BattleTech - The Board Game of Armored Combat
Off Topic and Technical Support => Off Topic => Topic started by: JadeHellbringer on 03 March 2018, 13:20:51
-
I welcome you back with a shot of the ship named for my homeland.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ec/USS_Colorado_%28BB-45%29%2C_1944.jpg)
-
Huh, I always thought you were from here:
-
well then.
(https://s9.postimg.org/4xmvottnz/Capture.png)
-
For something a bit newer:
(https://abload.de/img/33514cns21.jpg)
Or: How to get around treaty restrictions on destroyer size.
That is a "training ship". A "training ship" with a full radar/sonar/electronics outfit, diesel-steam propulsion and four 100mm, six 40mm, six torpedo tubes, two ASW mortars and two depth charge launchers...
-
I shall contribute a painting shot for this thread! Representing my homeland.
-
if we're going for 5s
KGV
-
How about something retro?
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-T6-hKsC6VRU/TtKGPcaga2I/AAAAAAAABkI/lmfRwem-Qjc/s1600/Galley.jpg)
-
USS Massachuetts BB-59
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/USS_Massachusetts_%28BB-59%29_underway_c1944.jpg)
USS Massachuetts SSN-798 (https://www.marinelink.com/news/massachusetts-submarine400575.aspx) - Ship to come (this is just sistership, not the actual ship.)
(http://www.marinelink.com/images/maritime/AttackSubmarinesSSN-51933.jpg)
-
USS Massachuetts SSN-798 (https://www.marinelink.com/news/massachusetts-submarine400575.aspx) - Ship to come (this is just sistership, not the actual ship.)
(http://www.marinelink.com/images/maritime/AttackSubmarinesSSN-51933.jpg)
Boat, not ship. Submarines are called boats the last I heard...I believe that applies even to boomers...
Ruger
-
Ruger has it right.
-
Boat, not ship. Submarines are called boats the last I heard...I believe that applies even to boomers...
Ruger
Your talking about nickname for submarines, not what actually IS.
USS Massachusetts (SSN-798), a Virginia-class submarine, will be the seventh U.S. Navy ship named for the state of Massachusetts. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus announced the name on November 8, 2015 in an opinion piece for The Boston Globe. She is the first ship named after the Commonwealth of Massachusetts since the battleship USS Massachusetts (BB-59) was decommissioned in 1947.
-
The USN official website also seems to refer to them as ships rather than boats although mostly just calls them submarines while the Royal Navy's official site does refer to them as boats (I looked at the page for the new HMS Agamemnon S123)
-
USS Massachuetts BB-59
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/USS_Massachusetts_%28BB-59%29_underway_c1944.jpg)
USS Massachuetts SSN-798 (https://www.marinelink.com/news/massachusetts-submarine400575.aspx) - Ship to come (this is just sistership, not the actual ship.)
(http://www.marinelink.com/images/maritime/AttackSubmarinesSSN-51933.jpg)
nice pics of both
-
to be honest, all the modern submarines look pretty same-y to me (big black tube, lumpy bit on top and spinning thing at one end) so here are two other views of submarines
-
Your talking about nickname for submarines, not what actually IS.
Conversely, the Wikipedia page on submarines states the following:
The noun submarine evolved as a shortened form of submarine boat;[1] by naval tradition, submarines are usually referred to as "boats" rather than as "ships", regardless of their size (boat is usually reserved for seagoing vessels of relatively small size).
Wikipedia, however, can only be used as a source so far, as it is open for anyone to update and change a file.
Standard US Navy usage has ALL submarines called "boats" not "ships", unless that has changed in the last few years. My plant manager used to be a submariner, and he and I have had discussions on this before...
Ruger
-
Conversely, the Wikipedia page on submarines states the following:
The noun submarine evolved as a shortened form of submarine boat;[1] by naval tradition, submarines are usually referred to as "boats" rather than as "ships", regardless of their size (boat is usually reserved for seagoing vessels of relatively small size).
Wikipedia, however, can only be used as a source so far, as it is open for anyone to update and change a file.
Standard US Navy usage has ALL submarines called "boats" not "ships", unless that has changed in the last few years. My plant manager used to be a submariner, and he and I have had discussions on this before...
Ruger
I rather not get into squab about this. I've found in past traditionalist tend to be stick with names they like call their vessels. I know many a sailor get bit touchy calling their might warship, "a boat".
Naval Registration (http://www.nvr.navy.mil/SHIPDETAILS/SHIPSDETAIL_SSN_798_5549.HTML) for the Massachusetts doesn't say anything being called boat or ship anyways. So it is what is. Though at very bottom that linked page it says "To learn more about current U.S. Navy ship types". So there that too.
This be a boat.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lifeboat.17-31.underway.arp.jpg/1280px-Lifeboat.17-31.underway.arp.jpg)
Technically a lifeboat. ;)
-
Shippy McShippyFace doesn't quite have the same ring to it, no...
-
Those who wear (or have worn) dolphins call them boats. The press calls them all kinds of things, including "ships".
-
If we are starting with ships named for our homelands, I give you the old and the new of my county's namesake:
-
Those who wear (or have worn) dolphins call them boats. The press calls them all kinds of things, including "ships".
Aha. That is the problem...those aren't dolphins, either!
(http://subvetstore.com/images/products/auto/decal-dolphin.jpg)
Hmm. Excuse me. I'll see my own way to the door.
But before I go, how about a ship that gets very little attention. She was tough but decidely unlucky, which gives her something in common with me (though I haven't been sunk just yet).
(http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/germany/photos/cruisers/sms_wiesbaden/sms_wiesbaden.jpg)
-
Those who wear (or have worn) dolphins call them boats. The press calls them all kinds of things, including "ships".
If this seems petty, go and call a Canadian a Yank or a Kiwi an Aussie, tell a baseball or cricket player it's a nice stick, etc. You will see that people take their labels quite seriously, despite the fact that frequently they are colloquialisms or unofficial.
The people with no interest, including the press, don't care and thus are ignorant of convention. If you look up the definitions of ship and boat, you will see that there is actually no standard, it's all down to convention.
-
Aha. That is the problem...those aren't dolphins, either!
(http://subvetstore.com/images/products/auto/decal-dolphin.jpg)
actually they are.. they are stylized Dolphinfish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coryphaena), better known today as the Mahi Mahi.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahi-mahi)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Coryphaena_hippurus.png)
though the british actually use a version with the cetacean type Dolphins.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Royal_Navy_Dolphins.jpg)
-
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/013515b.jpg
-
The Royal Australian Navy has proper dolphins.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-b5b63090310ec6a590119192675439b7)
-
Newest addition to the US Navy's carrier fleet
(https://www.russianmachineneverbreaks.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/stadium-series-airfcraft-carrier-outdoor-rink-960x480.jpg)
-
And here's a ship named for the city of my birth
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/SMS_M%C3%BCnchen_NH_46826.jpg)
SMS Munchen
and the State in which the city is in (Bayern)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/SMS_Bayern_in_Scapa_Flow.jpg)
or the modern version
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/German_frigate_FGS_Bayern_F217.jpg)
-
In honor of where Im from. The Older, the just replaced and the brand new. The brand new was commissioned in the city it was named after.
-
All nice vessels but much to modern, I am helping to build a Faering, but can't get the images to load.
-
Here's a faering
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Sunnm%C3%B8rsf%C3%A6ring_-_Her%C3%B8y_kystmuseum.jpg)
-
I was born here:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5f/eb/88/5feb88fea8aade201c10b8e6ddd45e14.jpg)
But im really from here:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/F4p4AsQ_Rjc/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
At first I thought, you're from the Bonney Dick, then I thought France until the I saw the "LHA". My first reaction caused me a "well, that's a salty joke 'round these parts," reaction.
-
I wonder how small you could make an aircraft carrier if you were interested in operating only bush planes. I guess it would depend on the plane in question, since I think some of the faster catamarans have a flank speed greater than the An-2's stall speed...
-
I wonder how small you could make an aircraft carrier if you were interested in operating only bush planes. I guess it would depend on the plane in question, since I think some of the faster catamarans have a flank speed greater than the An-2's stall speed...
That's a cool idea. :-) Use an enlarged Incat to give them a zero relative speed, trucking along at 45 kts, into a 30 kts wind.
-
(https://www.urbanghostsmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/uss-oriskany-abandoned-aircraft-carrier-4.jpg)
exUSS Oriskany being turned into a reef.
-
Posted last night (3/3/18) to the Facebook page for R/V Petrel [Paul Allen's research vessel] ... "The crew is back onboard and we are onsite of our next project, USS Lexington CV-2."
For those with FB accounts, the direct link is here ...
https://www.facebook.com/rvpetrel/posts/1657094307659377
-
Dragon class
-
I wonder how small you could make an aircraft carrier if you were interested in operating only bush planes. I guess it would depend on the plane in question, since I think some of the faster catamarans have a flank speed greater than the An-2's stall speed...
Piper L-4's (Cubs with Army Green paint), flying off an LST. There was a trapeze rig over the side for recovery.
(https://www.navsource.org/archives/10/16/1016090603.jpg)
-
well STOL capability is something that tends to be the basis of most carrier aircraft, at least for those not designed around catapults.
one of the reasons the Gripen has a proposed Carrier variant. it's base model already has fairly extreme STOL ability, sticking an arrestor hook and reinforced landing gear onto the design would not be too much of a change and would let it operate off skijump equipped ships. unfortunately there are a number of existing competitors for the same role.
-
Posted last night (3/3/18) to the Facebook page for R/V Petrel [Paul Allen's research vessel] ... "The crew is back onboard and we are onsite of our next project, USS Lexington CV-2."
For those with FB accounts, the direct link is here ...
https://www.facebook.com/rvpetrel/posts/1657094307659377
They found her 😁
-
News article with some photos and video footage of the Lexington:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-06/uss-lexington-found-at-the-bottom-of-the-coral-sea/9517986 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-06/uss-lexington-found-at-the-bottom-of-the-coral-sea/9517986)
-
It's nice find her, let her crew rest in peace.
How deep is she? Wildcat's paint seems to look intact for the most part despite the age.
-
Wow that is big!
(http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/image/9518128-3x2-820x547.jpg)
(http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/image/9518140-3x2-820x547.jpg)
-
It's nice find her, let her crew rest in peace.
How deep is she? Wildcat's paint seems to look intact for the most part despite the age.
3000 meters deep or nearly 2 miles
-
Rest in peace, Lady Lex. Amazing preservation.
-
Rest in peace
Hopefully she's far enough down and away from things to be illegally salvaged, it sounds like she is the tomb for over 200 sailors (and presumably some marines)
-
Says it all.
-
I thought I might show you these two ships because I actually had the opportunity to work on them during my time as a civil servant. It was a great experience and the people I worked with are great too. Magnificent ships.
(http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/destroyers/photos/laboon_ddg58/2009_02_01_ddg58_a.jpg)
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/05019658.jpg)
-
A trio of USS Deweys
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/USSDeweyDD349.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/USS_Dewey_%28DLG-14%29_at_sea_c1960.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/USS_Dewey_conducts_a_replenishment..jpg)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/b365ee3db46bc2d067321eed83e72ae1/tumblr_p57987EoTE1s7e5k5o1_1280.jpg)
The Lexington class Battlecruiser and what it would be converted into.
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/b629bdc8246d9a20136577930fd593ab/tumblr_p5a437dMKv1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
HMS Furious.
-
I'd be furious as well if someone took all my guns away and stuck a landing strip on my head!
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/b365ee3db46bc2d067321eed83e72ae1/tumblr_p57987EoTE1s7e5k5o1_1280.jpg)
The Lexington class Battlecruiser and what it would be converted into.
I never noticed it before in that shot, but the tripod mast on the bridge structure is surprising- looks very much like those on the early-refit battleships (New York, etc.) and Augusta-class CAs. Huh. Who knew?
Makes sense though. If she was packing CA guns, why not homogenize the directors with the ships already doing that job?
-
She wasn't intended to pack CA guns, really. The concept for the Lexington-class was effectively a "primitive" Iowa-class, 16" guns and all.
-
I think he's talking about the final CV, or at least initial post-BC plans.
-
I think he's talking about the final CV, or at least initial post-BC plans.
This. Lexington CV with the initial 8" battery
-
Finnish Navy Hamina-class fast attack craft
Armed with a 57mm gun, 8 Umkhonto SAMs and provision for 4 RBS-15 Mk.3 in place of the RHIBs at the back.
However recently the US is offering to replace the RBS-15s with Harpoon Block II+(ER). I am a little surprised, the 2 missiles seem to be more or less similar in (published) capability.
(https://s13.postimg.org/ys8zanlhj/Patria-signs-contract-for-mid-life-upgrade-of-_Hamina-_Class-fast-.jpg)
They are also building 4 corvettes to replace older ships. Possibly also armed with a 57mm (or 76mm) gun, the US has offered to equip the ships with 16 ESSM in Mk.41 VLS and Harpoon missiles.
(https://s13.postimg.org/tuvepbtqf/q_60_url_https_s3.amazonaws.com_the-drive-staging_message-edi.jpg)
(https://s13.postimg.org/abqtg6sgn/isometrinen.jpg)
-
That's a lotta hurt in notalotta package...
-
That's a lotta hurt in notalotta package...
The Finns do not ****** around.
-
However recently the US is offering to replace the RBS-15s with Harpoon Block II+(ER). I am a little surprised, the 2 missiles seem to be more or less similar in (published) capability.
The Block II+ ER version of Harpoon was specifically developed to allow the same range envelope (250 km unclassified), but does so at the cost of a lighter warhead - 70% the size of that of a RBS-15 MkIII. In addition - unlike RBS-15 - Harpoon in all land-attack variants, including SLAM, is somewhat unsuitable to high-intensity symmetric electronic warfare scenarios - something that Saab does point out while not pointing fingers at the "some competitors" they mention.
Boeing primarily tries to sell the new Harpoon on a cost advantage over its competitors due to being able to refurbish 30-year-old Block 1C for the upgrade while leveraging hardware borrowed from JDAM and SLAM.
-
The Finns do not ****** around.
The Winter War was a good reminder of this.
-
The huge funnel on the Lexington always catches my eye.
-
The Block II+ ER version of Harpoon was specifically developed to allow the same range envelope (250 km unclassified), but does so at the cost of a lighter warhead - 70% the size of that of a RBS-15 MkIII. In addition - unlike RBS-15 - Harpoon in all land-attack variants, including SLAM, is somewhat unsuitable to high-intensity symmetric electronic warfare scenarios - something that Saab does point out while not pointing fingers at the "some competitors" they mention.
Boeing primarily tries to sell the new Harpoon on a cost advantage over its competitors due to being able to refurbish 30-year-old Block 1C for the upgrade while leveraging hardware borrowed from JDAM and SLAM.
Indeed. It makes little sense to me really.
So we might see the new Finnish corvettes with Aster-15 and RBS-15 instead. Though it depends... recently they have been preferring cheaper American hardware over more capable and expensive European options.
-
Indeed. It makes little sense to me really.
So we might see the new Finnish corvettes with Aster-15 and RBS-15 instead. Though it depends... recently they have been preferring cheaper American hardware over more capable and expensive European options.
Not just cheaper, the logistical train that goes behind it and availability of spare parts is vital. Our Anzac class was built with certain bits of equipment that became obsolete before we had even completed class construction. This made procuring spares quite challenging, slow and expensive. Going with a US baseline means that the systems will remain in production well after production is complete. Our FFG's can still find parts for US built equipment, although spares are drying up. No big surprise as production was completed more than 20 years ago.
-
Logistics and production, the choke-chain around the throat of every military ever.
Still gonna say, Hamina Hamina Hamina that's one good looking ship. >:D
-
Anyone got any color 'after' photos of the Operation Crossroads ships? I've got a starship mini that's poorly cast on one side, want to compensate by painting it as if that side recently took a proximity nuke, and was hoping there was some reference shots out there that shows how hull metal might discolor to after such a shot, aside from Big-Bada-Boom Black.
And because this is a picture thread, have a BB:
-
That's not easy, but for your ship, a physical contact would cause a lot of scorching and very intense radiation and thermal damage.
-
So mostly Big-Badda-Boom Black, maybe some Get-That-Thermal-Energy-off-My-Ship Red on spots nearest the blast, and some random tints of Hard-Rads-Turned-the-Paint-into-What-Color around the fringes?
-
found these:
(http://marshall.csu.edu.au/Marshalls/html/WWII_Pix/g627502.jpg)
(http://marshall.csu.edu.au/Marshalls/html/WWII_Pix/g627471.jpg)
-
still black and white. not colorized.
-
I don't think Crossroads images would be good references for a starship mini. A nuclear blast in an atmosphere has different effects from one in space.
-
There's a couple color pics of the Prinz Eugen after a bomb test here: https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/uss-prinz-eugen/ (https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/uss-prinz-eugen/) I'll see if I can dig up any more.
-
USS Norfolk DL-1.
I always thought this ship was weird unique in the post-WW2 generation of Warships before the missile age started.
Known as a Destroyer Leader, she was built on a 5,600 tons Light Cruiser hull. She was originally designated as a "Hunter-killer cruiser". She built like a Light Cruiser, with greater sonar sensor capacity than Destroyer of the time when it was launched in 1951.
She was unique with her armaments, her main guns was her eight 3"/70 caliber guns in four turrets. She would later get ASROC launcher.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Q5PzfQ6n3VE/UHXKddyHaqI/AAAAAAAACFI/-MxecCZp3Dc/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/1965+UNITAS+VI+USS+Norfolk.jpg)
She one of a kind, with Mitcher-Class that followed, but they were lighter which evolved eventually into the Forrest Sherman class.
-
The RN had a lot of Destroyer Leaders, they were bigger to have space for a flotilla command staff aboard.
In WW1 the job was done by a light cruiser but in the inter-war period the RN developed the dedicated Destroyer Leaders with generally one per tranche of 8 or so destroyers.
The 3" gun was the smallest calibre for a VT fuzed shell I think so that would have been an impressive AA armament but I'm not sure what it would have done to surface craft of the era apart from irritate them.
-
I don't think Crossroads images would be good references for a starship mini. A nuclear blast in an atmosphere has different effects from one in space.
If you've got pictures of metal damaged by a space blast, I'll certainly take those too. :)
There's a couple color pics of the Prinz Eugen after a bomb test here: https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/uss-prinz-eugen/ (https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/uss-prinz-eugen/) I'll see if I can dig up any more.
Okay, THAT'S some cool reading. Really interesting to see which pieces of gear the USN was interested in, and of course it always amazes me to see just how little raw damage that ship took from being nuked TWICE.
Given that the side of the mini in question is kinda...melty...I probably need to search for a report detailing whatever ship was closest to the Able blast.
-
Weeeellllll... that gets tricky. Your target ship was USS Nevada (painted shock-orange specifically so she'd be an easy aiming point), and she DID survive, but even then she was in remarkably good shape, all things considered.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/USS_Nevada_%28BB-36%29_after_ABLE.jpg)
-
If you've got pictures of metal damaged by a space blast, I'll certainly take those too. :)
The only space blast I can think of was STARFISH PRIME. I kind of doubt they got anything back from that. ;)
Okay, THAT'S some cool reading. Really interesting to see which pieces of gear the USN was interested in, and of course it always amazes me to see just how little raw damage that ship took from being nuked TWICE.
Given that the side of the mini in question is kinda...melty...I probably need to search for a report detailing whatever ship was closest to the Able blast.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gilliam_(APA-57) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Gilliam_(APA-57))
Be careful...that ww2 after ww2 site is a HUGE time sink...
-
The paint would be pretty much burned, so wherever you get actual paint on the hull it'd be blackened and powdered. Otherwise, bare metal would do the shadow treatment, where you'd be painting in the shadow of missing antennae and components, really...
-
Little-known picture of part of Weirdo's man-cave ...
(https://assets.atlasobscura.com/media/W1siZiIsInVwbG9hZHMvYXNzZXRzLzdmZWM5NDIyMzVjMjdlOGU1NV8xNjUtV1ctMzIzRi0wMDFfMS5qcGciXSxbInAiLCJjb252ZXJ0IiwiLXF1YWxpdHkgODEgLWF1dG8tb3JpZW50Il0sWyJwIiwidGh1bWIiLCIxMjgweD4iXV0/165-WW-323F-001_1.jpg)
-
Little-known picture of part of Weirdo's man-cave ...
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--eN41O0H1--/krqh8jpuwecydo1t3njk.jpg)
-
They probaly would just throw all those away when they were done.
-
I was wondering what could have become of them. I doubt they would been used for gaming. I hope some of them survived.
-
I was wondering what could have become of them. I doubt they would been used for gaming. I hope some of them survived.
That's how we got wargaming from.
The Imperial German Army for example used wargames to condition their officers so they know what to do when "surprised" or facing an unexpected situation. They did find this helped the officers to adapt to unknown factors on the battlefield better.
-
I was wondering what could have become of them. I doubt they would been used for gaming. I hope some of them survived.
Presented to various captains, admirals, museums perhaps?
-
That's how we got wargaming from.
The Imperial German Army for example used wargames to condition their officers so they know what to do when "surprised" or facing an unexpected situation. They did find this helped the officers to adapt to unknown factors on the battlefield better.
I imagine having to deal with Hellbie Dice® in training helps beat into your head the old saying about plans versus enemy contact....and also to teach you that the term 'enemy' doesn't just mean the guys pointing guns at you - the universe itself can be your enemy any time it chooses.
-
I imagine having to deal with Hellbie Dice® in training helps beat into your head the old saying about plans versus enemy contact....and also to teach you that the term 'enemy' doesn't just mean the guys pointing guns at you - the universe itself can be your enemy any time it chooses.
So... Hellbie dice are the Kobayashi Maru of Battletech?
-
I imagine having to deal with Hellbie Dice® in training helps beat into your head the old saying about plans versus enemy contact....and also to teach you that the term 'enemy' doesn't just mean the guys pointing guns at you - the universe itself can be your enemy any time it chooses.
There is even a couple of shots in the movie "Longest Day" where they are talking wargames and pushing flags on a table. Pretty neat.
-
Although in some parts the Longest Day has aged poorly (John Wayne playing John Wayne playing John Wayne) its still an amazing movie with a lot of footage that simply can't be done today because the aircraft or ships don't exist. The shore bombardment used a mixture of RN and USN ships on gunnery training as well as some stock footage from WW2 and no CGI work, no matter how good will ever be as good as the real thing.
-
That's how we got wargaming from.
The Imperial German Army for example used wargames to condition their officers so they know what to do when "surprised" or facing an unexpected situation. They did find this helped the officers to adapt to unknown factors on the battlefield better.
Uhh, military war gaming and just about every type of commercial war gaming are vastly different beasts, even if commercial war gaming did descend from military.
Military war gaming is running through a scenario, where both sides effectively draw up their plans and execute them throughout the simulating battle space. They don't roll dice, they don't measure distances and you don't change your plan during the run through, ever. This doctrine is still in use be just about every professional military today, it's a way of proofing plans with everything that's known, without getting bogged down in details or wasting resources on actually running a field exercise.
-
I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a reference here, Nightlord. I am aware that sort of exercise is sometimes used in operational planning (though distances sure as hell are measured, to be sure that they're not planning on infantry moving a hundred miles a day or something) but it is not what the military typically calls a wargame. Kriegspiel - the early German military wargames - definitely included random luck, and sometimes even capricious referees. Part of the point of a wargame is to introduce potential problems to make sure that leaders can adapt their plans to a changing battlefield.
While on field maneuvers in the Army, I saw this in action. We were practicing pillbox assaults, so the sergeant in charge directed two squads to lay suppressive fire while a third flanked and hit the weak points with grenades (all simulated, of course). This went fine for the first couple platoons to run through the exercise, but come the third, the company CO stepped up to the sergeant and told him, "okay, when your flanking squad moved into position, the bunker called mortar fire on itself. Your men are down, what do you do?" So actual battle drill practice was interrupted and the troop ended up gaming out a full battle as we went after the "mortars," evacuated our casualties, eliminated the bunker, and drove on. At least while I was in the service, this sort of thing was very common.
-
The IJN made use of wargames which featured dice rolls as they prepared the Midway Operation. The book Shattered Sword very specifically states that during one of the Wargames a dice roll was used to indicate the number of hits on friendly forces. When they rolled high, the umpire said it was impossible and dialed the number of hits back.
-
The GP Variant of the Italian Bergamini class frigate is 1 of the leading contenders for the FFGX program... with the appropriate US equipment I suppose. Its unique selling proposition is that there are actually ships of the class in service so a US variant ought to be relatively derisked and improved.
(https://s17.postimg.org/y4toio15b/Carabiniere_iniziale-2.jpg)
The IJN made use of wargames which featured dice rolls as they prepared the Midway Operation. The book Shattered Sword very specifically states that during one of the Wargames a dice roll was used to indicate the number of hits on friendly forces. When they rolled high, the umpire said it was impossible and dialed the number of hits back.
Yamamoto was NOT happy with the results of such prewar exercises because of the untampered results and High Command's umpires adjusting them. This informed his strategic campaign... leading to Pearl Harbour.
-
ColBosch, Nightlord01 is describing is what Joint Publication 5-0 (http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp5_0_20171606.pdf) (Joint Planning) pages V-31 to V-42 calls "Course of Action Analysis and Wargaming". It's step 4 in the operational planning process.
-
ColBosch, Nightlord01 is describing is what Joint Publication 5-0 (http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp5_0_20171606.pdf) (Joint Planning) pages V-31 to V-42 calls "Course of Action Analysis and Wargaming". It's step 4 in the operational planning process.
That is a solid reference. Thank you. But my point stands: "wargame" is also used for exercises and simulations outside of operational planning, and often includes random - or at least unplanned - events as a test of leaders' abilities to adapt and overcome.
One popular tool in naval circles, at least a few decades ago, was a little something called Harpoon...
-
Also true... I'm not sure where my copy of Harpoon is these days...
-
For your personal entertainment, Google UK Wargaming Handbook 2017. It draws a great distinction between wargames, simulations (I'd argue exercises too), and models. Some of their techniques do adhere to the US Joint publication but they encourage a number of less than doctrinal approaches. Also, I have heard dice rattle a few times in recent professional games. No need to judge, dice are just a random outcome generator in cube form.
-
For your personal entertainment, Google UK Wargaming Handbook 2017. It draws a great distinction between wargames, simulations (I'd argue exercises too), and models. Some of their techniques do adhere to the US Joint publication but they encourage a number of less than doctrinal approaches. Also, I have heard dice rattle a few times in recent professional games. No need to judge, dice are just a random outcome generator in cube form.
There's also the guide to red teaming
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/142533/20130301_red_teaming_ed2.pdf
-
I LOVE that cover! I'd use the "drool" emoticon, but I know that most people would see Homer Simpson, which is NOT what I mean...
Mandatory plug for the "BattleTech 2.0" theme until they get the emoticons straight for the new default ones... :P
-
Having just finished a skim of that UK document... Wow... I wish US Doctrine was written that concisely...
-
Having just finished a skim of that UK document... Wow... I wish US Doctrine was written that concisely...
Well, they seem to be very enamoured of the inter-war years USN
-
Every input I've ever had to doctrine has been trying to say things more clearly and concisely... only some of those comments passed the various filters, though...
-
Page 79-81 is good - it involves wargaming the Falklands War landings and then briefing the commanders who actually did it!
Pages 41-42 also have details of the wargame of Gulf War fighting that was more effective at suggesting the outcome of DESERT STORM than the Pentagon's in house simulations
-
The Venn diagram toward the end of chapter three is also very interesting... the Lexicon explains all the various terms...
-
Also true... I'm not sure where my copy of Harpoon is these days...
Harpoon was such a awesome game with great info. I really wish it would be still be produced and updated.
-
For your personal entertainment, Google UK Wargaming Handbook 2017.
Love the case studies in the document.
"Gamification" is a buzzword in some corporate circles these days. Can seem a bit twee - Mary Poppins springs to mind - but it is trending.
-
Harpoon was such a awesome game with great info. I really wish it would be still be produced and updated.
I have heard good things about "Command: Modern Air / Naval Operations" as a successor to Harpoon. I have not had the chance to purchase it as yet (saving up to upgrade my PC in preparation for Battletech).
-
ColBosch, Nightlord01 is describing is what Joint Publication 5-0 (http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp5_0_20171606.pdf) (Joint Planning) pages V-31 to V-42 calls "Course of Action Analysis and Wargaming". It's step 4 in the operational planning process.
Thanks mate, I was going to go digging through my doctrine tomorrow, had a day off today. :-)
Also true... I'm not sure where my copy of Harpoon is these days...
Harpoon? JFC was where it's at, we actually had a simulator running pretty much just that software, it was awesome to divide up into two different teams and try to sink each others ships.
For your personal entertainment, Google UK Wargaming Handbook 2017. It draws a great distinction between wargames, simulations (I'd argue exercises too), and models. Some of their techniques do adhere to the US Joint publication but they encourage a number of less than doctrinal approaches. Also, I have heard dice rattle a few times in recent professional games. No need to judge, dice are just a random outcome generator in cube form.
I personally love this idea! Problem is dealing with Army officers after you win, talk about sore losers! It's really bad when you have what appears to be a shaved bear threatening to rip your arms off, just because you beat their plan.
-
(http://tsushima.su/uploads/photoarhiv/ships/france/epoch_ww2/linkor/strasbourg/photo/03.jpg)
Here a nice picture of the Dunkerque-Class Battleship, FS Strasbourg.
-
(http://tsushima.su/uploads/photoarhiv/ships/france/epoch_ww2/linkor/strasbourg/photo/03.jpg)
Here a nice picture of the Dunkerque-Class Battleship, FS Strasbourg.
Now she is beautiful!
-
Proof of the earlier discussion about the enemy not being the only threat in a naval battle...
(https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/051/0405107.jpg)
USS Atlanta, damaged by both the Japanese and by salvos from USS San Francisco during the 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. She was scuttled the next day. It's believed the bridge area in particular was torn apart (and the CO and admiral killed) by her squadron-mates' 8-inch guns at a few hundred yards' range.
