What could possibly stop the ironclad?
It's literally covered in metal so it's virtually invincible.
>>14179598
The USS Monitor, the first true American Ironclad & the first ironclad to mount turrets, was built in the neighborhood of my childhood.
Makes me proud to have grown up in such a facet of war history.
The flat, low ship in pic related was the Monitor. It rose only a few feet above sea level and was hard to hit. Spawned an entire class of warships, the "monitor" class.
>>14179626
And I grew up where the Merrimack was converted.
You and I are enemies now.
Remember the sacrifice of the Hunley!
>>14179626
>sloped armor
>low profile
fuck they were ingenious
M.D Geist
>>14179598
You need at least three Martian tripods.
>>14179862
THERE WERE SHIPS ALL SHAPES AND SIZES
SCATTERED OUT ALONG THE BAY
>>14179865
AND I THOUGHT I HEARD HER CALLING
AS THE STEAMER PULLED AWAY
>>14179871
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-BREAKER!
>>14179871
>>14179902
THE INVADERS MUST HAVE SEEN THEM
AS ACROSS THE COAST THEY FILED
STANDING FIRM BETWEEN THEM
THERE LAY THUNDER CHIIILD
I have never seen a more uneventful battle change military history
Literally nothing happens in this duel. Their armor was significantly stroner than their cannons so the shots just plinked off each other
>>14179985
stronger*
>>14179985
Where can I see a re-creation of this attrition Definition
>Now this is real On sea Tank Battling
The year is AD 18XX. The nation of England has been at peace for decades since they last defeated their eternal enemies, France. One day the MC and his high school class is on a trip to England's greatest naval base which happens to be run by his father. An alarm rings out signaling that the perfidious French have launched a sneak attack with their new super weapon, the Ironclads.
The MC's father is caught in an explosion and with his dying words tells him to go into the super secret research laboratory and that with the Dreadnought he can become God or the Devil.
>>14179626
That is an utterly incredible design. I just went and looked the thing up.
>>14179626
How did they stop sea water from entering the chimneys?
>>14179598
A steel train.
>>14179598
Armor piercing shells? Torpedos?
A Harpoon missile?
>>14180076
So the Dreadnought is the basic unit, his girlfriend gets a torpedo boat, and the super upgrade is the SUPER DREADNOUGHT?
And the OVA upgrade machine is the Fast Battleship.
>>14180274
Literally none of these things exist, so obviously Ironclads remain invincible.
>>14179640
CSS Virginia was shit. Moniter would have wrecked that second hand hunk of junk had the crew read the manual and used her guns at full power.
>>14179936
MOVING SWIFTLY THROUGH THE WATERS
CANNONS BLAZING AS SHE CAME
BROUGHT A MIGHTY METAL WARLORD
CRASHING DOWN IN SHEETS OF FLAAAAAME
SENSING VICTORY WAS NEARING
THINKING FORTUNE MUST HAVE SMILED
PEOPLE STARTED CHEERING
"COME ON THUNDERCHILD"
"COOOME ON THUNDERCHIIIHII-III-II-HIIIIILD"
>>14179598
>>14179640
and this is the HSS Honduran Canoa, it is built in every town of my country, when destroyed it separates into hundreds of pieces of wood where our proud soldiers can cling to and survive, if attacked some more, those pieces of wood become splinters that can be used to stab enemies.
>>14183140
LASHING ROPES AND SMASHING TIMBERS
FLASHING HEAT RAYS PIERCED THE DECK
DASHING HOPES FOR OUR DELIVERANCE
AS WE WATCHED THE SINKING WREEEECK
>>14180264
It wasn't meant to go far out sea and had to stay in calm waters, The original monitor was sunk not by the rebels but by a storm flooding it while it was being towed. It's nemesis the Merrimack/Virginia was crashed and destroyed on purpose by it's own crew. It's one of histories great ironies that what were possibly the two most important warships in history couldn't damage each other and were destroyed without violence.
>>14183800
>It's nemesis the Merrimack/Virginia was crashed and destroyed on purpose by it's own crew.
In fairness that was because they got it stuck in a situation where the only real choices were either blow it up themselves or let someone capture it.
>>14179985
That's not 100% accurate, they were able to damage each other, but stopped fighting before any significant damage was done to either of them. Not to mention the Virginia had already sustained damage and was taking on water from fighting wooden ships (its own battering ram was its undoing because smashing itself into a ship broke the ram, opening a hole).
>>14183370
>>14183140
Depictions of the thunderchild as a pre-dreadnaught are anachronistic. It's described as a torpedo ram like the HMS Polyphemus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Polyphemus_(1881)
Ironclads were so well armored, for a while people though that cannons would be obsolete for ship to ship combat and that warships would have to ram each other. However torpedoes proved more effective, and eventually people realized that with the same metallurgy it takes to make armor thicker, you can also just make bigger guns. In the end armor always loses to gunnery.
