Do you know what the Tirpitz is?
- Thread starter Spectator
- Start date
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
The day of the Battleship is over. They sure were cool though.
They are only useful for bombardment, but it's the general consensus that it's just not worh it.
They are only useful for bombardment, but it's the general consensus that it's just not worh it.
Spectator
Chieftain
I've been told on another forum, well, the forum I posted a link for earlier, that The Iowa for example has an armor that is, Still today, very hard to penetrate even with todays firepower and weapons that are almost not match in terms of strenght. Is that true? look:
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=228
What's your opinion Simon?
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Do I ever think that battleships would be useful! 
All four Iowas have only been in active service for a fraction of their lives; they are quite young for ships - Ticonderoga is older operationally than any of the Iowas.
They were all bought back into service and modernized in the 1980s, and then decommissioned with perverse haste and glee by the Navy from 1990 onwards. There is a great chance that they would have been scrapped, just so they could not raise their heads again.
But, Congressional order means that two must be kept on the Navy Register as Class 2 Mobilization assets until such assets are in service that replace their capabilities. With the cancellation of the DD-21, this will be a while.
Further, such statements as "they are thing of the past...way too expensive toys...useful only for bombardment" are rather simplistic, and do not see important parts of the issue.
There is a big gap in NGFS present in the USN to this day; 5" guns simply do not have the range or punch. Nor can the platforms they are on go right on in to surf city, as they are too expensive, and bereft of passive protection - armour.
Armour, of which there is over a foot thick of on the Iowas.
A 5" projectile cannot be compared with a 16" projectile.
As for range, there was work done in the late 1980s/early 1990s on an 11" extended range sabot round that could be fired from a battleship gun up to 100nm away.
More modernization work could be done, giving more missile capability than the current 32 Tomahawks in ABLs and 16 Harpoons; transforming these very well armoured and fast (35 knots) platforms into BBGs - guided missile battleships.
They aren't a Tico or an Arleigh Burke, but they would complement those vessels in a very impressive manner.
They are designed for flagship ops - the current command vessels used as fleet flagships are unarmoured and virtually unarmed. They have room for hospital, storage and forge facilities.
There is a lot of information on Warships of the World, Battleships.org, and most of all http://www.usnfsa.com/index-new.htm
Do have a read and think some before making hasty judgements, and calling things expensive toys.
As for their utility in the current conflict, as well as launching Tomahawks, they would be able to provide heavy NGFS for actions such as the taking of the port of Umm Qasr, and fighting near Basra. And battleship gunfire fits right into the very definition of "shock and awe".
Never say never.
All four Iowas have only been in active service for a fraction of their lives; they are quite young for ships - Ticonderoga is older operationally than any of the Iowas.
They were all bought back into service and modernized in the 1980s, and then decommissioned with perverse haste and glee by the Navy from 1990 onwards. There is a great chance that they would have been scrapped, just so they could not raise their heads again.
But, Congressional order means that two must be kept on the Navy Register as Class 2 Mobilization assets until such assets are in service that replace their capabilities. With the cancellation of the DD-21, this will be a while.
Further, such statements as "they are thing of the past...way too expensive toys...useful only for bombardment" are rather simplistic, and do not see important parts of the issue.
There is a big gap in NGFS present in the USN to this day; 5" guns simply do not have the range or punch. Nor can the platforms they are on go right on in to surf city, as they are too expensive, and bereft of passive protection - armour.
Armour, of which there is over a foot thick of on the Iowas.
A 5" projectile cannot be compared with a 16" projectile.
As for range, there was work done in the late 1980s/early 1990s on an 11" extended range sabot round that could be fired from a battleship gun up to 100nm away.
More modernization work could be done, giving more missile capability than the current 32 Tomahawks in ABLs and 16 Harpoons; transforming these very well armoured and fast (35 knots) platforms into BBGs - guided missile battleships.
They aren't a Tico or an Arleigh Burke, but they would complement those vessels in a very impressive manner.
They are designed for flagship ops - the current command vessels used as fleet flagships are unarmoured and virtually unarmed. They have room for hospital, storage and forge facilities.
There is a lot of information on Warships of the World, Battleships.org, and most of all http://www.usnfsa.com/index-new.htm
Do have a read and think some before making hasty judgements, and calling things expensive toys.
As for their utility in the current conflict, as well as launching Tomahawks, they would be able to provide heavy NGFS for actions such as the taking of the port of Umm Qasr, and fighting near Basra. And battleship gunfire fits right into the very definition of "shock and awe".
Never say never.
Spectator
Chieftain
Just to make sure this is clear, I am not the one that called them expensive toys and such, it was replied to me on another forum.
I have another question for you. Why dont they merge battleships with carriers? Why dont they make a Carrier with 16" cannons and AA guns with homing torpedos? That would be a real floating forteresse, no?
Spec.
I have another question for you. Why dont they merge battleships with carriers? Why dont they make a Carrier with 16" cannons and AA guns with homing torpedos? That would be a real floating forteresse, no?
Spec.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
This is a history topic, and belongs in the history forum...moved.
Tirpitz' entire offensive career consisted of bombarding a wheather station on Spitzbergen, and she was identical to Bismarck in every way except she had more light AA weapons.
Bismarck sank exactly one ship, the aging HMS Hood.
Tirpitz' entire offensive career consisted of bombarding a wheather station on Spitzbergen, and she was identical to Bismarck in every way except she had more light AA weapons.
Bismarck sank exactly one ship, the aging HMS Hood.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
I know that you did not say such things; some other replies above did.