-
Thanks mate, I was going to go digging through my doctrine tomorrow, had a day off today. :-)
Harpoon? JFC was where it's at, we actually had a simulator running pretty much just that software, it was awesome to divide up into two different teams and try to sink each others ships.
*snip*
You're very welcome!
And I meant my copy of the pen and paper game, not the software... :)
-
The French built some absolutely superb looking ships after WW1, their Cruisers were all very elegant looking and the Algerie may well be the best of the treaty cruisers whilst the Dunkirque and Richelieu class ships were very very handsome. Its a shame that they didn't get to really prove themselves against the Germans or Japanese.
(http://www.naval-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Algerie-colorized.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Le_Fantasque_%28Croiseur_l%C3%A9ger%29_%282%29.tif/lossy-page1-1024px-Le_Fantasque_%28Croiseur_l%C3%A9ger%29_%282%29.tif.jpg)
-
but before all that, there was... Charles Martel!
(https://s13.postimg.org/u1gwxh5av/French_battleship_Charles_Martel.png)
and her sister ship Carnot!
(https://s13.postimg.org/nmhw18tkn/Capture.png)
and Massena (colorised)
(https://s13.postimg.org/5xq598rzr/tumblr_m6wu0e_PSQn1qhsqm1o1_1280.jpg)
-
hah the Hoche...the floating hotel. Yeah..the French built ships that also looked like they stepped right out of a Studio Ghibli movie too.
-
You're very welcome!
And I meant my copy of the pen and paper game, not the software... :)
Oh, wow, you still have a copy of PnP Harpoon? I haven't seen that in more years than I care to count.
(As my son tells me, I'm old)
-
hah the Hoche...the floating hotel. Yeah..the French built ships that also looked like they stepped right out of a Studio Ghibli movie too.
The other way around....Ghibli based some of their ships on the ships from that time period.
-
Oh, wow, you still have a copy of PnP Harpoon? I haven't seen that in more years than I care to count.
(As my son tells me, I'm old)
My children are more subtle about it, but no less cruel... ;D
-
The Japanese Battleship and flagship Mikasa in August 1905 after the Battle of the Yellow Sea. Her Aft turret took damage during the battle.
(https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5464434fe4b06a8d786720bb/t/5937720b8419c208a99b4490/1496805909276/?format=750w)
-
Proof of the earlier discussion about the enemy not being the only threat in a naval battle...
(https://www.navsource.org/archives/04/051/0405107.jpg)
USS Atlanta, damaged by both the Japanese and by salvos from USS San Francisco during the 1st Naval Battle of Guadalcanal. She was scuttled the next day. It's believed the bridge area in particular was torn apart (and the CO and admiral killed) by her squadron-mates' 8-inch guns at a few hundred yards' range.
Here is a contemporaneous report of the damage suffered by the San Fran:
http://www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/CA38/GuadalcanalDamageRpt.html
That ship suffered eerily similar losses to the Atlanta (i.e. to its flag officer/staff as well as many other personnel).
-
I've read about the fights in the Slot off Guadacanal, they were incredibly close range brawls, in one a US DD was so close to an IJN battleship that it couldn't depress even its AA guns to fire on her as they literally scraped hulls. The US DD was using her AA guns against the IJN ships mast and bridge tower.
(https://wowsp-wows-sg.wgcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/tmb/7b63e17c-a6fc-11e6-ae54-38eaa7374f3c_1200x.jpg)
-
I've read about the fights in the Slot off Guadacanal, they were incredibly close range brawls, in one a US DD was so close to an IJN battleship that it couldn't depress even its AA guns to fire on her as they literally scraped hulls. The US DD was using her AA guns against the IJN ships mast and bridge tower.
(https://wowsp-wows-sg.wgcdn.co/dcont/fb/image/tmb/7b63e17c-a6fc-11e6-ae54-38eaa7374f3c_1200x.jpg)
USS Laffey
Laffey passed with 20 feet (!) of Hiei, which was unable to depress her main or secondary batteries low enough to hit the destroyer. Laffey was able hit Hiei with 5in shells and machine gun fire, causing heavy damage to the superstructure and bridge, wounding Admiral Abe and killing his chief of staff. Laffey escaped from her engagement with Hiei but encountered the destroyers Asagumo, Murasame, Samidare, and, perhaps, Teruzuki. The Japanese destroyers hit Laffey with gunfire and then a torpedo which broke her keel. A few minutes later fires reached Laffey's magazines and she blew up and sank. Of the 247 crew members aboard, 59 were killed, including the commanding officer, William B. Hank and 116 wounded.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/53/d8/33/53d833cd2bcc2d90592e049f5a8a0e2d--royal-navy-navi.jpg)
Aft view of the Formidable-class pre-dreadnought battleship HMS Venerable, she was certainly piece of art.
-
USS Juneau has been found by Paul Allen's team
(https://www.paulallen.com/wp-content/uploads/twinguns-hero-3.jpg)
-
And she is... er, not in the condition Lexington is in. :-\
The difference in corrosion and marine growth is fascinating. You expect the ship will be in rough shape, considering what happened, but I'm always fascinated by how different wrecks can be from each other in terms of post-sinking condition.
-
This soon after Lexington? Don't these people take vacations, or refuel their ship, or something?
-
This soon after Lexington? Don't these people take vacations, or refuel their ship, or something?
Apparently they're looking for Wasp and Hornet as well. I'd be especially interested in seeing Hornet, after what it took to finally put her down.
-
Apparently they're looking for Wasp and Hornet as well. I'd be especially interested in seeing Hornet, after what it took to finally put her down.
Looking forward to that
-
USS Hornet? It's in California! Good grief they cruised across the Pacific spending all that money when they over looked it sitting at a tourist destination??
(http://www.panicd.com/dbimages/L_1317.JPG)
I'm kidding, i hope they find CV-8 soon.
-
TIL HMS Victorious was loaned to the US Pacific Fleet for a while when USS Saratoga was the only other operating US fleet carrier in the theater, operating under the nickname "USS Robin". No spectacular feats were accomplished during this period, leaving this triumph of international co-operation to perish in obscurity.
Read more here: http://www.armouredcarriers.com/uss-robin-hms-victorious/
Funfact - the white square painted on her deck looks like an elevator to draw Japanese dive-bomber attention but is actually the most armoured section of the flight deck.
(https://s18.postimg.org/rnblk0sih/image.jpg)
(https://s18.postimg.org/4ymekgiuh/image.jpg)
-
This soon after Lexington? Don't these people take vacations, or refuel their ship, or something?
Paul Allen's company is named Vulcan and he sails around on a mega-yacht named the Octopus with its own hangar and dock.
(http://www.superyachts.com/syv2/resource/800-800-95--4bcd/superyachts/property/yacht/resource/superyacht-octopus-31192.jpg)
And Stratolaunch is a joint venture of his with Burt Rutan that involved building this:
(http://spacenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/stratolaunch-rollout.jpg) to launch rockets from mid-air
I guess what I'm saying is that Paul Allen is clearly a bond villain, and as a group, they are not known for taking a lot of vacation
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/503bb2f4db6a49c84841f16beb187ced/tumblr_p5lo72qSXz1s3cxuno1_1280.jpg)
USS California.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/503bb2f4db6a49c84841f16beb187ced/tumblr_p5lo72qSXz1s3cxuno1_1280.jpg)
USS California.
The Prune Barge, and the only dreadnaught built on the U.S. West Coast
-
Why was she called the Prune Barge?
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/503bb2f4db6a49c84841f16beb187ced/tumblr_p5lo72qSXz1s3cxuno1_1280.jpg)
USS California.
She's pretty. :-)
Can really see the American influence in her design, so distinctive from other navies. I'm not a fan of the US cars, but I'm a big fan of the ship styling.
-
She's pretty. :-)
Can really see the American influence in her design, so distinctive from other navies. I'm not a fan of the US cars, but I'm a big fan of the ship styling.
Agreed. Silly cage masts aside (the logic is sound, the practice not so much), American ships had an elegance to them. Particularly the Big Five, with their clipper bows, but even older ships. Minimalist superstructure, simple layout, all-or-nothing armor layout (which, along with STS steel, was one of the biggest advantages American ships had)... fantastic designs.
This would be very, very close to the Pearl Harbor attack- the ship still has the pre-war superstructure in place (rather than the South Dakota-esque refit she got afterwards), but atop the bridge is an early search radar (CXAM, I believe? I'm typing from a subway car, shut up) which she wouldn't have had for more than a year-ish before the attack. (In case you're wondering why that didn't allow her to detect the inbound attack, it wasn't active while the ship was moored up on a sleepy Sunday- and the surrounding hills would have blocked it anyway.)
Why was she called the Prune Barge?
One of California's major crops at that point were prunes- thus, the state ship ended up with 'Prune Barge' as a name. All things considered, sailors being what they are, the ship likely had more than a few other names, likely more colorful than that one. ^-^
-
Yeah the Standards had a very solid, yet elegant look to them. Meanwhile Pre-War France was producing Steampunk
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/bfcc38d65a2c20737894678be34b3e94/tumblr_p5n5jeyiZF1th7tzzo1_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/571cdc6a37515d1edbedd0d145ff2622/tumblr_p5n5jeyiZF1th7tzzo2_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/5ef76f3f0af1558e4cb64717bc5f6849/tumblr_p5n5jeyiZF1th7tzzo3_1280.jpg)
The French armoured cruiser Victor Hugo
-
Couple of those could be fun in world of warships.
-
She's pretty. :-)
Can really see the American influence in her design, so distinctive from other navies. I'm not a fan of the US cars, but I'm a big fan of the ship styling.
I like her WW2 refit which I have posted a painting image of on the first page. BB-44.
-
I think i might attempt that ship for my naval minecraft server i'm on. The ship be interesting see in combat if i got enough people manning her.
-
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-928537ab16d2002ce076d271b6128d61-c)
Why not to cage mast (and almost certainly the reason the refits between the wars moved to tripods and eventually towers): USS Michigan after a storm in 1918. The foremast whipped due to hull motion, and collapsed at a pre-damaged point. Six were killed.
If it fell down in a mere storm, at a point damaged in an explosion from a couple of years prior, how would it hold up in actual battle conditions? None of them ever found out (the dreadnoughts sent to Europe in WWI never fought the German fleet, and by the time the WWII ships saw non-Pearl combat most had their cages removed, or at least didn't end up in fights with enemy ships). But it almost certainly spooked BuShips enough to greatly influence post-Washington Treaty designs, resulting in the British/Japanese style tripods- ironically, at a time when both of THOSE navies were refitting their ships to remove their own tripods (Britain) or beef them up into basically tower masts (Japan)!
-
I thing this actual color picture. Either case it looks good.
HMS King George V
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ca/1b/99/ca1b99afe196c06feb3c53fc6fa4acac.jpg)
-
much prettier than USS California (and shouldn't California be a heavy cruiser being CA?)
-
much prettier than USS California (and shouldn't California be a heavy cruiser being CA?)
Nope, she was not only a battleship, but one of the larger ones built in her day. 14-inch guns put her solidly in dreadnought territory. (The confusion here may stem from CA being both the acronym for heavy cruiser and for the state of California).
Worth noting, she and her sister Tennessee ended up being the last 14-inch armed ships in the U.S. fleet- the follow-on Colorado-class were built with 16-inch guns (most other aspects of the ships were identical to the California), and the follow-on ships of the (first) South Dakota-class, as well as the Lexington-class battlecruisers, would have used 16s as well. When the Americans then later built the North Carolinas, following the end of the building hiatus, they were slated to use 14-inch guns (in three quadruple-mountings), and were upgunned to triple-16-inch at the last minute thanks to some shrewd planning. (Similar last-minute upgrades in Great Britain saw the King George V shown in Wrangler's post get up-armored, as well)
-
Nope, she was not only a battleship, but one of the larger ones built in her day. 14-inch guns put her solidly in dreadnought territory. (The confusion here may stem from CA being both the acronym for heavy cruiser and for the state of California).
it was a joke :'(
On a different note, it looks like the new economy frigates for the RN (Type 31e) are to be called Leander class
-
Sorry- my job consists of helping correct errors in acronyms and such, kinda bled over here I guess. :-[
In penance, here's HMS Leander in 1931. Note the slight 'bulge' in the funnel near its base, and the miserable location of the aircraft catapult when it comes to dealing with funnel gases while operating at speed.
(http://greyfunnelline.co.uk/my_images_ship_classification/HMS%20Leander%20%281931%29.jpg)
-
Proof that they were running out of ship class names at the end of World War II - the Fargo class cruiser. They had a model in the entrance of the Fargo Public Library when I was growing up that I spent a lot of time looking at.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/USS_Fargo_%28CL-106%29_underway_at_sea_on_8_May_1946_%28NH_98918%29.jpg/1200px-USS_Fargo_%28CL-106%29_underway_at_sea_on_8_May_1946_%28NH_98918%29.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f9/f8/6a/f9f86a0d67445e1f8114a7cc0526c6fc.png)
-
it was a joke :'(
On a different note, it looks like the new economy frigates for the RN (Type 31e) are to be called Leander class
My first ever ship was a Leander class, although they were classified as a Destroyer Escort or DE. They were damned good ships, wonder if the new class will match up to their forebears?
-
Speaking of RN Cruisers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujoT_3XUp5M
-
Reminder on image sizes, guys. Please!
-
Reminder on image sizes, guys. Please!
yikes i posted on mobile i didn't realize they were that huge. fixed.
-
yikes i posted on mobile i didn't realize they were that huge. fixed.
No sweat, just making sure we don't break the forums! ^-^
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/USS_Sarsfield_%28DDE-837%29_during_ASW_exercise_1950.jpg)
Destroyer escort USS Sarsfield puts down a dual-pattern of hedgehog mortars in a postwar exercise. If you're not familiar, hedgehogs launched a circular pattern of mortar bombs ahead of the ship (later versions could be trained to the sides too) as an anti-sub weapon. Unlike depth charges, which could be difficult to determine if they killed the sub or not (if no debris/oil floated up, who knows?), hedgehogs were simple- they wouldn't go off unless they hit the sub. So if a big explosion comes up, you killed a U-boat. If not, time to try again. They took a while to reload, but they were a very useful weapon that- along with radar and CVEs- really helped to turn the tide against the U-boat hordes, and made life hell on Japanese subs as well.
-
Another benefit to Hedgehog is that you could deploy the weapon while still tracking on ASDIC/SONAR. The sound gear was up in the front of the ship, and could only hear things in that direction. A depth-charge attack meant lining up on a target, then losing contact with it for valuable seconds before your charges can be launched, sink, and detonate. In that time, a sub can potentially maneuver - if not to safety, at least into less dangerous positions. You're left knowing where the guy was a minute ago, and have to find him again. Hedgehog meant the ASW hulls could track a target in realtime all the way up to intercept with the weapons, and no 'blind time' to deal with.
-
Another very simple advantage - Hedgehog could be fired ahead of a ship, whereas depth charges needed to be dropped behind a ship. This cut the time gap between tracking a sub and dropping depth charges on it by quite a lot, IF the U-boat was near enough to the surface for Hedgehog to be effective.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/bfcc359073506f98061b54a177713b1f/tumblr_p69h7q9xBw1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
USS Texas on her trials, probably during a high speed run.
-
As always, with American ships of the era in particular, 'high speed' is a relative term. ;D
-
As always, with American ships of the era in particular, 'high speed' is a relative term. ;D
"Faster, ChEng, we're being overtaken by a combat swimmer"
"She's going as fast as she can, Cap'n"
"But the swimmer's doing butterfly!"
-
USS Texas on her trials, probably during a high speed run.
How she doing these days? She was having host of problems last year.
Speaking of old ladies. Greece had some nice ones too, like the armored cruiser, Georgios Averof. The picture from 2014. Flagship of the Royal Hellenic Navy.
(https://i.imgur.com/7Sqe7X9.jpg)
-
As always, with American ships of the era in particular, 'high speed' is a relative term. ;D
I was going to say, going by that bow wave, she's not going very fast!
-
21 knots is a nice stately speed for a lady!
-
Standard Type Battleships, it was the USN's doctrine for the battle line to have a homogeneous speed. They saw the problem of the RN's Battleships (varied maximum/cruising speeds) and they also felt in event of a war the enemy would either come to the fleet OR the fleet will come to their bases. There was no thought of chasing down or running away from the enemy battle line, they figured the enemy will come eventually (or just give up the seas entirely).
-
hedgehogs were simple- they wouldn't go off unless they hit the sub. So if a big explosion comes up, you killed a U-boat.
Or a Sperm Whale. :D
-
Just as well the American/Japanese dreadnought line fight ('War Plan Orange', in the U.S.) never came about. Putting that battle line in the face of destroyer squadrons firing Long Lances before ever firing a shot at the Japanese battle line is a pretty sobering proposition- because it's not just that they were slow, it's that they had poor turning radiuses (radii? What's the plural there?) to boot. Later ships learned lessons from these early ships on how important agility could be, but ships like the Texas- and really even the Big Five- were notoriously ham-handed. So not only are those torpedoes designed from the outset to cripple a big ship (see: Solomons fighting), these ships are too slow and cumbersome to make any real attempt at dodging!
Genuine assessment here, in the event of an Orange fight, I'd be impressed if the American battle line (assuming a setup like the fleet based at Pearl) could fire its first shots at the Japanese battle line with having taken less than 50% losses. Take that battle line that got hit by Nagumo. Let's throw in the Colorado as well since she was on the west coast refitting at that point. That's nine ships. I'd call it at least four, maybe five of those are either sunk or crippled and forced to withdraw before they ever aim at an enemy battleship.
It's not just about the torpedoes, mind you- it's about how they're USED. Look at the Solomons fighting- that was no accident. Japan trained for years to be experts at night fighting, torpedo attacks in particular. All they did at Guadalcanal was what they'd trained for- just at smaller ships than they trained to aim at (cruisers). The Americans? Meh. Radar helped EVENTUALLY, but in an Orange battle it's safe to say they'd not have the experience to really rely on it yet (see those early Solomons fights where it was wasted when it was available). The Americans might detect the inbound destroyer squadrons... then what? With the training, the ridiculous range and power of the Long Lance... 50% is a good number to aim at, I think.
Now put, let's say five ships- pick five of the Pearl ships at random. Let's say Oklahoma, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and California. Now pit that against, say, the six similar-vintage Japanese dreadnoughts (the Nagatos, Fusos, and non-carrier-decked Hyugas). I'm leaving the Yamato out of this for the moment. That's a slight advantage in terms of broadsides, but Japanese ships were again better in terms of their scout and screen vessels by dint of those Long Lances (and the reloads they carried, so even the ships that fought the night before can fire more torpedoes!).
It's weird, but I genuinely can't find a way the American navy wins War Plan Orange. It's a good plan if you assume your enemy is inept. Japan wasn't. Their plan looks a hell of a lot better, with the benefit not only of hindsight, but of knowledge available at the time.
-
Wait, on the turning radius weren't the Standard Type battleships relatively maneuverable for the purpose of avoiding torpedoes? Something like a turning radius of 700 yards was their characteristic. It is one of the tightest turning radius for Dreadnought battleships.
Also the USN was reluctant to commit their battleships to Guadalcanal for a couple of reasons: fuel and close quarter nature of the Savo Channel.
Also the Japanese's doctrine called for the torpedo ships to launch their torpedoes at long range in open sea. The battles in which Long Lance was used, it was shown that successes with them was due to being launched at shorter ranges where their speed was a factor (one of the very fast torpedoes of the war).
However I would point out that had USN and IJN fought in 1930s, the Long Lance wouldn't have been so prevalent then.
If the USN had stayed with the Standard Type doctrine into the 40s, it would have been updated for new advancements in technology including the fact that USN now has torpex which is at least twice as powerful as TNT which was still used in Long Lance warheads to the end. Their torpedo defense system would have been updated to be rated for resisting a torpedo warhead using torpex.
-
Swiftships' Landing Craft, Utility 1700 proposal:
(http://www.janes.com/images/assets/971/78971/p1723238_-_main.jpg)
The LCU 1700 effort calls for the one-for-one replacement of the 32 in-service but ageing LCU 1610 landing craft by 2027.
-
That reminds me, I've been meaning to ask: Do navies name their LCUs and LCACs, give them an ID number, something else? I'm going to be grabbing some landing craft for my US, French, and Japanese gaming fleets sometime soon, and they're going to need IDs.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/56afd65b623a8ec9c21c627652233ee3/tumblr_p6m0a9PVO51rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
Italian ships proceed to disarm in Alexandria after surrender to allies in Malta on the basis of the surrender of Italy, September 1943. In the foreground visible light cruiser “Raimondo montecuccoli” In the background (left to right): the battleship “Vittorio Veneto” light cruiser “Eugenio di Savoia” , and the battleship “Littorio”.
-
That reminds me, I've been meaning to ask: Do navies name their LCUs and LCACs, give them an ID number, something else? I'm going to be grabbing some landing craft for my US, French, and Japanese gaming fleets sometime soon, and they're going to need IDs.
France is pretty ambivalent about that.
- Current situation:
- LSM and LST generally receive both pennant number (Lxxxx) and name as proper ships.
- L-CAT ("EDA-R") catamarans built currently receive a pennant number (Lxxxx) and a designation ("EDA-R n") but no name.
- LCU ("EDIC"/"CDIC") built since the 50s received a pennant number (Lxxxx), but no name.
- LCM ("CTM") built since the 60s received a designation number (CTMxx) and carry only the xx number on their bow.
- In 1997 the navy went on a naming spree:
- the last four EDIC/CDIC still in service did receive official names (Sabre, Dague, Rapiere, Hellebarde).
- The last twelve CTM received names that the navy seems to consider unofficial but recognized (they even list them on their website...). However, not all CTM in service got such a nickname - there are currently CTM both with and without such names in service.
- for historic contect: the entire amphibious fleet - from LCMs to LSTs - was renumbered in 1950 anyway, as part of bringing some semblance of order into the mess at the time.
- LSTs bought from USN and RN were treated as proper ships.
- the around 63 ex-WW2 LCI and LCT bought from the USN and RN in 1948/49 for Indochina were treated wholesale like EDIC above (pennant number "Lxxxx", no name)
- the 34 LCM(6) in the MN bought at the same time were likely not even numbered; most of these were not discarded until the late 90s btw.
- the MN also operated several hundred (!) further LCMs at the time for riverine warfare, most of them as uparmored transports or monitors. These were likely also not even numbered.
- the three Marinefährpram amphibious craft that the MN completed postwar were numbered MFP1-3 with no name and were relegated to some sort of harbor logistics duties before the 1950 renumbering.
- in 1958 the MN tried a design that combined a coastal transport with some capabilities of a tug and bow doors and a flat bottom for beaching. That ship, while LCT-sized and at the time considered an EDIC by role, received both a pennant number and name (L9097 Issole). Had her bow doors welded shut in 1970 and redesignated A734 Issole as an auxiliary transport in 1973. Later designs made less compromises for the amphibious role and were more successful (and all considered Axxx auxiliaries).
-
Yikes. Info overload!
Any hints as to which ones would be carried aboard a Mistral, if there's any standardization at all? The game I use these for just uses generic 'Landing Craft' or 'Hovercraft' for everyone.
-
- Mistral/Tonnere/Dixmude (active)
- Outfit A : 2 EDA-R
- Outfit B : 4 CTM
- Foudre/Siroco (retired 2011-2015, sold)
- Outfit A : 2 EDIC
- Outfit B : 1 EDIC + 4 CTM
- Outfit C : 10 CTM
- Outfit D : patrol boat(s) in well deck instead of landing craft (possibly also with 2 CTM loaded).
- Ouragan/Orage (retired 2007, scrapped)
- Outfit A : 2 EDIC
- Outfit B : 1 EDIC + 4 CTM
- Outfit C : 8 CTM
- Outfit D : 18 LCM(6)
EDA-R are catamaran landing craft which can carry a comparable load at about half the speed of a LCAC (over twice the distance) or twice the speed of a LCU. They don't seem to use them in mixed operations with slower CTM, unlike they previously did with EDIC.
As there are only 4 EDA-R one of the three Mistrals currently runs with 4 CTM as load while the other two run with 2 EDA-R.
And since this is still a picture thread: Another alternative load on a Ouragan. Note CTM10 and CTM18 in the back and specific shadowing caused by the midpoint position of the movable flexdeck above.
(https://abload.de/img/photo46mceuzr.jpg)
-
That reminds me, I've been meaning to ask: Do navies name their LCUs and LCACs, give them an ID number, something else? I'm going to be grabbing some landing craft for my US, French, and Japanese gaming fleets sometime soon, and they're going to need IDs.
The general cut off regarding names is ~150 DWT, this probably varies from navy to navy though.
I have no idea regarding the logic therein, but I do know that during WW II many vessels were only even given a pennant number due to the sheer number produced.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/b2e8859b40e945db5b8afa0353228a84/tumblr_p6n5o8En3N1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The ironclad battleship HMS Swiftsure
-
Pre-Dreadnought Jean Bart
(http://www.naval-history.net/PhotoWW1-01bbFrJeanBart1PS.jpg)
-
(https://cdn-03.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/article34622036.ece/0a843/AUTOCROP/w620/2016-04-13_new_19787640_I3.JPG)
How to make an enemy miserable, in one image. Royal Navy 5th Battle Squadron making speed. Barham, Valiant, Malaya, and Warspite, taken from Queen Elizabeth.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/6be9e923748e424f7e7aeefa37f55b81/tumblr_p6oa5trVHk1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
USS Pennsylvania
-
French L-Cat Landing Craft landing troops.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/71/Flickr_-_Official_U.S._Navy_Imagery_-_A_French_landing_craft_comes_ashore_during_the_amphibious_assault_phase_of_Bold_Alligator_2012..jpg/1200px-Flickr_-_Official_U.S._Navy_Imagery_-_A_French_landing_craft_comes_ashore_during_the_amphibious_assault_phase_of_Bold_Alligator_2012..jpg)
L-Cat Underway, with it's floor raised so it acts like catamaran.
(https://www.meretmarine.com/sites/default/files/styles/mem_846_article_content/public/new_objets_drupal/lc5.jpg)
-
Pffft. I wish these BattleTech artists at least tried to make their space barges look believable.
-
Pffft. I wish these BattleTech artists at least tried to make their space barges look believable.
'Believable' doesn't look kewl on a skateboard.
-
'Believable' doesn't look kewl on a skateboard.
BattleTech, the future of the 90s, where everyone wears flannel and jeans in the cockpit of their 'mech. And everyone else wears it too.
-
I am, in fact, wearing flannel and jeans as I type this.
But seriously, that L-Cat thing looks like it came right out of Doug Chaffee's sketchbook.
-
It took me quite a while to figure out what you were talking about, but now I can't Unseen it, especially when looking at the first pic and thinking of the Aegis.
-
Neat French landing ship. Seems a little complex with the whole deck dropping.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/40ecb5fe05026c032c73d868c53f6a39/tumblr_njxjr49N881r94kvzo1_1280.jpg)
The Battleship Richeleiu
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/917961aea0ecfd187bac186d1122719f/tumblr_p6k26r4FLP1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The IJN heavy cruiser Takao
-
L-Cat Underway, with it's floor raised so it acts like catamaran.
I like this picture as it really shows how high it raises that deck in catamaran configuration (you can spot the wheels on that VBCI!):
(https://abload.de/img/9fbf238d3c3b1d604061dulu2i.jpg)
-
Neat French landing ship. Seems a little complex with the whole deck dropping.
Benefit about the movable deck is that they can also adapt the deployment height to the environment. I.e. as long as the cargo fits through under that stabilizing boom at the exit, it can also just drop the deck to e.g. half height and unload horizontally directly onto a quay 2m above the water line.
Regular LCU - and LCAC - have a problem with that kinda thing, requiring loading positions (ramps) or cranes to load/unload in proper ports.
-
So basically, all the floaty-ness and full-of-angry-people-ness of a normal landing craft, plus the vertical flexibility of a forklift. :)
-
a forklift.
way to take the sexy out of it ;D
-
...a sexy, sexy forklift. :)
Better? :)
-
So, so very much worse.
-
That said, it did make me think of The Crushinator from Futurama.
-
Better? :)
Y'know, if you censor the o and r...
-
So, so very much worse.
(https://31.media.tumblr.com/59b804b0a3f3e6530ae5ac26de2b33fc/tumblr_inline_mzuezvA07K1rpd7qz.gif)
-
Thailand's only and world smallest fix-wing Aircraft Carrier, HTMS Chakri Naruebet at 11 thousand tones, she was commissioned in 1997. Her fleet of Matator VTOLs were barely in service by 1999 and removed operations completely by 2006.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Chakri_Naruebet_2001.JPEG/1280px-Chakri_Naruebet_2001.JPEG)
Due to 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, she hardly deployed. Though she done relief missions in 2010 & 11.
She so stubby in that picture (short) that i kept thinking she would tot her horn like a old fashion tugboat. ;D
-
I spotted this picture, which i thought was neat.
This is a Harrier takeoff from the flight deck of the Spanish Aircraft Carrier, Juan Carlos I during the operational qualification. It was post on Spanish Navy Instagram.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gG-eABlRgac/WrjFrcZUa-I/AAAAAAABi_k/kd9itGXKh6kkYJZWZbD0_nQIauxMr_bDACLcBGAs/s640/29088436_431387740648702_794328453066260480_n.jpg)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/1347f7269dd6dc04f8ea5c6f31d9bdd3/tumblr_inline_p6krsvTh131r4iznv_540.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/106f561f22f2fe634769e0f84f1e8320/tumblr_inline_p6krsq6oew1r4iznv_540.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/a67d7efb54929b75c87910cb5af062f8/tumblr_inline_p6krufkdQr1r4iznv_540.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/a8eba74d89f130c330a1992fe8c0a6bb/tumblr_inline_p6krupkXCP1r4iznv_540.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/0cce2849ae53e70949d6c1b2ead8e8aa/tumblr_inline_p6krv5rlSB1r4iznv_540.jpg)
-
Some nice models of ships.
-
Nice? Nice? We need to spring and get you a thesaurus. Those things are magnificent.
-
He's just being British. Magnificent and marvellous feats are "nice" or "decent"; hopeless and disastrous situations are "worrisome" or "a bit of a pickle, old boy..."
-
I would love to find out how they did the spray effects.
