|
Post by Airy W on Dec 15, 2016 17:30:06 GMT -6
This thing was designed in the late 30s and they successfully flew missions with it in the Winter War in 1941. It appears that they stopped production because they couldn't produce enough of the powerful engines required (or maybe because this idea is completely bonkers :-). Or because by 1941 they had drop tanks.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 15, 2016 8:27:49 GMT -6
hips growing in size over time isn't a new development. The Bainbridge class (1899) weighed in at 640 tons (full load). The Gearing class (1945) weighed in at 3460 tons (full load). So in half a century, the weight increased by a factor of 5. Gearing to Zumwalt is slower growth then that.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 15, 2016 6:56:30 GMT -6
That's my point - that MAYBE a technological improvement of an order of magnitude to a weapon that has never been successfully deployed MIGHT begin to equal half the range of existing planes and missiles. You could present your 100-mile railguns to the Navy today and not get a battleship approved. I feel like you are deliberately misunderstanding my posts. I mean look dude, you could get your 20 mile torpedo or 50 mile missile presented to the Navy today and not get a missile destroyer approved.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 14, 2016 21:48:11 GMT -6
That's about the cannons. They haven't even tried putting railguns on a ship yet.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 14, 2016 7:23:06 GMT -6
Just two reasons, reasons maybe we(including this old guy) haven't considered. People and "dumb". If you didn't know it, people are the most costly expense in the military. The Zumwalt's will require a crew of 150 while the Iowa's required 2000. A very good reason to not put them back into service. The Zumwalt uses the best automation of the 2010s while the Iowas used the best automation of the 1940s... That's not battleships vs. missile destroyers, it's 70 years of technological growth. Computers were invented in that time. Something that would take a bulky hydraulic lift in those days could be done with a compact electric rail system in these days. The only times a battleship ever got within gun-range of a carrier Gun range under 25 miles during WWII. The railguns they are talking about putting on destroyers these days have ranges of ~100 miles (and arrive in less time). If they put railguns on a battleship they are going to be longer and impart more energy so the range will be higher still.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 13, 2016 16:02:19 GMT -6
I think the only reason we still use carriers is because there hasn't been a major naval war in seventy years. Modern intelligence (from satellites, planes, sonobuoys etc) makes it hard to hide a sub and almost impossible to hide a surface ship. During peacetime this is true. During wartime a lot of these systems can be countered. Countering airborne detection is the entire point of the jet fighter programs that nations are putting so much effort into. Airborne radar aircraft cost 10 times as much as a stealth fighter and are much less capable of surviving an attack. (They also cost more then a missile destroyer). So in wartime against another strong military those things would need to be used carefully within airspace that you know is safe. Satellites can be easily blinded with lasers, a technology that the China used on US military satellites 10 years ago or more. I think it's a good bet that every nation with capital ships also has such lasers. It's virtually impossible to hide a satellite because you need a big freaking rocket launch and those are all detected. It's possible that the US has hidden a handful of spy satellites in very high orbits but those would need to be small and with low transmission bandwidth. And you can't exactly update the computers on those. Speaking of which, scanning a huge portion of choppy ocean for the wake of a ship is no small task even if you dont have enemy interference. And China or Russia might even have figured out where the high orbit sats are and are just keeping mum about it. Underwater sonarbouys are vulnerable to submarines tampering with them. Above ground ones need control of the air to drop them safely. All of these add up to detection not being a sure thing against a modern foe. Just like in WWII it would be two sides that keep making sorties in order to try to control the seas and perform recon on each other.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 13, 2016 9:12:57 GMT -6
A group of ships in close formation is a dream tactical nuke target. Well that escalated quickly.
|
|
|
Sicily
Dec 13, 2016 9:10:59 GMT -6
Post by Airy W on Dec 13, 2016 9:10:59 GMT -6
I once let a war drag on for like three years after I defeated the Italian navy. No Sicily for me.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 10, 2016 20:04:22 GMT -6
The Hood would be an example of a critical hit, I thought? Are critical hits in this description JUST knocking out the system and not things like explosions?
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 10, 2016 18:28:44 GMT -6
It's an interesting perspective. I am a bit curious about the logarithmic damage chance of sinking curve they show however. Are there examples of ships sinking after suffering one of two hits of structural damage but not "critical" damage like magazine explosions?
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 10, 2016 9:27:57 GMT -6
Did any of your other ships suffer damage as well? It also counts for DP calculations. I've 'lost' battles because despite sinking enemy ships, my own ships were torpedoed, though they still managed to limp home for repairs. I had no other ships in the battle and the report showed no damage to other enemy ships.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 10, 2016 9:26:31 GMT -6
I don't think your evaluation is taking enough consideration for the importance of the crew and returning them from the mission alive. Most of the crew's battlestations are out of the protected areas anyway. That armor will protect the machinists and magazine operators, but not much more. The guns are heavily armored and modern technology means that the CIC can be put in the very safest part of the citadel. Besides the engine crew, the magazine crew, the command crew, the signals crew and the gun crew, what is the vital work that is being done mid battle? I suppose that it sucks for damage control but they are at least a little safer then an unarmored vessel.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 9, 2016 16:37:21 GMT -6
My theory is that it's the amount of damage done to the ship which might be more then the ships total hitpoints. So it makes sense to keep shelling a sinking ship in order to rack up score.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 9, 2016 15:46:09 GMT -6
That doesn't mean it would be a good game mechanic. There are already mechanics to represent how attrition favors the bigger fleet. Namely that you will still have ships and be able to blockade the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Dec 9, 2016 14:46:37 GMT -6
I hope not, "rich get richer" mechanics are a bad idea generally speaking.
Also I dont think that is how it works, I haven't noticed victory scores go up if an enemy fleet is decimated.
|
|