Attn: Navy Admirals!

[Naval Freak]

Hey, get the book Warships or something like that. it tells the story of all major warships from 1880 onward. there were only 4 iowas, we built them to counter 4 jap bbs that were ordered. the japanese only built 2; but each had 9 18.1 inch guns, kinda big.

the alaska class just have the common 3 guns-in-3 turrets configureation.
the south dakota class bbs are the most like the iowas, in fact, the iowas are just upgrades of the south dakotas


hey, naval power, have your heard of tomahwak? Phalanx CIWS? harpoon? nuclear-capable tomahawk? all packed into one ship, plus the big guns. the amount of modern arms on an iowa equal 3-4 of our kidd-class desroyers, or 1-2 of our ticonderoga-class cruisers.

i am most freaky about the nimitz-class.

i am NOT a 'navy admiral', i am 'COMSIXTHFLT', COMmander of the SIXTH FLeeT.

 

[Crow T Robot]

Originally posted by Naval Freak
Hey, get the book Warships or something like that. it tells the story of all major warships from 1880 onward. there were only 4 iowas...

Actually there were 5 or 6 of them ordered, its just that the war ended before the last ones(s) were completed or put to sea. Later, the Wisconsin ran into (over) something and damaged the bow, so they took parts from the Kentucky (was to be the 5th Iowa BB) to fix it. The result was that it was a few inches longer than the other 3.

... we built them to counter 4 jap bbs that were ordered. the japanese only built 2; but each had 9 18.1 inch guns, kinda big.

The Yamatos had a thicker main belt belt as well as larger guns than the Iowas but they werent as fast and the main guns werent as accurate.

 

[Naval Freak]

technically, the iowas are fast battleships, they were ment to outrun anything that could outgun them.

 

[Naval Power]

Originally posted by Naval Freak
Hey, get the book Warships or something like that. it tells the story of all major warships from 1880 onward. there were only 4 iowas, we built them to counter 4 jap bbs that were ordered. the japanese only built 2; but each had 9 18.1 inch guns, kinda big.

the alaska class just have the common 3 guns-in-3 turrets configureation.
the south dakota class bbs are the most like the iowas, in fact, the iowas are just upgrades of the south dakotas


hey, naval power, have your heard of tomahwak? Phalanx CIWS? harpoon? nuclear-capable tomahawk? all packed into one ship, plus the big guns. the amount of modern arms on an iowa equal 3-4 of our kidd-class desroyers, or 1-2 of our ticonderoga-class cruisers.

i am most freaky about the nimitz-class.

i am NOT a 'navy admiral', i am 'COMSIXTHFLT', COMmander of the SIXTH FLeeT.

Yes I have heard of them all but you seem to be missing the point. We will likely never put them to sea again due to their enormous cost. Phalanx CIWS is quickly being replaced on all major U.S. warships by the RAM (Rolling Airframe Missle). America will likely never use nukes so the nuclear armed Tomahawks will not see use. Harpoon is a Anti Ship missle which is used to disable other large ships of which barely any Countires we would go to war with have. The large 16 in. guns are mostly outdated do to their inferior range to modern day missles. The Iowa class doesnt carry as many Tomahawks as our destroyers and Cruisers. The Kidd class is a Air Defense version of the Spruance that was ordered for Iran by their Shah but when a new Shah came along it was cancalled and the US took them in. They are much better AA wise of which the Iowa class is so hopelessly outclassed and vuneralbe to. To put it short BB's reign on the sea was over a long time ago and they are so inferior to modern CV's and other surface warships the US currently has, that they will likely be scrapped or the last two also made into mermorials.


EDIT: We actually built them to counter the Japanese Battlecruiser Kongo class.


P.S. I have the book Warships and it is a very good read i recomend it to you all.

 

[Naval Freak]

I have not heard of RAM, but our Ticonderoga-class missile cruisers have a brand-new antimissile system- a vert-launch AEGIS system that fires missile after missile after missile at incomings-plus they still have Phalanx(vert-launch for long-range defence, CIWS for short range defence). i dont belive that that the plalanx system will be fully replaced, its too good of a system.

 

[Naval Power]

Hmm I believe on some of the Ticonderogas it is being tested but others will currently keep their CIWS. Do you have a name of this new system I dont believe Ive heard of it. Is it the ESSM?

