|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 2, 2018 8:30:24 GMT -6
You're probably right. Looking back on it, that problem would only occur if the mass was burning, which it would be unlikely to be.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 8, 2018 1:36:57 GMT -6
Besides, do we want to take the time to model the proper side-effects of a 16-inch shell detonating in a plutonium pile? I'd lean towards avoiding that. RtW3 - Nuclear BBs! Not actually as implausible as it sounds, wasn't the first nuclear sub launched in 1954? Yes. Here's a short rundown of the USN ships which used nuclear propulsion by class and the year in which the ship was commissioned.
Submarines SSN-571 Nautilus, 1954 SSN-575 Seawolf, 1957 SSN-578 Skate, 1957 SSN-579 Swordfish, 1958 SSN-583 Sargo, 1958 (From this boat onward, all USN submarines were nuclear-powered.)
Aircraft Carriers CVN-65 Enterprise, 1961 (The next nuclear-powered aircraft carrier wasn't until CVN-68 Nimitz in 1975.)
Cruisers CGN-9 Long Beach, 1961 CGN-25 Bainbridge, 1962 CGN-35 Truxtun, 1967
(The next nuclear-powered cruisers didn't occur until CGN-36 California in 1974.)
So, historically, the main ship type quickly shifting to nuclear power was submarines, as it revolutionized their performance. No longer were they reliant on batteries and having to surface to recharge them. With nuclear power, they could stay submerged for long periods, and sustain higher speeds underwater. (The next big advance after that was a streamlined hull form specifically designed to maximize underwater performance, as pioneered in 1959's Skipjack.)
Nuclear power was used sparingly in USN surface vessels (in just four) until a series of six CGNs were commissioned from 1974-80 and the Nimitz-class carriers started in 1975. In later years, the USN ceased the use of nuclear power for anything other than submarines and carriers, as it determined the expense involved was only justified for those two vessel types.
It would be nice if nuclear propulsion could be included as a final stage technology for those wishing to extend the game beyond 1950.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 8, 2018 1:45:58 GMT -6
I'd say 1960 is a good stopping point if the devs ever extend the game beyond 1950 as the extra 10 years adds abit more time to really get those large experimental designs out and test them. As I have been stopped in the middle of a war several times by the time limit and have never gotten to use said ships. I'd agree, as it wasn't until nearly 1960 that the nature of the naval game really changed with the arrival of long-ranged AA missiles(1958, Galveston class) and AsHM's(1958, Kildin class). Well, those and the conversions of the heavy cruisers Boston and Canberra a couple of years earlier. It's an open question, however, how well those early anti-aircraft missiles would have functioned in large-scale naval combat.
The 1945-60 period also includes the switch from piston-engined aircraft to jets, the debut of the first supercarriers, and the use of nuclear power for submarines. So, yes, ending in 1960 for an extended game feels like a very good choice, espcially since the missile era, for both ships and aircraft, really doesn't get rolling until after that time. Prior to then, it's essentially WWII-style combat only with faster aircraft and bigger carriers.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Dec 8, 2018 17:33:59 GMT -6
In fact, the 1945-60 was quite similar to the 20s and 30s. In the twenties, navies started switching from big gun battleships to offensive fleet aircraft carriers (various reasons) which was quite a doctrine change. Many older ships were converted. The same was true in the late 40s; they changed the focus of the lighter vessels (destroyers and cruisers) from one of fleet support to ASW and AA roles, as well as sole missions. Many ships were refitted with missiles and with helicopter hangars.
So perhaps 1950 would have been a better end date. When you take into account missiles and jets, they are inextricably linked with the Cold War. If you want those, you really need to go nuclear and carry on until 1990.
|
|
|
Post by forcea1 on Dec 9, 2018 7:37:38 GMT -6
In fact, the 1945-60 was quite similar to the 20s and 30s. In the twenties, navies started switching from big gun battleships to offensive fleet aircraft carriers (various reasons) which was quite a doctrine change. Many older ships were converted. The same was true in the late 40s; they changed the focus of the lighter vessels (destroyers and cruisers) from one of fleet support to ASW and AA roles, as well as sole missions. Many ships were refitted with missiles and with helicopter hangars. So perhaps 1950 would have been a better end date. When you take into account missiles and jets, they are inextricably linked with the Cold War. If you want those, you really need to go nuclear and carry on until 1990. The difficulty is that, after 1950 (although it was apparent in some late 1940s designs), warships become volume critical due to the amount for space required for electronics, AIO/CICs and magazines for guided missiles whilst simultaneously being given nothing heavier than splinter protection due to the increased power of new weapons.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 9, 2018 17:58:05 GMT -6
In fact, the 1945-60 was quite similar to the 20s and 30s. In the twenties, navies started switching from big gun battleships to offensive fleet aircraft carriers (various reasons) which was quite a doctrine change. Many older ships were converted. The same was true in the late 40s; they changed the focus of the lighter vessels (destroyers and cruisers) from one of fleet support to ASW and AA roles, as well as sole missions. Many ships were refitted with missiles and with helicopter hangars. Carriers may have been constructed in the 1920s and 1930s, but it wasn't until WWII combat unequivocally demonstrated them to be superior to battleships that they became the prime naval weapon. Even the IJN, despite all its early war carrier operations, still thought of the battleship as the main weapon.
The heavy cruisers Boston and Canberra began conversion to carry missiles in 1952; the reconstruction involved was extensive, and took more than three years to complete. Two twin Terrier launchers was installed aft (144 missiles total); the ships retained their two forward triple 8"/55 turrets, along with five dual 5"/38 and six dual 3"/50 (four on the Canberra). In 1956-57 six light cruisers began conversion; reconstruction took about two years. Ships had either one twin Talos (46 missiles) or one twin Terrier (120 missiles) launchers installed; ships retained either one or two of its forward triple 6"/47 turrets, and had either one or three dual 5"/38 guns.
The first full conversion to guided missile cruisers involved three heavy cruisers and started in 1959; reconstruction took more than three years. Ships emerged with two twin Talos (104 missiles) and two twin Tartar (84 missiles) launchers. The first purpose-built guided missile cruiser was the Long Beach, commissioned in 1961 (it was also the USN's first nuclear-powered surface vessel).
The first conversion of a destroyer, the Gyatt, started in 1955 and took about a year to complete. One twin Terrier launcher was installed; ship also carried two dual 5"/38 and two dual 3"/50. The first purpose-built guided missile destroyers were the Farragut (originally DLG) and Charles F. Adams, both commissioned in late 1960. The first purpose-built guided missile frigate (originally DLG) was the Leahy, commissioned in 1962.
What all this suggests to me is that the latter half of the 1950s was essentially a transitional period, with ships entering service as partial conversions to guided missiles. The purpose-designed and built guided missile cruisers and escorts start entering service from 1960 onward, once the technology has matured somewhat and the experience of the partial conversions is gained.
|
|