Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => The Modding Workshop => Topic started by: TrashMan on August 06, 2005, 05:07:23 pm
-
A flyby near the monster:
(http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/2728/screen00125hv.th.jpg) (http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screen00125hv.jpg)
A view at the massive Heavy Ion Cannon turrets:
(http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/9655/screen00138oi.th.jpg) (http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screen00138oi.jpg)
A sathanas comes, Teh Archangel opens up with a heavy broadside:
(http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/4144/screen00144nz.th.jpg) (http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screen00144nz.jpg)
And finishes it later with combined beam & ion salvo:
(http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/9725/screen00155mi.th.jpg) (http://img183.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screen00155mi.jpg)
Heck, it only used a portion of it's turret and didn't even fire the Supernova missile :D
-
eh, hate to break it to you, but there's already a GTDn Archangel. :p
like the design though. can't wait to see it in action.
-
Woo! Another grossly overpowered super destroyer!
-
Put enough together, and you get Inferno! ;)
-
We're playing to put them all in a system, collapse the nodes, and sell tickets to watch.
-
Originally posted by Raa
Woo! Another grossly overpowered super destroyer!
Battelship.
It's not overpowered mind you.
Here are the stats:
LENGTH - 4589m
WIDTH - 1136
HEIGHT - 910
1200000 HP
Armament:
8x2 Heavy Ion Cannon Turrets
1x2 TM-01 Supernova tactical missile launcher
4 heavy beam cannons (LRBGreen of BFGreen)
62 smaller turrets
It's has two very small fighterbays, as it sacrifices it's fighter complement for armor and firepower. It can only carry 2 squads mind you.
Anway, been testing it all this time, find some bugs and removed them. Will put it for downlaod after one more series of tests :D
In case you were wondering
9967 polys, 20 textures, 5 LOD's
-
62 small turrets and 4 BFGreen equivalents on a ship smaller than the colossus?
-
Colossus had 45 laser turrets, 15 flak guns, 12 missle batteries and 12 beam cannons, right?
That's 72 small turrets and a huge number of GREEN power, though positioned rather ineffectively. Archangel is 1km shorter. God knows about the width and height really.
Now, Colossus stores 60 fighter and bomber wings, which is 240 total ships. I guess you gain some room there if you cut that part out and carry two squads, which would be... 36 fighters?
I don't know where you set the ship to exist, but it's probably do-able in about 10-15 years after the Colossus.
There is only one catch. A ship like the Archangel is a waste of every single resource put into it. So was the Colossus.
-
The Archy should appear in Chapter 3 of my campaign, and that's set approximately 15 years after Capella. It's even mopre possible since work on it started 10 years after the Lucifer was fdestroyed (but on Earth).. so that woudl be 22+15 = 37 years.
the Archangle can take up to two Sathanases simountaniously and win (alltough barely.. in 50% cases I tested it it was left at ~4% hull in other half it got destroyed too) and fares excellent against bighters and bombers, so I wouldn't say it's a waste of resources. Tehy way Command used Collie was idotica, but in reality, it was an effective ship FOR WHAT IT WAS CONSTRUCTED (ie- engaging multiple smaller ships)
By Aldo
62 small turrets and 4 BFGreen equivalents on a ship smaller than the colossus?
It's a battleship, remeber? It's supposed ot be packed to the teeth with weapons.
-
Look the collosus(sp) was good on paper but bad ingame 'cause the FS2 engine can't support the number of fighters the collosus(sp) can launch. This ship sounds like it has about the same amount of weapons(they might be more powerfull) but a much more logical number of fighters for the engine and more sensible fire arcs then the big C.
-
MUCH more sensible fire arcs..No matter from what side you approach it you're toast :D
and the broadside is utterly devastating.
The FS2 Colossuss was designed against multiuple smaller ships and there it works wonderfully. Pit it against several destroyers and youll see he'll chew them up alive.
-
It won't be much good if it doesn't have any weaknesses. From what you've said, the only possible way I could see of beating it would be too park some fighters 4 Clicks off it and have them disarm and disable it with Trebuchets. Then send in the bombers.
Unless you plan to swarm it with capships and/or have it sabotaged from within.
-
I thought lack of fighters is a weakness?
but what I have planned is for me to know and for you to find out :evillol:
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I thought lack of fighters is a weakness?
Didn't we have an argument a while back where you claimed that a battleship should be able to defend itself well against fighters rather than being a sitting duck.
Cause if it can then the lack of fighters isn't much of a weakness.
-
Dang. tehn I'll guess we'll have to blame WW2 designers. They made their battleships unbalancing in terms of fighter defense.
Some like the Iowa had 114 AA guns!!