 

[Bluemofia]

i only use destroyers because they are cheap (since i dont have C3C) but i think destroyers are useful and they can overwhelm a battleship when you have a swarm of them. since they are cheap you can roll out 2 destroyers for every battleship they make

 

[IglooDame]

Originally posted by Naval Power
Hmm I believe on some of the Ticonderogas it is being tested but others will currently keep their CIWS. Do you have a name of this new system I dont believe Ive heard of it. Is it the ESSM?

I poked around for some info and got the following:

There are very few mentions of the Ticonderoga class getting RAM launchers in place of Phalanx CIWS, so I'd tentatively discount it.

For the Flight 2A Arleigh Burke class DDGs (DDG-79 and onward): RIM-9P Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) will replace the Phalanx installations when available; four missiles will be carried in each of six Mk 41 VLS cells.

 

[Aeon221]

The AI navy in C3C is a lot smarter, but still not good. It can definitely handle bombardment; in fact, when I gained naval supremacy, thats all it did. Bombard and run. Ships get dominated by planes in the new one, and cruisers make beautiful escorts for carriers, since their moves dovetail. They finally made the perfect carrier escort. The Aegis is also way better, and far more likely to actually HIT something. Only problem with the planes is that it takes 2 bombardments to kill any naval unit stronger than regular. I dont like subs, so I dont know how much/if they are better, but they probably are. Definitely carriers are the way to go, even with the few planes they hold!

 

[Naval Power]

I could of sworn Ive seen it in a few of my most recent books.

 

[NankingDan]

In C3C Destroyers are VERY Important. Firstly, submarines can now make a stealth attack, meaning they can choose which unit from a stack they wish to attack, thus they can victimize transports and aircraft carriers even when those units are sitting under a stack of battleships. Destroyers can now see submarines, thus they can scout ahead or guard a perimiter to make sure no subs trickle in and sink your valuable units. Destroyers are the best "guard" units: their high movement allows them to move in, make a bombard, and retreat. With destroyers, you can safely weaken your enemies and leave your battleships and cruisers to finish them off. Lastly, when your rivals have loads of obsolete units (ironclads, frigates etc.) you can pump out a lot of cheap destroyers to take care of those annoying nuisances.

 

[Zardnaar]

I heard the US battleships were going to be scrapped but got a reprieve when that british ship got destroyed in the Falklands.

Didn't the Iowa see use in the 1st gulf war? Radar guided 16 inch shells are alot cheaper than 1 million dollar cruise missiles.

I would like to see the modern battleship weapons put on a modern hull. Say 6 16-18 inch guns with modern fire control (satellite guided?) with a skank load of cruise missiles and anti air stuff on it. That would be scary.

 

[IglooDame]

Originally posted by Zardnaar
I heard the US battleships were going to be scrapped but got a reprieve when that british ship got destroyed in the Falklands.

Didn't the Iowa see use in the 1st gulf war? Radar guided 16 inch shells are alot cheaper than 1 million dollar cruise missiles.

I would like to see the modern battleship weapons put on a modern hull. Say 6 16-18 inch guns with modern fire control (satellite guided?) with a skank load of cruise missiles and anti air stuff on it. That would be scary.

They did bring all four back into service in the late '80s, but decommissioned them all again in the early 90s, and you're right - Wisconsin and Missouri did some shore bombardment in Gulf War I.

Other than the heavy guns, the Russians built what you are talking about with their Kirov guided missile cruisers, and from what I read the Russians are struggling to keep them in service.

 

[Granite88]

The Russians are struggling to keep anything in service though... Their military is a shadow of what it was under the Soviet Union.

I use destoyers alot, they are fast and as NankingDan mentioned, in C3C, they can actually see subs.

 

[Crow T Robot]

Originally posted by Zardnaar
I heard the US battleships were going to be scrapped but got a reprieve when that british ship got destroyed in the Falklands.

Didn't the Iowa see use in the 1st gulf war? Radar guided 16 inch shells are alot cheaper than 1 million dollar cruise missiles.

I would like to see the modern battleship weapons put on a modern hull. Say 6 16-18 inch guns with modern fire control (satellite guided?) with a skank load of cruise missiles and anti air stuff on it. That would be scary.