-
I would love to find out how they did the spray effects.
Drybrushing white paint across the edges of water effects made from clear silicone (over a blue painted under layer)?
I'm guessing based on my own meager experience. Though the spray affects on the King George model look like they might incorporate something like cotton floss/batting.
-
He's just being British. Magnificent and marvellous feats are "nice" or "decent"; hopeless and disastrous situations are "worrisome" or "a bit of a pickle, old boy..."
Indeed and if an British person replies to something you've said or suggested with "Quite...." with a VERY noticable pause and a slight pursing of the lips. It means they disagree with EVERYTHING you just said at a total and utterly fundimental level but are being too polite to tell you how wrong you are. Then again the British English language is brimming with nuance, i've been teaching an American friend of mine it and he now uses Britishism's :D
-
Indeed and if an British person replies to something you've said or suggested with "Quite...." with a VERY noticable pause and a slight pursing of the lips. It means they disagree with EVERYTHING you just said at a total and utterly fundimental level but are being too polite to tell you how wrong you are. Then again the British English language is brimming with nuance, i've been teaching an American friend of mine it and he now uses Britishism's :D
I was just told by someone how an "Oh I see" at dinner turned out to be "You're wasting my time" to one chap and "This is ridiculous" to another!! :D
And they say we Asians are inscrutable! :D
-
Nice? Nice? We need to spring and get you a thesaurus. Those things are magnificent.
Im not that great with the written english language to say how awesome those models are.
-
Bloody bonza effort that, they are rippers :thumbsup: (that translates from Australian into the Queen's English as "nice")
-
Bloody bonza effort that, they are rippers :thumbsup: (that translates from Australian into the Queen's English as "nice")
???
That hasn't really been a figure of speech in Australia since the seventies, and even then it was only the older country people who said it.
Mind you, those model ships are very nice, clearly someone has their priorities in order, or to use my other mindset, way too much free time.
-
What? And the next thing you will tell me is that your name is not Bruce? ^-^
-
Indeed and if an British person replies to something you've said or suggested with "Quite...." with a VERY noticable pause and a slight pursing of the lips. It means they disagree with EVERYTHING you just said at a total and utterly fundimental level but are being too polite to tell you how wrong you are. Then again the British English language is brimming with nuance, i've been teaching an American friend of mine it and he now uses Britishism's :D
I still think my favorite quote to describe that "stiff British upper lip" comes from Sir David Beatty, who as a vice-admiral at The Battle of Jutland while in charge of Britain's Battle Cruiser Fleet told his flag captain, Emle Chatfield, "There seems to be something wrong with our bloody ships today" after two of the battlecruisers (HMS Queen Mary and HMS Indefatigable) in his force were blown up by the Germans after hits that exploded in their ammunition bays and blew them in two...
HMS Invincible, Britain's (and the world's) first battlecruiser, was also lost during the Battle of Jutland due to similar hits, as was the HMS Hood in WW2...
Ruger
-
Indeed, late May seems to be a bad time for British Battlecruisers, 3 blew up on the 31st in 1916 and 1 blew up on the 24th in 1941.
-
What? And the next thing you will tell me is that your name is not Bruce? ^-^
Sorry to disappoint you...
I'm not a great white either. ;)
-
What? And the next thing you will tell me is that your name is not Bruce? ^-^
Mind if we call you 'Bruce' to keep it clear?
-
But perhaps her name's Sheila :D
-
What??? Next thing you will tell me is that you do not work at the Philosophy Department of the University of Woolloomooloo?
https://youtu.be/eyVX3uJpqxc (https://youtu.be/eyVX3uJpqxc)
Mind if we call you 'Bruce' to keep it clear?
:thumbsup:
-
Almost forgot a ship picture:
(http://images.navy.gov.au/fotoweb/cache/5013/DefenceImagery/2008/NoImageSeries/04926_Australia%20II.t480ec164.m400.x7bdd0168.jpg)
HMAS Australia (II) a County-class Heavy Cruiser, not to be mistaken for Australia II (KA6)
(https://sailinghalloffame.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ANMS0062059.jpg)
an Australian 12-metre-class America's Cup challenge racing yacht that was the first successful America's Cup challenger, ending a 132-year tenure (with 26 successful defences) by the New York Yacht Club.
-
Learning by imitating...
(https://s14.postimg.org/e88bzypup/X3_K3t_P1.jpg)
-
Seeing as you folks liked the models, found some more!
(https://i.imgur.com/55c2Q8p.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yHTJqiI.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/sy3My1a.jpg)
Originals to be found here - https://imgur.com/gallery/4KUII
-
Bismark - boo hiss
-
HMS Hood, firing her 15in guns.
(https://orig00.deviantart.net/e241/f/2017/265/2/e/hms_hood_by_asarigoddess-dbo9wcu.jpg)
-
Do they have Space Battleship versions of other ships now? I thought it was just Yamato.
-
Do they have Space Battleship versions of other ships now? I thought it was just Yamato.
the amazing power of Fanart..
-
Do they have Space Battleship versions of other ships now? I thought it was just Yamato.
For the April Fools mission they do.
-
Do they have Space Battleship versions of other ships now? I thought it was just Yamato.
There are other ones in Japanese versions of series we didn't see brought over as Starblazers (original series)
(http://www.ourstarblazers.com/vault-images/dec12/71901.JPG)
Space Battleships Arizona and Prince of Wales appear EXTREMELY briefly in third Starblazers series. Bolon Wars , where all voice actors were replaced. Which was episode 20 of that series, which you can read about the episode here. (http://ourstarblazers.com/vault/719/)
Anyways, back to actual navy ships pictures.
HMS Prince of Wales
(http://www.naval-history.net/Photo01bbPOW1941SingaporeMQ.jpg)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/3qOk5J0.jpg)
-
OmigawditssoKYOOOOT!! :smitten:
-
Okay, a fascinating shot which demonstrates some rarely seen aspects of modern(ish) naval design:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1b/d3/87/1bd38713825201176508c338ee98fe86.jpg)
Delta-IV class Ekaterinburg, following a dockyard fire. You can visualise the scanning field of the sonar rather nicely, especially with the cutout at the lower front.
W.
-
Very interesting photo. Looks like the warp drive from Event Horizon.
-
The big bow sonor dome.
-
I am surprised they openly do the work. Secrecy gone out the window I guess. She certainly rusty.
-
I hate to judge a ship after a major fire, but yeah, she looks worn out far beyond what the fire would have done.
-
It was in dock for 3 years. Under a Soviet-style maintenance regime, methinks.
-
It was in dock for 3 years. Under a Soviet-style maintenance regime, methinks.
You mean like this? ^-^
(http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/image50.png)
-
Those are old Foxtrot and Whiskey Class boats right?
-
Those are conventionals.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/pdPAC9oiges/maxresdefault.jpg)
These are reactor compartments. Top & tail the hull, then moor them.
-
Weird question I just had: has there ever been an incident where a nuclear-powered naval vessel from any country was destroyed by enemy attack?
-
At least they are stored. Lots of nuclear material is on the bottom of the Kara sea including a few intact subs. :o
-
Weird question I just had: has there ever been an incident where a nuclear-powered naval vessel from any country was destroyed by enemy attack?
Nope. Stories that USS Scorpion was sunk by a Soviet sub in revenge for the loss of K-129 are stupid falsehoods. That's about the closest I can think of.
W.
-
I'd never even heard that about the Scorpion.
-
I may have posted these before, but...
(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/17/55/21/4117581/3/960x540.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Q-PuSGjFHvY/SIKAZUYvtlI/AAAAAAAABDk/IwPe5a4X7ug/s1600/WhiskeyWrecksBig.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/03/85/28/03852844f199b962a62d722b78d5f055.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/75/33/18/753318fe34c487a3075530a542ded9a2--kola-peninsula-submarines.jpg)
I'd never even heard that about the Scorpion.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/ssn-589.htm (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/ssn-589.htm)
-
You mean like this? ^-^
(http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/image50.png)
Modern Russia, or fallout screenshot? You be the judge!
-
Well, there aren't any mutant dolphin carcasses, so it's hard to tell.
-
I'd never even heard that about the Scorpion.
Sorry, misread that. There's a loon out there published a book all about his "theory" ... ::)
-
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/ssn-589.htm (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/ssn-589.htm)
Yeah, I've heard of the Scorpion and its sinking, I just had never heard anything about the belief that it was anything other than an accident.
-
The Wiki entry for USS Scorpion will give you the general ideas ...
-
RE USS Scorpion there's this lil series here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzLT6untzWw&t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hlovmea7TQc&t=7s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaG6Uhm7jZc
This chaps an ex USN sonarman and he's done some interesting stuff like this and the stories he tells whilst doing Cold Waters playthroughs are quite interesting. He also did his own analysis of the ARN San Juan accident looking at the sonar records of the incident and broke that down. Not official of course, but seemingly pretty darn accurate.
-
backing up to the fire damaged Russian sub...
that is a fascinating photo and shows clearly why torpedo tubes aren't mounted more obviously in the nose
it is similar to the radar in the nose of most fighters beneath the see-through cones
I can't help but wonder if a flatter/smaller design (like an AESA) is under development, not that anyone would tell us I'm sure!
-
Yep. Flank panel arrays.
(http://cms.ipressroom.com.s3.amazonaws.com/295/files/201610/583497552cfac217eae9f7f2_CLC-4527-020/CLC-4527-020_99f150c2-8c8d-43d9-9e85-ae636c295d0a-prv.jpg)
-
Under development? Pretty much every submarine built since about 1980 has planar flank array sonars...
(except for some earlier designs built up to the mid 90s; for the USN, the Los Angeles SSN were backfitted with AN/BQG-5 starting in 1995, for the Soviets the first iirc were on Victor III SSN from 1979)
-
and towed arrays to look behind
I suppose I meant instead of having the bow full of a ball of pings
-
and towed arrays to look behind
I suppose I meant instead of having the bow full of a ball of pings
Well, during War Thunder's April Fool's Day event, it was handy to have a MASSIVE ball of pings in the nose as it was a nice damage soak for torpedoes hitting the nose.
-
Reproduction of the original (and first) combat submarine, the Turtle. This one was made in Connecticut in 2007, it was fully operational but not without some modern stuff added to it. The Turtle was originally used during the American Revolutionary War, however it didn't have much success it's mission attaching torpedoes (mines) to it's opponent's ships and blowing them up.
Most interesting write up on it was can be read here. (https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/s/submarine-turtle-naval-documents.html)
What was written that ship sunk on the Sloop transporting it, but it was memory was faded away. Unlike static recreations, this one was used one. Lord knows how hard that must been with hand cranked submarine. xp
(https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/nhhc/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/s/submarine-turtle-naval-documents/_jcr_content/body/image.img.jpg/1432232082701.jpg)
Older fully operational Turtle made in 1976
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/ff/THE_TURTLE%2C_ESSEX_CT.jpg/800px-THE_TURTLE%2C_ESSEX_CT.jpg)
-
(https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/images/news/ships/belfast/170927-defence-secretary-names-new-warship-hms-belfast-in-northern-ireland/45145013.jpg?mh=447&mw=980&thn=0&hash=456E632E8CD7A80F9A624AAE6E741F02C8563478)
a relic of another age.
-
(https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/-/media/royal-navy-responsive/images/news/ships/belfast/170927-defence-secretary-names-new-warship-hms-belfast-in-northern-ireland/45145013.jpg?mh=447&mw=980&thn=0&hash=456E632E8CD7A80F9A624AAE6E741F02C8563478)
a relic of another age.
That is a great picture.
-
It's been far too long since I've paid HMS Belfast a visit :-(
-
Might be old news for you, but I found this recently:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/09/19/german-world-war-submarine-discovered-intact-with-23-bodies-inside.html (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/09/19/german-world-war-submarine-discovered-intact-with-23-bodies-inside.html)
TT
-
Yep. Flank panel arrays.
(http://cms.ipressroom.com.s3.amazonaws.com/295/files/201610/583497552cfac217eae9f7f2_CLC-4527-020/CLC-4527-020_99f150c2-8c8d-43d9-9e85-ae636c295d0a-prv.jpg)
IIRC those are passive only, while the nose mount is always active and passive capable.. with the shape largely being due to the need to create a semi-directional pulse of sound for the active part.
-
I quite often walk across London Bridge and take photos of Belfast but don't think any of mine are that good
-
USS Whipple (Torpedo Boat Destroyer # 15), pictured in early 1900s.
Nice read about early DDs since they were so small and narrow and yet were able screen bigger ships.
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0501503.jpg)\
Torpedo launchers are on deck for this one. She has alot room dedicated to engine spaces from looks of her.
I imagine that life onboard was bit rough, especially at sea.
Here her late in Dry Dock in Mare Island in December 1912. I guess she going through some light repair work since her engines seem to be still lite off. She seen here with sister ships Paul Jones, Preble, Steward, and the Truxton. If you look hard enough you may see early submarine there. Different picture shows one.
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0501007.jpg)
Here in March 1919 she retired with her sisterships. Mothballs/reserves seems so different back then.
You can clearly see her aft torpedo launcher in this picture. Her draft so small, looks like oversize speed boat.
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/0501511.jpg)
-
They may have retired in 1919, but I don't think they're retired in that picture. The caption just says "at base", and they're flying flags in port just like ships in commission.
-
I was going by what the Hazegray historical website said for the picture caption. They may been retiring that month they were in port but not formally decommissioned.
-
DD15 was decommissioned on July 7th 1919. She was anchored at Philadelphia for 6 months before that, since January 3rd.
Somewhat interestingly that "nest" was not decommissioned wholesale at once as one might expect, but sequentially. In the picture, from left:
DD8 USS Lawrence - June 20th
DD11 USS Perry - July 2nd
DD15 USS Whipple - July 7th
DD14 USS Truxtun - July 18th
DD16 USS Worden - July 13th
They were then struck from the naval register on September 15th (all together) and sold off (all) on January 3rd 1920. Perry and Lawrence were broken up, Whipple, Truxtun and Worden were sold to serve as civilian freighters.
-
here's one of my photos of HMS Belfast from - fiddled with the settings a bit to make the colours prettier and shrink the size (you lose the lovely view of Tower Bridge)
-
DD15 was decommissioned on July 7th 1919. She was anchored at Philadelphia for 6 months before that, since January 3rd.
Somewhat interestingly that "nest" was not decommissioned wholesale at once as one might expect, but sequentially. In the picture, from left:
DD8 USS Lawrence - June 20th
DD11 USS Perry - July 2nd
DD15 USS Whipple - July 7th
DD14 USS Truxtun - July 18th
DD16 USS Worden - July 13th
They were then struck from the naval register on September 15th (all together) and sold off (all) on January 3rd 1920. Perry and Lawrence were broken up, Whipple, Truxtun and Worden were sold to serve as civilian freighters.
Freighters? The ships must been gutted. Those things look like engines dominating the entire interior hull, but wow. The narrowness of the hulls would have been challenging fetch decent cargo relay. Wiki page says the Truxtun was convered into a Motor Fruit Carrier, but not much else about her. I'm curious if there any surviving pictures what she looked like.
-
That smoke in dry dock would be her generators running to keep the lights on. No way you'd have mains flashed up while in dry dock, it's a recipe for disaster.
-
Worth noting that mothballs was handled a bit differently as well pre-Washington Treaty, in which ships weren't necessarily taken out of service when they were put in reserve- small skeleton crews would remain and the ship would still be in commission. I'm not entirely sure exactly when that system changed or what the reasoning for changing it was, but it was at some point during the inter-war period anyway.
-
I'm curious if there any surviving pictures what she looked like.
Truxtun, unknown date, after conversion:
Edit: Note the missing smoke stacks in comparison to service as a destroyer. They probably ripped out most of the engines to make room.
(https://abload.de/img/0501405tzsyp.jpg)
Worden, during WW2 (front, towing torpedoed British freighter MS La Paz):
(https://abload.de/img/0501612lcs2j.jpg)
Her draft so small, looks like oversize speed boat.
Missile boats built in the 70s went up to about the same size - about 400 tons displacement, about 3 meters draft - although they weren't as "stretched" (Whipple etc had a 11.2 to 1 length to beam ratio; a 1982 Gepard FAC has a 7.4 to 1 ratio).
-
Truxtun, unknown date, after conversion:
Edit: Note the missing smoke stacks in comparison to service as a destroyer. They probably ripped out most of the engines to make room.
*snip*
If they converted her to a fruit hauler, I'd be surprised if they ripped out all that much engine. Speed was the name of the game...
-
Found multiple sources saying that the machinery - triple expansion steam engines - was replaced with two 200 hp diesel engines. No statement on how fast they were after that, but the same conversion of Clemson class destroyers in 1931 resulted in them still able to make 16 knots.
Edit, little history tidbit:
The conversion of the Clemson class destroyers also resulted in a little international affair, as the US had to get rid of them to accomodate the 1930 London Naval Treaty - and they did so by announcing them as scrapped despite selling them for conversion. Britain called them out on their violation, which resulted in the US government having to send an apologetic letter to all treaty signatories that sadly they were powerless to stop the new owners from using them.
For the three earlier converted ships - done so before the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty, which would have at the very least outlawed reflagging them to Nicaragua - this conversion was still "legal".
-
That would do it, then... That long narrow hull wouldn't have needed very much to keep her speed up (in relative terms for the time, of course).
-
Diesels make a lot of sense here, since they're small and basically unarmored- a bad cylinder would be relatively easy to get to. This was an unholy bear of a problem for the German panzerschiff vessels- you had to pull several decks (including armor!) to get to a bad engine. Luckily for the Germans, that wasn't often a problem for these ships!
(Worth wondering what the Yamatos would have been like with their originally-planned diesels. Getting into those engines through that heavy deck armor would have been a nightmare- luckily for the Japanese navy (sort of?), they were so unreliable and difficult to repair that the idea was abandoned for more conventional engines before it was too late.)
Interesting to see those stern tubes on the early DDs, surprising that didn't continue as a trend- firing off a few fish when turning away into a smoke screen would be pretty handy. Depth charge racks though ended up being a pretty good idea, as it turned out (though when these boats were built, of course, submarines were still seen as a silly toy rather than a legit threat).
-
Interesting to see those stern tubes on the early DDs, surprising that didn't continue as a trend- firing off a few fish when turning away into a smoke screen would be pretty handy. Depth charge racks though ended up being a pretty good idea, as it turned out (though when these boats were built, of course, submarines were still seen as a silly toy rather than a legit threat).
Remembering that until WW2 a submarine was really just a submersible torpedo boat, they kept stern tubes for a long time
Destroyers moved to being more about guns and trainable torpedo batteries while the torpedo boats (PT boats, MTBs etc) got smaller and only carried a couple of torpedoes
-
Oh sure, and that made sense (honestly it's surprising modern boats don't keep one pointed backwards!). I'm thinking in terms of destroyer squadrons in situations like Jutland in WWI or the Solomons campaign in WWII, bearing down on an enemy to launch their fish, then turning away to make their escape and letting go one more for the road as they do to ensure the enemy is forced to turn away.
-
With modern torpedoes it doesn't matter which direction you launch them. They haven't been straight running for some time now...
-
With modern torpedoes it doesn't matter which direction you launch them. They haven't been straight running for some time now...
No, but it does take a few extra moments to turn around after being launched facing forward. And in modern sub warfare especially, that can make all the difference.
-
If your timing matters that much, you've done something wrong...
-
Wow! Amazing find, Kato! I didn't do a good job trying find what they looked like. Thank you! That's treat to see.
Diesel Engines makes sense, i had thought they were going to be cheap way of doing thing and retain the engines.
Still looks like they fared well after their decommissioning. I did thing they were odd looking with way the bows were shaped, it almost look like it was unarmed in bow.
USS Jupiter had interesting hybrid power plant, steam electric. I guess it was bit ahead of it time power plant wise. Still made strange looking refueling ship when it was in use as such in 1912. This was waaay before it became the Langley.
(http://ww2historycollection.com/Weapons-Equipment/images/USSJupiter_1912_1.jpg)
-
Weren't torpedoes loaded into the tubes at the dock back then? I remember hearing something about American submarines in WW2 that exhausted their forward tubes while in patrol and made attacks on Japanese ships using their rear tubes.
-
Weren't torpedoes loaded into the tubes at the dock back then? I remember hearing something about American submarines in WW2 that exhausted their forward tubes while in patrol and made attacks on Japanese ships using their rear tubes.
Memory suggests there were tubes external to the pressure hull that would need reloading back at base and others internal and reloadable
-
Memory suggests there were tubes external to the pressure hull that would need reloading back at base and others internal and reloadable
That sounds about right. I swear I remember reading about a U-boat that ran out of forward torpedoes and had men manhandling them all the way from the rear tubes to the front, but I may be misremembering.
-
The British T-class subs had six internal tubes, each with one reload, and four external tubes that could not be reloaded at sea, for an initial salvo of ten torpedoes
-
That's the thing about rear torpedo tubes... you have to have two torpedo rooms if they're reloadable. And moving weapons between the two would be EXTREMELY difficult.
-
If your timing matters that much, you've done something wrong...
Why isn't there a Like button on this website?
-
USS Jupiter had interesting hybrid power plant, steam electric. I guess it was bit ahead of it time power plant wise. Still made strange looking refueling ship when it was in use as such in 1912. This was waaay before it became the Langley.
(http://ww2historycollection.com/Weapons-Equipment/images/USSJupiter_1912_1.jpg)
The Turbo-electric plant was also used on Lexington and Saratoga, and on several battleships. Among it's peculiarities, it allows for as much engine power to be applied to astern as ahead. It was also used on Buckley class DE's as it does not require the precision machining of reduction gears for steam turbines.
The problem is that minor electrical faults would leave ships dead in the water, and keeping corrosion from destroying the electrical components.
-
Weren't torpedoes loaded into the tubes at the dock back then? I remember hearing something about American submarines in WW2 that exhausted their forward tubes while in patrol and made attacks on Japanese ships using their rear tubes.
They were loaded internally, and indeed for purposes of maintenance etc had to be. However reloads for the forward tubes were stored forward, and the reloads for the rear tube aft, and it was a serious PITA to bring one from the rear forward, if at all possible.
The US Balao class, for example, had 6 tubes forward and 4 aft. 10 reloads were carried forward, and 4 aft, for a total of 24 torpedoes including the ones in the tubes. Tubes were usually kept loaded at all times, but had to be regularly unloaded, the torpedoes serviced, charged, etc and reloaded.
-
and it was a serious PITA to bring one from the rear forward, if at all possible.
Including the fact that you have to turn it around to face the other way - which means you'd technically have to move it up on the deck while surfaced too because doing so inside the submarine is pretty much a non-starter.
-
I'm surprised it was physically possible. I've seen the interiors of some of those subs.
-
loading torpedo into WW2-era subs, like this U-boat, always looks very uncomfortable for the boat
(https://s17.postimg.cc/n1afrdhb3/433fd1367337d760163de2526e2b36a7.jpg)
things are easier for modern boats which are lots bigger, but this Spearfish torpedo still looks BIG going into this RN Upholder-class
(https://s17.postimg.cc/boxu9lgbz/1_SPearfishloading_3139129b.jpg)
torpedo loading ops on modern US boats don't look much different from WW2 frankly
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXJUNuWX4AADvmq.jpg)
aesthetically, the hatch on the Akula looks the most sensible of them all
(https://s17.postimg.cc/j4x3vebr3/m_H7_IHZq.jpg)
-
Aesthetically maybe, but from a watertight integrity perspective? Yikes! :o
-
I will confess to being slightly surprised that they make additional holes in the hull - could the torpedoes not be loaded via the torpedo tubes? (I know this might mean lifting the submarine further out of the water than normal)
-
Not just more than normal... it would take a dry dock to get the to the tubes these days...
-
Aesthetically maybe, but from a watertight integrity perspective? Yikes! :o
Yup. I can understand why designers would prefer a hatch as small as possible
Look at that Akula hatch, its got 3 doors because of the curve - looks pretty but a couple more potential points of failure IMO
I will confess to being slightly surprised that they make additional holes in the hull - could the torpedoes not be loaded via the torpedo tubes? (I know this might mean lifting the submarine further out of the water than normal)
I don't know. At least 1 sub class does this - China's latest SSN, the Type 93B. I don't know if they also have a loading hatch in addition.
(https://s17.postimg.cc/61eyyg40v/type_093b_ssn.jpg)
-
The higher your torpedo room is in the hull, the less stable you are on the surface. I wouldn't want to be bringing that thing into port in even remotely rough seas.
-
The higher your torpedo room is in the hull, the less stable you are on the surface. I wouldn't want to be bringing that thing into port in even remotely rough seas.
Well, to be fair, we don't know their internal layout. The tubes may be at the very top of the compartment with hydraulic rams to raise and lower reloads. Sure it's a system with several single points of failure, but it's doable.
-
Next to the entry hatch on the Akula, are those all torpedo tubes? There's a ton of them.
-
torpedo loading ops on modern US boats don't look much different from WW2 frankly
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DXJUNuWX4AADvmq.jpg)
Will that change with new Block III and later ones for Virginia Class SSNs coming online? They have those new vertical revolver like launchers "Virginia Payload Module" for the missiles, so it could be in way of they've been loading torpedoes like that. Maybe not. Still it's interesting.
It's just the module goes right across the front of the ship's bow where those torpedoes are being loaded in that picture, which i suspect is a LA class sub. Where their tubes, like Sea Wolf and Block I & II Virginia Class boat have independent tubes missile VL tubes.
Pictured here is the Virginia Class submarine, John Warner being commissioned.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/de/Commissioning_of_USS_John_Warner_%28SSN-785%29_-_Manning_the_rails.jpg/1024px-Commissioning_of_USS_John_Warner_%28SSN-785%29_-_Manning_the_rails.jpg)
-
Next to the entry hatch on the Akula, are those all torpedo tubes? There's a ton of them.
Nice catch! That identifies the boat as an Improved Akula class - it seems the upper six tubes are external-reload-only, effectively one-shot tubes usually loaded with accoustic decoys.
Besides that, Akulas have 8 torpedo tubes, you can see the upper 4 in that pic and the lower 4 right on the waterline, with a total of 40 torpedoes/missiles, not counting the 6 one-shots.
Here's a better look of the torpedo tubes, courtesy of the Indian Navy's one Akula
(https://s17.postimg.cc/6efjw8j3j/8236920517454d158f261dee4cf9bfbd.jpg)
and what I think is a... Kilo...?
(https://s17.postimg.cc/z42fsvfdr/578922_697.jpg)
-
Given the power of modern torpedoes, what on earth are they built to hunt that needs that kind of one-hour shot alpha str-oh.
Be vewwy, vewwy qwiet. We're hunting... Nimitzes.
-
Nice catch! That identifies the boat as an Improved Akula class - it seems the upper six tubes are external-reload-only, effectively one-shot tubes usually loaded with accoustic decoys.
Besides that, Akulas have 8 torpedo tubes, you can see the upper 4 in that pic and the lower 4 right on the waterline, with a total of 40 torpedoes/missiles, not counting the 6 one-shots.
Here's a better look of the torpedo tubes, courtesy of the Indian Navy's one Akula
(https://s17.postimg.cc/6efjw8j3j/8236920517454d158f261dee4cf9bfbd.jpg)
and what I think is a... Kilo...?
(https://s17.postimg.cc/z42fsvfdr/578922_697.jpg)
I think that second on is an Oscar. It seems to have an awfully wide beam, and it looks like there's doors covering her SSM launchers on the sides of the hull aft of the sail.
-
I think that second on is an Oscar. It seems to have an awfully wide beam, and it looks like there's doors covering her SSM launchers on the sides of the hull aft of the sail.
Think you're right. I only just noticed the people in the corner - that's a very big sub!
-
It's a bit hard to see, but this is how a Type 212A submarine is loaded - in this case an Italian one, the German subs do it the same way.
(https://abload.de/img/0014-10t6ug2.jpg)
Basically there's a hatch similar to those Soviet submarines. It's a bit hidden by the loading gantry here, but you can make it out.
Step 1 : Install self-powered loading gantry over that door.
Step 2 : Transfer heavyweight torpedo to loading gantry by crane (shown above).
Step 3 : The loading gantry lowers the torpedo pneumatically into a position level with the entry chute.
Step 4 : The torpedo is transferred into the torpedo room through the entry chute.
Step 5 : Within the torpedo room, the torpedo is transferred by crane to one of the tubes or to a storage position.
Step 6 : Repeat Steps 2-5 until full.
Step 7 : Uninstall loading gantry and stow on supply ship or ashore.
-
Given the power of modern torpedoes, what on earth are they built to hunt that needs that kind of one-hour shot alpha str-oh.
Be vewwy, vewwy qwiet. We're hunting... Nimitzes.
They'll never hear us coming unless we all start singing the Russian National Anthem.
-
Including the fact that you have to turn it around to face the other way - which means you'd technically have to move it up on the deck while surfaced too because doing so inside the submarine is pretty much a non-starter.
yep
I have seen pics of WW2 uboats doing it, they arent even fully surfaced, the deck is awash
up from one end, turn and insert in other end
-
...I will never complain about helping someone move a couch again. :o
-
On the bright side, if you do a good job of getting rid of all those fish you loaded up, you get to display the proper decorations upon returning home...
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSlmxV8Dec55xJlvMczAXYd7wKbudmowetTrTXsRBJ-5J4Jvn03)
-
Kinda like this? http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14309/why-the-navys-top-spy-submarine-flew-a-pirate-flag-while-pulling-into-port?iid=sr-link1
-
Ancient Submarine, Peral from 1888. She was world's first electrified Submarine, built for testing concept by the Spanish Armada (Navy). After two years testing, the Admiralty didn't see value in it and cancelled it. The sub itself had single Torpedo tube with two torpedo reload. Its was all experimental, but in 1888, it could have been a game changer had production version had been existed for the Spanish-American War. The results may have differed, since US Navy didn't employ submarines of that caliber at all.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Peral1888.jpg)
Remarkably, she still exists today in Museum.
This is from 2009, she then been moved inside by 2013
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Submarino_de_Isaac_Peral.JPG)
-
Kinda like this? http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/14309/why-the-navys-top-spy-submarine-flew-a-pirate-flag-while-pulling-into-port?iid=sr-link1
Nifty article!