-
WWII engineers didn't care about balance, they cared about winning the war. :p
-
114 AA guns on the Iowa is easy to explane, planes move fast and they are hard to hit, the most effective proven way to stop aircraft from getting to a ship is meeting that aircraft with a wall of high speed metal( ie lots of tripleA). I have a question for this forum. Does anybody know the exact reason why our military switched from multiple machine guns( ie the 6 .50cals) to modern gatling guns?
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Dang. tehn I'll guess we'll have to blame WW2 designers. They made their battleships unbalancing in terms of fighter defense.
Some like the Iowa had 114 AA guns!!
And the Iowa along with every other battleship in every fleet in the world was decommissioned in favour of aircraft carriers after WWII because the design was obsolete.
I've told you before to spare me the WWII analogies FS2!=WWII in space.
-
Originally posted by Fade Rathnik
Does anybody know the exact reason why our military switched from multiple machine guns( ie the 6 .50cals) to modern gatling guns?
I think I read in a game manual for something like Rainbow Six that the .50 cal was considered nolonger powerful enough for Anti Aircraft.
Originally posted by karajorma
I've told you before to spare me the WWII analogies FS2!=WWII in space.
I like WW2 style turrets but they look odd with beam turrets and I don't know if anyone has done a "super blob" turret ( I would if I could do a decent PS effect).
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
Originally posted by Fade Rathnik
I've told you before to spare me the WWII analogies FS2!=WWII in space.
How did you mix Fade Rathnik up with Karajorma?
-
I won't spare you the analogies :D - oh, the Iowa was left in service for quaite a while after it was upgraded with missile launcher. It's still listed in the reserve fleet.
But regardless of that, you have to have in mind that balance is a very shaky issue. What kind of balance? Gameplay balance? Game universe balance? or some other type?
for you see, from the game universe perspective, it is balanced if we take fighters into equation. 100 bombers with Helios bombs adds up to quite a lot of firepower, which the Arhcy doesn't have.
mind you that the Colossuss is bigger and far less blanced, as it had far mroe fighters.
for hte strict game balance it's irrelevant though, as ANY ship with a fighterby (even a cruiser) can launch as many ships as a FREDer want regardless of the limitation in the description. Someone might make a mission with the Arhcy or a cruiser that launches wave after wave after wave of fighters. Isn't it allso somewhat redicolous that the Sathanas (that can supposely carry 960 fighters) launched only ONE wing in high noon?
sure, enine limitations. But for that same reason the power of fighter is much greater then it would normally be (balance-wise).
you can destroy a cruiser witha fighter and a destroyer with a single bomber for crying out loud.
So conclusion:
I don't regard it as unbalanced.
It has less turrets than the Colossuss, but greater anti-cap firepower. AF defences are roughly the same. It allso has great fire arcs, which only makes sense. What idiots would construct ships with so bad fire arcs?
What? I'm supposed to remove beam cannons on purpose to make a blind spot on it's belly?
I don't care about "balance" in that sense anyway.
Kit said it nicely - "WWII engineers didn't care about balance, they cared about winning the war."
-
It's pretty easy if you just cut and paste the Quote bit from a post. I've nearly made the same mistake myself a couple of times :)
-
Originally posted by karajormakarajorma
I've nearly made the same mistake myself a couple of times
How did you mix TrashMan up with Karajorma? [/B][/quote]
Originally posted by karajormakietotheworld
How did you mix Fade Rathnik up with Karajorma?
It's pretty easy if you just cut and paste the Quote bit from a post. I've nearly made the same mistake myself a couple of times
[/B][/quote]
Dunno what you guys are talking about. :confused: [
Originally posted by Trash Man
But regardless of that, you have to have in mind that balance is a very shaky issue. What kind of balance? Gameplay balance? Game universe balance? or some other type?
for you see, from the game universe perspective, it is balanced if we take fighters into equation. 100 bombers with Helios bombs adds up to quite a lot of firepower, which the Arhcy doesn't have.
mind you that the Colossuss is bigger and far less blanced, as it had far mroe fighters.[/B][/quote]
Phew, where to begin ? Game play balance is what people mean. Ie, an unbalanced mission gets real boring real quick. As the FRED2 Docs say, Fighters & bombers must make the difference. Saying it's balanced when equated with 100 Helios Armed Bombers is just bollocks. Have you ever wondered why the Sath and Colossus did very little Fighting in the FS campaign ? There's a reason for that.
quote]Originally posted by Trash Man
[/quote] *all the rest*[/quote]
Engine limtations have little to do with gameplay. Idiots make ships with blindspots 'cos it's interesting. Single Bombers can kill Cruisers 'cos that's their job and you need a threat for the Player to counter in Escort missions.
WW2 didn't care about balance 'cos they weren't making computer games. Anyway, a supa dupa battleship is pretty redundant against Fighters and modern long range missiles.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
I won't spare you the analogies :D - oh, the Iowa was left in service for quaite a while after it was upgraded with missile launcher. It's still listed in the reserve fleet.
