Aegis system and hundreds of VL bays
>Full 16in battery
>Nuclear powered
>Helicopter hangar

I don't know why I'm even arguing a point that was decided seventy years ago. Plus every time something comes up your ship magically grows another superstructure to mount it on.

>>14721168
This is all just basic shit that has been installed on countless smaller ships over the past seventy years. Plenty of current ships that are much smaller already mount all of these systems with the exceptions of the heavy armor and large gun batteries, but that's simply a matter of building a 98,000 ton battleship instead of a 9800 ton destroyer.

So the real question is why are you bothering to argue with me when you clearly don't know the first thing about warships?

>>14721204
>simply a matter of building a 98,000 ton battleship instead of a 9800 ton destroyer.

Great! Cram all those weapons on a single ship, instead of a few smaller ones.

That's not a complete fuckup of an idea, no siree.

>>14721292

>>14719878

>>14721292
It is when that single ship can't be sunk or mission killed by anything less than something like it and the smaller ships can.

Late to the Party, but w/e:

>>14711362
>>14711030

Current evidence indicates that it was actually the Bismarck's Heavy Cruiser escort, the Prinz Eugen, that sank the Hood. Just for the record.

>>14721074

Hell, even during and before WW2, a hangar and a few Seaplanes were standard issue on anything bigger than a light cruiser. Helicopters are even easier to do.

>>14721334
>Still magically invincible

How can your argument possibly fail when for some reason your ship is immune to advanced 21st century weapon systems?

Oh well, at least here in the real world big gun battleships are dead and buried

I bet you think superheavy tanks are great ideas too

>>14721334
One. By. One.

They can cover large area because there are more of them, they can react far more flexibly to threats than a single battleship (maneuvering and whatnot), they will still deal the same kind of firepower.

>>14721465
>SuperHeavy Tanks

You know the M1 Abrams is Heavier then a King Tiger right?

>>14721429
Even if that were the truth, it doesn't change any argument in the thread. The Prinz Eugen is more heavily armed and armored than any active naval warship in the world today. If you took it and modernized it with modern targeting, guided shells, and anti-missile systems and put it in the middle of a fleet to protect it from submarines it would be unstoppable. Harpoons and other typical modern anti-ship weapons wouldn't be able to sink it. You'd need a torpedo. For all intents and purposes, it might as well be a battleship when comparing it to modern warships.

Has anyone mentioned that a battleship or battlecruiser is big enough to not only carry long range guns and railguns, but also missile batteries of its own? They could be floating cruise missile batteries or something as well. The guns aren't the only weapon a modern battleship would have at its disposal.

>>14721465
Modern 21st weapons systems are designed for use against fragile, unarmored targets. Battleships aren't even close to what those weapons are intended to combat.

>>14721470
The firepower wouldn't even be comparable. By your logic we should still be using F-5Es because you can buy thousands for what it takes to build a single F-22.

>>14721487
ASROCs and modern torpedoes alone would be enough to protect it from subs.

>>14721487
Even the retro-fitted battleships had harpoons, tomahawks, and phalanx installed.

Assuming we modernized the guns(giving the shells rocket-assisted propulsion like modern 5 inch guns) and completely replaced the mechanical computers(even if they were accurate enough to hit moving targets), there's still the fact that no one else in the world is crazy enough to try and attack the United State's military in an open conventional war, so even if they could be made effective, they'd still be about as useless as everything but the carriers.

>>14721487

I wasn't actually disputing the abilities of battleships in a modern arena there - Just being a pedantic historyfag. Also because the Prinz Eugen is awesome incarnate - survived multiple Nuclear hits in the Operation Crossroads tests with only minor leakage, Probably sank the Hood, was part of the "Fuck you England" Channel Dash operation, etc.

>>14721508
>>14721487
And because it's taking so long for posts to get through, I forgot to mention that yes, I've been trying to hammer that point home for the past six hours.

