Wonders of Destruction 2
- Thread starter insurgent
- Start date
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Insurgent - Yes, the Crusader has been cancelled. But so was the B1.
I would never call a corvette a real ship.
I would never call a corvette a real ship.
CJ_Backfire
Chieftain
sure you can 
G-Man
A One Man's War
It's obvious Sweden isn't spending too much money on defence, nor should it as there are no likely threats on it. But it seems to me that in such a situation using small, fast and cheap boats would be better than developing new technologies for a few ships. Fewer ships will be able to cover Sweden's coasts more efficiently and stealth is helpful in an attack but not very much when trying to defend your country from an invasion.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Originally posted by CJ_Backfire
sure you can
No. A real ship must have a main armament of at least 14", or be nuclear powered, or carry fixed wing aircraft.
Stealth ships are small, ugly and have no grandeur. And would be killed by a single 16" shell.
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
No. A real ship must have a main armament of at least 14", or be nuclear powered, or carry fixed wing aircraft.
Stealth ships are small, ugly and have no grandeur. And would be killed by a single 16" shell.
Ships went out with imperialism, Simon. Cruise missiles outgun and outrange a 16" inch cannon.
G-Man
A One Man's War
They also cost a hundred times more...
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
1.) Imperialism is not gone.
2.) Cruise missiles carry a lighter warhead overall. Tomahawks have a 1000lb warhead, Harpoons around 500lb. Shells pack more punch, at 2700lb.
3.) With extended range munitions, a shell can go substantially longer distances than unaided. And a big ship can carry both; a cruise missile does not replace guns, and vice versa.
4.) They cost more than 100 times as much. With a cruise missile costing around $1 million, and a shell a few thousand maximum.
5.) Cruise missiles can be jammed and intercepted by SAMs, ECM, etc. At this stage, there is no similar counter to gunfire in operational service.
G-Man
A One Man's War
The comparison isn't between a battleship and a cruise missile but between a cannon and a cruise missile. You can't compare a weapons platform to a weapon.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
As has been said, they cannot be compared. And a battleship carries a minimum 36 cruise missiles, and up to 128 if converted to a BBG.
And a battleship is not multi-billion dollar; unless it was built from the keel up, and nuclear powered. But that is a different project...
If it gets hit, getting past CIWS, and the SAMs of itself and its escorts, then there is the small matter of over a foot of solid steel plate armour. A battleship is designed and armoured to take damage unlike any other ship; it is designed to withstand the damage of similar shells to its own, which we have established are rather larger in size than a cruise missile warhead.
G-Man
A One Man's War
Not to mention that most cruise missiles can't hit a moving target like a ship anyway 
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
No. A real ship must have a main armament of at least 14", or be nuclear powered, or carry fixed wing aircraft.
Stealth ships are small, ugly and have no grandeur. And would be killed by a single 16" shell.
Sadly, a grand battleship would be blasted into molten cornflakes by the nuclear missles carried by a stealth ship or sub.
I salute Sweden's weapon systems, they rock.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Anyway to show my naval heavy vessel solidarity with Darkshade, here is a fine Tennessee-class battlewagon.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Another human wonder of destruction.
Michael Wittman, all-time greatest tank ace and SS Hauptsturmfurher.
Born: 22 April 1914 in Vogelthal/Oberplatz.
Combat Service:
- Poland (1939),
- Balkans (1940/41),
- Eastern Front (1941-1944),
- Normandy (1944).
Awards:
- Iron Cross 2nd and 1st Class (EK II and EK I),
- Knights Cross (Ritterkreuz),
- Oakleaves to the Knights Cross (Eichenlaub),
- Swords to the Knights Cross (Schwerter).
Total victories (kills):
- 141 tanks,
- 132 antitank guns.
* Most of this score was tailed on the Eastern Front.
Died: Killed in action on August 8, 1944, around Cintheaux Gaumesnil near Caen, France.