Why not build carrier-battleships? The Japs did some studies on such hybrids, but they proved to be unworkable. Such attempts at getting the best of all possible worlds rarely work out successfully - consider the Kiev class aircraft cruisers.
Basically, building such a vessel would need to be done from scratch, and there could only be a limited amount - 24 max of VSTOL aircraft, and two front turrets. The effects of the gun blasts on carrier operations would also present a problem.
Nay, if ye want a real floating fortress, do not go for a jack of all trades a master of none. Go for a Darkshade class BBGN...the specs and discussion are floating around here somewhere...
Spectator
Chieftain
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Nay, if ye want a real floating fortress, do not go for a jack of all trades a master of none. Go for a Darkshade class BBGN...the specs and discussion are floating around here somewhere...
I would really like to see those, could youpost a link to a good site or something.
Thanks
Spec.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
An interesting option for the Iowa class would be to remove the rear turret and magazines, replacing them with a VLS system. upgrade the radar,
If I remember right, one of the issues the Navy had with the Iowa's were the massive crew requirements. For one BB, they could crew several other ships.
If I remember right, one of the issues the Navy had with the Iowa's were the massive crew requirements. For one BB, they could crew several other ships.
Case
The horror, the horror
The Tirpitz didn't fire a shot during the destruction of Convoy PQ-19. What happened is that when the British recieved reports that the Tirpitz had sortied, the convoy commander ordered the convoy to scatter, thereby making the merchant ships easy targets for German submarines and bombers. The Tirpitz returned to base shortly after the convoy scattered because the Germans didn't want to risk it further.
AFAIK, the only time the Tirpitz fired her main guns in anger was during a bombardment of an Allied weather station on Spitzbergen island.
The Bismark sunk the Hood and mauled the Prince of Wales. The Bismark never even got close to an Allied convoy.Case
The horror, the horror
It would also make a rather expensive pile of metal on the bottom of the sea. Aside from the obvious problems of deck and hanger crowding and blast effects on carrier planes, carriers and battleships have very different operational requirements. Carriers need sea room to launch aircraft and to evade counter attacks, and battleships need to close with the enemy at all times. Clearly, these two missions can't be combined into one ship.
The USS Saratoga and Lexington were armed with 8 Inch guns to counter attacks by enemy cruisers. However, AFAIK these were never fired in anger, and the Saratoga had her 8 inch guns removed during the war.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Here is a link to a snippet from the beginning of the Darkshade class BBGN project:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showt...=&highlight=Darkshade Battleship&pagenumber=8
Panda
Metal head
This thread started in OT, proceded to History, and if you keep up the great work, will end in Humour and Jokes.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
I would have you shot for insolence, but leaving you to live in Finland is more punishment.
Panda
Metal head
If you try anything, Sam will kill you.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Ahhh, battleships.
Who can't love those sleek, deadly weapons of doom?
Just too bad stupid and ungainly carriers deprived us of ever finding out the answer to the greatest question of history : Which would win between an Iowa-Class and a Yamato-Class in a one on one battle?
Who can't love those sleek, deadly weapons of doom?
Just too bad stupid and ungainly carriers deprived us of ever finding out the answer to the greatest question of history : Which would win between an Iowa-Class and a Yamato-Class in a one on one battle?
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
There is some naval fiction out there on Warships of the World which explores that scenario. My money is on the Iowa; more manueverable, longer range shot, better damage control, and overall a magnificent weapons platform and fighting ship.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
My money would be on the Iowa too, but it still sucks that we never got to find out what the result would have been.
Oh, well.
Oh, well.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
I talked to an old Vietnam vet. He had a story of being out on mechanized patrol (someone can correct me, but I think that's a couple of light tanks and/or a troop carrier) when they sighted a much larger VC force. They backed back out over the ridge crest and squawked for help. In plain language apparently. A reply on the same channel requested ID and location of them and of the VC. 20 Minutes later "The whole freakin mountain moved." When they asked who (the freaking hell) was on the other end of the "line", a voice drawled "USS Missouri, pleased to be of service.
Of course that's an Army battle story, and you know the old line about them and fairy tales.
J
PS Simon, have you ever gotten plans drawn up for your flagship?
PPS I think it is amusing that People have given the Tirpitz credit for sinking ships. The convoy that was destroyed by Tirpitz action was destroyed by U-boats and planes. The most the Big T could claim is that the rumor of her coming caused the disruption of the formation. Tirpitz never was within 200, possibly 300, knots of any part of the convoy.
Of course that's an Army battle story, and you know the old line about them and fairy tales.
J
PS Simon, have you ever gotten plans drawn up for your flagship?
PPS I think it is amusing that People have given the Tirpitz credit for sinking ships. The convoy that was destroyed by Tirpitz action was destroyed by U-boats and planes. The most the Big T could claim is that the rumor of her coming caused the disruption of the formation. Tirpitz never was within 200, possibly 300, knots of any part of the convoy.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
It would have been the New Jersey, as she was the only one deployed off Vietnam, part of the error of not using all the bloody firepower available when they should have.
I have modified specs, with changes in secondary armament, and a few more guns, and various other missiles. They are being employed in a fictional alternate history context, so they have a few fictional/experimental missiles fitted.
I am working on a large program whereby line drawings and 3D models can be produced of BBs, as well as working out battle capabilities, gunfire models, etc. This is a bit of a long term project, as it involves inputting a very large amount of data - all known engagement data, and all assorted types of variables. It could be a nice finished result, whereby inputting your chosen specs gives you plans and a visual model, as well as comparative capabilities.
But I will dig up some of the modified stuff on the Darkshade class BBGN, a vessel that if built, could sink anything, and withstand anything short of a nuke.