Do you see anyone building battleships now? Thought not.
Anyway I'm getting sick of trying to reason with you about balance. We'll let the players decide when you release your campaign.
-
@Kara:
Technically, no one is building them because there is no reason too. No big Naval Wars going on. Think about it: Two most Bad ass navies in the world: U.S. and Britain. Both on the same side.
Now if, let's say, China began to get uppity and built up bigass navy to attack U.S. and Britain, you can bet your ass that the U.S. will start making modernized Battleships again. If China lasted long enough anyway. [Nukes anybody? :drevil: ]
@Trash: Just make sure the uber Ion Whatever the Fudge turrets cannot target Fighters and Bombers. There's your weakpoint. A little Flak and some AAA's aren't going to provide the perfect defense against all situations. The funnest part about ubership construction isn't found through deliberately putting in weaknesses. Its finding the weaknesses. I can guarantee you, no designer ever plans for every situation. Every Ubership can be beat, it just takes an intrepid mind to find the weakness.
-
Originally posted by Boomer
Now if, let's say, China began to get uppity and built up bigass navy to attack U.S. and Britain, you can bet your ass that the U.S. will start making modernized Battleships again. If China lasted long enough anyway. [Nukes anybody? :drevil: ]
I, respectfully, disagree.
Modern naval power is about force protection and power projection. The modern carrier IS the modern battleship. Instead of giant cannons, they deploy aircraft, which are far more flexible and have greater range. Aircraft being smaller tend to be easier to replace than a great sodding turretbottom.
I suppose that if the Chinese were to build battleships, other's might consider building something to counter. Of course, there's no compelling reason to deploy battleship in the absence of battleships.
-
Originally posted by Boomer
@Trash: Just make sure the uber Ion Whatever the Fudge turrets cannot target Fighters and Bombers. There's your weakpoint. A little Flak and some AAA's aren't going to provide the perfect defense against all situations. The funnest part about ubership construction isn't found through deliberately putting in weaknesses. Its finding the weaknesses. I can guarantee you, no designer ever plans for every situation. Every Ubership can be beat, it just takes an intrepid mind to find the weakness. [/B]
Umm..they can't target fighters/bombers. Hell, Terrna Huge Turrets and Medium Turrets can't either (in my campaign). I made a clear distincion between big guns and smaller guns.
And the Archangel can be beat. What would you do in Rl if hte enemy brough a uber-warship to bear' Send a even bigger warship after it!
Don't have a bigger warship? Swarm it witl smaller ones...or with fighters!
See, there's your balance. Just throw more enemies at it.
-
Originally posted by Roanoke
I think I read in a game manual for something like Rainbow Six that the .50 cal was considered nolonger powerful enough for Anti Aircraft.
It wasn't the .50 cal round that was ineffective, it was the gun that fired it. Fast moving targets have only short period of ballistic contact( IE short time that you are likely to hit the target) and thusly the shooter needs to pump out as many rounds in a short time as possible.
a .50cal gatling gun(they do exist) can pump out more lead than the 6 machine guns of WW2 fighters. There for insuring enough hits in the short time the target is likely to be actually in the line of fire.
Much like the stream effect.
-
I wonder how would carriers fare agains a battleship aremed with 100 gattling cannons and a score of missile launchers?
Come to think of it, if you have many long-range missile launchers, why build cariers at all?
Missiles are cheaper then aircraft anyway...
-
A missile is a one-shot weapon.
Actually, the Iowas were valued for a long time as pretty much the only NATO ship that could laugh off (or indeed, even remain functional after) a hit from the average Russian air-to-surface or surface-to-surface missile. They would have formed the centerpieces of surface-action groups in the Norwegian Sea had a NATO-Warsaw Pact war ever occurred. The refitted version has excellent surface-to-surface missile armament, making it ideal for that role. And firing subcalibur rocket-assisted rounds, they can reach almost as far as a Harpoon surface-to-surface missile, with no chance of interception by enemy AAW defense.
-
Missiles aren't creative
-
Yeah, the Iowas were used in Deset storm and several other operation. Tehy bombarded shore targets with missiles or thier 406mm cannons. It's should be noted that US battleships had the best targeting devices by far.
So you have a accurete weapon of great power that can't be intercepted. The range (40km) is the only thing that realyl limited the deplyment.
-
The use of Iowa-class battleships in Desert Storm is hardly a useful thing to bring up. The Missouri, the only active battleship by that time IIRC, was being "combat tested" as a CnC vessle more than a line warship, and there was hardly anything capable of shooting back. So the blinding weaknesses of a battleship in a modern navy are not brought out. The last Iowa was retired not more than a couple of years after that, so I don't think it even did very well as a CnC platform.