Buried: De La Cambe, France - German Military Cemetery.
A typical battle from this tank man's career:
"At 0800 hrs 13th June 1944 the 4th County of London Yeomanry made their way up a sunken road outside the village. In the woods like the predator from which his Panzer got it's name Wittman waited . He struck just as the British Cromwells reached a range of 100meters. Quickly he destroyed the lead & tail vehicles before blowing up the rest of the once proud column. Minutes later 25 cromwells & firefly tanks along with 28 other vehicles lay as a burning pile of scrap. By now he had been joined by two other Tigers & a single panzer IVH from Panzer Lehr & moved into the village causing more carnage before his tank was disabled by an anti-tank round which blew his right track. He abandoned his tank & on foot made his way back to the HQ of Panzer Lehr. He was promoted again recieving the Swords to his Knights Cross."
Despite the awful regime he fought for, Wittman was a soldier of the very highest calibre...
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Anything would have such a reaction to a nuclear explosion. And any use of such weapons would result in national extinction. And the battleships carry nuclear rounds as well; or did before TNW were withdrawn from naval service.
And I concur on Wittman.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Simon:
Don't get me wrong, there are few more glorious things built by men than a battleship.
To see one sink is a sad thing...
One day the heyday of big ships will return, I think in the sea of space.
Don't get me wrong, there are few more glorious things built by men than a battleship.
To see one sink is a sad thing...
One day the heyday of big ships will return, I think in the sea of space.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
I don't get you wrong; it is part of the whole mind reading thing.
It takes a bloody lot to sink a battleship, especially when it operates in the context of a battlegroup, as they always would.
The heyday of big ships will return, yes. But not so far off as in space.
The current trend towards small, stealthy vessels that rely upon nondetection, and the active defence of their missile suite, can be seen as akin to the "low" part of the USN "High/Low" strategy, to the exclusion of the high element (One is aware of the presence of what comprised the High element there still, but the case is slightly different)
By all means, have such craft. But to have them at the exclusion of large, very powerful craft is somewhat erroneous.
A large, well protected vessel with armour, powerful radars, hundreds of missiles (SAM and SSM), and big guns is the ultimate offensively, and combines both active and passive defence. Further, it encourages enemy attacks on it, that it and its escorts can handle; these attacks thus give away the enemy units that launch them.
The only factor not in their favour is cost, but the use of slave labour to build them can lower such factors.
Further, along the lines of what Enoch once said, if it is the best interest, then it can and must be done.And as a further, somewhat different note, a thought:
The development of aircraft and missiles lead to the development of SAMs to counter them, on shore and on ship. Submarines firing torpedos...countered with super fast homing torpedos that take out the fish, whilst others go after the sub from VLS cells. It would encounter the same problems that SAM systems did and do in killing a missile with a missile. But a torpedo is not as fast as a missile.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Yes, I have. And that is the type of weapon one was alluding to. It can be used both ways, and a large ship or battlegroup can carry and launch a lot more, and have a lot more detection equipment.
The Shkval has a speed of around 200 knots, range 7500 yards. This is a good starting point. But a true counter torpedo have a higher speed - 300+ knots, and a somewhat similar range; something closer to an 'underwater SAM'.
Thus, to intercept a super cavitating fish like the Reds have, there is a small time period - 100 metres/second, so about 300 odd ft/second - 75 seconds maximum response time. With highly powerful computerized ASW detection systems, and a fast counter torpedo, even the Shkval is not invincible.
The Shkval has a speed of around 200 knots, range 7500 yards. This is a good starting point. But a true counter torpedo have a higher speed - 300+ knots, and a somewhat similar range; something closer to an 'underwater SAM'.
Thus, to intercept a super cavitating fish like the Reds have, there is a small time period - 100 metres/second, so about 300 odd ft/second - 75 seconds maximum response time. With highly powerful computerized ASW detection systems, and a fast counter torpedo, even the Shkval is not invincible.