Apparently the anti-battleship crowd seems to think that we can only ever have Iowas equipped with the same half-assed refits that they got in the 80s and building new ones up to modern specifications is impossible and magic.

>>14721508
>Modern 21st weapons systems are designed for use against fragile, unarmored targets.

If a MK 48 torpedo can rip a five hundred foot destroyer completely in half through fifty feet of steel bulkheads, it will fuck up your battleship

>>14721487
Weight of armour doesn't equal protection.

Most anti-ship missiles have penetration aids, preliminary explosions that blow through armour, allowing the main explosive force to detonate inside the ship. And we're not talking some piddly 100lbs of explosive, we're talking a good sized truck's worth of explosive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxpwIsZCgtM

>>14721561

It does that because your 500-ft Destroyer is made out of the naval equivalent of tinfoil.

>>14721577
And most anti-ship missiles have been demonstrated to do shit all against the armour on the Iowas.
This is with WW2-quality steel. Modern Metallurgy used with the same weight of armour would be considerably better.

>>14721561
Battleships are designed to take torpedoes. Destroyers aren't. Musashi took 17 torpedoes with much larger warheads before she sank.

>>14721536
So did Nagato.

>>14721577
That's funny because most anti-ship missiles only have a few hundred pounds of explosives in total, and don't even get a boost from exploding in a medium like water that enhances the shock.

>>14721561
Don't compare a ship that gets fucked up by a speed boat with bombs in it with a ship made to take direct hits from 500lbs shells.

On a side note, is there a reason it takes so damn long to post tonight, or is /b/ just DDOSing everyone again?

>>14721642
Not 500lbs. 3000lbs.

>>14721618
Actually, the US Navy had a Harpoon test against a South Dakota, it was ripped apart.

The Iowa used 'all or nothing' armouring, so it is actually LIGHTLY armoured compared to the Daks or god forbid the floating fortress that is the HMS Rodney.

>>14721683
"All or nothing" type armor means there was very little armor at the extreme front and extreme rear of the ship, focusing instead on protecting the more vital components. It was created based on weapons tests conducted on WWI battleships after the war(none of the German ships had this since their navy was confiscated after the war, hence, no test subjects).

So what you basically want is a Kirov Class with a battery of 16in cannons magically squeezed on there

That for some reason is utterly immune to modern weapons, despite the fact that ships like it were sank with much less capable ones seventy years ago?

>>14721683
No they didn't, and that's not what all or nothing means. It means that the important parts of the ship are armored to protect against the ship's own main battery, and the other shit that doesn't matter, like the foc'sle, is left unarmored.

>>14721683
>Actually, the US Navy had a Harpoon test against a South Dakota, it was ripped apart.

I'm sorry, I have to call bullshit. The South Dakota class were all broken up for scrap or made into museum ships by '63, none of which were used for weapons testing. Harpoon missiles were not introduced until '77.

Your assertion doesn't fit the facts here.

>>14721720
South Dakota and Indiana were scrapped, Massachusets and Alabama are museums.

That aside, those were so called "fast battleships" and are a full 10000 tons lighter than the Iowas.

>>14721738
Exactly, so they weren't heavily armoured. They carried less armour then other battleships.

>>14721760
>>14721720
South Dakota class.

>>14721667

Your "battleship" is worthless since it wont fill any function that smaller vessels already can't achieve, all the while being less resource intensive. The US defense budget will only face more and more cuts as time goes on, your ship will only exist as a fevered dream fighting imaginary foes. It has no place in this day and age.

/thread

>>14721736
No, smartass. What I want is a modern battleship with a traditional armor scheme using modern materials, modern electronics and weapon systems including Aegis and several VLS with modern SAMs and ASROCs with perhaps a few Tomahawks for long range but unprotected targets, a battery of nine or twelve 16"/50 guns or larger, a battery of modern 5" dual purpose guns linked to Aegis, a nuclear reactor, a helipad and hangar, and a small battery of ASW torpedoes to suppliment the ASROCs.

