>There will never be another battleship arms race
Well, the last one was pretty one-sided so it's likely for the best.
>picture for ants
What is arsenal ships for 100 alex?
Oh who the fuck am I kidding it'll never fucking happen.
I wonder how retarded naval designs for dreadnoughts and battlecruisers would have become if the post-WW1 treaties never came about for tonnage and armament.
>>30338031
>they just keep one upping each other
Fuck epic that's what.
>>30338031
There were treaties?
Also those pycrete designs were smart. Can't sink an iceberg.
>>30338062
You think everyone just stopped building battleships and limited cruisers to 10,000 tons at the same time all on their own for shits and giggles?
>>30338056
>shell/torpedo penetrates belt armor or plunges thru deck and explodes
>underdecks spaces now filled instantly with hot coal/oil fumes fresh from the firebox
>>30338045
Ships start resembling boss warships from vertical scrolling shooters.
>>30338056
>they have curved armor
>CURVED ARMOR
>>30337885
>Implying it won't be space battleship arms race.
before this turns into bbfag shilling, lemme get a word in.
I was a bbfag. they're fucking cool.
recently I went to hawaii and pearl harbor, and went to the missouri and did the tour where you get to go in the engineering spaces.
we're gonna start at the engines.
>takes fucking forever to start up since steam
>thing always has to be idling and burning fuel
>overhaul? you need steam mechanics which cost a shit ton more than diesel mechanics
>just being in the engine room or the boiler room (two different things, one makes steam, one makes power with steam) is very likely to get you hurt
>complicated as shit, thus requiring more training
so that's kind of a problem.
onto the DCC/medical facilities!
DCC:
>good, but uses switchboard tech and little lights to determine what shit is fucked up
>analog so EMP and shit can't kill it but it isn't as specific as it could be, if a light goes off it could mean anything from flooding to a blown fuse
medical:
>like 2 infirmaries on an entire fucking iowa class
>not the best ones either, pretty much an urgent care
>in a mass casualty they used the officers mess as an ER instead of a dedicated facility
>not many eye washout stations or decontamination showers either
kinda disconcerting, huh?
secondary battery/armor belt;
>secondary battery consists of 20x5" guns, or 10 turrets of 2 each
>also has glorious harpoons as of the refit
>secondary battery is actually one of the high points on the whole entire ship
armor belt;
>deck is just useless, would be paper to a bomb
>there's a foot thick belt under the deck to catch shit and under that is honeycomb to protect engineering
>armor is pretty fucking nato
and now the fun part, the main guns;
>fires a 16" wide, 5 foot tall, max of 2,700 pound shell up to 23 miles, OTH capable
>also can fire (or could at one time) 20kt Katie shells
>analog targeting and salvo programming, all switchboard tech even post-refit
>its precise as shit but hard to use and could really be much better
cont
>>30338031
In the US we had plans for the Tillman battleships. One of them would have had 15 18"/50 guns and would have tipped the scales at 80,000 tons.
>>30338253
To play devils advocate, a modern battleship would presumably have nuclear or gas turbines and modern electronics/damage control/medical. I just don't think the battleships mission will ever come back.
>>30338294
To get in gunnery duels with other ships? Oh hell no, not unless railguns make some huge advances and we get energy shields somehow.
To fight other surface ships though, especially from singular powerful platforms? No, I think that job still has a future.
>>30338253
>each main gun shell needs 660lbs of gun powder delivered via 3 powder bags
>shell and powder bags are waaay down in the bottom of the turret and elevator'd up
>need about 100 men per turret for even a skeleton crew
>the gunpowder used is good old normal gunpowder which we all know and love, thus making it dangerous as shit to handle considering the literal tons of it near each other at any given time
>shell and powder handling as well as supervision of loading the gun is all manual, only things automated are the hoist and the shell rammer
>again, dangerous as shit
>each gun (of the 9 aboard) can fire 2 rounds per minute, and due to flight time of 90 seconds maximum, could have 27 shells in the air to hit the same target
>each gun has another analog computer in case fire control is disrupted
>each gun must be brought back to its flat position after firing to be reloaded
>just one gun weighs 100 short tons
>contrary to popular belief, the ship actually DOES NOT move during a full broadside. the waves on the opposite side are just from air.