>>14185079
>In the end armor always loses to gunnery.
In atmosphere. There's physical limits to how fast you can shoot a projectile before you're exploding yourself because air can't get out of the way fast enough. Then you've got to move onto energy weapons, the charged variety of which has other big problems in atmosphere (irradiating everything).
So in the end, it all boils down to lasers. We either won't have wars anymore or we'll have to conduct them underwater or by burrowing through the earth, because anything on land or in the air is going to get instagibbed.
It will be glorious.
>>14179598
Me
>>14185820
>conduct them underwater or by burrowing through the earth
That shit's just super thick atmosphere
>>14183198
You got a fight, sucka. Meet at a halfway point, see you in the Bahamas
>>14185820
Lasers could cause an end to air-missile combat and bring a return to the world of tanks and battleships, but I'm not sure if they would win the armor/guns race.
Also, remember just because armor loses in the end, dosn't mean your don't want armor. It's never 100% effective, but it's rarely worthless.
>>14185079
They also made better shells Special armor piercing shells were developed to combat thick armor.
Tick tack toe.
>>14179598
Obviously we stop it with a second, bigger ironclad.
>>14185957
Yeah, through history technological improvements in armor have also allowed for technological improvements in armor penetration. Thicker armor means thicker gun-barrels. Harder armor means harder shells. In the end, it always takes less energy to destroy than to protect.
>>14186005
>Thicker armor means thicker gun-barrels.
Bro that is NOT how it works. It's about strength to weight ratio. For example, bombards in the 13th and 14th century were extremely thick but cannons began to drastically improve as the metal fidelity became better and when they were also able to make strong enough screws in order to create successful breech loading cannons. This resulted in lighter, more mobile cannons with better loading capability as seen in the 17th and 18th century.
>>14185951
Lasers pose some pretty big problems for armor being effective once they really take off. There's a common misconception that mirrors work or that you can turn to avoid heating (or cool the part getting hit). Lasers operating at the energy levels required to zap holes in tanks from miles away are beyond those petty concerns. It would take some true superscience metamaterial shit to get in the way of lasers, but by that point we have actual battle mechs for kicks and giggles, a space elevator, and so on.And then you just keep dialing up the laser energy.
>>14185909
The amount of energy required to shine a laser to the bottom of the ocean at some of the deeper points is something like "the total output of the sun". So it's pretty effective. It would be easier to have laser combat underground just because you're less likely to have a constant in-rush of new material; you'd bore a hole through the rock or dirt eventually, whereas the pressure of the ocean is constantly forcing more shit in the way and the vaporized air is escaping upwards into the path of your laser all the time.
So submarines will become pretty big.
>>14186041
>It would take some true superscience metamaterial shit to get in the way of lasers
I feel like we're closer to making nice laser resistant coating than having combat lasers.
>The amount of energy required.... something like "the total output of the sun".... So it's pretty effective."
I'll keep up the imagination they're the power source is... mobile enough. But how the fuck are you doing to fight underground? All the water would bend the laser. The refraction and specific heat of water would turn your laser into a chaotic disco ball, and if the energy is high enough, burn the shit out everything but what straight ahead.
>>14186069
The refraction of water is at the interface with air. For a laser already underwater firing at another underwater target, there is no problem with aiming. I've just said that lasers underwater are not going to get very far, so we're in agreement.
>laser resistant coating vs. combat lasers
Well, we have combat lasers and anti-laser coatings are physically a terrible idea. High energy lasers don't melt or get reflected, they explosively drill, vaporizing material as they go. The wavelength of a laser is variable and there is no material that is highly reflective to all wavelengths, nor one that is 100% perfect; even a 99.99999% perfect reflector will absorb too much energy and be damaged, ruining its reflective property. And if you did have a 100% reflective mirror, a speck of dust on it would vaporize, explode, introduce an imperfection to the mirror, and now it's being constantly damaged.
>>14186108
>refraction of water is at the interface with air... so we're in agreement.
Nope! Water, by it's nature, is way more "interference" than air.
Pure water density: 1,000 kg/m^3
"Pure air" density: 1.225 kg/m^3
Way more shit to work through.
>explosively drill, vaporizing material as they go
Given that anything close to weaponized laser now would need to stay fixed on the target to burn, I guess you're going for "beam weapony" levels of instant melting. But that's so destructive, the thing that would let it even fire would be laser resistant materials that can hold in the energy during firing. The resistant material would have to be the forerunner to the weapon. The water would also be so super heated at the source and beyond it'd take some fantastic engineering to counter it.