This could be easily done by bringing up the old blueprints for the Montana-class and revising it to incorporate modern systems and shipbuilding techniques like the bulbous bow.

All of this could be done fairly easily and probably for around the same ten billion dollar pricetag that a new nuclear aircraft carrier would cost before aircraft are factored in.

>>14721790
No they didn't. They had more armor because not only were they larger, but they focused the armor into the parts of the ship that are important instead of wasting tonnage on armoring empty space.

>>14721790
Incorrect, again.

The Iowas had the same 12-and-a-quarter-inch main belt as the South Dakotas, with less than a half inch less armour on the turrets/main decks, and a functionally equivalent weight of armour.

Now, if you'd bitched about the all-or-nothing arrangment on ships like the old Dunkerques or Richelieu/Jean Bart class, which did in fact try to get away with less weight of armour, then you *might* have an argument.

>>14721204
Because for all your fizzle, a single flight of F-22's carrying JDAMs would make, at the least, a mission-killed cripple casualty out of your little supership.

Why are you bothering to argue this when you apparently don't understand airpower?

>>14721825
So something as expensive as a carrier without any of the benefits?

(Besides of course your magical, unscratchable armour, but that would have to exist first)

>>14721825
Here's what a guided missile battleship would have looked like(this was supposed to be the Kentucky).

I'd say drop the larger guns(as cool as they are, a deck full of missile tubes would be more effective) but keep the 5in DP guns as well as the armor and reactor and you may have a winner.

>>14721875
You accuse me of not understanding air power yet you name an aircraft that is air-to-air only. That's cute.

>>14721875
>Why are you bothering to argue this when you apparently don't understand airpower?

For one thing, he thinks point defences never let anything through.

He also thinks that WWII ships are immune to modern weapons

>>14721875
Not to mention a modern destroyer with VLS systems can throw out a hell of a lot more bang in a short period of time with a far longer reach than those 16"/50's. They still come with AEGIS and some with helicopter pads, but don't cost a recockulous 10 billion for what is essentially a tomahawk launch platform and with occasional shore bombardment.

>>14721889

The armour does bloody well exist. It's basic steel plating, albiet very thick.

The only reason Anti-ship missiles/torpedoes rape the shit out of current 'Warships" is because none of them actually have any armour on them at all.

The US navy is running Nuclear-powered fishing trawlers with missile tubes built into the deck, as far as enemy fire is concerned.

>>14721921
>you name an aircraft that is air-to-air only

It's not like the F-22 can do a precision ground attack at supersonic speeds or anything

>>14721889
There are plenty of benefits. There's more to warfare than just bombing the enemy. Being able to operate with impunity in hostile waters, for example.

By the way, armor that is immune to modern anti-ship weapons has been around for seventy years. Using the same armor schemes with modern metallurgy would be even more invulnerable.

>>14721910
Building an arsenal ship would be pointless. The point of battleships is to be able to dish out and receive punishment en masse. Missiles can't do that as well as a battery of huge guns, and are far more expensive when they try.

>>14721953
Your billion dollar destroyers can also be taken out by a goatfucker in a RHIB. Good job.

>>14721980
With a tiny payload and the side-effect of losing stealth completely the second those weapons bays open. So much for your hundred fifty million dollar air-superiority fighter.

>>14721980
>Precision ground Attack
>Supersonic Speeds

AHAHAHAHAH no.

You're one of those nutters who thinks that the A-10 is pointless and CAS can be completely taken over by Supersonic fighters, too, aren't you?

>>14722005
>flying at a speed of Mach 1.5 and an altitude of 50,000 feet, released a GPS-aided, 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) from a range of 24 nautical miles

Try looking something up before you post, or you'll look like an idiot

There is waaay too much trolling here in here... And I see ridiculous ideas flowing around, like rebirth of the battleship, like anti-missile systems actually working as intended...

There are two kind of warships nowadays. Submarines and targets. Remember this and pray that Kaddafi has no desire to mess up the fleets amassed at his shore.

>>14721980
F-22: It only does everything.