Sure, you can cover a battleship with point defenses and missile launchers, but in doing so you are rendering the only reason for having such a large ship in the first place obsolete. Those turrets are only useful for shore bombardments when the forces on-shore don't have SSM cababilities of their own, and that's hardly an excuse for building the things. A smaller ship designed for missile/antimissile warfare will inherently have a much better cost/effectiveness ratio, will be less man-intensive, and will be faster, more flexable, and less likely to be the glory target that a battleship presents. Don't get me wrong, I think a 15" gun foring a shell over the horizon is pretty cool. It just has no place in the modern naval arsenal.
And for whoever brought up battleships still being listed in "reserve" clearly has no idea what "reserve" fleet implies. Most of the ships listed as reserve in the US Navy are aging, rusted-out and non-maintained relics. The big fuss over those tankers that Britain was supposed to be decommissioning and rejected was over WWI tankers, finally being removed from "reserve" status and being scrapped. So listing them "reserve" means "we haven't gotten around to sinking it yet"
-
A true battleship should represent the most cutting edge in naval artillery, right now that is missiles and 5 in gun. So modern warships are designed accordingly. If modern naval atillery was based off of Rail guns and Plasma morters warships would be designed around those weapons and how best to protect against them.
-
It shoudl be noted the Iowa is rather fast - 35 knots and can take more beating than namy current naval vessel. Cost effectivness is the issue. I look forward when railguns or plasma guns or something similar pops up in military use - then the BB's would caome back in style.
Have you ever passed near a battleship?
Thos those thing are awe-inspireing and freighterning to look at at the same time.
Carriers just look like big floating bath tubs. tehy don't have the "ow" factor.
-
Wow factor be damned. Its not there to impress, its there to put power where its required.
An Iowa is fast, but modern CVNs have been clocked going faster.
Finally the reason a CVN is a better investment than your "battleship aremed with 100 gattling cannons and a score of missile launchers" is that the BB can only project force in its own vicinity. The CVN can put planes much farther inland than 40km. More importantly, the pilot of a plane can go to a different target grid if the enemy has moved. A shell cannot. Flexibility trumps raw power unless you can manuever the enemy into a face to face slugfest--exactly the sort of thing any enemy fielding a modern navy is going to avoid.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
It shoudl be noted the Iowa is rather fast - 35 knots and can take more beating than namy current naval vessel. Cost effectivness is the issue. I look forward when railguns or plasma guns or something similar pops up in military use - then the BB's would caome back in style.
Ummm, no. A railgun can be effectively mounted in the bow cannon of a destroyer, and there is certainly no reason to put them in a 3x3 linked configuration as you have with a battleship turret arrangement. The reason battleships bristled with weapons is that those weapons were quite inaccurate; if you can place one shell on the deck of an enemy ship with precision, why point three barrels at it? But if you've got a 1-in-10 chance of hitting your target given your current aiming and fire-control technology, shooting in volleys of three makes sense. They serve no practical purpose in a modern navy. Period.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Ummm, no. A railgun can be effectively mounted in the bow cannon of a destroyer, and there is certainly no reason to put them in a 3x3 linked configuration as you have with a battleship turret arrangement. The reason battleships bristled with weapons is that those weapons were quite inaccurate; if you can place one shell on the deck of an enemy ship with precision, why point three barrels at it? But if you've got a 1-in-10 chance of hitting your target given your current aiming and fire-control technology, shooting in volleys of three makes sense. They serve no practical purpose in a modern navy. Period.
Why 3 barrels? Triple damage maby?
It's worth noting that Iowas percision was excellent - the best targeting mechanism in the world. It's so good they havent changed it years later.
-
THEY HAVEN'T USED IT "YEARS LATER"!
Iowa-class battleships date to late WWII. And during WWII, there were no computers, no calculators, nothing to account for target and origin drift, weather conditions, or anything of that sort besides human interpretation. So the mechanisms that controlled the targeting may have been quite accurate but the ultimate chances of hitting a target were still not good. Having 9 or 12 main guns on a ship made the chances of landing a fatal blow on an opponent that much higher. If one shell will do the job, why shoot 9? Nevermind that railgun-based slugs are devistating without the explosive aid, and my point is that with a modern railgun you wouldn't need multibarreled turrets but rather a single barrel on a single turret to inflict the necessary damage. Sure, that turret can be taken out. But with the efficiency of anti-ship weapons these days, it's not worth putting all of your eggs in one basket. WWII ended almost 60 years ago. If battleships were as effective in modern naval warfare as you seem to think they are, SOMEONE would have built ONE in the time since.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
THEY HAVEN'T USED IT "YEARS LATER"!
Iowa-class battleships date to late WWII. And during WWII, there were no computers, no calculators, nothing to account for target and origin drift, weather conditions, or anything of that sort besides human interpretation.