>a speck of dust on it would vaporize, explode, introduce an imperfection to the mirror, and now it's being constantly damaged
By that thought a spec on dust on a laser's lens will cause it to explode while firing. Water would also be an impurity here. Super heated air has the room to move when heated, water displacement would be so intense you'd be making a straight line of an explosion.
>>14186190
>Given that anything close to weaponized laser now would need to stay fixed on the target to burn, I guess you're going for "beam weapony" levels of instant melting.
Read up on pulse lasers. You get worse penetration out of a beam because the vaporizing target absorbs and scatters the light. By rapidly pulsing you get a drill effect.
>By that thought a spec on dust on a laser's lens will cause it to explode while firing.
That's not how focusing works.
>>14186190
You're either not reading things correctly or conflating a lot of terms. >>14186041 is talking about how BAD AN IDEA underwater lasers are. You're agreeing. >>14186108 is discussing refraction, because YOU brought up refraction, not the density of water. You said "all the water would bend the laser". If the laser is generated underwater, it's not bending. It only refracts when moving from one medium to another with a different refractive index, or the interface between air and water in this case. So now you're arguing against a point that wasn't made.
>beam weaponry levels of melting
Not melting at all, but I get what you mean. But still no.I'm going to dismiss the rest of this water talk because you're only typing it for an argument no one is actually having.
>speck of dust on the lens
Lasers focus their energies at a point further on down the line. It's the same physics that allow you to burn paper with a magnifying glass but not have your paper instantly ignite when you take it into the sunlight. And not only can you have a laser with less energy per square whatever at the point of the lens but more at the focal point, you can also have multiple lasers combine, which neatly gets around the limitations of the lens' material.
We are much farther along in weaponized laser technology than you evidently believe. This might sound very tinfoil hatty, but there's a very good reason to not tip your laser-hand, the same as with any other project with big military or security implications. Laser weapons are going to be the next nuke in terms of causing political instability due to their anti-satellite capabilities. No one wants to be seen as overtly having these capabilities, even though we've already detected nations as shitty as IRAQ testing them.
>>14186205
I don't think he was implying a Gundam beam weapon was an actual beam laser. At least, I hope not.
>>14186205
>Read up on pulse lasers.
That's pretty cool.
>That's not how focusing works.
But that's how lasers work. You're delivering the energy, and will always lose energy along the way. A way around would be multiple lasers of lesser energy being focused.
>>14186190
The US built a 1 MW laser in the 70s.
We fired it at a satellite in the 90s.
We then swore it was a failure and we weren't going to pursue laser weapons.
Surprise, we've been working on laser weapons the whole time.
But then we swore we weren't going to work on anti-satellite laser weapons.
Until it was unavoidably evident that China was doing it.
Surprise, we were working on anti-satellite laser weapons the whoel time.
Our currently DEPLOYED laser weapon is 30kW.
We made that in 2010.
Refer to the top of this post where we had a 1 MW laser 40 years ago. And I don't mean research lasers stuck in a lab with no tracking capabilities and are only used to measure gold atoms or some shit or have that energy level when pulsed for 0.000001 seconds and you could shove your hand in the beam and not care. I mean a 1 MW, bore a hole through you for a minute straight laser.
That's 3,300% more powerful than the 30kW laser currently toodling around on a Navy vessel.
>>14186248
You are overestimating energy lost along the way and underestimating the extent to which a reflector or lens is experiencing less energy for a given area than the focal point a mile down that-a-way.
You can buy a laser off the internet that will ignite paper. If you were to pop the lens out and fire at it with a second laser, you'd probably damage it.
>>14186239
I figured we were so far in the rhetorical hole and both had pseudo interests in this. Looks like I took their statement as "surface lasers will be so crazy, we'll need to force them to use laser under water and in the subterranean kingdoms of the lizardmen"
>not only can you have a laser with less energy per square whatever at the point of the lens but more at the focal point, you can also have multiple lasers combine, which neatly gets around the limitations of the lens' material
Levels of imagination applying, a single lens to go a huge distance would be a massive lens. Mutli-lens has more credence to the energy/material/device size issues solved.
>We are much farther along in weaponized laser technology than you evidently believe
Naw, I'm pretty interest in the matter. Roughly aware of what >>14186257 says. I'm stuck picturing GI Joe levels of laser combat.
>>14186265
>You are overestimating energy lost along the way
I can't really inflect to level of loss I imagine, but the size of the initial lens would be nutty to make a tank-poking laser. Though what we have now is rather small to pop an explosive canister.
>>14179598
I can't imagine that was super comfortable in that hot box for the crew. Something like greek fire to super heat the hull the roast the crew inside would do the trick.