>>14721969
Steel armor is very easily defeated by shaped charge warheads. For example, Most anti-tank weapons dating back to 1970 could penetrate the armor on a Iowa class. And you can also do what the Russians did and just put nuclear warheads on your anti-ship missiles.

And there's no practical defense against torpedoes aside from decoys, since modern ones don't actually hit the ship, they detonate under it, causing a pressure wave that breaks it's keel and splits it in half, thus rendering armor a moot point.

>>14721875
JDAMs are the stupidest way to attack a ship short of flying a plane into the bridge.

You want a standoff weapon, not a gravity bomb.

>>14722005
With the exception of the F-15C/D's, all US combat aircraft are capable of carrying a number of precision munitions, to include JDAM's(albiet the 500lbs version).

As for A-10's, I do believe the Army told the Air Force that they'd take them if they were going to get rid of them, so they must be doing something right.
>>14722001
F-22's aren't designed to be stealth fighters, just low profile. If they don't go straight at their target, they'll still show up on radar.

There isn't much that can catch them even if they are spotted though. They can climb faster than an F-15, so there's no telling how fast they can really go.

>>14722046
Shaped charges don't do shit to large targets. You put a small hole in the belt and accomplish nothing in the process.

Battleships are protected from torpedoes through extremely strong construction techniques, torpedo bulges to prevent penetration, and multiple bottoms. Just because it splits an unarmored 4000 ton destroyer in half doesn't mean it will be effective against a heavily armored 70,000 ton battleship. You're comparing humvees to tanks again.

>>14722048

Every time I see the phrase 'gravity bomb' I am reminded of how much I hate that something that sounds so cool is in fact entirely uninteresting. Peopel have to stop cool phrases being wasted on boring things.

>>14722005
And are you one of those people who thinks the A-10 can survive against air defenses more advanced than a bunch of third-worlders with 50s-era anti-aircraft guns and first-generation MANPADS from the 70s?

>>14722073
Torpedoes are well known to be able to break an aircraft carrier's spine, they'd do the same to a battleship. Look up "Shinano" a Yamato hull sent to the bottom by torpedoes (and not even modern torpedoes)

>>14722071
Which makes the F-22 suggestion retarded because this modern battleship is packing Aegis and a few hundred VLS cells that contain quite a few hypersonic SAMs with 500km+ ranges.

>>14722046
I would LOVE to see a shaped charge that can burn through over a foot of solid steel

>>14722071
to be fair, the army isn't the smartest bunch of retards though....

>>14722112
Shinano wasn't complete and hadn't had her watertight compartments installed yet. She was moving to a different port because the one she was at was getting bombed repeatedly.

You couldn't have picked a worse example.

>>14722123
There are plenty that can do it. It's not hard. The catch is that against something the size of a battleship with a layered armor scheme, it accomplishes absolutely nothing. Shaped charges only work against tanks because they're little more than an armored crew compartment and any penetration results in the death of the crew.

>>14722123
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LudNqf56AFo
homebrew shaped-charge blows through 1.5 inches of steel and 1.5 feet of ground, its estimated it could go through six inches of steel

To protect a large vessel, you need several layers of defence

First, you need aircraft flying 24 hours, to engage at extreme range

Next, you need an Aegis battlegroup to defend against anything that gets through the planes

Finally, you have shipborne defences like RAM's, and for the very last line of defence, CIWS.

If you're thinking about how good your ships armour is at this point, you're already out of the game. So what if you're not sunk? Your bridge is destroyed. Your radar is destroyed. You're on fire. Your crew are dying. You're out of the game.

>>14722145
Ahem, nice trolling attempt, but no.

The Army knows what helps them out better than the Air Force does.

>>14722123
A man portable RPG can penetrate 750mm of Steel.

That's nearly three feet of steel.

>>14722182
dying? cuz I hear they do a lot of that compared to the other branches of service

>>14722158
Shinano was complete dumbass.

Or you can look at the Yamato which was sunk by... TORPEDOES!