-
They have Haynes Manuals for everything it seems
-
"does my stern look big in this?"
-
"does my stern look big in this?"
Your stern looks big in everything, it just is big. Same for your bow where your bowplanes are connected
-
Your stern looks big in everything, it just is big. Same for your bow where your bowplanes are connected
Gasp!
For that, eat Tomahawk delivered firey death
-
The Astute is a very odd looking craft.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/e2255baf306889ffb7a9c8a23b6a5046/tumblr_p7urx8E7yE1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The French Pre-Dreadnought Battleship Gaulois being towed inshore so she can be beached to prevent her sinking following heavy damage in the Dardnelles battles.
-
Daaamn, look at the bow at the waterline. Credit given to the Turks, they did a remarkably good job between shore guns and mines of defending their beaches. (And one pre-dreadnought that managed to hold her own against the Queen Elizabeth for a while, which is no small feat either!)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/a99625590a10bbabf8edb640b7a79bfe/tumblr_p7urw6ufzx1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The Iron screw corvette HMS Calypso completed in 1883.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/a99625590a10bbabf8edb640b7a79bfe/tumblr_p7urw6ufzx1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The Iron screw corvette HMS Calypso completed in 1883.
To think that only 9 years after that they commissioned the first of Royal Sovereign Class Pre-Dreadnought Battleships.
-
To think that only 9 years after that they commissioned the first of Royal Sovereign Class Pre-Dreadnought Battleships.
Yeah the march of technology during that period wasn't so much a march as a pell-mell sprint down a hill.
-
(https://68.media.tumblr.com/78289ea725499701044c8b0d1e1a6c7b/tumblr_n6o645Gd5S1sfdr4zo1_1280.jpg)
USS Enterprise was a barque-rigged screw sloop launched in 1874 at Portsmouth Navy Yard, Kittery, Maine.
Not sure when the photo was, i wasn't able find information that.
-
https://taskandpurpose.com/uss-enterprise-officially-dead/
In at least 9 years time her successor should arrive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-80)
-
I know it is only a 9-year wait but it just feels wrong that the free world does not have a commissioned USS Enterprise on the ORBAT.
-
It gives Zumwalt's captain nine years to prepare for the job that destiny has ready for him.
-
He's still in command? Seldom officers remain in command more than four years on a ship. If i'm not mistaken.
-
He's a SWO not an aviator, and just made Flag. At best, he might be the Strike Commander embarked in ENTERPRISE some day...
-
Why does an aviator have to be captain of a carrier, that's what CAGs are for. Captain of a carrier should be someone who knows how to command and maneuver a ship.
-
Why does an aviator have to be captain of a carrier, that's what CAGs are for. Captain of a carrier should be someone who knows how to command and maneuver a ship.
Or a fleet, for that matter, considering the surface and submarine escorts for said flattop. An SWO guy might not be so bad a choice.
-
There are many reasons, but the fact of the matter is that all COs of CVNs are aviators. CAPT Kirk (soon to be Admiral) did very well for himself, and will probably get his Strike Group in 2-3 years. Fleet command is a three-star job.
-
They could always temporarily re-commission USS Zumwalt as USS Enterprise for 9 years . . . isn't that what the POTUS's executive powers are for ;)
Opportunity going begging.
-
sadly Captain James A. Kirk hasn't been in charge of the Zumwalt for 2 years now..
https://navaltoday.com/2016/12/21/captain-james-kirk-is-no-longer-the-commander-of-us-navys-super-stealth-destroyer/
though maybe in 9 years he'll be Admiral James A. Kirk and can use the new Enterprise as a flagship.. we just have to keep him away from any genesis devices or genetically altered warlords with grudges..
-
And definitly dont transport foreign heads of state to peace conferences
-
...this reboot is the boringest ever. 0/10
-
Hopefully the Zumwalt and her sister ships will get fitted out with more functional weapons that the Navy ACTUALLY supports. Like the people are sabotaging the darn things before they can prove that their doable ships.
-
Hmm, something odd happening with my uploading thing. I'm going try upload this picture see if comes out.
This is the USS Zephyr (PC 8 ), a Cyclone-Class PC. I'm actually surprised their still in service, due to the questions of their usability and how US Navy developed airforce mentality about small ships/boats that has to be big.
USS Zephyr pictured here is trying put out fire on a Go-Fast Drug Smuggler boat. Properly burning the evidence.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=45558)
Hope the crew didn't get too high from the fire. xp
-
The USN gives their best names to their smallest ships.
-
I know it is only a 9-year wait but it just feels wrong that the free world does not have a commissioned USS Enterprise on the ORBAT.
Don't worry, there's still HMS Enterprise
-
(http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/attachments/ww1-allies-great-britain-france-usa-etc-1914-1918/441775d1356557125-another-family-history-story-albert-richard-thompson-rn-hms-minotaur.jpg?s=09ee364691a2a719882cfed9321cd712)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/HMS_Agincourt_%281865%29_in_drydock_USNHC_NH_65871.jpg)
(http://www.agenziabozzo.it/navi_da_guerra/c-navi%20da%20guerra/1143C_HMS_Agincourt_1865_ridotto_a_chiatta_a_Sheerness_nel_1955.jpg)
HMS Agincourt, one of the longest surviving ironclads having been launched in 1861 and finally being scrapped in 1960 after 50 years of service as a coal hulk.
-
HMS Agincourt, one of the longest surviving ironclads having been launched in 1861 and finally being scrapped in 1960 after 50 years of service as a coal hulk.
The Dutch Navy had two ironclad monitors commissioned in 1868 that were modified into accomodation ships around the turn of the century - when the others of their classes were scrapped - and served as that until 1971 and 1974 respectively. Unlike other accomodation ships of their time both even had NATO pennants since the 50s (A882 and A884). Both remain as museums ships today.
-
Oh wow, didn't know about those, I know the Koenig Der Nederlanden lasted a long time and was scuttled in the DEI in WW2.
-
(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/pwod7v6.jpg)
The French central battery Ironclad Redoutable.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/b3f6d7df0db7b06b8f39368508934679/tumblr_p828r2gRVc1rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The German Ironclad Prussen.
-
Marauder, that was beautiful! :thumbsup:
-
Yesterday at work:
I indeed shook some mighty fine hands with the Chaplin of the USS MacDonough ( DLG-8 ) and two of his shipmates, who are here in Indianapolis, IN for a reunion.
Nice fellow...
TT
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix1/05020804.jpg)
-
Those Cold War-era USN destroyers sure didn't have looks going for them... good ships, but very clunky-looking.
-
You know, when I'm watching all those WWII ships, I want to play WG's World of Warships xp
-
Malta, October 1945: After a long war, USS Omaha rests in what was essentially her final configuration. Which is to say, 'lots of added AA, radar, not much else to report'. The oft-discussed conversion that would have turned the ships of the class into Atlanta-style AA ships, removing the six-inch batteries (or at least most of them) in favor of 5"/38s and 40mm mounts was never done due to the ships' age and the availability of newer ships, and so these stalwarts of the prewar Navy soldiered on in backup roles to the end basically unchanged.
(http://www.geocities.ws/CapeCanaveral/Cockpit/5520/usa/cincinn1.jpg)
-
The oft-discussed conversion that would have turned the ships of the class into Atlanta-style AA ships, removing the six-inch batteries (or at least most of them) in favor of 5"/38s and 40mm mounts was never done due to the ships' age and the availability of newer ships, and so these stalwarts of the prewar Navy soldiered on in backup roles to the end basically unchanged.
They would had to clear out a lot of the stuff on the midship for what? maybe 4-6 single mounts? They can only put in two twin 5/38 turrets in place of the old turrets.
-
They would had to clear out a lot of the stuff on the midship for what? maybe 4-6 single mounts? They can only put in two twin 5/38 turrets in place of the old turrets.
I've seen a few versions, but usually it's the stacked casemates that got removed (they created a lot of weight up-high and were of very questionable usefulness), and would have either 40mm or single-mount 5-inch mounts put in their place (whether those guns would have had shields or not varied as well). The 40mm mounts would have sat atop the original deck level above the six-inch stacks, while the 5-inchers would either sit atop or be one level down, essentially replacing the top gun in the casemate stack but without anything above them to give a clear arc of fire. The actual turret mounts are either replaced with twin-5"/38s, or left alone depending on the config. All ideas resulted in removal of torpedo mounts (which most ships had done anyway) as well as increases in 20mm mounts. Additionally, most saw that big tripod removed due to sky arc issues in favor of a more simple pole foremast.
(Norman Friedman's excellent guides to U.S. warship designs is where most of that came from originally, the cruiser book of course, but sadly that book was lost to flooding several years ago.)
-
Oh, I put my naval story on the story part of the board, if anyone reads it i'd love to have any feedback :)
-
While their job isn't cool searching for the remains of MH370 two cool ship shots
-
Speaking of Auxiliary Ships, USNS Spica (T-AFS-9), She was a Combat Stores Ship for the US's Military Lift Command. Funny thing about her, and her sister ships. Their unique as far I'm aware, since she also served in the United Kingdom's Royal Navy auxiliary forces under the name RFA Tarbatness (A345). She and two other ships purchased from UK in 1981, served until 2008 were part of the Sirius-class (originally in UK service as Ness-class ) combat stores ships.
They were by literally store ships, anything from food, fuel, basic supplies anything, but ammunition.
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/52/09520920.jpg)
This is her sailing with her sistership, USNS Saturn on Valentines day, February 2007, in the Red Sea. Year before her retirement.
I served on Mars-Class ship, which was also AFS. So i sort of admire the big clunkers, though my ship was still fully commission and was armed in comparison to these gentle dames. The AFS were replaced by Advanced Auxiliary Dry Cargo Ships (T-AKE), namely Lewis and Clark-Class.
Perhaps among last pictures of the exSpica as she being shot up in 2009 as part fleet exercise before being sunk.
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/52/09520927.jpg)
-
Dumb question from a non-squid . . . so why are some supply/support vessels commissioned and some non-commissioned?
HMAS Sirius (O266) formerly MT Delos, is a commercial tanker purchased by the Royal Australian Navy and converted into a fleet replenishment vessel.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/HMAS_Sirius_steams_in_the_Coral_Sea_after_completing_a_replenishment_in_July_2013.jpg)
-
IIRC, it's whether they're built to commercial standards, or naval standards. Military standards are above & beyond civilian, for damage & fire control, and occasionally worse when it comes to accomodation ;)
Not a squid either, but knew a little about the ANZAC frigate deck flush system. Does that count?
W.
-
Dumb question from a non-squid . . . so why are some supply/support vessels commissioned and some non-commissioned?
Apparently just a matter of how temporarily or permanently a military expects to operate a ship. If a military wants to heavily modify a ship it might be more economical to buy it rather than lease it.
A rather bad shot of RFA Argus, previously MT Contender Bezant.
(https://i2-prod.plymouthherald.co.uk/incoming/article1049768.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/26781648_1974488609540920_632396114_o1.jpg)
-
Dumb question from a non-squid . . . so why are some supply/support vessels commissioned and some non-commissioned?
HMAS Sirius (O266) formerly MT Delos, is a commercial tanker purchased by the Royal Australian Navy and converted into a fleet replenishment vessel.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/HMAS_Sirius_steams_in_the_Coral_Sea_after_completing_a_replenishment_in_July_2013.jpg)
In the RAN, all vessels are commissioned with the exception of contracted vessels like the Ocean Protector, which is the big orange vessel with the white flight deck pictured above.
We have auxiliaries, but they are commissioned. The USN runs the non-commissioned supply ships, they are mostly ex-commissioned vessels that were cheaper to run with civilian crews and routines, and they are the only navy I'm aware of that runs them like this. As I stated above, this is a cost/crewing function, nothing to do with the ship itself. Considering the most expensive through life cost of a ship is the crew, it makes sense.
-
Dumb question from a non-squid . . . so why are some supply/support vessels commissioned and some non-commissioned?
Its what Nightlord01 and the others said. I was in the US Navy in early 1990s, when the US Navy still had most of their Auxiliary ships commissioned. However, costs were part of the problem but ALSO Cold War had just ended. Thus Military at the time was going though downsizing. They needed pool their enlisted/commission personnel they were going to retain to their most important assets, the armed warships.
Auxiliaries, like say the Supply-Class AOE and AFS ships i happen serve on US Navy handed housekeeping, and civilian staffing to Military Sealift Command and their US Merchant Marine crews. You will find only small Navies still have today commissioned Auxiliary ships unless their vital.
In end they supposedly saves the US Navy money, being able concentrate resources on US Navy main job, while Sea Lift does dirty work of keeping thing going and likely for less. I'm not sure if Merchant Marines are less expensive than regular US Navy personnel, so i won't talk about that.
Anyways, most of the Sealift Ships (Auxiliary Ships) are hybrid Military/civilian. However, there new twist, with commissioning of the USS Lewis B. Puller (ESB-3), which is a Expedition Mobile Base ship. She was the first U.S.-built ship to be commissioned outside the United States and was commissioned to meet needs of the law, says only a commissioned Warship may be used to for Anti-Mine warfare duties and Special Ops work. (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/USNS_Lewis_B._Puller_%28T-ESB-3%29_at_Naval_Station_Norfolk_on_20_April_2016.JPG)
-
The British maintain the Royal Fleet Auxiliary which are civilian manned, sometimes with a detachment of RN or Royal Marine Commandoes
I believe, recalling from memory of the Wikipedia page, that the RFA started as an afloat support for the RN when they shifted from coal and fixed, empire spanning coaling stations to oil
-
In Germany we have commissioned ships - pennants, naval register and all that - with fully civilian crews: currently the two Rhön class tankers and three tugs. Within the same auxiliary squadron the three Berlin class AORs run with fully military crews.
For the tugs the civilian crews are traditional - the original officers onboard were not navy-trained officers but hired from civilian salvage companies, basically bringing in know-how. Both the tugs and the tankers have been in service with civilian crews since they were commissioned in the 70s. They even train apprentices (civilian ship mechanic etc) onboard btw. The idea back in the 70s seems to have been that civilian crews provide a more stable, experienced crew over longer time - no conscripts, no four-year limited contracts for enlisted, no officers changing every two years and so on as in the military.
The Rhön class tankers with their civilian crews have been in combat too - firefights against Somali pirates. While the crew itself is nominally not armed (but trained on weapons), they receive a naval infantry vessel protection detachment for such missions and do have e.g. prepared positions for machine guns with gunshields and such.
-
Excellent, thanks guys. I learn something new everyday.
ADV Cape Fourcroy
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/ships/20170803ran8484535_026.jpg)
ADV Cape Fourcroy is one of two Cape Class Patrol Boats introduced into service with the Royal Australian Navy to supplement the Armidale Class Patrol Boat capability. It is a vessel of the Cape-class design, usually with "ABFC" (Australian Border Force Cutter) prefix, operated by the Australian Border Force (think customs service with snazzier, para-military uniforms ::) )
-
So ADV = ?
Aussie Digger Vessel? Aussie Dropbear Vessel?
-
Amazingly Dapper Vessel. That's one good lookin' patrol boat.
-
Australian Defence Vessel.
Here are some more of the Cape-class in their ABFC livery:
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/9140108-3x2-940x627.jpg)
(http://australia.austal.com/sites/default/files/00-images-philippines/Press%20Release%201.jpg)
-
Yes indeed. Very nice paint scheme. And so sleek.
Australian Defence Vessel.
Duh! Alright, fair enough.
-
Yowza, those are some sexy boats.
-
Does anyone know where i might fund a good list of warship classes, sorted by length? For Battletech purposes, I'm trying to find models of ships that are 70-110 feet long(the ship, not the model :P ). Modern ships are preferable, but WWII can do in a pinch.
-
Going map-scale or mini-scale?
-
I'm actually not sure there even are that many military ships out there in that size category... (outside coast-guard-type small patrol vessels without much non-modular armament).
-
I'm actually not sure there even are that many military ships out there in that size category... (outside coast-guard-type small patrol vessels without much non-modular armament).
The first thing that comes to mind is an Osa-class missile boat... I think that's around 130 feet, something like that.
-
I'm actually not sure there even are that many military ships out there in that size category... (outside coast-guard-type small patrol vessels without much non-modular armament).
Map scale. That range of lengths will produce a model five hexes long(Template C in TacOps), plus or minus an acceptable range. This makes it good for ships like the Meabh, Rapier, and Andryusha.
I'm actually not sure there even are that many military ships out there in that size category... (outside coast-guard-type small patrol vessels without much non-modular armament).
That's pretty much what I'm looking for, really. The Cape-class pictures got this in my mind, though for me the best case would be the Holland-class. Australia may be home to some dead sexy OPVs, but the Hollands are my favorite. :)
I can always kitbash more guns onto a model, anyway.
-
OSAs are too big ;)
The Sparviero hydrofoils come to mind for me. Even at the lower end of the given range, with two anti-ship missiles and either a 76mm (in Italian service) or a 20mm (in Japanese service) gun upfront.
(https://abload.de/img/bnzbfaz8wumn.jpg)
For more variety and something more current, look up the UAE's Ghannatha program. 24 near-identical hulls of 25m speed boats with a .50cal RWS up front and variable armament on the back deck - 12 configured as missile boats with 4 Marte Mk2/N, 6 as gunboats with a 27mm RWS and the first 6 with a Nemo 120mm turreted mortar back there.
-
I must have gotten the lengths wrong somehow. I've got a couple Sparvieros(came with an Oosumi model), and those are barely an inch long at 1/700.
Edit: Yup. Ignore my previous post. The length range I actually need is 230-350 feet. :-[
-
Ah!
Well, that gives you only a few hundred models to choose from ;)
-
I was just coming back to say "did you mean meters?"
-
Lots of halfway decent ships in that range.
Khareef, Meko 200, or here... Stereguschiy-class corvette
(https://s17.postimg.cc/99h8xxfin/stereguschy.jpg)
The Sparviero hydrofoils come to mind for me. Even at the lower end of the given range, with two anti-ship missiles and either a 76mm (in Italian service) or a 20mm (in Japanese service) gun upfront.
(https://abload.de/img/bnzbfaz8wumn.jpg)
from this angle they look like chibi ships
-
Yowza, those are some sexy boats.
They are designed and built by Austral, who also brought us the RAN Armidale-class patrol boats:
(https://navaltoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/thales-lands-australian-armidale-class-patrol-boat-service-deal.jpg)
The USN Independence-class LCS:
(http://www.ezyfithydraulics.com.au/assets/bulkUpload/LCS-1.jpg)
And the USN Expeditionary Fast Transports (T-EPF):
(http://www.navsea.navy.mil/Portals/103/Images/TeamShips/PEOShips/EPF/EPF-Sept2016.jpg?ver=2017-01-04-123600-367)
The T-EPF is capable of transporting 600 short tons up to 1,200 nautical miles at an average speed of 35 knots. The ships can operate in shallow-draft ports and waterways, interface with roll-on/roll-off discharge facilities, and on/off-load a combat-loaded Abrams Main Battle Tank (M1A2).
-
Every battletech game near water needs a Kogalniceanu. Two 100mm tank cannon (no really), two twin-30mm turrets, two quad-14.5mm turrets, and because that's not enough overkill in a 170 foot long ship, 80 122mm artillery rocket launchers in two 40-shot hidden, reloadable packs, because "screw that grid square in particular."
And yes, I really do mean 170 FEET, not meters. Only 550 tons full load, and a draft of 1.6m.
-
I must have gotten the lengths wrong somehow. I've got a couple Sparvieros(came with an Oosumi model), and those are barely an inch long at 1/700.
Edit: Yup. Ignore my previous post. The length range I actually need is 230-350 feet. :-[
That range covers pretty much every Corvette, Frigate, Heavy Patrol Craft, Light Landing Craft, Medium Landing Craft and quite a few Destroyers, I think that may have you covered there mate. ;)
-
Every battletech game near water needs a Kogalniceanu. Two 100mm tank cannon (no really), two twin-30mm turrets, two quad-14.5mm turrets, and because that's not enough overkill in a 170 foot long ship, 80 122mm artillery rocket launchers in two 40-shot hidden, reloadable packs, because "screw that grid square in particular."
And yes, I really do mean 170 FEET, not meters. Only 550 tons full load, and a draft of 1.6m.
Those crazy Romanians
Here's a pic
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Romanian_river_monitor_F-46.jpg)
And a picture of Smardan-class boat. She's only 370 tons has one tank turret (100mm), 1 twin 30mm turret, Assorted MGs, 2x40 122mm rocket launchers and a Strela MANPAD system
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Romanian_river_monitor_F-177.jpg)
-
Every battletech game near water needs a Kogalniceanu.
Or any of the Soviet river monitors from the 30s or 40s.
167ft Udarnyi class, 2 built in 1932:
(https://abload.de/img/udarnymcusv.gif)
2 turreted 130mm, 2 twin 45mm, four MG turrets (variably armed over time with about anything from 7.62mm to 14.5mm).
82ft BKA1124 class, about 60 built from 1936 to 1945:
(https://abload.de/img/bk1124heu1s.jpg)
2 T-34/76 turrets, 1 AA turret with twin 12.7mm
The aft turret was replaced with a 16-round Katyusha launcher as a wartime modification.
BKA1124 at sea:
(https://abload.de/img/p1124-kerchriujd.jpg)
-
The BKA1124 looks like the opposite of a Sherman DD, make a tank that floats but don't worry about going on land, just shoot 'em up from the water
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/IJN_Tenryu_in_1930.jpg/800px-IJN_Tenryu_in_1930.jpg)
A Battletech conversion (sort of) from a few years ago in my own games. A mid-Jihad campaign saw the players' merc force drop onto the world of Tall Trees to run a series of operations to hurt Blakist operations there. (This also served, unknown to the players at the time, as the test run for the 'webbed' campaign rules that ended up in Campaign Operations). The players were hit hard by an Essex-class destroyer in orbit, and had to improvise a bit.
One of the jobs was to hit a seaport, identify warehouses full of ammunition, and then destroy them. Had they hit a fuel farm up the coast first though, they would have found a consequence was the above vessel- see, with less fuel available, this old Star League-era (recently restored) blue-water warship wouldn't have been able to go out on patrol, so she'd have been at the docks lobbing shells at the players. Since they hit the port first, she was out of town. She'd have instead been on-hand during operations at the local starport later in the campaign, but I never got the opportunity to run that one.
The REAL ship is the Japanese light cruiser Tenryu, a wretched design with four 5.5-inch guns and not much else going for her beyond that. The WoB conversion would have carried a trio of Long Toms (in positions A, B, and D), a dual-Arrow launcher (in C position), a pair of quad-AC/5 AA mounts (in place of the standard torpedo tube sets), and a handful of MGs. She did NOT follow support vehicle rules (because those are AWFUL to work with), instead matching the look of the ship. Armor was modest, speed was never even calculated (she was either 'at the dock' or 'not there at all')...
...the model is still on a shelf in my closet, unopened, with the alternate weapon loadout parts (repurposed MWDA bits) sitting in a bag on my workbench. She'd have been given white paint, the ability to swap parts between the original or WoB weapons, and I even had a small WoB logo flag to put on her mast. Alas...
-
There was a British design LCP that had 2 4.2 inch guns attached to it also. I really can't find more info on those ships.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/IJN_Tenryu_in_1930.jpg/800px-IJN_Tenryu_in_1930.jpg)
A Battletech conversion (sort of) from a few years ago in my own games. A mid-Jihad campaign saw the players' merc force drop onto the world of Tall Trees to run a series of operations to hurt Blakist operations there. (This also served, unknown to the players at the time, as the test run for the 'webbed' campaign rules that ended up in Campaign Operations). The players were hit hard by an Essex-class destroyer in orbit, and had to improvise a bit.
One of the jobs was to hit a seaport, identify warehouses full of ammunition, and then destroy them. Had they hit a fuel farm up the coast first though, they would have found a consequence was the above vessel- see, with less fuel available, this old Star League-era (recently restored) blue-water warship wouldn't have been able to go out on patrol, so she'd have been at the docks lobbing shells at the players. Since they hit the port first, she was out of town. She'd have instead been on-hand during operations at the local starport later in the campaign, but I never got the opportunity to run that one.
The REAL ship is the Japanese light cruiser Tenryu, a wretched design with four 5.5-inch guns and not much else going for her beyond that. The WoB conversion would have carried a trio of Long Toms (in positions A, B, and D), a dual-Arrow launcher (in C position), a pair of quad-AC/5 AA mounts (in place of the standard torpedo tube sets), and a handful of MGs. She did NOT follow support vehicle rules (because those are AWFUL to work with), instead matching the look of the ship. Armor was modest, speed was never even calculated (she was either 'at the dock' or 'not there at all')...
...the model is still on a shelf in my closet, unopened, with the alternate weapon loadout parts (repurposed MWDA bits) sitting in a bag on my workbench. She'd have been given white paint, the ability to swap parts between the original or WoB weapons, and I even had a small WoB logo flag to put on her mast. Alas...
My group actually played through a very similar campaign(!) a while back. We were playing as Rolling Thunder, and the campaign started with our DropShip getting shot up on a raid. The campaign revolved around us having to neutralize the source of that ground fire and get out. What was the bigass AA battery we had to deal with, you ask?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Bundesarchiv_DVM_10_Bild-23-63-46%2C_Schlachtschiff_"Scharnhorst".jpg)
(Statted as a Jormungand)
-
I hate having no navalized cannons, just artillery guns which were never meant for that sort of combat. Maybe they could do it for special naval ammunition to justify the use of artillery guns. However, that's just me. Battletech's main focus is more direct/map scale weapons which naval ships seldom use unless someone get's close in their face.
Way Battletech plays, were back to sail ships and Ironclads.
Like this ocean going Ironclad, USS Miantonomoh, who quietly demonstrated in her trip to England in 1866, naval warfare had ended era Wooden Ships and Iron men to the era of the Battleship.
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/miantonomoh1g.jpg) This is picture of the ship in Germany 1866 during her European cruise. This article, details the ship's impact on her cruise.
Spain same year, i keep wondering how she got across the Atlantic without sinking. Her draft so low!
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/miantonomoh1h.jpg)
This attached diagram of the ship, since i could barely find any really good photos of her, since use of cameras had just begun. Which is still so amazing to me.
-
Good God, I wouldn't cross the Mississippi in that, let alone the Atlantic. ;D
-
Agreed... that's frighteningly little freeboard... :o
-
Good God, I wouldn't cross the Mississippi in that, let alone the Atlantic. ;D
Would you it if they gave you two solid gold Scooby Snacks?
Tt
-
Would you it if they gave you two solid gold Scooby Snacks?
Tt
gold is poisonous. (heavy metals are generally poisonous, except, oddly enough, for Bismuth.)
besides, 'scooby snacks' are just crackers basted in methamphetemine anyway...
-
This is picture of the ship in Germany 1866 during her European cruise. This article, details the ship's impact on her cruise.
Huh, from one civil war to another...
For historic context only, Kiel at the time was a jointly administered condominium of Prussia and Austria won in the war against Denmark two years earlier. In June 1866 Prussian troops invaded Holstein (with Kiel), which led to Germany declaring war on Prussia. The last peace treaties after Germany lost to Prussia were signed on September 26th '66; Kiel nominally remained in its previous condominium state until Prussia fully annexed it in '67.
USS Miantonomoh actually bypassed Kiel first on her way into the Baltic since at that time the war was still fully ongoing; she dragged out her visits to Kronstadt (a full month) and Stockholm (two weeks) on her return trip out of the Baltic to arrive in Kiel probably intentionally not before those peace treaties were signed. She was there Oct 1st to Oct 3rd and supposedly then in Hamburg Oct 6th to Oct 13th - supposedly since 3 days is darn fast for a trip around Jylland with a ship making 7 knots max.
For a contemporary photo - Prussian corvette SMS Arcona in 1867, before the Prussian Navy reflagged as the North German Federation Navy in June:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Bundesarchiv_Bild134-B0335%2C_Fregatte_%22Thetis%22_vor_Anker.jpg)
She was built only 5 years before Miantonomoh. Fully oak wood, with copper plating underwater - not as armor but to protect against marine borers. Steam engine powered but carried and deployed full sails to save coal for longer trips. Carried 28 68-pounder/8.1-inch guns at the time (rearmed with 6-inch guns in 1869).
SMS Arcona in the only battle she participated in, in the war against Denmark in 1864:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cd/Seegefecht_vor_Jasmund_am_17._M%C3%A4rz_1864._Im_Vordergrund_die_Korvette_SMS_ARCONA._Gem%C3%A4lde_von_Willy_St%C3%B6wer.jpg/640px-Seegefecht_vor_Jasmund_am_17._M%C3%A4rz_1864._Im_Vordergrund_die_Korvette_SMS_ARCONA._Gem%C3%A4lde_von_Willy_St%C3%B6wer.jpg)
Combat distances were 500 to 3000 yards. Guns fired for two hours. Of the three Prussian ships involved she received 5 hits in that battle whereas SMS Loreley - a much smaller paddle steamer armed only with two 120mm guns - only received a single hit; however the third ship, the smaller 16-gun corvette SMS Nymphe suffered a total of 69 hits in that shoot-out.
The battle was then "broken off as tactically inconclusive, but a strategic victory" according to the Prussian version. Non-Prussian sources say it basically fell apart after the faster Prussian ships ran upon the Danish forces - a 64-gun ship-of-the-line, a 42-gun frigate and two 16- and 12-gun corvettes - being reinforced by another three ships.
The big change of the time wasn't so much the ironclads btw. Those were just invincible, but then again as the above battle shows it's not like wooden ships were sinking left and right either. The big change were high explosives in artillery and the increased use of indirect fire. That's how one of two Danish ironclads in the Prussian/Austrian-Danish war was forced to withdraw from battle btw (not the above one, a ship-to-shore engagement) - not by the 150 shells that struck its armored belt, but by a single 24-pounder HE shell ballistically hitting into the deck from the top; resulting in the only Danish Navy officer to be killed in the entire war.
