[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.

[Fade Rathnik]

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

[Admiral Nelson]

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.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by TrashMan

See, there's your balance.  Just throw more enemies at it.

That is the exact opposite of balance.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Fade Rathnik]

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.

[DarthWang]

Is it just me, or has this thread gone WAY off topic?

[TrashMan]

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

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.

[TrashMan]

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...

[Admiral Nelson]

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

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.

[Fade Rathnik]

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.

[Roanoke]

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.

[TrashMan]

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.

[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.

[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..

[Roanoke]

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.

[aldo_14]

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, 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.

[Admiral Nelson]

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.

[TrashMan]

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.

[Admiral Nelson]

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

and another:
 BBC