This should be archived for sheer stupidity contained in a thread.

Late to the party, but my group still plays General Quarters even though its old as fuck. One of the guys has a ton of ships for all navies. We play BFG too, and have started buying ironclads for Civil War naval and beyond.

Other than that, I don't know anyone else who does naval games of any era.

>>14722123
1 foot is just over 300mm.

The PG-7VR tandem HEAT warhead can penetrate 600 mm of Rolled Homogenous Armor that's protected by reactive armor, and 700mm for unprotected.

The BGM-71E TOW can penetrate over 900mm of RHA protected by ERA, No data for newer versions.

The 9M133 Kornet can penetrate 1000-1200mm of RHA with ERA. That's enough to take out the Israeli's Merkava tanks, supposedly the best protected in the world.

The TOW and the Kornet's warheads weigh 5kg and 10kg respectively, The Kh-35 Switchblade (Pictured, it's the one with the round nose) carries a 145kg (Aprox 300lbs) shaped charge warhead.

It's like the Future Weapons guy says: Now imagine what this could do to the human body.

>>14722208
No, no she wasn't. She was commissioned and was moving to Kure for completion. Her water tight doors hadn't been installed yet. You could have put her under with a destroyer escort.

Yamato was sunk by damn near a dozen torpedoes all to one side and several bomb hits. Musashi on the other hand took seventeen torpedoes and fifteen bombs.

>>14722243
While that'll kill any tank, it won't do anything to a battleship.

>>14722250
WW2 air dropped torpedoes sunk the Yamato, which were basically spitballs compared to sub launched torpedoes.

All surface fleets are stupid.

>>14722250
Dumbass, those will go straight through the side of a ship.

>By the way, armor that is immune to modern anti-ship weapons has been around for seventy years. Using the same armor schemes with modern metallurgy would be even more invulnerable.

Hahahaha, no. If that were the case then why hasn't any modern warship been equipped with that type of armor ?

>>14722208
A very large amount of torpedoes and bombs.
>>14722190
A man-portable RPG scorches the paint on an Abrams and that's about it.

>>14722280
Probably because none of our ships get shot?

>>14722282
Wrong dumbass, the RPG-29 blows holes through ANY tank in the world, from the front.

>>14722243

But a tank is completely different to a ship. You can hit a tank with a shaped charge, and you only need to pierce it a tiny bit, or even not at all, for spalling crap to shred everyoen inside. A battleship-sized vessel will lose a single room's worth of people and anything fragile, and then take on a single room worth of water. The whole point of huge crew complements on modern naval vessels, as far as I know, is so that they can take stupid numbers of casualties and keep on fighting. Can't most modern naval vessels fight, albeit at reduced capacity, with something like a half or two thirds of their crew dead?

>>14722295
>our ships
You mean America's ships? They get shot pretty frequently. You need to look up naval incidents.

>>14722295
this, best defense is a good offense, prevention is the best medicine, etc, etc.

>>14722280

Doctrinal focus, for one thing. The navy prefers smaller, cheaper ships (Excluding carriers,and even they're practically protected by paper now) so that they can maintain their Three-and-a-half ratio of naval power without bankrupting the Budget even worse than they already are.

>>14722300
>>tested on T-80 and T-90
Oh, I'm SO impressed

>>14722295

Being immune to every modern ASW by the merit of your armor alone is a pretty good selling point. You know in the rare case you get hit, that will save the lives of hundreds of sailors not to mention billion-dollar equipment. Sooo yeah

>>14722331
Confirmed kills:

Challenger II
M1A2 Abrams
T-90/T-80U
Merkava

The RPG-29 is a murderstick.

>>14722250
>While that'll kill any tank, it won't do anything to a battleship.

If a modern anti-tank weapon can penetrate a battleship's armor, then I have no doubts that much larger ASMs would be capable of heavily damaging a battleship on a combat-effective scale.

>>14722282
>A man-portable RPG scorches the paint on an Abrams and that's about it.