they did a good job on the main battery but you can see its flaws.
look, battleships are fucking awesome. they are and will always be.
but they just have no use anymore. they just fucking don't.
as much as I'd love to see an iowa rain hell on shitfuckistan, wars are fought at too far of distances to have a BB make any real effect.
all it would be is a symbol of power. just whipping your dick out and waving it around.
but we can already do that with CBGs.
not to mention, as a symbolic and deeply important thing to us as americans, any battleship we build today, based on an existing one or not, is a massive morale target.
if a battleship group was sunk by terrorists, pirates, whatever, it could be double or even triple 9/11 in terms of victims and maybe even more in terms of the morale blow.
battleships and their reign is over.
fucking deal with it.
A railgun battleship might be practical some day. After all, missiles are inherently bulky for the firepower they provide - they need a good sized warhead, and either a large jet engine or inefficient rocket fuel. Whereas with nuclear (or even in a few decades fusion) power, you'd be able to create railguns able to deliver the same power with much smaller and lighter projectiles. So potentially, railgun armed ships could outlast those that rely on missiles.
>>30338262
>6 barrels per turret
>4 turrets
Dear god
>>30338456
Imagine that or the 5 triple-turreted one with late-war AAA. The amount of Bofors and Oerlikons they could fit on that thing is pretty frightening.
>>30337885
OH well have battleships alright, Just a different kind of battlship.
>tfw the original "Cadillac sized" model was destroyed after it was shown to JFK.
>tfw JFK was scared shitless by it, similar to Project Pluto levels of ass-blasted
>>30338031
Pretty much every major power had plans to build retarded-huge dreadnought battleships.
The USA had the Montana-class which was to succeed the Iowa-class. The Montana would have had twelve 16-in guns (four turrets with 3 guns per turret) and a displacement of over 60,000 tons. The Montana also would have been much more heavily armored than the Iowa-class. Whereas the Iowa-class was restricted by the requirement to fit through the Panama canal, the Montana-class was planned to be free from this restriction. And so it would have a wider beam and much, much more armor. The Montana was conceived as a warship that could take on the Japanese Yamato on equal terms.
Of course, the Japanese knew that the US would one day build a warship equal to the Yamato so they had plans to build battleships that would dwarf even the Yamato. The A-150 "Super Yamato" was planned as a successor to the Yamato-class. The A-150 series was planned to be roughly the same size as the Yamato-class but with heavier guns designed to crush American battleships with ease. The A-150 would have had three turrets each holding two 510 mm (20 in) guns. The armor would also be thicker compared to the Yamato-class.
>>30339002
>>30338031
Germany also wanted to build their own fleet of super-heavy dreadnoughts as part of their plan to challenge the Royal Navy. The H39 was to be the basis for this fleet. Based on the Bismark, the H39 would have had eight 16-in guns spread over four turrets. However, Hitler didn't think that the H39 was big enough so he ordered the designers to draw up plans for an even larger version. This enlarged version was known as the H41 and it was planned to have a displacement over 60,000 tons. The H41 was to be armed with eight 420 mm guns. Hitler still wasn't happy though and he asked the team to create plans for even larger warships. At this point, everybody involved knew that the ships were too big for Germany to actually build in time to impact the war, but hey, they had orders and so they drew some plans. In the end, they arrived at a design with a displacement over 100,000 tons and armed with eight 20-in guns. However, the war began before any of the planned warships could be built. Some of the guns created for these massive ships ended up being used in shore emplacements.
It is important to note however that only H39 and H41 were ever seriously considered for construction. The other planned versions were simply too big to exist.
>>30338430
>missiles are inherently bulky for the firepower they provide
they're actually the most efficient for the firepower they provide. those 16 inch shells had a grand total of ~70kg he. I'm not even kidding. penetration=wise we can do wonders with stacking shaped charges. i keep bringing up broach in these threads.