Absolutely untrue. The Iowas used the Mark 8 Rangekeeper mechnical computer in its fire control system. The Mk 8 automatically accepted the course, speed and inclination of the firing vessel. The target's course, speed etc were then entered from the ship's rangefinders. Other input included meteorological data like wind speed and direction, stabilization data, shell type, charge type, and individual gun ballistic data, and the mechanical computer even takes into account how far the Earth will rotate while the shells are in the air. This was an amazing system, more remarkable for the fact that all the calculations were done with cams. It is surely a great deal easier to program a system with code than cams!! The B-29 also had a very sophisticated electromechanical fire control system.
-
I do realize that they were complex firing mechanisms, but they were still not precise enough to guarantee a direct hit on their target. The meterological, range, target speed and direction would all have been estimated by the gun crew and entered by hand. Besides, my original point for bringing this up in the first place was to debunk the silly "triple the damage" line Trashman used, since with radar-computed target data you really only need one cannon. Especially if it's got the firepower to punch a hole through warship armor.
-
regarding the speed of a cvn verses(sp) an iowa class. Most of the nuclear powered cvn's are builtoff the iowa hull, biggest and fastest we ever made, and with the rediculessly powerfull reactor array they put in those ships they can do speed boat of better speed. I can quote a naval engineer who served on CVN 65, you can waterski behind her at full speed but its to fast to waterski behind her at flank speed.
btw WW2 was the first war that computers were used in artillery, thats why US artillery was the most accurate in WW2. In fact i think the Iowa class was one of the first navy ships to have a computer system, makes sence 'cause it would have been one of the few that would have had enough room for it. Generationaly the Iowa and the B-29 are from the same era of weapons design and i know for fact the b-29 had a computer assisted aiming contol for all gun turrets minus the tail gun. So i thing the Iowa had a computer in WW2
-
Originally posted by StratComm
I do realize that they were complex firing mechanisms, but they were still not precise enough to guarantee a direct hit on their target. The meterological, range, target speed and direction would all have been estimated by the gun crew and entered by hand.
Sorta. I only bring it up as it isn't really fair to the people who built these mechanical computers. The data was gathered through quite sophisticated systems. It wasn't at all guesswork. Nevertheless you are right, hence the need for salvo fire.
Besides, my original point for bringing this up in the first place was to debunk the silly "triple the damage" line Trashman used, since with radar-computed target data you really only need one cannon. Especially if it's got the firepower to punch a hole through warship armor.
This is why DD(X) will use single turrets -- the accuracy of modern gun systems is amazing.
Originally posted by Fade Rathnik
egarding the speed of a cvn verses(sp) an iowa class. Most of the nuclear powered cvn's are builtoff the iowa hull, biggest and fastest we ever made, and with the rediculessly powerfull reactor array they put in those ships they can do speed boat of better speed.
No carrier is built on an Iowa hull. Closest were the MIDWAYs, which used the MONTANA propulsion plant. Modern carriers are a good deal larger than the Iowas ever were.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
See, there's your balance. Just throw more enemies at it.
That is the exact opposite of balance.
-
I'd suggest that mounting 3 weapons in a turret probably also greatly increases the ability of the enemy to take those weapons out in a single blow.
-
Three barrels are for the salvo effect. Here in another weapon priciple used by the modern military. One shot one kill. All weapons are designed to destroy their intended target with one firing of the weapon system( may it be a burst, salvo or single ). If they could have put one burst capible 16in gun in each turret of an Iowa during WW2 they would have, but they couldn't so they used the salvo method. Modern naval artillery is based off rapid fire 5in gun, 30mm machine guns and 20mm gatling guns, all those weapons in modern form are single mount rapid fire systems, reducing the need for salvos from many weapons to 2 to 3 emplacements at most. Missiles are different, they don't reload at the same speed the guns do so they need more emplacements or launchers.
If those weapons weren't sufficiant to kill a target with the first shot there would be more of them untill there was sufficiant weapons to kill the intended target with one salvo, of cource as the weapons become more advaced less need to be mounted to achieve the same result.
-
Is it just me, or has this thread gone WAY off topic? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by StratComm
I do realize that they were complex firing mechanisms, but they were still not precise enough to guarantee a direct hit on their target. The meterological, range, target speed and direction would all have been estimated by the gun crew and entered by hand. Besides, my original point for bringing this up in the first place was to debunk the silly "triple the damage" line Trashman used, since with radar-computed target data you really only need one cannon. Especially if it's got the firepower to punch a hole through warship armor.
they were precise enough to stil lbe used during Desert Storm (and otehr similar operations) with great accuracy. The Iowa bombarded shore targets with ease.
It's more precise then the "smart" missiles the US has been using in Iraq at least :D
And you really don't know much about WW2 naval warfare?
1 cannon? do you realise how hard it is to sink a battleship, even with the biggest guns?
Those things have thick armor, triple hulls and waterproof compartments everywhe. One cannon my ass! Battles between batleship could last for hurs, both pounding at eachother and hitinh and still going.