A number of M1s had their armor penetrated by newer Russian AT weapons (Mainly RPG-29s) that trickled into Iraq during the height of the insurgency, A Challenger 2 was also damaged by a RPG-29. Iranian made EFPs (shaped-charge standoff mines) are also a problem.

>>14722278
An unarmored ship, maybe. Against an armored ship it'd do little more than burn a tiny hole though the belt and maybe start a small fire. You'd be lucky to do more than piss off the boatswain's mates who'll have to patch the holes and repaint the hull.

>>14722332
or you can sell 10 ships and 180 aircraft to ensure it never gets hit -nodnod-

>>14722282
Yes, the old RPG-7 warheads, but you notice insurgents don't have modern AT warheads.

Just ask the Israelis what they were looking out for the most during the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War. Answer: man portable ATGMs.

Battleships aren't significantly more armored than modern tanks due to the amount of ship that needs to be vitally protected. Tanks also have the advantage that they don't need to be bouyant, so designers can keep stacking armor on till ground pressure or lack of a power plant that can move it catches up with them. With ships a vital part of damage control is how much water you can afford to take on before you can no longer float.

As for the idiot saying non of those missiles would do jack shit to a BB, I can guarantee you it will set the compartment behind the armor on fire, and fire is a danger to a ship right up there with taking on water. The fact you need holes in the bulkheads to let plumbing, or more importantly for fire spreading, electrical cabling, through to the next compartment makes it that much worse.

>>14722332
Congress is cheap. That's pretty much the bottom line.

>>14722348
It takes much more than insignificant penetration of the belt to damage a battleship. You'd seriously accomplish nothing.

oh god, the retards are back? And here I thought we had cleared that up already some 8 hours ago.
I won't even bother this time, NH4NO3 still seems to be spewing the same bullshit....

>>14722208
>Or you can look at the Yamato which was sunk by... TORPEDOES!

The Yamato was sunk by the US putting 400 planes in the air against the Japanese's utter lack of planes combined with anti-aircraft firepower that was wholly inadequate in both calibre and number.

Same as the Musashi, really, except the Musashi "only" took like 300 planes.

>>14722310
I'm pointing out that if steel armor isn't any use against small anti-tank missiles then a comparatively gigantic anti-ship missile isn't going to be something to trifle with.

Fuck it, If we're gonna go full retard and start building battleships again, You might as well just go all the way and put tac-nukes on your missiles.

I have 100 Motor speedboats with 2xSS-N-22, you have a carrier battle group.

Who wins?

>>14722392
Nice try, it was one squadron of Torpedo bombers that killed the Yamato, so like 12~20 planes.

>>14722370
Problem is that the warhead would probably be prematurely detonated by the decapping plate, and most of the explosion would be directed into the torpedo bulkheads. Any actual penetration will be minimal at best and they don't keep anything important immediately on the other side of the belt. Pissing off the boatswain's mates and damage control crews is all you'd do.

>>14722398
>put tac-nukes on your anti-ship missiles.
Soviets did that

>>14722427
soviets would put tac nukes on housecats if it was technologically feasible

I have to imagine it the other way around, with an Anti-Ship missile hitting a tank, since to me that would be hilarious to see.

But yeah, even anti-tank weaponry could slice through a battleship's side armour and do some serious internal damage.

>>14722424
You always assume missiles would hit the hull

What happens when they start raping the superstructure?

>>14722427
We had tactical nukes in 16in shells and in air-to-air missiles too

>>14722436
and people still think the commies were awesome in a batshit insane way?

>>14722436

cold blooded communist bastards!

>>14722414
That many HITS perhaps. The US put in over 350 planes in the air. Not all bombers/torp bombers, but the sheer number speaks for itself.

The Japanese AA was so nonexistent that the Yamato took to firing its 18-inch guns into the water to create gigantic sprays of water large enough to knock a plane out of the air.

If I recall, the Yamato had taken damage prior although it shouldn't have been anything critical.