-
By the mid-1860s the Royal Navy had HMS Warrior and successors which would have given interesting opposition to the monitors - far more wide ranging (cruisers before the term was created as a ship class and instead meant a role) and able to intercept maritime trade but in a battle against a monitor if/once corneredI'm not sure which I would bank on except most of the British ships had poor armour (or none!) on their steering gear so they might have been immobilised and then slowly worn down
-
For something more modern, here's two cruisers with a somewhat weird upgrade path...
The two Dutch De Zeven Provincien cruisers were originally laid down in 1939 just ahead of WW2. Construction was taken over by the Germans after the invasion, with changes to the armament. Both were launched in 1944 as blockships. Postwar both were completed for the Dutch Navy as gun cruisers. In 1962 one of the two ships was modernized, with there not being enough funding to modernize the other one too.
Both ships were decommissioned by the Dutch in 1972 and 1975 respectively, and sold off to Peru in 1976. Peru first got to work changing the modernized ship - instead of the one with the 1953 armament. The second one was then modernized in 1988, again in 1993 and again in 1996. Peru decommissioned the first one in 1999 and the second only last year.
Their original planned armament in 1939 consisted of 10 six-inch guns (2 triple + 2 twin), 12 Bofors 40mm for AA (6 twin) plus two triple 533mm torpedo tubes.
Equipment planned by Germany in 1941 changed the main battery to 12 six-inch guns (4 triple).
As completed in 1953 they carried 8 six-inch guns (4 twin), 8 Bofors 57mm for AA (4 twin) and 8 Bofors 40mm for AA (8 single).
De Zeven Provincien in 1962 : aft armament - two twin 6-inch, one twin 57mm, two single 40mm scrapped and replaced by two Terrier launchers aft. Forward armament retained as 1953.
De Zeven Provincien / Aguirre in 1977 : Terrier launchers ripped out and replaced by a flight deck, a hangar for three heavy helicopters and an additional helipad on top of the hangar as a helicopter cruiser. All other armament retained as 1953, although two 40mm are moved from forward to the top of the hangar to cover the aft arc again.
De Ruyter / Almirante Grau in 1988 : all 57mm turrets removed, replaced by additional radars and other sensors in the same positions.
De Ruyter / Almirante Grau in 1993 : eight Otomat SSM added.
De Ruyter / Almirante Grau in 1996 : the four forward 40mm are replaced by two Dardo CIWS (twin 40mm).
Below: De Ruyter / Almirante Grau in 1996, her final state.
(https://abload.de/img/fq9iwtnfeu9a.gif)
You can nicely make out the remaining 40mm turrets (yes, they were turrets in 1953, not WW2-style open mounts) just behind the Otomat launchers. The forward units to the sides of the bridge are the Dardos.
The twin 57mm turrets originally sat one each superimposed above the 6-inch turrets forward and aft (C/X-Position - aft exactly where that radom sits), with another one either side between the masts - taking up the space about where the first two Otomat are sitting either side; that way three turrets could converge their fire along either broadside. Note how the Otomats are on raised decks because the deckspace at the level of the removed 57mm turrets would have been too small and cramped.
-
Bust out your copies of Harpoon, 2nd fleet is being reinstated for the NORTHLANT waters. Seems the Truman will bring her hive of hornets as the first battlegroup, though it's not official yet.
(http://www.wanhuajing.com/pic/1601/1809/1241019/1_600_391.jpg)
That's a lot of planes.
-
Any 35Cs, I wonder...?
-
Any 35Cs, I wonder...?
No, there are F-14's and S-3's on the deck so it's pre-2006.
-
Good God, I wouldn't cross the Mississippi in that, let alone the Atlantic. ;D
IIRC she was towed most of the way by a full scale steam ship. She couldn't have fought in the Atlantic and IIRC she was towed with her bunkers almost empty and with with minimal crew. Still its one hell of a feat to get a ship like that across the Atlantic.
-
Did that crew volunteer for the voyage or did they get sentenced to it?
-
inspired by this, I realised I failed to upload any pictures - here is HMS Warrior and I also found this great photo of Dreadnought passing a still afloat Victory
-
Any 35Cs, I wonder...?
Not for a few more years. The Marines do have a detachment of 35Bs at sea in the Pacific aboard Wasp.
-
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dKcEb8OOhmM/WtFChC8J6_I/AAAAAAABjWA/P8IQrEglu504q36pYjIE_ylaCQ84aP6kQCLcBGAs/s1600/8cdcd43004dd1c39b76414.jpg)
(https://n.sinaimg.cn/translate/151/w1901h650/20180329/BU1k-fyssmmc4423893.jpg)
The Liaoning out on exercises accompanied by a whole lotta escorts
-
From another angle
(https://s17.postimg.cc/lhedvkmyn/1657_EDAC2_E37270812_A4_DA966_DB1_ECBBC33_D9_C7_D_size53_w640_h372.jpg)
(https://s17.postimg.cc/jcu0udqfz/5cv3iaxmxlu01.jpg)
-
Wow that's alot money their dumping for that task force to escort the Liaoning CV-16.
Looks like her successor coming along. This was just 2016, she should be launched by now. The Type 001A Shandong CV-17. At least she reported to be called that.
(https://www.nextbigfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/cv17-1-730x430.jpg?x71037)
(http://www.eastpendulum.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-25-Quand-un-porte-avions-part-en-entra%C3%AEnement-01.jpg)
-
Wow that's alot money their dumping for that task force to escort the Liaoning CV-16.
Looks like her successor coming along. This was just 2016, she should be launched by now. The Type 001A Shandong CV-17. At least she reported to be called that.
(https://www.nextbigfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/cv17-1-730x430.jpg?x71037)
(http://www.eastpendulum.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/2017-04-25-Quand-un-porte-avions-part-en-entra%C3%AEnement-01.jpg)
Fitting out was supposed to have been finished late 2017 and it should be on trials currently. I don't know if there's been any official confirmation on the name.
-
The PLAN's carrier looks nice but its very clearly based on the Varyag design aka the Special K, and considering the issues the Sov..Russians are having with the Special K and the inability of her air group to carry anything other than a minimal warload due to lack of catapults. I dunno if the PLAN's new ship will have that as a feature, the big ski-jump seems to indicate they still ain't got a catapult on her.
-
The PLAN's carrier looks nice but its very clearly based on the Varyag design aka the Special K, and considering the issues the Sov..Russians are having with the Special K and the inability of her air group to carry anything other than a minimal warload due to lack of catapults. I dunno if the PLAN's new ship will have that as a feature, the big ski-jump seems to indicate they still ain't got a catapult on her.
All the reports I've read about the PLAN's plan for the carriers were that it a 4 ship process progressing to a western style carrier. The third ship, Type 02 or CV-18 is suppose to have steam catapults. This ship, in pictures is a slightly improved version of Liaoning.
-
They're definitely taking the methodical approach to carrier development. Leaving out the strategic and political ramifications, I'll bet the sailors and pilots are happy about the slow and safe approach, as opposed to trying to go straight to building a CATOBAR carrier from scratch, and all the things that can go wrong within.
An interesting turn of events would be if they bought ex-Foch(the Brazilian name escapes me at the moment) in order to dissect her and see what such a ship looks like from the inside.
-
Sao Paulo? It'd be a textbook of how not to operate a carrier. It makes Special K look world class...
The PLAN's carrier looks nice but its very clearly based on the Varyag design aka the Special K, and considering the issues the Sov..Russians are having with the Special K and the inability of her air group to carry anything other than a minimal warload due to lack of catapults. I dunno if the PLAN's new ship will have that as a feature, the big ski-jump seems to indicate they still ain't got a catapult on her.
Oh they have a very logical development program laid out
Liaoning - learn to operate a copy
CVA-01 - learn to build a copy
CVA-02 - learn to design our own ground up
CVA-03 - ...mass production time?
Liaoning is already destined to be a training carrier once 03 is operational, 3 CBGs being the current plan.
-
Fourth CV, which is tentatively designated CV-19 is reportedly going to be Nuclear Power and using MAGLEV catapults.
-
An interesting turn of events would be if they bought ex-Foch(the Brazilian name escapes me at the moment) in order to dissect her and see what such a ship looks like from the inside.
They studied HMAS Melbourne for that back in the 80s before she was scrapped, followed by trying to buy the blueprints of the Bazan/Izar/Navantia SAC-220 design in the 90s.
SAC-220:
(https://abload.de/img/sac-22027uow.jpg)
Was supposed to be a CTOL light carrier broadly comparable to Clemenceau and Foch in specifications, albeit of course 30 years more modern. Originally basically drawn up to pitch a new-build carrier for Argentinian and Brazilian requirements, which also dictated the size - Argentinian existing infrastructure was sized for 25 kt max; they were CTOL since Harriers would have had Rolls-Royce engines which basically wasn't possible for Argentina. Two designs were drafted, SAC-200 with a single catapult and the 25 kt limit for Argentina, and the larger SAC-220 with two catapults and exceeding that limit. Supposedly they never solved how to power the catapults, as it was supposed to be gas-turbine-driven.
-
...why the hell is there an F-15 overhead? ???
-
It's supposed to be a F-18 i think.
-
...why the hell is there an F-15 overhead? ???
Just look at the perspective issues. xp xp Documentation was not the best at the time in Izar. Let's say that the Spanish had F-18 at that moment and yet they made the mistake. xp xp
-
It's supposed to be a F-18 i think.
Well... it isn't one. ;D
-
Speaking of Carriers, The Italian Carrier Cavour (550), she Italy's larger of their fleet of 2 aircraft carriers.
What is remarkable is Italy has maintain tradition of large aviation platforms in the past. Mainly her cruisers made into Helicopter cruisers/guided missile ships. During World War II the Aquila was to be their first, which was converted Cruise liner, but she didn't get completed before war ended and never wasn't completed.
Now the Italians are working on replacement for their smaller ship, the Giuseppe Garibaldi with the LPD style carrier, the Trieste. She listed as carrier, but she intended to perform Airborne landing for it's 604 marines.
The picture shown here is the Cavour cruising with the Nimitz Class CVN, USS Harry Truman, and French Carrier, Charles_de_Gaulle in 2013. The picture gives you good sense of the size of the ship.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Carriers_Cavour_%28550%29_-_Harry_S._Truman_%28CVN-75%29_and_Charles_de_Gaulle_%28R91%29_underway_in_2013.JPG)
-
Now the Italians are working on replacement for their smaller ship, the Giuseppe Garibaldi with the LPD style carrier, the Trieste. She listed as carrier, but she intended to perform Airborne landing for it's 604 marines.
The ship is pretty much a modernized copy of the Cavour design with a grand round robin on internals to fit in the well deck.
The space where the well deck is on the new ship was occupied by the rear vehicle/hangar deck access and accomodations on Cavour; those accomodations were moved to the forward half of the aircraft hangar, which was shortened significantly; the forward lift - at the front end of the old hangar - had to move too obviously, now occupying the space where Cavour fitted its LCVP behind the hangar. The side ramp for quay loading (quite prominent in your picture - in the middle of the ship) stays exactly where it is too - at the forward end of the hangar instead of in the middle of it though. The aft engine room was removed, also necessitating the switch from US LM2500+ to British MT30 gas turbines. All not that exactly, but that's pretty much how you can think of it.
Other than that, it's pretty much just the ski jump being removed - it's not like she can carry any significant numbers of F-35B anyway, basically a single flight of six with a handful helos in a SCS role - and the superstructure cut down in the middle for a hip two-island concept. Even the crew numbers stay virtually the same, since it's sorta the same "chassis" underneath.
She likely won't be named Trieste but "Thaon di Revel" btw, after a WW1 Marina Regina admiral.
-
She likely won't be named Trieste but "Thaon di Revel" btw, after a WW1 Marina Regina admiral.
Disappointing. I rather have it kept named for thematic name vs person.
The ship is pretty much a modernized copy of the Cavour design with a grand round robin on internals to fit in the well deck.
Well, funny you mentioned Robin, someone spotted this ship in Italian ports.
(http://www.naviearmatori.net/albums/userpics/14665/1518798140.jpg)
-
Since April there's another one with Batman on one side (http://www.advtraining.it/img/news/59218.jpg) and Wonder Woman on the other (http://www.ansa.it/webimages/foto_large/2017/4/28/31cf2ee169ea71cb7a99f193d1fec15d.jpg).
Superman came in January, both sides:
(https://www.buongiornoalghero.it/immaginisito/fotogrande/26012018183223.jpg)
Offhand it's about trying to upstage their local competitor Moby (https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcReUrLeqV6fI_ly0eglx9MsVSxBmGNKuYk5lBFcMbZu-sjh0TtH), who has been doing that kinda thing for 15 years now.
-
Disappointing. I rather have it kept named for thematic name vs person.
Thematically all big Italian ships are currently named after people. They in particular don't do name places.
- Cavour is named for the 19th Century prime Minister of Piemont-Sardinia, Garibaldi for (obviously) Guiseppe Garibaldi.
- The three LPDs are named for saints.
- For the four destroyers, Andrea Doria was named for a Genoan admiral, Caio Dulio for a Roman admiral of the Punic Wars, and Luigi Durand de la Penne and Francesco Mimbelli for WW2 navy officers.
- For the FREMMs Carlo Bergamini and Luigi Rizzo are named for WW2 admirals; Virginio Fasan, Federico Martinengo and Carlo Margottini for WW2 medal of honor holders.
- Not named after people are the FREMM frigates Alpino and Carabiniere.
It kinda got "in" again in the 90s. Before that they tended to be a bit more politically neutral in their naming scheme.
-
The ship is pretty much a modernized copy of the Cavour design with a grand round robin on internals to fit in the well deck.
The space where the well deck is on the new ship was occupied by the rear vehicle/hangar deck access and accomodations on Cavour; those accomodations were moved to the forward half of the aircraft hangar, which was shortened significantly; the forward lift - at the front end of the old hangar - had to move too obviously, now occupying the space where Cavour fitted its LCVP behind the hangar. The side ramp for quay loading (quite prominent in your picture - in the middle of the ship) stays exactly where it is too - at the forward end of the hangar instead of in the middle of it though. The aft engine room was removed, also necessitating the switch from US LM2500+ to British MT30 gas turbines. All not that exactly, but that's pretty much how you can think of it.
Other than that, it's pretty much just the ski jump being removed - it's not like she can carry any significant numbers of F-35B anyway, basically a single flight of six with a handful helos in a SCS role - and the superstructure cut down in the middle for a hip two-island concept. Even the crew numbers stay virtually the same, since it's sorta the same "chassis" underneath.
She likely won't be named Trieste but "Thaon di Revel" btw, after a WW1 Marina Regina admiral.
that presumes F-35B will deliver a working aircraft.
-
that presumes F-35B will deliver a working aircraft.
That's bit much. USS Wasp if forward deployed to Japan with her F-35B compliment.
-
F-35B has already delivered working aircraft. the question is not "will they work" it is "will they work well enough for what we need right now" and "how many will we actually get"
-
I think the B variant will. Harrier subsonic aircraft was aircraft. The B can haul the mail quickly.
The problem with is the heat that engine lays down on the deck. Very few ships can handle it, which huge problem. Also it can't deliver internal bomb loads the other variants can.
Then there blotted cost that serial production is suppose lower in time.
(https://www.flugrevue.de/sixcms/media.php/11/thumbnails/F-35B-America-2016.jpg.8503702.jpg)
-
The problem with is the heat that engine lays down on the deck. Very few ships can handle it, which huge problem.
That's adaptable - you can always put down the necessary reinforcement on the ship, if you want to keep down cost then only in designated landing/lift-off spots (US LHDs do that). What's not adaptable is the size of hangars and other space-limited aviation areas - such as lifts. And the F-35B is a whole lot bigger than a Harrier.
Cavour, despite having commissioned in 2004, is already specced for it sizewise (well, more like they never run a full air group anyway, only the 20-24 default mix of Harriers and EH-101) and just lays down Thermion over the flight deck for the heat.
-
F-35B has already delivered working aircraft. the question is not "will they work" it is "will they work well enough for what we need right now" and "how many will we actually get"
the problem is still issues of warload, operational status, ability to execute missions.
it can't fly in bad weather, can't fly at night, and is fragile and mechanically complex with a tiny payload crammed into internal bays that are a fraction what the F-18's and even AV-8's were able to schlep, and then, there's the thing that can't be hidden: high wing loading, which means poor maneuverability, so it can't dogfight and the B, iiirc, doesn't come with a gun. basically fine if you're intent on dropping a couple of reduced-diameter bombs, but only a couple, only if the target is close by, and only in daylight.
by even cold-war standards that's NOT an operational aircraft.
-
At this point, I think you can safely assume that every person on this forum(at least the ones that red these threads) already knows how much you dislike F-35Bs, and in the future can you do me a favor and plan your posts with that assumption in mind, please?
-
The question for this thread shouldn't be whether it flies but whether it floats.
-
Different angle of a Suffren-class destroyer
(https://s9.postimg.cc/syxhuk6gv/2213.jpg)
And the first time a guided antiship missile was really used in combat - USS Savannah hit by a Fritz-X
(https://s9.postimg.cc/6a8av6rpr/0_SNKzl_E.jpg)
-
It's genuinely a wonder the Savannah stayed afloat. That thing went right through the bottom of the ship and blew out the keel- she should have snapped in half, particularly with the impact point being adjacent to a major weakness in the deck (#3 turret- no way around having a big hole in the deck be a weak point). It says a hell of a lot about American damage control and design toughness that she not only survived, but was back in action in remarkably short order (and with some pretty great improvements!)
-
Impact analysis for HMS Warspite hit by three Fritz-X five days after Savannah, taken by the attacking bomber crew itself immediately after attack:
(http://www.1jma.dk/articles/hit%20on%20warspite.jpg)
She survived too. The one marked 2 hit her midships next to a funnel and cut through all decks, ripping a 20-foot hole in the bottom of the ship.
-
My mistake - actually the Fritz X was first used on the Italian fleet post-armistice. The Italian fleet did open fire but not before the Luftwaffe bombers had already reached optimum firing position and launched the first bomb.
Admiral Carlo Bergamini and the flagship Roma was destroyed, with the loss of almost all crew and staff.
(https://s9.postimg.cc/mt0n1tp5b/120d8afefd969b6fba6e1c3d842b20ff.jpg)
-
The Roma in Sept. 9, 1943 being hit by that early Guided weapon German Fritz X radio-controlled bombs launched by Do 217s Bombers
(https://i0.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Roma.jpg?fit=720%2C9999)
-
The question for this thread shouldn't be whether it flies but whether it floats.
too right. 'does it float?' or more particularly, can it reliably prevent this outcome:(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_I02S0H9p2U/hqdefault.jpg)
-
HMS Queen Elizabeth is coming along.
Way the ship appeared, i didn't think it was a large she seems to be in this picture of her docked in Portsmith, England.
She drawfs the pier side buildings that come from completely different era.
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FX180049001-660x385.jpg)
-
HMS Queen Elizabeth is coming along.
Way the ship appeared, i didn't think it was a large she seems to be in this picture of her docked in Portsmith, England.
She drawfs the pier side buildings that come from completely different era.
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/FX180049001-660x385.jpg)
a large carrier will do that. They're like an airport with a city attached, but they MOVE.
-
She's deceptively small looking. Until you realise the Chinook is a big bird itself.
-
Built to have been lead ship of class of destroyers to provide air cover for the proposed conventional CVA carrier, the HMS Bristol.
She is the lone example of the Type-82 Class Destroyer. Sometimes it was referred to as a light cruiser, but she was bit under armed to get that kind of designation. She had a twin arm Sea Dart anti-air missile launcher mounted in the aft, with standard 4.5 inch gun in the front, then new anti-submarine missile, the Ikara.
Do to the decline of the British Navy, her intended ship she was to escort never was built. She did prove to be proof-of-concept of the smaller Type 42 Class Destroyers who came after her. To this day, Bristol still exists as a pier side training ship.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2f/HMS_Bristol_D23.jpg)
Comments: When i read about the ship years ago, having compared it to other ships, i thought that it was over-sized and under armed for what it was. 50 years later, the Darling Class ships seem to be not much better armed that she was with provisions for additional weapons.
-
The Bristol was a intresting ship. Too bad it wasn't built for what it was designed to do.
-
Toulon in 1964:
(https://abload.de/img/toulon1964-6002lu1a.gif)
A collection of decades:
- (3rd from bottom) hulk Ocean, formerly* the namesake of its class of heavy cruisers Suffren : commissioned in 1928, decommissioned in 1947.
- (4th from bottom) La Galissioniere Class Cruiser Montcalm : commissioned in 1937, in reserve since 1957.
- (2nd from bottom) Richelieu class Battleship Jean Bart : emergency-commissioned in 1940, fully commissioned in 1955, in reserve since 1957.
- (bottom) Type T47 Squadron Escort D629 d'Estrees : commissioned in 1957, in active service at the time.
- (at quay) sole of its Cruiser class C611 Colbert : commissioned in 1959, in active service at the time.
- (in dock) squadron supply oiler A627 Seine : commissioned in 1961, in active service at the time.
The patrol boat on the upper left supposedly transported Charles de Gaulle on a fleet review at the time of the picture.
* the cruiser Suffren was renamed when the frigate Suffren (from Kidd's post above) began construction.
Note that Ocean/Suffren is disarmed (guns removed from the still present turrets), while Montcalm and Jean Bart aren't. These three ships served as accomodation hulks for the ASW school of the French Navy at the time, but the two ships in reserve were notionally kept reactivatable. Jean Bart still carries her twelve twin 100mm turrets in this picture, albeit disarmed; these turrets were removed in what was probably her last maintenance docking sometime in mid to late 1965, with the 380mm main, 155mm secondary and 57mm AA battery retained.
Both Colbert and d'Estrees still carry their original all-gun armament in the picture - d'Estrees was rebuilt into a ASW destroyer in 1968, Colbert into a missile cruiser in 1970 (see below). d'Estrees before this served as a trials vessel for a helicopter platform on a frigate-sized vessel for the French Navy in 1961-1962, carrying a Alouette helicopter; the flight deck is probably very recently removed in this picture, as i've seen others with her still carrying it or its base while docked there next to Jean Bart in September '64.
Armament present in this picture, sorted by amount:
- Jean Bart (as upgraded in 1954) - 2x4 380mm guns, 3x3 155mm guns, 14x2 57mm guns
- Colbert (as gun AA cruiser) - 8x2 127mm guns, 10x2 57mm guns
- Montcalm (as gun cruiser) - 3x3 155mm guns, 6x4 40mm
- d'Estrees (as gun destroyer) - 3x2 127mm guns, 3x2 57mm guns, 2 single 20mm, 4 triple torpedo tubes
Colbert was later refitted with Masurca and Exocet as well as two single 100mm guns, only retaining six twin 57mm from the above. d'Estrees was refitted with Malafon, a sextuple 375mm ASW rocket launcher and two single 100mm guns, only retaining her two 20mm and half of her original torpedo tubes.
Same composition of ships (sans Seine) from another angle in early 1965:
(https://abload.de/img/ecoled_armestoulonsitl7ust.gif)
Not sure which ship is in the dock here. Could be the Colossus class aircraft carrier Arromanches.
PLEASE fix the image sizes!!! >:(
600 pixel width better? (not that i notice much difference on my monitor, it looks scrawny either way)
-
PLEASE fix the image sizes!!! >:(
-
Do you know if the Colbert was coming in or going out in the 1965 picture?
-
Definitely coming in, as the tugs are visibly pushing.
-
Good point... I missed that... Thanks! :thumbsup:
-
Sadly, exFrench Cruiser Colbert, 2017 prior to it's scapping.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Colbert_August_2017_01.jpg/800px-Colbert_August_2017_01.jpg)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/885bfbfe84b14c337d7b2dfa0ff9be53/tumblr_p80cgrrDa71rqpszmo1_1280.jpg)
The German Battlecruiser/Battleship Scharnhorst at sea in the Atlantic.
-
Aaaand, that's why they got atlantic bows.
-
Aaaand, that's why they got atlantic bows.
The funny part? This is post-modification (the funnels got their raked caps at the same time as the bow mods). Imagine how bad it must have been beforehand!
-
I've read that even with their Atlantic bows the Twins were really bad seaboats
-
Short vid (https://youtu.be/ET9nv1jpghY) of a what i think is a Soviet style warship going though rough waters.
(https://www.marineinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/stormrider.png)
-
I've read that even with their Atlantic bows the Twins were really bad seaboats
None of the German heavy ships in WWII were particularly great at it. Even the Tirpitz was very wet forward compared to contemporary Allied ships- though she was also unusually stable in terms of rolling thanks to that enormous beam. The Scharnhorsts... didn't have that beam. That they were able to fight at all in rough seas- let along score one of the longest-ranged hits in naval gunnery history- speaks highly for the quality of German weaponry and training more than anything.
(By comparison, if water came over a King George V's bows- Vanguard included, really- they were in some seriously rough weather. VERY good seaboats. The North Carolinas were very good as well after they finally worked out their teething problems.)
-
What might have been ...
(http://www.hisutton.com/images/P2_annotated4000.jpg)
I demand this in the next TRO.
-
Look like a good boss ship for Dieselpunk.
-
What's the point of the rear gun turret?
-
Where's the escape pods? the conference room? the needlessly-complicated execution chamber? the breeding pens for sharks with frickin laser beams?
-
What's the point of the rear gun turret?
The SSMs have to be elevated to deck level to be launched. This requires the super-sub to be stationary on the surface during the whole procedure. More AA = good AA.
-
What squashed the development of the submarine? Tech changes? Economics?
It's certainly a interesting ship, using WW2 technology break through.
Guidence for those rockets are curious how they've been able get them to get to where they need land.
Though i have to see buzz bombs launching from aft launcher seemed strange to me. Not that having variety is bad, but why have two separate weapon systems while V2s were superior to the buzz bomb's guidance and less likely to be shot down incomparsion to the buzz bombs.
-
What might have been ...
(http://www.hisutton.com/images/P2_annotated4000.jpg)
I demand this in the next TRO.
Wheels are turning. Four autocannons in two turrets for air defense. Cruise Missile launcher and either a group of type 3 surface to surface nuclear missiles or subcapital missile launchers. Heavy long range torpedo batteries fore and aft.
-
Though i have to see buzz bombs launching from aft launcher seemed strange to me.
USS Cusk, 1951:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/USS_Cusk%3B0834807.jpg/606px-USS_Cusk%3B0834807.jpg)
Not that having variety is bad, but why have two separate weapon systems while V2s were superior to the buzz bomb's guidance and less likely to be shot down incomparsion to the buzz bombs.
A V-2 (or rather R-1 in this case) weighed six times as much as a V-1 (or rather Iz 15Kh in this case) while providing similar range and payload envelope with - by that time - not dissimilar inaccuracy.
-
Where's the escape pods? the conference room? the needlessly-complicated execution chamber? the breeding pens for sharks with frickin laser beams?
There is actually a docking point for minisubs, so the escape pod is taken care of. I'm guessing the accommodations section handles the Conference room, and you could use the torpedo room for the needlessly complicated execution chamber "In mere moments mister bond, the tube will fill with water and eject you into the sea".
The breeding pens weren't developed until the Typhoon. What, you thought that pool was for the crew's benefit?
-
That is a hell of a design. They got torpedoes, cruise missiles, slbm, and guns. Anyother weapon systems they could throw in that ship?
-
Mortars?
-
USS Cusk, 1951:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/USS_Cusk%3B0834807.jpg/606px-USS_Cusk%3B0834807.jpg)
A V-2 (or rather R-1 in this case) weighed six times as much as a V-1 (or rather Iz 15Kh in this case) while providing similar range and payload envelope with - by that time - not dissimilar inaccuracy.
not to mention that the V-1's used regular gasoline, while the V-2's required difficult and dangerous Liquid Oxygen and alcohol.
-
Gasoline is pretty dangerous on a submarine too...
-
That is a hell of a design. They got torpedoes, cruise missiles, slbm, and guns. Anyother weapon systems they could throw in that ship?
Needs fluid guns. 8)
-
It obviously lacks a seaplane catapult.
-
There is actually a docking point for minisubs, so the escape pod is taken care of. I'm guessing the accommodations section handles the Conference room, and you could use the torpedo room for the needlessly complicated execution chamber "In mere moments mister bond, the tube will fill with water and eject you into the sea".
The breeding pens weren't developed until the Typhoon. What, you thought that pool was for the crew's benefit?
Docking point? The minisubs are internally carried! :D :D
It needs a proper room suitable for nefarious plotting and triumphant, expository monologuing - one with wide bay windows, a grand piano, polar bear rug, chandelier... "accommodation" is too prosaic a word to cover this :D
Kato is right about the hangar. Also a howitzer. And a caterpillar drive.
-
It needs a proper room suitable for nefarious plotting and triumphant, expository monologuing - one with wide bay windows, a grand piano, polar bear rug, chandelier... "accommodation" is too prosaic a word to cover this :D
You forget the 60's style retro high backed swivel throne chair and lap cat 8)
-
Don't forget the three vehicle bays for the minisubs
-
Docking point? The minisubs are internally carried! :D :D
It needs a proper room suitable for nefarious plotting and triumphant, expository monologuing - one with wide bay windows, a grand piano, polar bear rug, chandelier... "accommodation" is too prosaic a word to cover this :D
Kato is right about the hangar. Also a howitzer. And a caterpillar drive.
And a slide projector (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85SvVn3cpl0)
-
Short vid (https://youtu.be/ET9nv1jpghY) of a what i think is a Soviet style warship going though rough waters.
The video's own description says quite differently.
The RNZN vessel HMNZS Otago sailing through a storm in the Southern Ocean.
-
here's a rather good video of some ships including a French destroyer in very rough weather
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEj1cA2wu4k)
And here's one of a Soviet era design (right at the end) Sovremmeny class Destroyer in very heavy seas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YShUXgNZV7w
And the Sovremmeny is a 8,000 + ton ship at full load, so not a small ship.
-
Vids like these make me feel smart for not enlisting in the Navy. I'd be heaving my guts all over the place.
-
Vids like these make me feel smart for not enlisting in the Navy. I'd be heaving my guts all over the place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZsERX844Tg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZsERX844Tg)
;-)
-
Vids like these make me feel smart for not enlisting in the Navy. I'd be heaving my guts all over the place.
Try being in a 60 foot boat in heavy stormy sea. That was THRILLING. One of my most precious memories with my Uncle and Grandpa.