>same power with much smaller and lighter projectiles.
this will never be a thing. you can find the equivalent joules per ton of tnt online and calculate the sorts of velocity/mass combinations you need to bring a ke reliant projectile up to par with energy released versus explosives. chemical energy is a bitch. i think the warhead from a harpoon is about a gigajoule from memory.
if you want to move that projectile around or pack any sort of smart capabilities in it, you're going to have to bring those hypervelocities down. as far as i can reckon it, railguns are really to increase rate of fire, decrease weight and space dedicated to ammuntion storage because the proplellant is now stored as electricity, and win in the ciws and terminal phase abm interception arenas. ciws and shooting down ballistic missiles is really where these things are going to excel. of course, a laser would do both of those things better, so i think it's just easy to strore propellant for smart munitions at the end of the day. those munitions might be supersonic, but they won't be hypersonic. accelerating to hypersonic over the length of a gun barrel is a non starter for electronics and seekers.
Here's what the Royal Navy was working towards after WW1 (before the Washington Naval Treaty ended it). Some of the features and design choices were used in the Nelson Class.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N3-class_battleship
>>30339002
>>30339044
What are some decent alternate history WW2 media with the wars lasting longer that 1945?
>>30339809
What the fuck is this?
>>30338213
This is autism because you aren't bound to physical things lime waves or even air resistance
why even shape like a ship at all? Why not a huge fucking dildo or egg vibrator? Or mother fucking squiggly lines. It doesn't even matter
>>30338262
>this exists
>>30339893
muvluv alternative
>>30340252
I spat my drink you cheeky fuck
>>30340127
>why even shape like a ship at all?
Because thats supposed to be THE Yamato with a bunch of space shit bolted on because the actual spaceships got BTFO
>>30339002
They would have built this with what steel?
Japan had no resources.
>>30340290
I don't think the real Yamato was designed to survive the vaccum of space, turning into a space ship would be dumb and needlessly expensive.
>>30337885
Such a shame it was so short lived too
Fuck you, ACC
>>30341422
Its a fucking anime made not long after we even managed to land on the moon, what did you expect?
>there will never be another jutland
>there will never be an H-class BB
>there will never be a day of rope
it hurts to be german
>>30341492
If Chinese cartoons don't have realism, then what DO they have?
>>30341495
For whatever reason, I read the second line as "H-cub BB".
>>30337885
Because the united states is the only one making new ships
>>30341510
Entertainment factor and the ability to sell plastic toys
>>30338399
Opinion: considered and enjoyed.
>>30338294
Hmm. What if laser weapons come into service and they're powerful and accurate enough to shoot down missiles and aircraft but weak enough to do literally nothing against battleship armor and can't stop high caliber gun shells/railguns?
Maybe that'd put us all the way back to a WW1-era-like naval combat environment but with modern materials and industry behind it, how great would that be
As it is now IMO there is no need whatsoever for a surface navy at all, they are too vulnerable to land-based aircraft which have the range to threaten them anywhere, carriers are good for blowing up brown people who can't fight back but would be too expensive and vulnerable to risk in a war with a real opponent nowadays
Skip to 0:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2piJQYJdYCQ&spfreload=10
>>30341694
the concussive blast from the main guns would actually knock sailors off the ship if they were in the wrong place
>>30337885
They are neat and all but once some red peg hits your good as fucked in the next few rounds.
>>30341682
>Maybe that'd put us all the way back to a WW1-era-like naval combat environment but with modern materials and industry behind it, how great would that be
But modern industry is terrible. Every single modern defence project is a fucking joke, significantly worse than the preceeding generation and makes us more vunerable, no exceptions. A modern ironclad program would inevitably end up being the world's most expensive set of harbour queens and/or artificial reefs.
>>30341317
>With what steel
>They had no resources
How do you think their considerable fleet (including the largest battleships the world had seen) was built in the first place?
Think before you post.
>>30341682
>Good enough to shoot down a missile
>Completely ineffective against shells
Did you read that before posting?