>>14186300
You would have to concentrate a large amount of heat onto the ship for an extended period of time. Your idea isn't feasible and drifts into the realm of fantasy.
>>14180076
>>14181263
I'd watch it.
>>14181263
But where are the battlecruisers?
This is Britain, after all, not the United States.
>>14186659
>>14186659
Silly anon, Battlecruisers are a Japanese thing, not a Britbong or Burger.
>>14186659
>But where are the battlecruisers?
>>14186832
Don't forget Hood.
>>14186836
The Queen Mary and Indefatigable also blew apart.
>>14186847
>Indefatigable
Were they running out of names at this point?
>>14186859
It was actually a (more) common word back then. Nowadays it sounds really awkward but the Brits were late to catch on to the double negative thing.
>>14186859
Well at least it isn't a name that's been recycled a few times.
>>14186890
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Indefatigable
>Six ships of the Royal Navy have been named HMS Indefatigable
>>14186742
But... But the Battlecruiser concept was an entirely British one? They were Fishers babies after all.
>>14186905
Goddammit
>>14186411
IIRC isn't greek fire like an early version of napalm and stayed burning in place? Conversely vats of animal fat could be used as another thermal option.
>>14186987
Greek fire can't melt metal.
>>14186995
The point wouldn't be to melt the metal though, just get it hot enough to make the crew either abandon ship or roast to death.
>inb4 jet fuel
>>14186987
It was said to burn on water, or become worse when attempting to douse. It wasn't a fantastically hot flame from records, just hard to extinguish with water.
>>14187026
It would never get that hot. It is even more ludicrous to try and say that naptha would be sufficient to do that. You live in a fantasy world.
![orkel_1426033607[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/v32J7Xa.jpg "orkel_1426033607[1].jpg")
What could possibly go wrong?
>>14187524
Well it sinking for one
>>14179626
So it is a tank on the sea?
>>14186041
Nigga, just use aerosols to scatter the light
>>14187485
[citation needed]
Metal gets hot and stays hot when exposed to a flame, that heat spreads to other metal. Why wouldn't the iron clad covered in greek fire not results in the crew abandoning ship or roasting to death? They didn't have central air back then.
>>14187051
Stove top flames don't get fantastically hot either but it's still enough to burn your hand if you touch a skillet that's been sitting on it. But from the sound of things, one would need a ludicrous amount for it to be successful.
>>14187548
Essentially yeah.
Remember that the name tank was a codeword to hide its purpose, so the enemy thought it was just a vehicle to carry water to the battlefield. Their actual name was Landship, which was accurate to the ironclad comparison
>>14187903
>The Land Ironclads
HG Wells was ahead of his time as usual I guess
>>14187822
Holy shit what an idiot
If you really want to do this, then prove your claims.
>>14187941
Are you...are you saying that metal doesn't get hot when exposed to flame?
>>14188027
See >>14187485
>>14186411
By the way, it would have been done if it was feasible.
>>14186300
>>14187822
If your goal is heating the metal a great deal, won't the ocean serve as a heatsink to a certain extent?
>>14188042
True, but I thought for the OP it was more about "what could stop the Ironclad" based on tech that could have been available at the time.
>>14188055
To an extent, yeah. But as >>14187051 pointed out it can float on the water though how much that would negate the natural cooling effect of the water is probably minimal.
>>14179598
Easy.
>>14188184
But ironclads are in the water though, and water disperses beams. So your tuning fork metal man is worthless against ironclads.
>>14188201
>>14188206
Godzilla has atomic breath though, it's a completely different thing.
>>14187541
Pretty sure that was a rhetorical question.
>>14179598
>What could possibly stop the ironclad?
>It's literally covered in metal so it's virtually invincible.
You are sort of right. For a period of time the Ironclad's armour was in fact greater than the weapons it could field. During the American Civil War, an Ironclad from each side of the conflict met, exchanged fire, and then left in a draw after both sides ran out of ammunition. The guns they had were unable to sink each other.
>>14190579
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironclad_warship#First_battles_between_ironclads:_the_U.S._Civil_War
>The first battle between ironclads happened on 9 March 1862, as the armored Monitor was deployed to protect the Union's wooden fleet from the ironclad ram Virginia and other Confederate warships.[23] In this engagement, the second day of the Battle of Hampton Roads, the two ironclads repeatedly tried to ram one another while shells bounced off their armor. The battle attracted attention worldwide, making it clear that the wooden warship was now out of date, with the ironclads destroying them easily.[24]
>>14190597
The monitor should have fucking trashed the Merrimack/Virginia
Just to prove the superiority if its design, the Monitor class of warship, which it created, lived on long after the Civil War.
Meanwhile casemate ships, ie Virginia, died out soon afterwards