-
Vids like these make me feel smart for not enlisting in the Navy. I'd be heaving my guts all over the place.
But then from Japan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjAXJaFydwM
And yes, this was a REAL advert. Nice to see they are blatantly appealing to the homosexual demographic because seriously, you could replace the music with YMCA. And I'll say that as a gay man myself!
But not this version of the YMCA - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGflu3TbREo as it sounds oddly evil.
-
Even the Tirpitz was very wet forward compared to contemporary Allied ships- though she was also unusually stable in terms of rolling thanks to that enormous beam. The Scharnhorsts... didn't have that beam. (By comparison, if water came over a King George V's bows- Vanguard included, really- they were in some seriously rough weather. VERY good seaboats. ...)
If I understand it correctly, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau remained wet forward even after their reconstruction, with "A" turret being prone to water-induced malfunction. They were also prone to being wet aft when at speed since the stern tended to dig in, if I'm interpreting a photograph caption right. I'm not sure how one goes down at the bow and down at the stern at the same time.
Vanguard apparently gave up the ability to fire "A" turret directly forward in exchange for improved seakeeping; did that apply to the King George V-class as well?
-
Freeboard? What's that!?
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/f95e95936e9c2a3e475305232463c5f1/tumblr_p8ivu3mEW21qgggino1_500.jpg)
-
Vids like these make me feel smart for not enlisting in the Navy. I'd be heaving my guts all over the place.
I think the official term is "chumming for sharks."
-
(https://s31.postimg.cc/72zkbt4ij/f4tdhu8tudx01.jpg)
Seems even the Gulf has a bit of a swell there.
And a slide projector (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85SvVn3cpl0)
The diabolical fiend!
-
Vids like these make me feel smart for not enlisting in the Navy. I'd be heaving my guts all over the place.
Vids like those make me envy the navy. Despite all the health problems I do have, motion sickness was never one, and I always enjoyed crossing the tillamook bay bar back when I was a kid working on a charter boat. Storms are awesome.
-
What might have been ...
(http://www.hisutton.com/images/P2_annotated4000.jpg)
I demand this in the next TRO.
where can I find the attribution for this I am searching the site...
-
Attribution? It's done by H. I. Sutton, and it's going to be somwhere on his site, www.hisutton.com.
http://www.hisutton.com/Stalins%20Super%20Sub%20-%20Project%20P-2.html
-
(https://s31.postimg.cc/72zkbt4ij/f4tdhu8tudx01.jpg)
Seems even the Gulf has a bit of a swell there.The diabolical fiend!
The Gulf gets rough as hell! I had all but two people in my watch struck down by seasickness on my first trip up there. Only gets worse because it's usually very flat, but if that wind kicks up so does the swell and it's always choppy.
-
I remember my ship was in the Pacific trying avoid the worse of the storm. The ship was 581ft long and 79ft wide with a 27 foot draft. That be said she was pitching back and forth like it was 90 degrees into those swells OUTSIDE of those pacific Typhoons. The ship was a replenishment vessel with long "forktruck" passage way that went almost entire length of the ship's covered main deck. I had to walked entire length from the bow to the stern when it went through those swells, it was like walk down stairs as it went down and then up.
-
If I understand it correctly, Scharnhorst and Gneisenau remained wet forward even after their reconstruction, with "A" turret being prone to water-induced malfunction. They were also prone to being wet aft when at speed since the stern tended to dig in, if I'm interpreting a photograph caption right. I'm not sure how one goes down at the bow and down at the stern at the same time.
Vanguard apparently gave up the ability to fire "A" turret directly forward in exchange for improved seakeeping; did that apply to the King George V-class as well?
It did, actually- but they weren't alone in that regard. It's a problem shared by many of the late-'30s/early '40s designs, the Iowas included. (Not sure on the South Dakota or North Carolinas). The Lions likely would have had the same problem too, and I believe the Yamato also couldn't fire 'A' directly forward (though I'm not 100% sure on that).
-
Attribution? It's done by H. I. Sutton, and it's going to be somwhere on his site, www.hisutton.com.
http://www.hisutton.com/Stalins%20Super%20Sub%20-%20Project%20P-2.html
No, I mean...it's real...This was a real project. Incredible.
-
Speaking about unique ships,
How about the Spanish-American War era warship, USS Vesuvius.
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Vesuvius_1891___3-1194x630.jpg)
Picture from 1891, where she was used during the war with span with her unique dynamite guns, which were used to bombard Spaniards positions on Cube. The guns were unique to the Vesuvius since the guns were high-maintenance and not that accurate.
The guns were erry for the enemy troops since the guns made no sound when fired, because they were pneumatic guns! The three barrels could fire 550-lbs high explosive shells. However the guns were fixed forwards and mainly limited in range in comparison to current ships, which was a mile.
Ultimately the guns didn't work out, the ship was refitted with Torpedoes instead. Which lead to her usual fate, where she ended up sinking herself with her own torpedoes!
Sadly the
-
The idea behind the pneumatic dynamite guns was that HE shells of the time with gunpowder as filler occasionally - often enough to be a problem - would explode in the barrel when fired due to the high g forces compressing them; with the pneumatic guns one could control the acceleration a whole lot better. Shock-resistant HE fillers - picric acid initially - were first introduced in the second half of the 1880s in France, the US switched over to "Explosive D" - ammonium picrate - around 1906.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/bf94371cb113f3b045703ea4bba201cc/tumblr_p8txunIXQf1ws46zho1_1280.jpg)
HMS Comet motoring along like one.
-
The Riga Class Frigate, SKR-57, one of 68 ships made for the USSR and her allies.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=45816)
She was obsolete by the time 1956 rolled around and was cancelled. I like the aesthetics of design since it reminded me of the of Fletcher Class some what.
It armed with 3 100mm cannons, Anti-Submarine rocket launcher, and 3 × 533 mm torpedo tubes. There no surviving ships in commission, but given how the Russians dispose of their ships. There could be couple lingering around desolate bay in Russia.
-
The Riga's were handsome ships, very much built in the WW2 destroyer escort mold, i'm surprised the Soviets kept them around for so long, would have saved so much money decommissioning them.
-
There no surviving ships in commission, but given how the Russians dispose of their ships. There could be couple lingering around desolate bay in Russia.
China has a couple Type 065 supposedly still around as semi-museum ships used for recruiting and advertising for the Navy - and yes, commissioned for that role by some accounts.
They're basically reverse-engineered Rigas built in the 60s with the superstructure and guns moved around a bit - basically replacing the B position 100mm with a twin 37mm, replacing the twin 25mm with a twin 37mm moved slightly forward and re-adding that 100mm aft of it - and the propulsion replaced by civilian diesels.
"Type 065 Jiangnan" (NATO name), 529 Haikou in 1966, still with the pennant 209:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Type_65_frigate_PLANS_Haikou_%28209%29.jpg/640px-Type_65_frigate_PLANS_Haikou_%28209%29.jpg)
They also built a pair of air-defence frigates based on the hull in the 70s. These retained the hull and superstructure form of the above Type 065 Jiangnan and simply replaced the forward 37mm and that second 100mm aft with a twin HQ-61 rail launcher while adding some sensors in particular on a second mast. They were pretty unsatisfactory for the PLAN mostly because most of the armament wasn't ready until the 80s.
"Type 053K Jiangdong" (NATO name), 531 Yingtan as museum ship:
(https://abload.de/img/209330425st6.jpg)
If you squint a bit you can see the resemblance.
-
Ah Rigas and Jiangnans.
I have become intimately familiar with em in Cold Waters game.
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/6a848feda763abcebba082b00ccc694e/tumblr_p7kzegy0bm1uryk28o1_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/a11398d00c09ec63758a7304d026ef23/tumblr_p7kzegy0bm1uryk28o2_1280.jpg)
IIRC the RN was possibly thinking about completing HMS Lion (the WW2 battleship of that name) as a 'battle-carrier' but the Lion and her sisterships were all cancelled and their materials put to use on other ships.
-
Sadly, Battlestars just don't work on the water...
-
Oh wow... Naval Ops:Warship Gunner for PS2 for realsies? :o :thumbsup:
TT
-
The Popular Mechanics HMS Lion looks like a truly terrible concept - the guns and turrets take up too much hanger space while you can be sure that the runway extensions won't be able to be retracted in time if surprised by a surface combatant
While the Mediterranean and North Sea might have favoured a heavily armoured ship compared with the Pacific or even expansive Atlantic but trying to combine two such ship types (battleship and aircraft carrier) is always a hiding to nothing
-
Oh wow... Naval Ops:Warship Gunner for PS2 for realsies? :o :thumbsup:
TT
I was just playing the second one this morning, actually. Still haven't unlocked everything in it after over a decade. :-[
-
Really hard to maneuver in a gun fight if you have to chase winds to launch and recover aircraft.
-
Didn't the Imperial Japanese Navy actually try converting a battleship into a battleship/carrier hybrid?
-
I was just playing the second one this morning, actually. Still haven't unlocked everything in it after over a decade. :-[
I got all three versions, have many weird confiqs.
Loved the Cat Laser... with Flying Rubber Duckiez!
TT
-
Didn't the Imperial Japanese Navy actually try converting a battleship into a battleship/carrier hybrid?
A pair of them actually, they converted their Ise-class battleships into battleship/carrier hybrids...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise-class_battleship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise-class_battleship)
The HMS Furious spent part of her life in similar design...
Ruger
-
They were more or less armored seaplane carriers. I have the waterline Hasegawa kits and liked them alot for being different.
A pair of them actually, they converted their Ise-class battleships into battleship/carrier hybrids...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise-class_battleship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise-class_battleship)
The HMS Furious spent part of her life in similar design...
Ruger
-
I was just playing the second one this morning, actually. Still haven't unlocked everything in it after over a decade. :-[
Those games had a ridiculous amount of unlocks. Some of which was quite convoluted to get.
-
Didn't the Imperial Japanese Navy actually try converting a battleship into a battleship/carrier hybrid?
A pair of them actually, they converted their Ise-class battleships into battleship/carrier hybrids...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise-class_battleship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise-class_battleship)
The HMS Furious spent part of her life in similar design...
Ruger
And the RN had the right idea with Furious- pick one and run with it. The Ises were ruined with that 'upgrade'- they ended up with very small theoretical flight groups aboard (neither ever carried planes beyond tests, to boot!), they lost 33% of their firepower straight-up, and realistically more than that- the midship turrets were badly masked by the new hangar setup, and had near-useless firing arcs- they'd have been better off removing them as well too and extending the deck further if they're going to do something like this. It was a miserable idea, it turned a pair of old but still dangerous dreadnoughts into paper tigers, and it accomplished exactly nothing.
I give a mulligan, however, on the similar upgrade to the heavy cruiser Mogami, in which case the badly-damaged rear turrets were replaced with a flight deck- still not great, but it was at least a fix to a damaged ship rather than wasting a healthy one.
-
I give a mulligan, however, on the similar upgrade to the heavy cruiser Mogami, in which case the badly-damaged rear turrets were replaced with a flight deck- still not great, but it was at least a fix to a damaged ship rather than wasting a healthy one.
Somehow, I had missed that about the Mogami...very interesting...
Ruger
-
in the 70's there were proposals to refit some of the Iowa's into hybrid battleship-Carriers. using either Helicopters or Harriers.
i imagine the marines would have been enthusiastic for that concept.. a shore bombardment and air support platform, good for amphibious landing ops. the Navy i suspect was less enthused.
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*Qg75qREf8eJG1PbiqhsGZg.jpeg)
(https://gruntsandco.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/83183572.jpg)
(http://www.steelnavy.com/images/2005August/Tinian62rw85.jpg)
(http://www.steelnavy.com/images/2005August/Tinian44rw.jpg)
(http://www.steelnavy.com/images/2005August/Tinian57rw50.jpg)
(http://www.steelnavy.com/images/2005August/Tinian57rw50.jpg)
-
The problem with a CB/BB hybrid is that the tasking for each is pretty much mutually exclusive. Modern ASCM also mean that the role of the BB is effectively removed from the battle space, they are now a pointless, expensive ship. Eventually it will be the other way around, BBs will once again offer something no one else can, but that may have to wait until space.
As for a shore bombardment, they have that already! Every single CG or DDG in the USN has a 5" gun, which is what is used for NGS. The big 16" guns were ship killers, not for shore bombardment, except in certain cases where it was used to bust hardened targets or lower the crest of a mountain 100'. 5" guns are more than enough for NGS, they have a higher rate of fire, integrate better with other ships and overall are much cheaper to run.
-
And the RN had the right idea with Furious- pick one and run with it. The Ises were ruined with that 'upgrade'- they ended up with very small theoretical flight groups aboard (neither ever carried planes beyond tests, to boot!), they lost 33% of their firepower straight-up, and realistically more than that- the midship turrets were badly masked by the new hangar setup, and had near-useless firing arcs- they'd have been better off removing them as well too and extending the deck further if they're going to do something like this. It was a miserable idea, it turned a pair of old but still dangerous dreadnoughts into paper tigers, and it accomplished exactly nothing.
Yeah, they sucked pretty badly in Warship Gunner 2, as well.
-
As for a shore bombardment, they have that already! Every single CG or DDG in the USN has a 5" gun, which is what is used for NGS. The big 16" guns were ship killers, not for shore bombardment, except in certain cases where it was used to bust hardened targets or lower the crest of a mountain 100'. 5" guns are more than enough for NGS, they have a higher rate of fire, integrate better with other ships and overall are much cheaper to run.
Horseshit. DDGs, with one 5"/64 mount are insufficient to generate a sustained all-weather direct support asset for a infantry battalion in an amphibious assault. Sure, the 16-20 rounds of 5" fire per minute seems like it equates to six 155mm (or 6.1") guns firing in support of a infantry battalion until one realizes that artillery battalions do the mass killing on the conventional battlefield. An artillery battalion killing mission (three 18 gun volleys or 54 rounds) destroys threat companies and their parent battalion cohesion. Single gun ships can't compete. Smaller rounds with less payload variety from smaller magazines isn't going to carry the day when maneuver can't overcome geography and well planned defenses. Also, the current number of hulls sucked up by defending carriers precludes the use of the two-banger slightly less inefficient CGs in supporting landing operations. That sets aside the entire discussion of reinforcing or general support fires either of which ground forces have a problem generating.
Besides, don't think for a second ships of any Navy can generate an effect time on target. They might get the time right but the instability imparted by sea state generates an elliptical impact zone along the gun-target-line per rapid fire gun that negates the inherent effectiveness of overlapping burst radii. It becomes laughably ineffective for massing fires.
Bottom line: this is why I spent a lot of time as an amphibious planner trying to figure out ways around a fundamental Service deficiency. Hell, I still chuckle at the DESRON NSFS planner that didn't realize he couldn't shoot past a major coastal highway in North Carolina. My response to his shocked expression was, "what you didn't know you couldn't shoot much farther than your fo'c'sle and even if you could nobody could do anything with it?"
-
Hell, I still chuckle at the DESRON NSFS planner that didn't realize he couldn't shoot past a major coastal highway in North Carolina. My response to his shocked expression was, "what you didn't know you couldn't shoot much farther than your fo'c'sle and even if you could nobody could do anything with it?"
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I think people are quoting you on that. I heard that one last month at an exercise.
-
Re the Iowa conversion ideas - can you imagine the turbulence coming over that flight deck when the ship's moving at any speed?
Well, you don't have to. Look up Moskva class. Amongst many shortcomings of the design, turbulence over the flight decks was a real problem.
So back-end air platform is fine, for ships at anchor.
-
I also have to question the shock from 16" gunfire on exposed, tied-down or otherwise not-in-use aircraft. From NavWeaps:
The AP Mark 8...creates overpressures exceeding 50 psi (3.5 kg/cm2) close to the muzzle and 7 psi (0.5 kg/cm2) at a distance of 50 feet (15 m) from the muzzle.
-
Horseshit. DDGs, with one 5"/64 mount are insufficient to generate a sustained all-weather direct support asset for a infantry battalion in an amphibious assault. Sure, the 16-20 rounds of 5" fire per minute seems like it equates to six 155mm (or 6.1") guns firing in support of a infantry battalion until one realizes that artillery battalions do the mass killing on the conventional battlefield. An artillery battalion killing mission (three 18 gun volleys or 54 rounds) destroys threat companies and their parent battalion cohesion. Single gun ships can't compete. Smaller rounds with less payload variety from smaller magazines isn't going to carry the day when maneuver can't overcome geography and well planned defenses. Also, the current number of hulls sucked up by defending carriers precludes the use of the two-banger slightly less inefficient CGs in supporting landing operations. That sets aside the entire discussion of reinforcing or general support fires either of which ground forces have a problem generating.
Besides, don't think for a second ships of any Navy can generate an effect time on target. They might get the time right but the instability imparted by sea state generates an elliptical impact zone along the gun-target-line per rapid fire gun that negates the inherent effectiveness of overlapping burst radii. It becomes laughably ineffective for massing fires.
Bottom line: this is why I spent a lot of time as an amphibious planner trying to figure out ways around a fundamental Service deficiency. Hell, I still chuckle at the DESRON NSFS planner that didn't realize he couldn't shoot past a major coastal highway in North Carolina. My response to his shocked expression was, "what you didn't know you couldn't shoot much farther than your fo'c'sle and even if you could nobody could do anything with it?"
And yet, one recent conflict had three different navies working together to generate just this effect in the amphibious battle space, quite successfully at that.
While a massed land battery might be superior in terms of fire support, they aren't meant to be the same thing. A gun line is not there to destroy a BN, they are there to suppress the defences in an amphibious landing zone.
-
The Iowa conversion would be wasted with Harriers as they can sit further off shore with their speed but as a forward refuelling and rearming point for AH-1s they'd be great
With what I think we should consider to be the forever-death of the battleship the question becomes whether to create a NGFS "module" for a 5"+ gun or three for more expendable hulls like the LCS or the RN's new cheaper frigates (Type 31e or something?) or just abandon the idea of NGFS altogether
The limitations of using smaller guns on smaller ships was demonstrated in the Falklands War 36 years ago - single tube per ship, systems jam with prolonged use and you then have to wait for the ships to change places or sort the problem
A NGFS ship (monitor?) would also work nicely for police type actions like anti-piracy, drug interdiction etc - basically anything except high end air defence or anti submarine operations
-
I'm with Charlie 6 on this one... I'd be shocked to see anything like a gun "line" anywhere in US service. At the Fleet level, I've seen single DDGs be argued over for missions thousands of miles apart within a single Combatant Command AOR (and I'm not talking about the Pacific). And I don't remember the last time an ARG didn't disaggregate the instant it deployed. In actual practice, Marines will be lucky to get a single surface ship for NSFS, as limited as they are.
-
There too much inexperience people planning out these ship designs and technology hurtles. It would take alot effort to get gunpowder for 16 guns made, never mind the guns themselves. Industry isn't there anymore to build this stuff after good century of building this stuff. My impression once they shuttered guns production after WWII, the US lost the ability to sustain any further larger cannons beyond 5inch guns. Now you have people who design and plan these ships for today, who don't want use guns. If railgun development hadn't been shelved, it properly that would been answer to being able get shore bombardment capabilities back aside relaying on Tomahawk missiles.
There likely more to it than why guns and fire-support has faded, but its my opinion from all the material I've read.
(https://img.newatlas.com/railgun-2.PNG?auto=format%2Ccompress&ch=Width%2CDPR&crop=entropy&fit=crop&h=347&q=60&w=616&s=06b689745ac042d8ce7a8c6c2357ff2d)
The image was to be the ship that was going test fire the guns at sea, but the Expeditionary Transports were in such high demand, the navy couldn't spare one. Which is odd to me sort of, since were not doing alot activity i I am aware of over seas in coastal regions that need ground troops brought there..
-
Somehow, I had missed that about the Mogami...very interesting...
Ruger
I've never been entirely certain if the refit was 'we want to do this anyway, so let's use Mogami as a testbed', or if it was more 'turrets are borked too badly to fix, figure out Plan B'. The IJN wasn't building heavy cruisers anymore- they hadn't for well over a decade, so particularly by this point in the war building a new pair of aft mounts from scratch may have been too difficult/expensive/time consuming- the state of the ship's post-Midway damage isn't something I've ever seen in detail beyond the basics. But, essentially the idea was done on Japan's prior (and final) CA class, the Tone.
Tone and Mogami both ended up with similar setups, post-repair. All guns ended up in twin-mounts forward of the superstructure (four mounts on Tone, three on Mogami), with the aft end devoted entirely to flight operations. Where Mogami had a flight deck and operated wheeled aircraft (in theory at least? Not sure if she ever actually carried a full complement), the Tones were designed for scout floatplanes, allowing them to carry several at a time- and in doing so, not only provide scouting for the battle line, but to send out less planes from carriers for scouting as well- and thus save more for attack roles. It's a solid idea, really- the Tones ended up with their guns and torpedoes as secondary weapons to their floatplanes essentially, and it worked well, so building a third ship of the type out of a damaged ship made sense. The problem is that by the time Mogami was ready to return to service, Japan was a little low on carriers to begin with, and she herself was too small and cramped to operate a real carrier air group of her own.
(And again, I'll give no excuse nor justification to the Ise refit beyond 'what's the best way to ruin a dreadnought beyond pulling out the scuttles?')
-
DDGs, with one 5"/64 mount are insufficient to generate a sustained all-weather direct support asset for a infantry battalion in an amphibious assault...
They did kinda, sorta try to get a better gun system for that purpose with the Zumwalts...but they turned the gun round into almost a guided missile, with a price to match, and the class basically got abandoned. They did try though!
-
(https://i.imgur.com/TDcD4AN.jpg)
A trio of Imperial Russian Pre-Dreadnoughts on exercise in the Baltic. They appear to be the Navarin in the lead, Imperator Nikolai I and an Admiral Ushakov class coast defence battleship coming up last. These are probably sailing to their date with destiny at the Battle of Tsushima.
(https://i.imgur.com/yVld8Ap.jpg)
HMS Hood a modified Royal Soverign class battleship and what appears to be an Admiral Class battleship astern, possibly HMS Collingwood.
(https://i.imgur.com/ryfyR3l.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/MCskfS7.jpg)
A Russian Peresvet class battleship. These ships were an interesting attempt to make a 'fast' battleship. Entirely home built and designed with both American and French influences the Peresvet's traded firepower and armour for speed. 4 x 10-inch guns and a large number of 6-inch guns made these ships what could be called a Second Class Battleship, bigger than the Armoured cruisers but smaller than the mainline battleships of the time. For this they were meant to be good for 19 knots but could rarely exceed 18. Their presumed performance caused a bit of a stir in the UK. These ships sounded like they could outrun any RN battleship and outgun any armoured cruiser.
Perhaps fluffing the stats a bit the RN then demanded an answer which lead to the 6 strong Duncan class which were far more potent vessels.
-
Dreadnought really was a giant leap forward - 2 1/2 times the armament of the average pre-Dreadnought and a lot prettier
-
I am reminded that the Lexington and Saratoga originally had four turrets with twin 8" guns as self defense measures. We took them off, and replaced them with a heavier AA armament, when we figured out it was more important to have said better AA armament, and they didnt really need anti-ship guns.
-
Dreadnought really was a giant leap forward - 2 1/2 times the armament of the average pre-Dreadnought and a lot prettier
The French Pre-Dreadnought Battleship Hoche mocks your requirement to be handsome!
(https://i.imgur.com/ifow54O.jpg)
Note how smooth the water is and how deep she's burying her bow in the near non existent waves.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/af/02/06/af0206151adf6454ffa70573e64dd57e.jpg)
Yes you can here her going hon hon hon!
-
Dreadnought really was a giant leap forward - 2 1/2 times the armament of the average pre-Dreadnought and a lot prettier
And just as important, FASTER. Those newfangled turbine engines gave her a huge edge over prior ships. She really was a confluence of evolving technologies and ideas altogether on the same hull- the guns get the attention, but the engines were no less revolutionary (pardon the pun).
I am reminded that the Lexington and Saratoga originally had four turrets with twin 8" guns as self defense measures. We took them off, and replaced them with a heavier AA armament, when we figured out it was more important to have said better AA armament, and they didnt really need anti-ship guns.
They were indeed removed, because they were pretty useless at best- if your carrier is in a gun duel, you screwed up big-time. The Japanese answers, the Akagi and Kaga, had them in the hull in casemates, which made them wet but clear of the flight deck at least- the Lexingtons' guns weren't very good for their planes, particularly in the wood/fabric days. Their removal was wise. Lexington never did get the 5"/38 mounts installed before her loss, but Saratoga carried them in the same style as the Essex-class ships for the remainder of her career- I believe they're still aboard her at the bottom of Bikini Atoll, in fact. Lexington received quad-1.1" mounts in place of her big guns- whether there were plans to eventually fit her the way Saratoga was, or if she would have simply received quad-40mm mounts (as was the case with almost every other ship that had 1.1" mounts removed), I couldn't say.
Side note- the 1.1" was trash, the 40mm was an enormous improvement.
-
And here's the Hoche's near sister, the Marceau.
(http://i.imgur.com/VCw5hqS.jpg)
(https://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/france/battleships/marceau/01_marceau.jpg)
-
Re the Sara's 8-inchers they were removed and replaced with 5-inch guns, the 8-inchers IIRC were mounted at positions round Pearl Harbor.
-
Side note- the 1.1" was trash, the 40mm was an enormous improvement.
It had teething problems that could be ironed out...but they were pressed for time and 40mm was bigger and more firepower per shell.
-
'You will jam every 20th round or so' is a pretty serious teething problem. ^-^
That said, it was still better than the triple-25mm that Japan insisted on using all the way to the end of the war, which was so bad that it was near-criminal to protect warships with it. Other calibers were quite effective for them (the 3.9-inch used on the Akizukis in particular were excellent), but that 25mm was just a dog. How a navy knowing they'd be facing an enemy that would use carrier-based aircraft in a hypothetical war never tried to come up with a better weapon than this (when it showed its problems) will never cease to amaze me.
-
'You will jam every 20th round or so' is a pretty serious teething problem. ^-^
That said, it was still better than the triple-25mm that Japan insisted on using all the way to the end of the war, which was so bad that it was near-criminal to protect warships with it. Other calibers were quite effective for them (the 3.9-inch used on the Akizukis in particular were excellent), but that 25mm was just a dog. How a navy knowing they'd be facing an enemy that would use carrier-based aircraft in a hypothetical war never tried to come up with a better weapon than this (when it showed its problems) will never cease to amaze me.
Every round a 25mm kamikaze off to do their duty for the Emperor and overcoming any problems with their ardent fervour?
-
At the time Japan believed that luck was a legitimate thing and that good fortune would just smile on them. And, one suckerpunch blow to the Americans eliminating the carriers would be enough that they wouldn't need to deal with them, so just stick with whatever and we'll win that way.
Man, if they'd had the luck and foresight to start turning out nothing BUT Akizukis it'd be a different ballgame. If there was anything they really needed...
-
They were indeed removed, because they were pretty useless at best- if your carrier is in a gun duel, you screwed up big-time. The Japanese answers, the Akagi and Kaga, had them in the hull in casemates, which made them wet but clear of the flight deck at least- the Lexingtons' guns weren't very good for their planes, particularly in the wood/fabric days. Their removal was wise. Lexington never did get the 5"/38 mounts installed before her loss, but Saratoga carried them in the same style as the Essex-class ships for the remainder of her career- I believe they're still aboard her at the bottom of Bikini Atoll, in fact. Lexington received quad-1.1" mounts in place of her big guns- whether there were plans to eventually fit her the way Saratoga was, or if she would have simply received quad-40mm mounts (as was the case with almost every other ship that had 1.1" mounts removed), I couldn't say.
Couple points of order:
1) IIRC, the Lexington's 8 inchers were never removed before she was sunk...
2) The Akagi and the Kaga had SOME of their 8 inchers in casemates, but they each had a four of them starting out in dual side by side double gun turrets on the middle flight deck forward (yes, as originally modified to carriers, they had three flight decks, or more appropriately, 1 flight deck and two flying off decks) to go with their twin hangers...the flying off decks (and the 8 inch turrets) were later removed, and the hangers and top flight deck were then lengthened...
Ruger
-
At the time Japan believed that luck was a legitimate thing and that good fortune would just smile on them. And, one suckerpunch blow to the Americans eliminating the carriers would be enough that they wouldn't need to deal with them, so just stick with whatever and we'll win that way.
More like High Command had some serious blinders on, and Admiral Yamamoto - their acknowledged greatest leader and also the most reluctant to go to war - lamented at length about the hawkishness of his superiors and his staff and subordinates. The Japanese entire plan for war was totally borked up and down from the objectives to the resources, and Yamamoto pointed this out, but for every objection he raised he was overruled. Finally he just did the best he could with what he had.
-
for a bit of balance, I don't think the IJN was alone in going into WW2 without the technology or ships that in an ideal world they would have had:
- Germany was about 6 years away from having the fleet they wanted
- the RN used a lot of fairly useless light AAA and had had to compromise on the battleship armament on their most recent ships while the Fleet Air Arm was still struggling with some fairly rubbish aircraft
- the USN had more of a doctrine issue in the Atlantic early on, forgetting the hard learned lessons of WW1 and the Commonwealth navies before they joined
-
Promise, Lexington didn't have 8-inchers aboard. She had them when the war started, but they were removed before Coral Sea and replaced with quad-1.1s. Photos of the ship sinking show the turrets aren't aboard anymore. (Upon search, actually most of the photos are obscured with smoke around the island. Crap.)
Image ended up being huge, but this is one of the last shots of the Lexington before the battle started, with no 8-inch mounts aboard.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/USS_Lexington_Coral_Sea_afternoon.jpg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/USS_Lexington_Coral_Sea_afternoon.jpg)
-
Behold the Civil War era a timberclad gunboat USS Lexington from Civil War. Humble ship pressed into service as converted into a gunboat at Cincinnati, Ohio. Its interesting ship, it and the USS Tyler was part of General Ulysses S. Grant's drive to seize strategic points in Kentucky and Tennessee. She had rather colorful career on the rivers, helping secure and battle the Confederacy!