>As it is now IMO there is no need for a surface navy
Oh, you're a moron, sorry I should have figured that out quicker.
>>30341737
>Modern industry is terrible
What? So you think greed, time wasting, stalling and bloat are modern? Get a fucking grip of yourself, they've been around since industry was around.
Why do naval threads bring out the fucking idiots?
>>30341704
Kek
>>30341780
You conveniently missed out the rest of the points. The western armed forces being built/planned for now to tide us over for the next couple of decades are dreadful. The currently goal appears to be to follow the path the british have gone down, which is to have a military completely dependant on hyper-expensive hi-tech megaprojects which are total gash and unable to absorb even the slightest bit of attrition. As it is, Britain, a world empire 100 years ago, is now completely unable to fight any conflict on its own or play any significant part in one with others. That is where we are heading. If you can point out a single decent modern defense program that isn't 1) Over budget 2) delayed 3) unfit for purpose 4) in reality impractable or unthinakable to put in harms way unless absolutely desparate then be my guest. The armed forces are less well equiped to fight a major conflict or deal with an unexpected situation than they were 20 years ago, almost entirely down to the state of the modern US defence insdustry, which is the worst it has ever been. Vapourware and boosterism based around pencil drawings don't count.
>>30341317
>>30341758
Although I will concede that there weren't any mills in Japan capable of producing 460mm thick armour plate (the alleged thickness if the main belt) so it'd have to be made of two layers, less effective than one.
>>30341844
>As it is, Britain, a world empire 100 years ago, is now completely unable to fight any conflict on its own or play any significant part in one with others.
Why do you feel compelled to make shit up?
Show me one other nation (excluding the US) in the world who can deploy at short notice, 50000 troops and amour anywhere in the world.
>>30341872
Britain certanly can't. Whilst the capability may exist on paper, depending on who you believe, in practice the UK does not have enough operational ships or transport aircraft to do anything near that on its own, even unopposed on a good day. It has no operational aircraft carriers, and no aircraft to fly from them even if it did. It is entirely dependent on US support for everything, airbases, fuelling, resupply, intelligence, you name it. Britain is spent, it is a bust. You have to be a delusional rabid nationialist to beleive otherwise, because reality does not match the big talk.
If they do vote to leave the EU later this month it'll become pretty apparent to them that they're joke pretty quickly, and they will be mad as hell. It was obvious as far back as Suez that they were done, the continuing self-deceit that they are big shots militarily is getting a bit tragic, and should be a lesson to the rest of the west.
>>30341933
>Britain certanly can't. Whilst the capability may exist on paper, depending on who you believe, in practice the UK does not have enough operational ships or transport aircraft to do anything near that on its own, even unopposed on a good day.
Why do you ignore history? The UK deployed 54000 troops for Gulf War 1 or later, the invasion of Iraq, with 46000 troops. Falklands was fought solo. I can keep giving examples of either UK deploying alone or making a major contribution to a coalition.
>If they do vote to leave the EU later this month it'll become pretty apparent to them that they're joke pretty quickly, and they will be mad as hell. It was obvious as far back as Suez that they were done, the continuing self-deceit that they are big shots militarily is getting a bit tragic, and should be a lesson to the rest of the west.
Not /pol/.
>>30341933
They had their own independent operation ~5 years ago that didn't rely on anyone else, fucciboi.
They're one of the last Euro countries with the proven capability of doing so.
>>30342009
>Why do you ignore history? The UK deployed 54000 troops for Gulf War 1 or later, the invasion of Iraq, with 46000 troops. Falklands was fought solo
Because it's history
Gulf war one was 25 years ago and relied on US-led air supremacy.
Gulf war two was entirely reliant on the US and was a farce for the UK. Troops going into combat with 10 rounds, boots melting, 30 year old land rovers with no armour being sent to the frontline. The US established air supremacy over a third world country and then the UK forces supported.
Falklands was 34 years ago and the UK almost lost. If thatcher hadn't threatened the French president ship losses would have crippled the navy. They had to bring 1950's bombers back into service so even have a chance of getting the navy close enough.