They are already "scrapped". The Missouri is a memorial in Pearl Harbor and the NJ is a museum, never to be recommissioned. The Iowa will likely never see action again because of the stigma of the firing mishap. That leaves only the Wisconsin, which ironically has the least amount of service time (something like only 12 yrs out of the last 60).

Part of the retrofit in the 80s was to make them capable of firing cruise missiles, which some did in GF1 at an operating cost 10-15 times more than other means which is why they were all mothballed again right after the war.

The 16 inch guns are not "radar guided" though, most of the big gun action in Gulf 1 was from forward or air observation, mostly on artillery, CPs, SAM sites and troops positions just over the Kuwait border.

A cruise missle might be cheaper than a 16 inch round, but the cost to operate the ship is enormous when any number of smaller, cheaper ships can act as a launch platform. All the while, that big ship is very vulnerable to a modern OTH missle like an Exocet, and a PR quagmire if it were hit.

Further, a cruise missile has far more accuracy, a variable warhead and much, MUCH longer range than a BB"s guns. All of which is are other reasons they were mothballed again.

 

[One Man Bucket]

Originally posted by Crow T Robot

All the while, that big ship is very vulnerable to a modern OTH missle like an Exocet, and a PR quagmire if it were hit.

I don't think that an exocet (or a harpoon) would be able to knock out a battleship, their armour is way to heavy for those missiles. Modern missiles are build to sink modern ships who all have a lot less armour than the old battleships. And the same is true for torpedoes, modern ones don't have the power of the old torpedoes. The British sub that sunk the Argentinian cruiser during the Falkland war used a 1930's model torpedo to do so. (It was old ww2 stock even)

To get back on topic; I use a far more varried fleet now in my games. Destroyers for scouting, cruisers for shore bombardment, or if my enemies have large navies the cruisers are exchanged for battleships. They can do the dirty work and sink all my opponents ships.

I like privateers now as well, but I don't use them to attack other civs, I like to attack babarians with them. By the time my first privateers are build there are still a few babarian galleys around. Privateers have a chance to enslave those (and any other ship) and create new privateers. I use this to get a cheap naval scouting force without annoying my neighbours.

 

[Crow T Robot]

Originally posted by One Man Bucket

I don't think that an exocet (or a harpoon) would be able to knock out a battleship, their armour is way to heavy for those missiles. Modern missiles are build to sink modern ships who all have a lot less armour than the old battleships. And the same is true for torpedoes, modern ones don't have the power of the old torpedoes. The British sub that sunk the Argentinian cruiser during the Falkland war used a 1930's model torpedo to do so. (It was old ww2 stock even)

Probably true, but 2 or 3 of them hitting might sink her but definately cause a serious PR/image problem as was the case with the Cole and the destroyer or cruiser that was hit in the Gulf in the 80s.

The point remains that a WW2 vintage BB is vulnerable to OTH missiles which it cant defend against with its big guns. It ends ip needing other ships to protect her which brings into question the role of the BB.

The Falkland example is not unlike the Bismarck: WW1 vintage, colth covered bi-planes that couldnt make 95 in a head wind crippled her.

 

[danegeld]

the CB class (Alaska) were named after territories. I htink there were 5 that were actualy built you had the Alaska the Guam and um i cant recall those 3 saw combat the other two were converted to command ships or somthing the rest were scrapped even though the hulls were complete.

a really interesting Class of forgotten ships. I recall that at one point the Guam was towing the Franklin after it recived heavy damage. (fuzzy memory)

really would like to see some one do a Juteland secnerio or some naval battle sencerio.

also a nice easy to use mod pack with lots of detialed ships with the various classes for all sides would be nice.

espicaly the planed but never built german super battleships

 

[danegeld]

Originally posted by Crow T Robot




A cruise missle might be cheaper than a 16 inch round, but the cost to operate the ship is enormous when any number of smaller, cheaper ships can act as a launch platform. All the while, that big ship is very vulnerable to a modern OTH missle like an Exocet, and a PR quagmire if it were hit.

Further, a cruise missile has far more accuracy, a variable warhead and much, MUCH longer range than a BB"s guns. All of which is are other reasons they were mothballed again.

actually the cost inst really a true factor they are symbols of national power, no one else has them or likly will again. even if was kept as showboat duty. and sent around the world once every other year it would be still worth it.

 

[CDR Warren]

I served on the Iowa (BB-61), the "Big Stick" 1988-1990.