Sadly i wasn't able find a actual picture of the ship, only paintings of her.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=45872)
The next Lexington prior to the CV-2 was Patrol Ship, named USS Lexington II SP-705, whom doesn't have picture but a near ship. She was small patrol ship dedicated to safeguarding submarine nets. She lost her name in 1918. Likely to the future Lexington Class Battlecruiser.
-
Promise, Lexington didn't have 8-inchers aboard. She had them when the war started, but they were removed before Coral Sea and replaced with quad-1.1s. Photos of the ship sinking show the turrets aren't aboard anymore. (Upon search, actually most of the photos are obscured with smoke around the island. Crap.)
Crap...you're right. I had read that but forgot until you said this. The USS Saratoga had her 8 inchers removed in January 1942, and the twin 5 inch/38's added that February, but USS Lexington had her 8 inchers removed in March of 1942, but I guess the 5/38 double turrets weren't available for fitting at that time or something...
Ruger
-
This maybe of interest.
This was taken in May 1942.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=45879)
-
I really wonder about the health of the crews of the AAA mounted on the stack.
-
My understanding was that they weren't particularly healthy places. They tended to be load and filled with high-velocity air pollution during combat.
-
(http://waralbum.ru/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Aquila1.jpeg)
The Aquila, Regia Marina carrier. Converted from the ocean liner Roma. Construction was abandoned in 1943, and scrapped in 1951.
W.
-
Those hull lines are really disorienting, her stern looks like a bow on most ships.
-
I wonder if she would have made a difference for the Italian Navy? Aside from Japan, Axis had no active aircraft carriers protecting their surface assets.
-
I wonder if she would have made a difference for the Italian Navy? Aside from Japan, Axis had no active aircraft carriers protecting their surface assets.
Not sure the Med is big enough for her to have made a great difference; a German carrier in the North Sea might have done
-
She might well have provided the final push necessary to overthrow Malta. That would have turned the tide in Africa in favour of Rommel, probably permanently if Malta could be quickly reinforced and turned into a forward base for the Axis. Thats no small feat.
The African campaign would be another massive loss to the Allies. At the very least it would add a year to the war; the Allies would now have to invade Malta and then proceed to Africa. One more step in the road.
In turn that might mean the employment of the A-bombs first on German soil, 2 or even 3 weapons used. Perhaps the Japanese would then capitulate, perhaps not, but just for laughs, imagine if the Emperor sued for peace but a coup attempt by anti-Royalists did then occur, with hawkish factions in the army more powerful and undefeated than IRL, that might mean the invasion of Japan would've been rendered necessary...
Butterfly wings... or simply the stuff of fantasy :D
-
Since the Italians lacked a tried and tested carrier aircraft, nor had any way of buying them from someone else (the Germans didn't either, Japan wasn't really in a position to send any, and the other carrier powers... yeah, no), she was a nice idea that had no chance of being a realistic combatant. She'd have had a small air group of questionable-value planes, and would have needed to rely heavily on air support from land bases- so why bother with a carrier in the first place?
As DoctorMonkey said, the Graf Zeppelin would have been a much more effective ship if she'd reached service- even then, the trial and error approach to learning to run carriers that the British, Americans, and Japanese had wasn't available to the Germans, who would have been stuck with learning on the fly- literally, a 'crash course' in CV operations.
-
I know warship aesthetics are often pretty subjective, but sometimes people just...was flipping through my copy of The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Destroyers Frigates & Submarines when I came across a bit where the author lamented the "bland" lines of the De Zeven Provinciën class, especially as compared to the more "elegant" Ticonderogas. ???
On a different note... pour some sugar on me! 8)
-
Former German Aircraft Carrier, Graf Zeppelin in 1947 prior to it's 2nd sinking by a Russia in a weapons test.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin_at_Swinem%C3%BCnde_on_5_April_1947.jpg)
I didn't know she was suppose to been part of a two ship class. Her wreck was found in 2006 by a Polish survey vessel.
-
Credit to the Germans for at least realizing that a single carrier (see: Aquila) isn't much of a threat to anyone in-general, particularly when you're just diving into carrier warfare for the first time. The Germans didn't always have great ideas when it came to the Graf Zeppelin, but they at least paid attention to other nations' designs and tactics. In particular, Raeder seems to have taken a lot of interest in the pre-war drills run by the Americans with Lexington and Saratoga, and really did plan on running two carriers under the 'Z' plan- but not together. Rather they'd have operated (in a perfect world) as the centerpiece of forces consisting of a couple of battleships and other escorts, providing cover and scout support and adding in some firepower while the battleships did their jobs.
Whether it would have worked is anyone's guess- like the Italians, the Germans had no experience with sea-based aviation and were kind of winging it (pardon the pun), so how well the navalized Ju-87s and such would have done in combat is tough to say. Either way, Hitler's impatience ruined the Kriegsmarine's plans before most of the ships planned were ready anyway. Worth considering though... if there's a few navalized Bf-109s flying around overhead when Ark Royal's planes arrive, might Bismarck have made it to occupied France for her repairs rather than taking the fatal torpedo?
-
The Fw-190 would have been a better candidate for naval use, but well never know.
-
Against a handful of Fairey Swordfish? Very probably.
-
The Brits might have put a bit more effort into the naval air arm if the Germans had actually finished a carrier...
-
did the nazi's have high performance seaplanes? i know a lot of their early fighters got their start as racing planes, and IIRC seaplanes were a big racing fixation before the war. so you'd expect them to have at least come up with some sort of "fit launch catapults and recovery cranes for seaplane fighters to a destroyer/light cruiser" concept to give their big ships some fighter cover.
-
The Arado 196 was the seaplane of choice for German heavy ships, but it wasn't really a fighter- it was more of a scout, like the American OS2U Kingfisher. The reason they carried those instead of something more fighter-y? Simple- they had to. German ships tended to not have particularly large hangars, if they had one at all- so if you can only carry two planes, you carry two scouts, because that's what was really needed.
An Arado coming across its opposite number, like a Walrus or float-equipped Swordfish, was in a good position to get rid of the pest, but against a Hurricane it was lunch meat. Just how it is.
-
On a tangent with Sea Hurricanes... before the Royal Navy had enough escort carriers they resorted to "one-shot" Hurricanes on merchant ships.
The main problem with naval battles as it is till today is that of reconnaissance, and even U-boat wolf packs need to know where to go to lie in wait for their targets. Hence the German Fw200 Condor maritime patrol aircraft was employed to hunt for convoys and vector U-boats onto them.
(https://s7.postimg.cc/v3mjpxdsb/2061_L.jpg)
A handful of suitable merchant ships (called "Catapult Aircraft Merchant ships") in a convoy would be equipped with a catapult and a single Hurricane. Once a Condor was spotted shadowing a convoy, the CAM ship would scramble its Hurricane, who would take off in a sheet of flame and shoot down or at least scare away the Condor while the convoy took evasive action. Once the Hurricane was out of fuel the pilot would ditch it and be recovered.
The Hurricanes also came in handy to fend off marauding He-111s and Ju-88s armed with torpedoes. They were phased out once the RN had enough escort carriers to defend the convoys more conventionally.
(https://s7.postimg.cc/czjj5dg4r/cam-ship_hurricaneoncatapult.jpg)
(https://s7.postimg.cc/jd8m8msqj/hurricat-launch-at-greenock.jpg)
-
Mostly true. The 'be recovered' part... was a little spotty sometimes. The casualty rate for MAC pilots was a lot higher than one would like- and it wasn't because of the Germans. xp
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/a7/a3/fe/a7a3fe92f9bd4acc9b93207e00adff89.jpg)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/a7/a3/fe/a7a3fe92f9bd4acc9b93207e00adff89.jpg)
Ok, I'll bite. Huh?
-
^ ok that's pretty cool
Mostly true. The 'be recovered' part... was a little spotty sometimes. The casualty rate for MAC pilots was a lot higher than one would like- and it wasn't because of the Germans. xp
CAM, not MAC. The CAM pilots lost only 1 man. Then again they launched only what, 10 times so thats still 10% losses
-
Ok, I'll bite. Huh?
Probably somebody who has recently retired and found themselves with way too much time on their hands.
-
Probably somebody who has recently retired and found themselves with way too much time on their hands.
I have so far refused to resemble that remark...also I don't have a smidgen of the talent it took to do that model.
-
sorry, forgot to add to the post,
spotted on Pinterest
-
^ ok that's pretty cool
CAM, not MAC. The CAM pilots lost only 1 man. Then again they launched only what, 10 times so thats still 10% losses
Yeah. The MACs involved sticking a proper flight deck ontop of a merchant ship. And in the case of some, they even had a hangar!
-
It's not a model of an actual port, as pretty as it is. Not even 32nd Street is that crowded. The Carriers have to moor over on North Island.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/a7/a3/fe/a7a3fe92f9bd4acc9b93207e00adff89.jpg)
Quick some turn on the MapMaster light! This needs to b a map!
TT
-
And of course the planes wouldn't be on the carriers in port, but damn that was a lot of work.
-
Also true... plus, there's no way that lower carrier and auxiliary would be coming/going at the same time.
-
And of course the planes wouldn't be on the carriers in port, but damn that was a lot of work.
Not up on the flight deck, or not on the carrier at all?
-
Not on the carrier at all... At least not in a home port.
-
Not on the carrier at all... At least not in a home port.
I seem to recall a MEU deployment where we had to crane a UH-1 off the flight deck in port because she'd been griped down when the tried to tow her...broke the plane's back so to speak. Essentially GUAM had a hood ornament for most of the deployment. But yeah, that's the only time I've heard of aircraft still being on the deck when in home port.
-
Helos are the only aircraft that can even contemplate flight operations in port. Even then, they need permission from god and country...
-
Helos are the only aircraft that can even contemplate flight operations in port. Even then, they need permission from god and country...
Arranging wind for a FW launch would be entertaining, to say the least...
-
So, do they fly the whole air wing off and park them at the nearest land base? Never realized they went to all that effort, but I guess they don’t really come back to port for long unless they plan to stay there for a while. Interesting!
-
So, do they fly the whole air wing off and park them at the nearest land base? Never realized they went to all that effort, but I guess they don’t really come back to port for long unless they plan to stay there for a while. Interesting!
Yup. And often times the air wing will transfer to another carrier and get back underway. With a downtime averaging two or three years for refit and refueling, no point in leaving the a/c aboard.
-
USS Ranger CV-4, the US Navy's first purpose built aircraft carrier.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=45906)
The Ranger operated in the Atlantic unlike more classic naval carrier battles we hear from the Pacific more commonly. Her major action was during Operation Torch, where the ship air compliment efforts cover the landings into Vichy-ruled French Morocco in November 1942. The ship's aircraft launched 496 sorties which resulted in the destruction of around 85 enemy aircraft. It's aircraft attacks resulted in the sinking of the battleship Jean Bart, severe damage to the destroyer leader Albatros, and attacks on the cruiser Primaugut.
She was was slow in comparison other carriers that came on, resulting her to secondary duties during the war.
She survived and remained commission until 1946 when she was scrapped.
-
The Jean Bart famously dueled with the Massachusetts, and the Mass put Jean's turrets out of action so why would they need to sink her?
-
Make sure those turrets can't be brought back online, at least not in time to affect that battle.
-
The turret was repaired and already back in action. She almost hit some cruiser with a couple shells, upon which it was decided to sink her wiith a couple bombers.
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/a7/a3/fe/a7a3fe92f9bd4acc9b93207e00adff89.jpg)
That is a very awesome photo.
I just toured the Norfolk naval base last weekend, makes me want to build this.
-
The turret was repaired and already back in action. She almost hit some cruiser with a couple shells, upon which it was decided to sink her wiith a couple bombers.
Don't forget secondary armament. Even if all primary weapons are offline, those secondaries are quite capable of threatening thin skinned vessels and air craft. You don't want them there!
More importantly:
The Jean Bart famously dueled with the Massachusetts, and the Mass put Jean's turrets out of action so why would they need to sink her?
It's a capital asset of an antagonistic enemy, you destroy it! This is not a mercy is for the weak idea, but a simple attrition of force. You need to be able to destroy hostile assets, ensuring they cannot influence the battle space, either now or in the future.
-
Don't forget secondary armament. Even if all primary weapons are offline, those secondaries are quite capable of threatening thin skinned vessels and air craft. You don't want them there!
More importantly:
It's a capital asset of an antagonistic enemy, you destroy it! This is not a mercy is for the weak idea, but a simple attrition of force. You need to be able to destroy hostile assets, ensuring they cannot influence the battle space, either now or in the future.
The Jean Bart was in port and manned by French troops that very rapidly changed sides again.
-
The Jean Bart was in port and manned by French troops that very rapidly changed sides again.
After Jean Bart was sunk. Not saying its contributory, but that the deed was done while still in the thick of battle and before the surrender.
-
Don't forget secondary armament. Even if all primary weapons are offline, those secondaries are quite capable of threatening thin skinned vessels and air craft. You don't want them there!
She didn't have any. The three triple 6.1-inch turrets aft weren't installed yet, the midships 6.1-inch guns were struck from the design in 1939. Benefitted her actually, since Massachussetts with one shell pierced the empty magazine for those secondary guns.
Her armament other than the single working main battery turret consisted of a motley light AA setup with two twin 90mm, two twin automatic 37mm, one single 90mm and 37mm each and four twin 13.2mm MG. Most of that had only been installed as an emergency uparming in the previous six months, after Jean Bart had been virtually stripped of her AA armament after her arrival in Casablanca.
-
She didn't have any. The three triple 6.1-inch turrets aft weren't installed yet, the midships 6.1-inch guns were struck from the design in 1939. Benefitted her actually, since Massachussetts with one shell pierced the empty magazine for those secondary guns.
Her armament other than the single working main battery turret consisted of a motley light AA setup with two twin 90mm, two twin automatic 37mm, one single 90mm and 37mm each and four twin 13.2mm MG. Most of that had only been installed as an emergency uparming in the previous six months, after Jean Bart had been virtually stripped of her AA armament after her arrival in Casablanca.
And that single working MGA along with the AA would be all the reason you need! Even without secondaries, she's still dangerous, so you eliminate the threat. Had she powered down the turret and signaled her surrender, then she likely would have been left alone, since she didn't she was sunk, simple.
-
It's worth considering, meanwhile, just how brave it is to take a half-finished battleship with only half her main armament and little else, and try to duel with a modern American battlewagon (with its friends, no less!). It would be hard to blame the crew of the Jean Bart for simply standing down as soon as the Allies showed up, or at least when the Massachusetts hove into view, but they put up a spirited fight- the American ship still proudly shows scars from the engagement in her role as a museum today, in fact.
Quite the effort by the French crew indeed, really. There's no real chance at victory- even if you somehow score that miracle shot that disables or sinks the Massachusetts, there's still Ranger's planes, the guns of the Texas, and a whole mess of other problems- they knew there was no way to actually WIN. That didn't stop them from fighting back with everything they had.
-
It's worth considering, meanwhile, just how brave it is to take a half-finished battleship with only half her main armament and little else, and try to duel with a modern American battlewagon (with its friends, no less!). It would be hard to blame the crew of the Jean Bart for simply standing down as soon as the Allies showed up, or at least when the Massachusetts hove into view, but they put up a spirited fight- the American ship still proudly shows scars from the engagement in her role as a museum today, in fact.
Quite the effort by the French crew indeed, really. There's no real chance at victory- even if you somehow score that miracle shot that disables or sinks the Massachusetts, there's still Ranger's planes, the guns of the Texas, and a whole mess of other problems- they knew there was no way to actually WIN. That didn't stop them from fighting back with everything they had.
Two less admirable possibilities occur to me to explain it:
1. France had already surrendered to the Germans and they thought they were on the 'winning side of history' to a degree that surrendering to the 'eventual losers' was a bad move for their futures.
2. Suicide attempt.
-
One side's "suicide attempt" is another side's "glorious last stand", just sayin'
-
One side's "suicide attempt" is another side's "glorious last stand", just sayin'
O HAI
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6b/7f/7a/6b7f7a5c0db895182bed1a41c5bbde90.jpg)
(No idea why the cockpit looks so odd, but it grabbed my attention anyway. Also... hey Brits? SHOOT BACK.)
-
Here rather handsome warship, Spanish Warship Canarias, a Heavy Cruiser made during the 1930s.
This is a colorized image of the ship.
(https://i.imgur.com/P15T73u.jpg)
She and her sistership, the Baleares fought with the Nationalists during the Spanish Civil War in late 1930s. They were being fitted out when the war broke out. I think that's why her mast is so looking like it was cut off in the picture here. The Canarias became the flagship of the Nationalist's navy. Both ships had to do with make-shift fire controls, fought Republic side ships and sank 34 of them. Her sistership was sunk in 1938.
After the war, she had participating in search for survivors of the German Battleship, Bismarck and remained in service until 1975 in decommissioning.
This is her picture in 1977 sailing under own power to her scrapping.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Canarias_C21_2.jpg)
-
Interesting note on those Spanish CAs, avid fans will quickly recognize that hull and weapon layout as being the County-class ships from Great Britain. Just with a single large funnel instead of three smaller ones (almost Lexington-esque!) and that big superstructure.
And as Wrangler pointed out, for much of their wartime careers they lacked modern fire control- they ran on the rangefinders on each side of their gun turrets. The fittings for fore and aft controls can be clearly seen, the cylindrical stump atop the bridge structure and the small tower just abaft the mainmast- they just didn't get them for a long time (I believe post-WWII for Canarias, not sure Baleares ever was fitted off the top of my head prior to her loss)
Also note the odd placement of the searchlights, on platforms at the fore and aft ends of the funnel a couple of deck levels above the flush main deck.
-
O HAI
YO GO ZA I MAS
Manned suicide cruise missile - it would be stupidly hilarious if it weren't an actual thing.
-
Interesting note on those Spanish CAs, avid fans will quickly recognize that hull and weapon layout as being the County-class ships from Great Britain. Just with a single large funnel instead of three smaller ones (almost Lexington-esque!) and that big superstructure.
And as Wrangler pointed out, for much of their wartime careers they lacked modern fire control- they ran on the rangefinders on each side of their gun turrets. The fittings for fore and aft controls can be clearly seen, the cylindrical stump atop the bridge structure and the small tower just abaft the mainmast- they just didn't get them for a long time (I believe post-WWII for Canarias, not sure Baleares ever was fitted off the top of my head prior to her loss)
Also note the odd placement of the searchlights, on platforms at the fore and aft ends of the funnel a couple of deck levels above the flush main deck.
Just the turrets' rangefinders for fire control? how much range would that had limited them to?
-
It was a slow day. Then i found this!
This is cool and i want say hilarious but i can't do that. This is a 1:20 scale manned model of the German Battleship, Graf Spree.
According to the article, she took four years to build and built similarly to a canoe.
The picture is from a 2006 article (http://gcaptain.com/manned-models-an-unusual-training-device/) and later one is from article from 2012. (http://twistedsifter.com/2012/08/30ft-model-replica-battleship-admiral-graf-spee-william-terra/)
(http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/giant-model-warship-replica-admiral-graf-spee-by-william-terra-15.jpg?w=800&h=577)
(http://www.steelnavy.com/images/2003%20June/GrafSpeeWilliamTerra.JPG)
(http://3kbo302xo3lg2i1rj8450xje.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/admiralgrafspeeterra081.jpg)
I didn't know that Massachusetts Maritime Academy has class for manned model sized ship for a ship handling course with other course in Paris!
They use tanker type manned model instead, which looks like kids are driving them instead of most experienced seas captains in the world getting their certificate! ;D
-
That look like it sit high on water (waterline on the hull) compared to the real life one.
-
It's worth considering, meanwhile, just how brave it is to take a half-finished battleship with only half her main armament and little else, and try to duel with a modern American battlewagon (with its friends, no less!).
There was actually a battle plan behind that. Jean Bart distracted the heavyweights while the 2nd Light Squadron (a CL, two DLs and five DE) would engage the troopships in a rapid thrust and the eleven submarines in port would sortie to try to sink the heavyweights (Massachussetts, Ranger and heavy cruisers), while the two fighter wings stationed nearby would engage the screen Ranger had up and then assist the forces. Of course that plan did not even remotely survive contact with the enemy.
-
YO GO ZA I MAS
Manned suicide cruise missile - it would be stupidly hilarious if it weren't an actual thing.
You have to keep in mind that this isn't designed for a Western mindset. When dying for your emperor is considered not just a duty but an honor, and you don't have access to the kind of advanced radio technology the Germans (and to a lesser extent the Americans) could play with in terms of the Fritz-X and such, you come up with something like this. It makes perfect sense from that perspective.
Just the turrets' rangefinders for fire control? how much range would that had limited them to?
Sight distance from basically deck level rather than up in the masts, so not nearly as far as a near-sister like the Norfolk could have. More problematic though is that the lack of a director means that all four turrets are firing on local control. Each one is providing its own fire solutions for itself- there's no coordination between them in terms of figuring out range brackets, target to fire on, even timing to fire full salvos- each gun mount is just doing its own thing with only limited direction from higher up ('shoot the second cruiser in the enemy formation'). An actual fire control director is immeasurably more effective for a ship of this era- losing one is absolutely crippling, not having one in the first place just as bad.
I don't have the link handy, but if you look around on a search engine for early director tests the British ran a test of a prototype fire director system aboard the Orion-class HMS Thunderer right before WWI began, pitting that ship and her new setup against the crack gunnery ship of the RN at the time, sister ship HMS Orion. Both fired at the same ranges in the same conditions at the same targets- the director was the only difference. The results were stunningly lopsided in favor of the director, and by the time the Grand Fleet was geared up for war most dreadnoughts had them installed- by the end of the war, nearly every cruiser and up in the RN did, as well as in most other navies.
-
When dying for your emperor is considered not just a duty but an honor, and you don't have access to the kind of advanced radio technology the Germans (and to a lesser extent the Americans) could play with in terms of the Fritz-X and such, you come up with something like this.
The Germans were considering manned cruise missiles too, even a manned ICBM. A single kamikaze attack - involving at least 40 aircraft with suicide pilots - was made by the German Airforce in April '45 against a USAF bomber group.
The "manned torpedoes" and the high-explosive speedboats that the German Navy were using in '44-'45 also had only about a 25% survival rate among crews, even if officially those weren't supposed to be one-way trips; they were originally built after the Royal Navy used midget submarines successfully against the Tirpitz.
-
Very familiar- actually I got to tour a small private museum in Washington (the state) about a decade ago, including a V-1 and a manned V-1. The cockpit is dismayingly tiny- as in, 'adults probably would not fit in here, send in the Hitler Youth'. No joke intended there- no other explanation makes sense.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/09/article-2259619-16D3AFC7000005DC-155_634x406.jpg)
-
considering they were planning things like the He 162 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_He_162) to be flown by Hitler Youth, due to lack of pilots, i wouldn't be surprised.
-
Eh, it's bigger than these.
(https://abload.de/img/one-man8ys5w.jpg)
Problems with it:
- they found out it couldn't dive, so they used them as mostly submersed surface vessels with the cupola above water. Common Allied defense were oil fields on the water, which would render the cupola invisible and the pilot hence without any view outside.
- There was pretty much no navigation gear (as in: the pilot had a compass), but the range was only about 50 nm at 4 knots speed anyway. Operating only at night, so they wouldn't be as visible. Aiming the torpedo went by a simple iron sight.
- When waves were high water could leak into the battery, resulting in chlorine being released. Into the cupola. The cupola could not be opened from inside.
They built 200 units before redesigning it so it could dive - and built another 500 of that version. Loss rates were 60+% in any given scenario, 80% of the crews died at some point.
And in case you're wondering, yes, the top torpedo is a rebuilt version of the lower one. The pilot section ahead of that pretty visible welding seam simply replaced the warhead.
-
Let it never be said that the Japanese Imperial naval architects lacked ambition:
(https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29390.0;attach=593132;image)
The "Giga Battleship". Statistics were:
Dimensions: 609 x 91 x 18m
Displacement: 500.000tons
Speed: 75km/h / 42knots
Main armament: 50x2 41cm cannons
Secondary armament:
* 200x1 14cm Casemated guns
* 100x1 10cm Casemated Guns
* 200x torpedo tubes
Yamato class shown for scale.
I'm reminded of the Polity's larger AI vessels:
“The Polity has moved on since then. Geronamid is an AI sited, mostly, inside one large vessel. That vessel is not allowed to orbit any worlds possessing oceans or crustal instabilities.”
They sat there looking puzzled, then the penny dropped.
-
The attachment can't be hotlinked, WT. Even trying to follow the link brings me to a sign-in page.
-
"Oh bother," said Pooh, as he reloaded.
Try this.
-
Holy shit, that looks like something a high school stoner would doodle in his math book while failing Trig.
That is, it looks just like my high school sketches. ;D
-
That engine room would be impressive, a series of engines powerful enough to get a 500,000 ton, 600 m long battleship to 42 knots.
Ambitious is would a typical humble and understated Japanese way of describing that design specification.
-
Holy shit, that looks like something a high school stoner would doodle in his math book while failing Trig.
That is, it looks just like my high school sketches. ;D
So, how's your trig? :)
-
So, how's your trig? :)
I failed it in high school, then had to learn it in the Army as an M1A1 Abrams crewman. So... not bad. :D
-
Wow, that ship looks like something you'd have a boss fight against in Strikers 1945.
-
I feel someone should say "that's no island..." when seeing it
-
I feel someone should say "that's no island..." when seeing it
I think any Allied forces seeing that one would be more along the lines of a string of four letter words followed by "Reverse course, all ahead full!"
-
I think any Allied forces seeing that one would be more along the lines of a string of four letter words followed by "Reverse course, all ahead full!"
"Chewie, I said switch auxiliary power to thrusters!"
"Why are we still heading towards it?!"
-
Not being a naval type I am trying to get my head around the size of this thing, so I did some googling and I found this chart that helped me understand just how big this giga-battleship is in comparison to some real ships that I can sort of get my head around:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Bateaux_comparaison3.png)
For those not familiar the Knock Nevis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawise_Giant), it was the longest ship ever built, an Ultra Large Crude Carrier that was scrapped in 2009.
(http://www.aukevisser.nl/supertankers/12c884040.jpg)
-
First thing that occurred upon looking at Worktroll's 'Yokozuna' ship there... Musashi's launch formed a small tidal wave upon hitting the water, flooding a not-insignificant portion of the residential neighborhoods across the bay. This is going to be several times larger.
So.
1) Where do you build it? Yamato and Musashi (and Shinano) needed special slipways constructed for them, because the ones used for the Nagatos and such weren't capable of something their size. So this thing...?
2) How to launch it? As I said above, Musashi caused some major problems with her launch. What do you do in a case like this? I mean pointing it out towards the ocean sounds obvious, but that means your slipway (once you find a place for it) HAS to point a specific direction, and sometimes that's not the best direction for it to point. (Think of places like Norfolk, Suisun Bay, etc.)
3) How to keep it secret? Japan was all about secrecy, both from foreign powers and from their own people (as a measure towards that first goal). This included some almost-comical measures to keep the Yamatos secrets for as long as possible, and they worked- when the war ended and the signing took place on the Missouri, the official American estimates still listed them with 16-inch guns and 35,000-ton displacements (though analysts were pretty sure that was off by a good portion, no one expected it to be over double!). There's no way to keep this secret though... right? The sooner the Americans, British, etc. find out you're building something stupid like this they'll scramble to build something to match it, so you want to stretch that out as long as possible, right?
Beyond the engineering issues with something like it, that all lines up to say that a ship like this isn't even a reasonable feasibility study like the German 'H' was. This is... well, as others said, a waste of trig textbook space.
-
Nevermind the materials you need to build it.
-
That big you're probably well into having to build it in a drydock and float it out instead of on a set of inclined building ways. At almost 2000 feet long the bow would be almost 70 feet higher than the stern on a 2 degree slipway.
-
I wonder if she's as large as the OOCL Hong Kong, currently the largest ship out there?
TT
-
I should point out that that's also enough steel to build a hundred fifty Akizukis, with their top-tier AA armament. And if anything was going to be effective in defense for Japan, it was gonna be AA ships.
-
I should point out that that's also enough steel to build a hundred fifty Akizukis, with their top-tier AA armament. And if anything was going to be effective in defense for Japan, it was gonna be AA ships.
Not bad at anti-sub warfare either, which ended up being arguably even more important to them.
Buuuuuuut, batshit-stupid battleship FTW, right?
Something to consider as well- even a more 'reasonable' (and we're going off a sliding scale on that) ship like the 'H' was said to have needed enough steel alone to use up a full year's worth of Tiger production. No question which was the more important asset to the Germans even when the war began, let alone by later in it! For the Japanese, it's even more critical- the whole reason they made their move on southeastern Asia (and in turn hitting Pearl Harbor to secure that move) was due to the lack of resources in their islands. Using that much of a rare asset on something like that... it boggles the mind that it was even considered enough to produce stats.
-
At least it wasn't suggested to be made out of Pycrete.
-
I wonder if she's as large as the OOCL Hong Kong, currently the largest ship out there?
TT
Wikipedia indicates OOCL Hong Kong is 400 m in length, so giga-battleship is 50% bigger.
(https://www.gatewaycontainersales.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/41A1DA4B00000578-4628552-From_above_The_OOCL_Hong_Kong_is_the_latest_in_a_line_of_mega_ve-a-3_1498392601481.jpg)
-
Not bad at anti-sub warfare either, which ended up being arguably even more important to them.
Buuuuuuut, batshit-stupid battleship FTW, right?
Something to consider as well- even a more 'reasonable' (and we're going off a sliding scale on that) ship like the 'H' was said to have needed enough steel alone to use up a full year's worth of Tiger production. No question which was the more important asset to the Germans even when the war began, let alone by later in it! For the Japanese, it's even more critical- the whole reason they made their move on southeastern Asia (and in turn hitting Pearl Harbor to secure that move) was due to the lack of resources in their islands. Using that much of a rare asset on something like that... it boggles the mind that it was even considered enough to produce stats.
What was the fuel requirements for the Musashi and Yamato? How much more fuel would it have taken to move that lumbering leviathan?
-
At least it wasn't suggested to be made out of Pycrete.
Considering said lack of steel that might actually have been a better option... ^-^
-
Absurd sized battleships you say?