That's what those ships were designed for. To keep floating and fireing as long as possible. It was not uncomon for batleship to be hit by hunderds of shells/bomb and be reduced to a floating ruin. But it still floated. It still shot back.
Prince of Whales was hit by 28 torpedos and 400 bombs before it started to sink.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
That is the exact opposite of balance.
So was the Colossus. So was the Sathanas. So is practicly every ship from Inferno. etc..etc..
Why don't you go bother them.
So sue me...
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
they were precise enough to stil lbe used during Desert Storm (and otehr similar operations) with great accuracy. The Iowa bombarded shore targets with ease.
Quite true. The very same Mk 8 was still used.
It's more precise then the "smart" missiles the US has been using in Iraq at least :D
Quite false. A t'hawk is much more accurate than an unguided 16" projectile.
And you really don't know much about WW2 naval warfare?
1 cannon? do you realise how hard it is to sink a battleship, even with the biggest guns?
Those things have thick armor, triple hulls and waterproof compartments everywhe. One cannon my ass! Battles between batleship could last for hurs, both pounding at eachother and hitinh and still going.
That's what those ships were designed for. To keep floating and fireing as long as possible. It was not uncomon for batleship to be hit by hunderds of shells/bomb and be reduced to a floating ruin. But it still floated. It still shot back.
Prince of Whales was hit by 28 torpedos and 400 bombs before it started to sink.
Actually, that was 6 torpedoes and 1 bomb. A torpedo damaged a propellor shaft which in turn compromised the watertight integrity of a large portion of the stern. There weren't too many battleship on battleship encounters in WWII. BISMARK was pounded to a wreck, but her guns were disabled early in the engagement. HIEI was smashed up by some eighty-odd 8" shells and many 5" shells before later being sunk by aircraft. KIRISHIMA was sunk by 9 16" shell hits from WASHINGTON. SCHARNHORST lost a turret almost immediately in her final action before being caught and sunk. I suppose YAMASHIRO might be the closest example of what you describe, being smashed by hundreds of shells but still returning some (ineffectual) fire before sinking.
Single mounts are considered more appropriate for shore bombardment these days than twins or triples.
-
Didn't the BISMARK engage two british battleships early on in WW2. The HOOD and one other i think. I know she smashed the HOOD in a short engagment but i don't know about the other. History still comes back to my point a warship must be able to engage its conteporary opponent and be able to destroy said target in the shortest number of weapon fireings as posible. There are no more battleships any more and even if there were she could be disabled by accurate air assaults and cruise missile fire. It can be later sunk at leasure.
The trend in weapons is more accurate with just the right amount of power to do the job. If doing the job ment Burning out a massive alien starship the size of a large asteroid then the starship designed to fight it would be able to cripple it's opponent within the first two salvos at least. If Trash Man has made a ship that brings the humans closer to that end in a well ballanced way then he has accomplished something.
And that the model even got this much discussion means something. I think its good for people to try stuff that people couldnt get to make work right before, you never know if this new idea from this young person who is acting ignorant of all that has passed before tries a compleatly different approach to the problem and achieves what is said to be un-achievable. Whats the worst that could happen, ohh wait i know, he could be right.
-
I think the other ship was The Prince of Wales, which survived and played a part in the Bismark's destruction. The Hood got nailed 'cos her decks were old fashioned wood and modern (at the time) ship batteris fired their shells in an arcing trajectory, as apposed to straight at the side of a ship, which required armour on the top and sides.
-
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
Quite false. A t'hawk is much more accurate than an unguided 16" projectile.
I sad that becosue the number of misses in Iraq and Afganistan were staggering. Tehy must have used some really cheap/old missiles hten.
Actually, that was 6 torpedoes and 1 bomb. A torpedo damaged a propellor shaft which in turn compromised the watertight integrity of a large portion of the stern. There weren't too many battleship on battleship encounters in WWII.
That was the Repulse - a very old battlecruiser that was with the Prince of Whales when attacked by Japanese. It clearly shows how modern design battleships were far better designed and armored. And I think it was 8 torpedos..have the book here somewher, I'll check later.[/quote]
EDIT: The HOOD was an old batlecruiser that god destryed due to it's poor armor and a lucky shot in the ammo storage.
-
Worth adding that the Bismark had been rendered almost completely impotent from a Fairley Swordfish bomber (from the carrier Ark Royal) sending that torpedo into its rudder.
Battle of Taranto is also a good illustration of air-vs-naval power (specifically in terms of what it takes to sink a battleship); a paltry 12 Swordfish bombers destroyed 1 Italian cruiser, damaged 2 severely and also damaged a cruiser.
-
Those were cruisers, not ballteship and thy had poor crew (let's face it, during WW2 italins havent proved themselvs as great warriors, despite their roman ancestors) and pitiful AF defences..