The Royal navy is in very bad shape. It has no aircraft carriers, 6 modern ships which break down in warm water and have non-operational "next gen" radar systems and around 10 operational1970's generation frigates.
The RAF is made up of the Eurofighter, which was out of date in 2000, and the tornado, which was out of date in 1991.
The less said about what remains of the Amry the better. Again, unable to mount any major operation without US assistance.
This isn't a UK hate fest, it's pointing out that the UK arned forces are no good because they are geared towards a role which the UK cannot meet. If the UK accepted that they are no longer an imperial power and restructed their armed forces to reflect that they'd probably be better. As it is if the UK were to find itself up against anyone with a halfway decent armed force they would have a very high chance of being crippled.
>>30338031
Nobody had the money for battleships and wouldn't have built any until someone else did first. USN didn't even use up its treaty quota until 1938 or something because there's just better things to spend the money on when you're in the middle of the Great Depression.
>>30338031
>>30342334
So who do you think could cripple us?
Give me some names other than America, Russia or China.
>>30341844
Name old defenders programs that aren't any of your four negatives either.
>>30342334
1/2
>Gulf war one was 25 years ago and relied on US-led air supremacy.
Why are you arguing a point that was never disputed? Nobody is their right mind would disagree that the GW1 was a US lead coalition, but we're not arguing that, we're talking about the UK's ability to deploy forces world wide over the last 100 years. Which they have.
>Gulf war two was entirely reliant on the US and was a farce for the UK. Troops going into combat with 10 rounds, boots melting, 30 year old land rovers with no armour being sent to the frontline. The US established air supremacy over a third world country and then the UK forces supported.
1. Don't be moronic. The removal of 256600 troops and their support would have had an impact on US forces.
2. Shit got test and some of it didn't work, the exact same thing happened with US forces. Deploying in soft-skinned humvees, not having enough DBDUs to go around.
>Falklands was 34 years ago and the UK almost lost. If thatcher hadn't threatened the French president ship losses would have crippled the navy. They had to bring 1950's bombers back into service so even have a chance of getting the navy close enough.
1. Both the Gulf War and Falklands remain extremely relevant and are still considered *modern* wars.
2. It fought a war 8000 miles from home, in the middle of an economic crisis.
3. The impact sharing of information of the Exocet missile is unquantifiable as it remains secret, so a moot point.
4. "back into service", the Avro Vulcan was still in service.
4. The bombers were not necessary and had very little real impact.
>>30342334
>>30342520
2/2
>The Royal navy is in very bad shape. It has no aircraft carriers, 6 modern ships which break down in warm water and have non-operational "next gen" radar systems and around 10 operational1970's generation frigates.
1. The Royal Navy is in very good shape and it will continue to only improve.
2. It has one LPH in service, and will have one aircraft carrier in commission next year and the another one by 2020.
3. Warm water meme is a meme and can only happen when one engine is turn one, which isn't operational practice.
4. The SAMPSON and S1850M both have been operational since 2009.
5. The Royal Navy have 19 modern warships.
>The RAF is made up of the Eurofighter, which was out of date in 2000, and the tornado, which was out of date in 1991.
Epic meme.
>The less said about what remains of the Amry the better. Again, unable to mount any major operation without US assistance.
Operation Palliser.
>This isn't a UK hate fest, it's pointing out that the UK arned forces are no good because they are geared towards a role which the UK cannot meet. If the UK accepted that they are no longer an imperial power and restructed their armed forces to reflect that they'd probably be better. As it is if the UK were to find itself up against anyone with a halfway decent armed force they would have a very high chance of being crippled.
Which is what? According to you? They certainly filled their role in the GIUK gap.
>>30340127
maybe for re-entering an atmosphere
maye for front protection
maybe for floating on gas planets like jupiter
maybe for stonger body to withstand hard manuvers
maybe its the best way to accomodate and use a specific and huge kind of weapon
there is so mauch we dont know about space warfare that almost anything could nake sence
>>30339893
Shintaro Kago being Shintaro Kago.