>>14722448
It'd hit and maybe take out one compartment. Gotta love them 9in thick bulkheads.

>>14722451
>weren't not were

>>14722462
You don't seem to understand physics. I'm imagining the russian Thermobaric round on the end of an RPG-29 slicing into the ship, then blowing out numerous compartments with what amounts to a Fuel Air Bomb in a cave.

now I want a tac nuke housecat.....

>>14722424
Top attack motherfucker. Can you dig it?

>>14722427
The only class of modern ships that's close to being a battleship are the Kirov class battlecruisers. They only have a single gun on the stern but carry 20 nuclear Shipwreck ASMs and over a hundred SAMs. Allegedly they're the reason the Iowas where reactivated in the 80s, but there's not much that 16 inch cannons can do against nuclear sea skimmers with a 500km range.

>>14722486
I can't be the only one... cmon guys

>>14722486
I'll only say two things, the Kirov carries 160+ Grumble Sams (along with 200+ shorter range close in sams, and several Kashtan Twin 30mm CIWS), and the Shipwreck isn't sea skimming really, it has a very interesting attack pattern.

>>14722427
So did we.

>>14722414
Actually it was the combined aircraft of eleven different carriers. 386 in total.

>>14722456
Actually, Yamato's 18" guns had special anti-aircraft shells. They were rape in a can. She also had a huge amount of AAA guns. The problem is that her radar was dogshit.

>>14722448
All or nothing means that anything important is protected. The important parts of the superstructure are just as protected as the belt.

>>14722486
Top attack means that the missile was too slow to get through the air-defense systems. Anything going fast enough to get through is going too fast to change direction. Good try.

>>14722486
>>14722514
NOW WITNESS THE TRUE STRENGTH OF COMMUNIST NAVAL POWER!

>>14722528
Calling bullshit on the Yamato's AA shells. They never deployed them since using them fucked up the directors for every other AA gun on the ship

>>14722528
>Actually, Yamato's 18" guns had special anti-aircraft shells. They were rape in a can. She also had a huge amount of AAA guns. The problem is that her radar was dogshit.
If she did, they didn't use them.

There are multiple accounts from US pilots describing mountainous deluges of water from her main guns big enough to knock a half-dozen planes out of the air if it hit them.

It's pointless trying to argue with NH4NO3, anyone

Whenever logic rears its head he retorts with "armour never fails" and "missile defences never fail"

Battleships are dead. This is for a reason. Deal with it.

Now here's the question that no one has asked but is still somewhat vital.

How many of those 18 aircraft carriers did the yamato sink before the strike groups took it down?


strategos spenRe?
Why thank you captcha, I think I will.

>>14722545
And then a Akula starts glowing and firing laser beams from it's hull.

>>14722632
Well, had the Yamato been able to power up it's wave motion gun, the Japanese would have won the war.

>>14722799
/thread

Why don't we just make battleships out of air so that mach 20 anti-existence cruise missiles go straight through them?

Here is the ultimate solution to this battleship/aircraft carrier debate.

>>14723295

That is the most stupid awesome shit I've ever seen, with mechs being the exception.

>>14723295
Would never work, the decks would buckle fromthe guns firing over them.

>>14723415
But if they were rail guns they wouldn't buckle it would they? Because there will be no explosion from the propellant. Then again i don't know much about rail guns so i might have gone full retard.

>>14723532
Overpressure maybe?

>>14723295
Battleship-carrier hybrids are stupid, and you should feel bad for liking them.

>>14727440
Bullshit, they are genius!

>>14723532
>But if they were rail guns they wouldn't buckle it would they?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBTbhSFfuNM
They cause a huge pressure wave, and that glowy cloud you see in the video is /plasma/. I don't know exactly what effect being bathed in plasma has on aircraft runways, but it's liable to be negative.

>>14727440
looks pretty cool though

>>14727523
maybe if we make the runways out of tungsten...
also that particular gun does use chemical propellant to drive the round into the railgun

Aircraft carriers are awesome.

>>14727638
wut