And Bismarck was not actualyl a very good design.. Only one and exposed rudder...tsk, tsk..
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Worth adding that the Bismark had been rendered almost completely impotent from a Fairley Swordfish bomber (from the carrier Ark Royal) sending that torpedo into its rudder.
Battle of Taranto is also a good illustration of air-vs-naval power (specifically in terms of what it takes to sink a battleship); a paltry 12 Swordfish bombers destroyed 1 Italian cruiser, damaged 2 severely and also damaged a cruiser.
Yeah, IIRC The Bismark limped on for a couple of weeks before she was caught.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Those were cruisers, not ballteship and thy had poor crew (let's face it, during WW2 italins havent proved themselvs as great warriors, despite their roman ancestors) and pitiful AF defences..
And Bismarck was not actualyl a very good design.. Only one and exposed rudder...tsk, tsk..
The Littorio was a Vittorio Veneto class battleship (45,000 ish tonnes).
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Littorio), it was regarded as one of the best in the world in 1939. (damaged by 3 torpedos; out of service for 4 months)
The Conte di Cavour was a Conte di Cavour class battleship (25,000 tonnes). (hit by 1 torpedo, not repaired by the time of Italys' withdrawal from the war)
The Caio Duilio was a Caio Duilio class battleship (29,000 tonnes). (damaged by 1 torpedo, out of service for 6 months)
Regardless of AAAf in the port, the point of bringing up Taranto was as an example of the damage that can be inflicted by torpedos fired from fairly primitive aircraft against large armoured sea vessels such as battleships.
Obviously, in modern times the capability to inflict damage from longer range is far greater; the use and threat of Exocet missiles in the Falklands being an example that springs to mind.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
That was the Repulse - a very old battlecruiser that was with the Prince of Whales when attacked by Japanese. It clearly shows how modern design battleships were far better designed and armored. And I think it was 8 torpedos..have the book here somewher, I'll check later.
No, it was PRINCE OF WALES compromised by the propellor shaft damage. As both PRINCE OF WALES and REPULSE were both rapidly sent to the bottom of the sea, it shows only the stunning vulberability of battleships to air attack.
Those were cruisers, not ballteship and thy had poor crew (let's face it, during WW2 italins havent proved themselvs as great warriors, despite their roman ancestors) and pitiful AF defences..
No, there were three _battleships_ and one cruiser severely damaged at Taranto. No argument about crew quality. :)
-
Originally posted by Admiral Nelson
No, it was PRINCE OF WALES compromised by the propellor shaft damage. As both PRINCE OF WALES and REPULSE were both rapidly sent to the bottom of the sea, it shows only the stunning vulberability of battleships to air attack.
Stunning vunerabiltiy? The Japanse sent every aricraft they had at those two ships! They had enough firepower to sink a whole fleet - and a carrier would go down even faster.
Repulse went down quickly, but hte Prince of Whales took a lot of punishemt.
Ah.. I was right.. according to this book it was 28 torpedos and around 400 bombs!
@Aldo - as I was saying - those italian ships were rather poor (25000 tonnes and you call that a battleship? Compared to US and Jap ships that was an ant) The only exception was Vittorio Venetto, which realyl was a big ship, but if you check the battleship comparion page, you will se it is rated very badly in the waterline armor and anti-aircraft defences.
-
Sorry Trashman. I'd like to know the title of that book. The Japanese used fewer than 100 planes in the entire operation, attacking in waves of around 30. I have seen varying account of the actual number of torpedo hits on PoW, but they vary from 6 to 8. I have never read anything about more than one bomb hit on PoW. 28 torps and 400 bombs is absurd. Note too that PoW was hit and crippled almost immediately whilst REPULSE dodged torpedo after torpedo before being overwhelmed. The Japanese concentrated on REPULSE as PoW was already a cripple.
Here is one account on line:
Force Z (http://www.odyssey.dircon.co.uk/Z_timeline.htm)
and another:
BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/battleships_01.shtml)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@Aldo - as I was saying - those italian ships were rather poor (25000 tonnes and you call that a battleship? Compared to US and Jap ships that was an ant) The only exception was Vittorio Venetto, which realyl was a big ship, but if you check the battleship comparion page, you will se it is rated very badly in the waterline armor and anti-aircraft defences.
Wikipedia calls it a battleship, so I'm happy to accept a peer-reviewed definition.
All of which is beside my point; battleship armour was shown to be penetrated by a small number of air launched torpedos in Taranto (from what were fairly primitive aircraft - fabric covered biplanes). It serves as an illustration of the damage that can be done - in an area of relatively crude technology compared to today - to a battleship with air-based weaponry. Although the Italians did have over 600 anti-aircraft guns and 90 barrage balloons, so it wasn't exactly a cakewalk anyways.
The whole point being made is that the battleship has been rendered obselete by aircraft and stand-off weaponry, and that was
-
One thing is being disregarded here: human nature.
Look at all of us: we're discussing the failure of large warships against pathetic aircraft in WWII. We are looking at the mistakes of our predecessors, and building off of them to prevent the same thing from happening in 2005.
Warp ahead: 23-whateverish
How many generations? How many wars? How many failed plans? How many monstrosities? All the lessons we've learned now are still applied, in a different fashion, but they're still applied. Is it not possible that in Trashman's scenario, these issues have been looked at and dealt with?
And besides, he's not even constrained by physical limitations. I don't care what anyone says. No matter what, as time goes on people adapt, greater failure spawns greater invention, and we persevere. We learn to study ourselves and correct our mistakes so that they don't repeat in the future.
We now return you to our regularly scheduled program: FreeSpace and WWII: The Conspiracy Revealed. ;)
-
Keep in mind that there was a big difference in armament between the Prince of Wales and the Repulse being attacked by 100 some odd G4M Betty and G3M Nell bombers and the various destroyers, cruisers, and battleships that faced the Japanese kamikazi attacks much later in the war.
Biggest changes were massive increase in guns and proximity fuse shells. Late war battleships of WWII in the USN and British fleet were fairly well protected against an attack that the Prince of Wales was not quite upto the challenge of facing.
That whole Force Z thing was a fiasco as the RN knew they were in striking range of Japanese aircraft but ventured out in search of invasion ships anyways. Churchill later wrote that it was apparently one of the largest shocks he ever got in the war.
As for the Archangel model here...pretty good...looks decent. Seems to follow the Sathanas killing trend. Need some fresh takes on the capital ship trend sometime...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Wikipedia calls it a battleship, so I'm happy to accept a peer-reviewed definition.
All of which is beside my point; battleship armour was shown to be penetrated by a small number of air launched torpedos in Taranto (from what were fairly primitive aircraft - fabric covered biplanes). It serves as an illustration of the damage that can be done - in an area of relatively crude technology compared to today - to a battleship with air-based weaponry. Although the Italians did have over 600 anti-aircraft guns and 90 barrage balloons, so it wasn't exactly a cakewalk anyways.
It is worth noting that the Vittero Venetio could put only about two-thirds as much weight of metal in the air as a late-war US Gearing-class destroyer over the span of one minute. (Gearing: 12,963 lbs. Vittero Venetio: 9,821 lbs.) And the Gearing would have vastly superior, radar-based fire-control to boot.
And the Vittero Venetio also had a defective underwater protection system; according to evidence from the time, and by people who have studied the ship's blueprints and presumably know what they are talking about, it had defective seam joins and was virtually useless when it came to multiple hits in the same area.
It is also worth mentioning, again, that an Iowa-class is actually quite capable of shrugging off any modern surface-to-surface or air-to-surface missile short of a nuclear weapon. None of those weapons are armor-piercing. Yes, you will cause casualities, you will make a mess of exposed equipment, but the bottom line is that you will not penetrate the armor belt and will not do fatal damage to the ship, not even with the ungodly huge Russian Shipwreck or Kingfish missiles.
-
Thats good to know, now can one imagine if they used modern tank armor for combat ships. There would be great difficulty in sinking the bastard. That is of cource faling to acknowlege(sp) that that might make the boat to heavy to sail.
-
Fact is anyship caught in port is highly vulnerable to an air strike. Pearl harbour, anyone ?
-
Allso, one musnt' forget that the torpedos used in WW2 were huge - a torpedo bomber carrier one and it was practicly the size or the bomber itself.
And 100 bombers is a lot. An avarage carrier could support 60 fighters at those times.
Allso, todays warships have no armor to speak off, so that Excocet missile thing in the Falklands is what you get as a result.
Most todays ships have 1-2 120m cannons which are enough to pierce trough the enmy ship, showing just how weak todays armor really is...
-
yes but they can fire some serious AP rounds thru that small bore cannon. Remember all you have to do is disable a ship. And AP rounds are good at making things not work
-
OK - repulse got hit by 4 torpedos and hte prince of Whales by 8-9.. It allso sez it got 5 direct bomb hits in the last enemy attack run - how many before I couldn't find.
Given that the Repulse was old it's not surprising that it sunk rather fast. The POW got pounded far harder (even a jap bomber rammed him near the waterline) and was still floating. Against 100 bombers one really couldn't expect another outcome, but it does prove that better design = better survivalbility.
American warships built after Peral Harbor and this event were designed with that in mind. Iowa had 140 cannons total,triple hull, multiple bulkheads and those extra torpedo bumber strips 8forgot what they are called)
Allso, I just checked some other books too (I have 2500 books at home, and half of them are about ships.. what can I say? My father was a ship captain).
Vittorio Venettoa had TERRIBLE AF defences and fire control..
Most british ships had rather weak waterline armor..
interesting...this sheds some more light on the situation..