Behold the H-44
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/51/25/d1/5125d15daf8fcf2c39eec2c63cc2516a.jpg)
(http://strangevehicles.greyfalcon.us/picturesu/e4.jpg)
And yes, thats her in scale to a Bismarck class ship
131,000 t
345 m (1,131 ft 11 in) long
8 × 50.8 cm (20.0 in) guns
12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) guns
16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in) guns
28 × 3.7 cm (1.5 in)
40 × 2 cm (0.8 in) guns
6 × 53.3 cm (21.0 in) torpedo tubes
Dem Wunderwaffen!
-
As much as Nazi Germans were in very wrong. I would have loved to have seen that big behemoth built just see how well it would have done.
-
Probably very poorly, looking at her armament, main guns aside, she's little improved over a Bismarck class ship. Same number of secondaries, same number of heavy AA guns, and a somewhat enlarged number of light AA (including the very bad 37mm gun which had each shell individually loaded and fired). So she'd be pretty darn vulnerable to air attack.
-
Wasn't some of her main guns suppose have gotten "bigger", starting with H-39 going to 16inch guns and progressing into the 20inch range by H44?
-
Yep that's right, H-39 was to have 16-inch guns, some of which were actually built and mounted in coastal defences in the Atlantic Wall. But as the design number went up, so too did the size of their guns, with H-44 having 20-inch rifles.
I did read one AH story where she's built but her battle is only part of the wider narrative of the story. The story starts off with a different Market Garden, which instead of going for the Dutch bridges, goes to clear out the Scheldt Estury and free up Antwerp. In that TL the Germans did build a few H-39 type ships as well as some O Class Battlecruisers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-class_battlecruiser As well as some more Carriers, but by the time of the AU Market Garden, all they have left is the Gnisenau (Now with 15-inch guns), Lutzow, a handful of cruisers and destroyers, a CV and the H-44 Germania. and these ships are sent out to block the Estury and run into an Anglo-American force.
I found the story on my hard drive, if anyone wants, PM me and I can lob it to you via email.
-
On to pictures, since i'm starved of not seeing more ships xp
Sad day for MCMs, USS Guardian dismantled in the Pacific.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=45966)
-
What was the fuel requirements for the Musashi and Yamato? How much more fuel would it have taken to move that lumbering leviathan?
They weren't as bad as one might think, but they also weren't designed for standard turbines either- the ships were actually intended for high-speed diesels. The engines ended up being failures, and a hasty redesign resulted in the slightly slower version we know and gawk at.
I've always found this interesting, because diesels are a big gamble on a heavy warship. Note that the only other heavyweight warships of the era to use them were the Deutschland-class pocket battleships- they needed the extra range that diesels would provide. That's a good thing, of course, but the Germans were constantly worried about how to handle major engine problems- a faulty cylinder in a Volkswagen means you switch it out, but on a ship like this it means tearing out multiple armored decks to get to the problem and replace it- for obvious protection reasons, you can't have hatches leading to the engines. Those were around 12,000 tons roughly, with cruiser armor. Now take a ship several times bigger and armored thicker than any other ship in history (by thickness if not effectiveness). You'd be damned near scrapping part of the ship just to get to the bad components- a simple replacement on a smaller ship becomes MONTHS of related repairs.
Japan probably lucked out on the way things worked out- it cost them a couple of knots of speed, but in the end it probably was the right tradeoff to make.
-
Got about 50 photos of the Norfolk Navy Yard, there were about 40 ships from Aircraft Carriers down in size. Just having problem downloading some of the photos.
-
Considering said lack of steel that might actually have been a better option... ^-^
Actually no, that is the reason the Great Britain dismissed Pycrete; for the proposed ice carrier they needed a LOT of steel for the refrigeration units which defeat the point of finding an alternative resource to steel.
-
Not bad at anti-sub warfare either, which ended up being arguably even more important to them.
Yeah. The US Sub fleet did a MAJOR number on Japan's economics. It's something that doesn't tend to get much focus since everyone likes to look at the big fleet and carrier battles. It didnt help that a lot of US Sub captains actually specifically targeted Destroyers and that Japan didnt have the means to replace them all to easily, either.
-
Yeah, there's a reason why the modern JMSDF is almost obsessively focused on ASW capabilities.
-
Yeah, there's a reason why the modern JMSDF is almost obsessively focused on ASW capabilities.
Its really almost the only remit for the Navy given their total defence stance for the latter half of the 20th century. Almost narrow-mindedly so.
-
Yeah, there's a reason why the modern JMSDF is almost obsessively focused on ASW capabilities.
It'd be easy to blockade the island, and honestly during the Bad Days of the cold war, what naval power projection did the Soviets legitimately have? Get good at ASW or die. I imagine they've just kept the specialty, playing against an area-denial form of warfare rather than full supremacy. Keep the islands clear of subs, give the Americans a chance to get forces in theater, and they can weather the rest.
-
Yeah, there's a reason why the modern JMSDF is almost obsessively focused on ASW capabilities.
The JMSDF isn't obsessively focused on ASW, they just don't put AAW on a pedestal like most other navies do.
And in honour of our friends, here's the worlds largest Destroyer, the Izumo Class DDH JS Izumo:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/JS_Izumo_%28DDH-183%29_just_after_her_launch.jpg)
-
Re: Izumo
(https://s33.postimg.cc/3uqewmibj/2bh8vx.jpg)
Anyway, for the UK's Type 31e frigate programme, Babcock is proposing the "Arrowhead 140" which is based on the Danish Iver Huitfeldt hull
(https://s33.postimg.cc/pjyhrz70v/type31e.jpg)
HDMS Peter Willemoes for comparison
(https://s33.postimg.cc/4lnqghplr/s_TLAv_A5.jpg)
-
Yep, just like how the USN had the old forerunner "Littorial Combat Ship" to provide Naval Gunfire Support ^-^
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg)
-
Two less admirable possibilities occur to me to explain it:
1. France had already surrendered to the Germans and they thought they were on the 'winning side of history' to a degree that surrendering to the 'eventual losers' was a bad move for their futures.
2. Suicide attempt.
I blame the Royal Navy actually. After Petain's surrender, the Brits feared the French Navy's capital ships falling into German hands, so they launched a surprise attack to sink as many French ships as possible in their new, North African ports. As a result, the French Navy in general had strong pro-Axis sympathies. So when the French see Allied ships sailing towards them, they immediately go into "shoot them!" Mode.
-
I blame the Royal Navy actually. After Petain's surrender, the Brits feared the French Navy's capital ships falling into German hands, so they launched a surprise attack to sink as many French ships as possible in their new, North African ports. As a result, the French Navy in general had strong pro-Axis sympathies. So when the French see Allied ships sailing towards them, they immediately go into "shoot them!" Mode.
You can't blame the RN, they had far too many centuries of tradition of fighting the French to let something as minor as being on the same side as them stop them
-
You can't blame the RN, they had far too many centuries of tradition of fighting the French to let something as minor as being on the same side as them stop them
Backs against the wall, out classed army, little chance of holding off the Luftwaffe (initial feelings despite grim determination) the navy was their only real advantage letting the French one fall into enemy hands with only the French's word that it wouldn't was not good enough in their minds.
Had the Royal Navy not attacked the French what would have happened no-one knows and that was too much of a chance to take.
-
I blame the Royal Navy actually. After Petain's surrender, the Brits feared the French Navy's capital ships falling into German hands, so they launched a surprise attack to sink as many French ships as possible in their new, North African ports. As a result, the French Navy in general had strong pro-Axis sympathies. So when the French see Allied ships sailing towards them, they immediately go into "shoot them!" Mode.
Vichy France fought much harder against the Allies than pre-war France ever did against the Germans. It's a fact that the west was loathe to accept post-war, but it's a fact none the less. It's also why the French Surrender remains so frowned upon, "Why'd you fold so quick against them, and fight so hard against us?"
-
The JMSDF isn't obsessively focused on ASW, they just don't put AAW on a pedestal like most other navies do.
And in honour of our friends, here's the worlds largest Destroyer, the Izumo Class DDH JS Izumo:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/JS_Izumo_%28DDH-183%29_just_after_her_launch.jpg)
Looks like the JMSDF will be getting F-35B's and MV-22's to operate off her. Source: http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201805260034.html
Yamato's IJN is coming back....
-
Looks like the JMSDF will be getting F-35B's and MV-22's to operate off her. Source: http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201805260034.html
Yamato's IJN is coming back....
They do need to buck up. The JSDF has certain obsolescence issues they ought to deal with to be a credible power in the Pacific, or indeed to fulfill their self-defence remit anyway.
-
I wonder they can handle the costs. A carrier like Izumo isn't going be enough to handle real aircraft duties.
They'll likely need build full on carrier similar to the British's Queen Elizabeth class if they want to compete with Chinese with their large carriers.
-
I wonder they can handle the costs. A carrier like Izumo isn't going be enough to handle real aircraft duties.
They'll likely need build full on carrier similar to the British's Queen Elizabeth class if they want to compete with Chinese with their large carriers.
Do the Japanese need to base their strike fighters on carriers or can they base them from land?
I am working on the assumption that Japan is looking to remain a regional and defensive focused power rather than expeditionary.
ASW helicopters/ships and their air defence destroyers (and something to carry the helicopters) do make sense for keeping their sea lines of communication open.
I'm essentially viewing Japan as similar to the UK but without the drive to undertake expeditionary stuff.
-
Do the Japanese need to base their strike fighters on carriers or can they base them from land?
I am working on the assumption that Japan is looking to remain a regional and defensive focused power rather than expeditionary.
ASW helicopters/ships and their air defence destroyers (and something to carry the helicopters) do make sense for keeping their sea lines of communication open.
I'm essentially viewing Japan as similar to the UK but without the drive to undertake expeditionary stuff.
hmmm... you know, the comment I was about to make def. strays into real-world politics.
Let's look at more pretty ship pictures...(https://previews.agefotostock.com/previewimage/medibigoff/32fe33d6b953d57349d90c4db8e837af/dae-10343263.jpg)
-
but it's a fact none the less.
Ya, no. Completely, 100%, wrong. Let's look at the two biggest campaigns for each "side." Those would be the Battle of France against the Axis and North Africa against the Allies.
Length of Campaign
BoF: 46 days
NA: 8 days
Soldiers Committed
BoF: 2,240,000 soldiers
NA: 125,000 soldiers
French Casualties
BoF: 58,829 killed
NA: 1,346 killed
Casualties Inflicted
BoF: 27,074 killed
NA: 1,100 killed
-
Do the Japanese need to base their strike fighters on carriers or can they base them from land?
I am working on the assumption that Japan is looking to remain a regional and defensive focused power rather than expeditionary.
ASW helicopters/ships and their air defense destroyers (and something to carry the helicopters) do make sense for keeping their sea lines of communication open.
I'm essentially viewing Japan as similar to the UK but without the drive to undertake expeditionary stuff.
I think it would be hard sort of unless they buy a older carrier from the United States. Such as the Kitty Hawk or another mothballed conventional carrier. They don't want go nuclear for certain. If they build their own, it would take years they won't have time to weight. They'd have use F/A-18s or something else for the air compliment. F/A-35C would properly work for their strike needs if they need do that sort thing. Japan's nautical industry hasn't build a warship scale of a Shinano size warship since WW2. Having existing short-term existing ship will work provided there isn't too many thing needs to be fixed/retrofitted. Decades of build up of industry and developing systems will make hard.
As for projection. Sure they have the island airbases, but having carrier means you don't have a fixed target where enemy KNOWS where you are. Vs Something you can move.
In the meantime. Last frontline aircraft carrier Japan produced. The Unryu Class Aircraft Carrier. The first of three ships produced, starting with Unryu it's self in 1944.
(https://www.world-war-2-planes.com/images/Unryu-Class.jpg)
-
Ya, no. Completely, 100%, wrong. Let's look at the two biggest campaigns for each "side." Those would be the Battle of France against the Axis and North Africa against the Allies.
Length of Campaign
BoF: 46 days
NA: 8 days
Soldiers Committed
BoF: 2,240,000 soldiers
NA: 125,000 soldiers
French Casualties
BoF: 58,829 killed
NA: 1,346 killed
Casualties Inflicted
BoF: 27,074 killed
NA: 1,100 killed
might keep in mind the proportions here. North Africa: a colony. France is...well, france. there's bound to be more french soldiers in france than in Casablanca or Tunisia.
-
Fine, let's look at proportions.
Mortality Rate
BoF: 2.62%
NA: 1.08%
So North Africa was less than half as lethal for the soldiers stationed there. It lasted less time, had fewer soldiers, who inflicted fewer casualties, and took significantly less even when adjusted proportionally. Yet somehow that adds up to Vichy France fighting harder against us.
-
Gentlemen?
Ship pictures. Not casualty bickering.
-
I have always rather liked the look of the d'Estienne d'Orves class avisos (sloops). They might look as cluttered as fishing boats to modern eyes, but there's a certain Cold War functionality to them, nonetheless.
(https://s22.postimg.cc/9cmiwgkzl/83_790.jpg)
-
Speaking of Cold War designs
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-B8abyYNOhuc/VfE33M5dw6I/AAAAAAAA1b8/HJ1KpviKDMs/s1600/10056058t2.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/AdmiralVinogradov2009.jpg/1280px-AdmiralVinogradov2009.jpg)
The Udaloy class from the Soviet Union was an absolutely stunningly handsome ship. I always preferred the look of the Soviet stuff over the stark ulitarian designs of the USN like the OHP, Spruance and Ticho's.
And there was their Anti-shipping counterpart the Sovremmeny who again were very very handsome ships.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Gremyashchiy.jpg)
(http://www.ww2.dk/new/navy/images/pr.956.jpg)
-
I think the last years of Russian/Soviet designs were really nice looking ships.
I think the Kirov class ships is one of the nicest looking ships out there.
-
I am a huge fan of the Sovremmeny and Kirov from the asthetic point of view, if nothing else. I really love the clutter about them, among other things.
-
The Soviets definitely didn't do 'streamlined' designs. You know exactly what weapons systems, electronics, etc. their ships have because they're right out there to see- VLS and such be damned. Maybe not the most efficient designs, but they definitely are WARSHIPS in aesthetics.
-
IIRC the Soviets were quite inovative at sea and they did use VLS in their later designs, the Udaloy's SA-N-9 SAM is a VLS launcher wheras the older SA-N-4 was a pop up launcher.
And I do love the Kirov and I also love the look of its 'cheap' backup the Slava class
(http://militarynavalhistory.net/shippictures/igs_cruisers/slava.jpg)
(http://navsource.narod.ru/photos/02/171/02171075.jpg)
As you said JadeHellbringer, they didn't do streamlined and it wasn't that efficient but DAMN it looks good.
And speaking of the SA-N-4 I think this one is in need of a serious bit of an overhaul and some WD-40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrgyuMOKtKY
-
@marauder - I have the book that diagram comes from, its pretty spiffy. And yes, the Slavas are one of my all time favourites.
-
I have always rather liked the look of the d'Estienne d'Orves class avisos (sloops). They might look as cluttered as fishing boats to modern eyes, but there's a certain Cold War functionality to them, nonetheless.
(https://s22.postimg.cc/9cmiwgkzl/83_790.jpg)
When my dad was on Haitian Refugee Operations in 1994, he got a tote bag from the ARA Guerrico (P-32) of that type.
And now ships of that class serve in the Turkish Navy alongside second hand OHPs/
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Smetlivyy2003.jpg)
The Kashin class, probably the Soviet Unions first truly modern destroyer after the endless parade of Sorky, Kotlin and Kanin's and were the first Soviet ship to have gas turbines giving them an impressive flank speed of 35 knots.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Strogiy.jpg)
Six ships still exist today, 5 were built to a modified design for the Indian navy and one is still in service with the Russian navy, serving in the Black Sea.
-
I just saw what happened to this beauty, sad story never deployed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin)
TT
-
I just saw what happened to this beauty, sad story never deployed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_aircraft_carrier_Graf_Zeppelin)
TT
No, it's never being finished, being the subject of non-stop political infighting and being a giant money and resource sink is a very ogod thing.
-
It also had basically nothing to fly from it. Navalized versions of the Me-109 and Ju-87 were obsolete before they even left the drawing board, and never went past the prototype stage. No one involved had anything even resembling an idea how to run a carrier beyond second-hand reports from the Americans, British, and Japanese navies. No torpedo bomber really was ever put forward for the ship to use- a rather vital weapon, as foreign carriers proved time and again.
This was a paper tiger, even if she'd run her commissioning pennant up.
-
iirc Focke Wulf proposed a centerline torpedo mount for the FW190, but it was too late to go anywhere, which sucks since the FW landing gear would have handled carrier conditions better
-
No torpedo bomber really was ever put forward for the ship to use- a rather vital weapon, as foreign carriers proved time and again.
If she was ready, she could have carried loaded with Junkers Ju 88's and their variants, along with 87 Stukas. Maybe even carried the Fieseler Fi 103R Reichenberg?
Thoughts on that?
TT
Also have you guys seen the rubberized U-Boat?
https://uboat.net/boats/u480.htm (https://uboat.net/boats/u480.htm)
-
the wiki refers to a Feisler 167
https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=1483
thats all the fieslers i can find data on
-
she could have carried loaded with Junkers Ju 88's and their variants
No.
The Luftwaffe never considered the Ju-88 for a variety of reasons. For starters, its big and heavy. It's takeoff weight is roughly 30,000 pounds. By comparison, the TBF Avenger came in around 18,000. That's a lot more weight to throw off a deck.
The wingspan would be a problem too. The Avenger had a 54 foot wingspan while the Ju-88 came in at 65. That might not seem like a big deal but consider this: the Essex ran with with a 108 foot flight deck (double the wingspan of an Avenger). The Graf Zepplin would only have had a 98 foot wide flight deck. Instead of having a margin of error of your wingspan the Graf Zepplin would have had only half the Ju-88's wingspan. That's a recipe for a lot of accidents.
On that note, the Luftwaffe managed something successful practice in landings in something like 1,500 out of 1,800 land tests. 5 out of 6 successful landings is truly abysmal for carrier landings. And that was with the aircraft they went ahead with. The Ju-88 would have been an absolute deathtrap for crews on the plane and the deck crews.
-
It also had basically nothing to fly from it. Navalized versions of the Me-109 and Ju-87 were obsolete before they even left the drawing board, and never went past the prototype stage. No one involved had anything even resembling an idea how to run a carrier beyond second-hand reports from the Americans, British, and Japanese navies. No torpedo bomber really was ever put forward for the ship to use- a rather vital weapon, as foreign carriers proved time and again.
This was a paper tiger, even if she'd run her commissioning pennant up.
The Fieseler Fi-167 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieseler_Fi_167) was specifically developed for use from the Graf Zeppelin, though it was never used for its intended purpose.
-
No.
The Luftwaffe never considered the Ju-88 for a variety of reasons. For starters, its big and heavy. It's takeoff weight is roughly 30,000 pounds. By comparison, the TBF Avenger came in around 18,000. That's a lot more weight to throw off a deck.
The wingspan would be a problem too. The Avenger had a 54 foot wingspan while the Ju-88 came in at 65. That might not seem like a big deal but consider this: the Essex ran with with a 108 foot flight deck (double the wingspan of an Avenger). The Graf Zepplin would only have had a 98 foot wide flight deck. Instead of having a margin of error of your wingspan the Graf Zepplin would have had only half the Ju-88's wingspan. That's a recipe for a lot of accidents.
On that note, the Luftwaffe managed something successful practice in landings in something like 1,500 out of 1,800 land tests. 5 out of 6 successful landings is truly abysmal for carrier landings. And that was with the aircraft they went ahead with. The Ju-88 would have been an absolute deathtrap for crews on the plane and the deck crews.
Fine... then Ju-87C's to fill the intended roles.
TT
-
Still a bad idea. They were thirteen mph slower (193 vs. 206) than the TBD Devastator. The Devastator, of course, being the torpedo bomber than got more of its own air crews killed than Japanese sailors. And that top speed for the Stuka was with a bomb not a larger and more cumbersome torpedo.
-
The big question, of course, is why bother with an aircraft carrier at all. Carriers were important in the Pacific War because the combatants needed to cover vast distances of ocean to even engage each other across hundreds of islands. The Atlantic battleground was mostly about the shipping lanes, with little force-on-force conflict until one reached Europe.
It was a vanity project, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but the Germans were correct to abandon her.
-
IIRC the Graf Zepplin also had some really serious design flaws. She devoted a massive tonnage to her 5.9-inch guns that were low angle anti-shipping weapons, and their associated fire control equipment. She would use CO2 tanks to propel her catapults but these had really weak generators and once they discharged it was something like 30 minutes before they'd be recharged before they could be used again. There was also an issue with her having stability problems after they fitted anti-torpedo bulges giving her a permanent 8 degree list. :s
With the large number of 5.9's she was apparently meant to go after convoys herself, use her planes to deal with the escorts and then sink merchants which is a...'novel' use for carriers to say the least :s
-
Wasn't the German surface fleet small in comparison to say, Japanese or her own submarine fleet?
If that's the case, she would have to be able to justify her existence as a ship being able to do more than being a taxi for planes.
If i'm not mistaken, the their navy wasn't big element in their armed services, i believe their leadership had focus on Air power and army.
It would make sense for her to have similar mentality as say the Americans when they first commissioned the Lexington-Class where they had their twin eight inch guns for self-defense arguably some offensive abilities. Graf Zepplin would have likely been built during that time when german was trying funnel resources into known winning concepts.
-
The German sea control would have been, at best, the Baltic and the Med. While a carrier might have been useful for land attack and supporting North Africa, for example, they desperately needed about ten times as many subs as they had, and should have stuck with the same doctrine the Soviets used in the Cold War of focusing on sea interdiction and denial. All the focus and push for battleships...honestly, I can't see their use nearly as much as the western powers, the Americans especially. If they wanted aircraft, stick with land-based stuff and treat Europe like an 'unsinkable carrier' like England, just bigger.
Also, to compare the utility of the Ju-88, the B-25 Mitchells used in the Doolittle Raid were a one-way trip, had to be loaded aboard Hornet one by one with shipyard cranes, and the ship was entirely useless until the giant planes were kicked off the ship. The B-25 is 20 inches wider in wingspan and almost six feet longer than the -88, and a few thousand pounds heavier at maximum load. But it's still the best direct comparison, and shows just how unusable the idea of carrier-borne heavy bombers would have been.
-
The big question, of course, is why bother with an aircraft carrier at all. Carriers were important in the Pacific War because the combatants needed to cover vast distances of ocean to even engage each other across hundreds of islands. The Atlantic battleground was mostly about the shipping lanes, with little force-on-force conflict until one reached Europe.
It was a vanity project, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but the Germans were correct to abandon her.
100% this. As we mentioned a couple of pages back with the Aquila, this is a paper tiger not worth the steel it took to build her.
Even with a reasonable air group in place (and as noted by myself and others, that was a long way off even if the ship had been finished), in a carrier duel with Ark Royal or an Illustrious, there's no way this thing is going to win that duel. So if she can't put an air group up that can defeat the standard carrier of the opposition, what good is she? Yeah, convoy attacks will work well, but if she has to flee the instant an Illustrious shows up every time the RN is going to keep a carrier or two on hand at all times to bottle her up.
And bottled-up is exactly what she'd be. Look at the map- to get out of German waters she has to go right past the RN, and even if you manage that feat undetected (a tough call: see Bismarck's breakout), you have to break through the GIUK gap to get into the north Atlantic. Then what?
There's just no good use for this thing, never really was.
-
There's just no good use for this thing, never really was.
Exactly. It doesn't matter what design flaws she had, or if there were aircraft she could carry, if the root question remains unanswered, and that question is: why? Germany had no use for an aircraft carrier.
-
Only thing i could have seen them using carriers was to strike the United States or allies beyond the European Theater.
Can you imagine what would happened if they managed to do a strike against Norfolk? Bomb New York? Carrier may been tough to get over there between the submarine patrols of the US, but at one point the Germans were making the Atlantic a grave yard for the Allies shipping. They could used Graf Zeppelin or even Aquila to do sort of thing if they were built right or in time. Or had made cheaper design of carriers such as the conversion of cargo ships.
Such as this sort ship. The converted 8,000 ton civilian fuel tanker, M/V Rapana.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Mv_rapana.jpg)
Escort Carriers, such as the HMS Audacity.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/HMS_Audacity_%28D10%29.jpg)
Had Germans done something like that, they could had disrupted US's supply train little more and done some psycho dramatic effects. Well maybe.
-
There's a whole lot of ifs there. If the carrier was complete. If they had planes that could launch. If they survived long enough to get a strike in. If US fighter patrols didnt intercept...
But even if they did strike a US Naval yard, this may seem cold but 'so what?'. They didnt have enough payload to cause any significant damage and other naval yards would take up the slack.
-
There's a whole lot of ifs there. If the carrier was complete. If they had planes that could launch. If they survived long enough to get a strike in. If US fighter patrols didnt intercept...
But even if they did strike a US Naval yard, this may seem cold but 'so what?'. They didnt have enough payload to cause any significant damage and other naval yards would take up the slack.
It'd just be an East Coast Pearl Harbor moment. Any damage it did would be more than counter-balanced by American outrage. But it's far more likely that it would've been sunk ignominiously on its first action.
-
It'd just be an East Coast Pearl Harbor moment. Any damage it did would be more than counter-balanced by American outrage. But it's far more likely that it would've been sunk ignominiously on its first action.
I'd go so far as to call it a Doolittle Raid- no real damage caused (planes wouldn't have enough bomb load to cause any major devastation, and only time to launch maybe two waves before needing to flee), aim solely for psychological impact- and it might not be the kind the Kriegsmarine wanted.
Likely the Graf ends up on the bottom of the ocean, along with most of her escorts- after all, to flee for home, any of those ships have to slip past the GIUK gap, Great Britain, etc.- and they'd be on alert. So, a suicide run for a significant portion of the surface fleet in exchange for dropping a few bombs on Manhattan... nope.
-
the only role I can think of for a German carrier would have been finding convoys for U-boat wolfpacks
if they'd managed to sneak past the RN and the GIUK gap then one might have been able to find a home in the French Atlantic ports although any return to harbour would have been at high risk of being the focus of a lot of attention from the RAF
Wasn't the German surface fleet small in comparison to say, Japanese or her own submarine fleet?
If that's the case, she would have to be able to justify her existence as a ship being able to do more than being a taxi for planes.
If i'm not mistaken, the their navy wasn't big element in their armed services, i believe their leadership had focus on Air power and army.
It would make sense for her to have similar mentality as say the Americans when they first commissioned the Lexington-Class where they had their twin eight inch guns for self-defense arguably some offensive abilities. Graf Zepplin would have likely been built during that time when german was trying funnel resources into known winning concepts.
the Germans have pretty much always been a "land power" and the WW2 Luftwaffe was very much focused on close cooperation with the army - they never had a "strategic" bomber and failed to win the Battle of Britain
the German navy had started as a bit of a vanity project for the Kaiser as he was jealous of Queen Victoria's fleet and then in WW1 they quite sensibly realised that their best role was pinning the RN in place by remaining as a fleet in being while raiders (surface and subsurface) tried to strangle Britain's sea lines of communication
that the German leadership in WW2 got distracted by vanity projects of large (excessively large) prestige projects... fails to surprise me
-
I'd go so far as to call it a Doolittle Raid- no real damage caused (planes wouldn't have enough bomb load to cause any major devastation, and only time to launch maybe two waves before needing to flee), aim solely for psychological impact- and it might not be the kind the Kriegsmarine wanted.
I can see it now. "They blew up the Statue of WHAT?" I almost wonder if the Pacific Theater would be put on hold to burn Germany to the ground if New York got hit, then get back to dealing with Japan afterward. Graf Zeppelin is a 34,000 ton suicide note.
-
I can see it now. "They blew up the Statue of WHAT?" I almost wonder if the Pacific Theater would be put on hold to burn Germany to the ground if New York got hit, then get back to dealing with Japan afterward. Graf Zeppelin is a 34,000 ton suicide note.
That kind of was the strategy - Europe First
-
You're saying as if the Bismark and Tirptiz weren't even around...
Imagine a Wolf Pack or two screening forward the Graf Zeppelin, sides and back with either of the two battleships / heavy cruiser types in tow. Along with multiple attack Freighters such as Q-Ships and armed Merchants.
TT
-
Chat needs more pre-dreadnoughts
HMS Hood, a variant of the Royal Sovereign class which traded one deck to mount her guns in turrets rather than open barbettes. Technically she still exists as she was scuttled as a breakwater across a part of Portland harbour but there's probably not much left of her and you can't really dive on her either.
(http://hideo.eu/images/Sprzet/GB/okrety/hood1891/hood3.jpg)
(http://hideo.eu/images/Sprzet/GB/okrety/hood1891/hood29.jpg)
(http://hideo.eu/images/Sprzet/GB/okrety/hood1891/hood6.jpg)
(http://hideo.eu/images/Sprzet/GB/okrety/hood1891/hood1.jpg)
HMS Hood is evolving into a Majestic class Battleship! The direct descendant of the Royal Sovereign class, the Majestics incorperated armoured hoods for their guns that were lighter than the huge turrets on the Hood and the last ships of the class would have all round loading, the majority having to point their guns fore and aft to reload.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/58/22/0f/58220f8bce5efd50a579030fcc32fdac.jpg)
-
Marauder, what part of the harbor is the ship sunk in. I'm trying see if google or bing will show it.
-
Marauder, what part of the harbor is the ship sunk in. I'm trying see if google or bing will show it.
She's sunk at Portland harbour in the southern channel into the port.
-
You're saying as if the Bismark and Tirptiz weren't even around...
Imagine a Wolf Pack or two screening forward the Graf Zeppelin, sides and back with either of the two battleships / heavy cruiser types in tow. Along with multiple attack Freighters such as Q-Ships and armed Merchants.
So what? As the Germans learned, one battleship and one heavy cruiser do not a Navy make. Adding an aircraft carrier would not change anything. The Kriegsmarine's only truly effective forces were its submarines because they were striking at Allied logistics. The entire rest of their navy was, ultimately, a footnote in the war, only of interest and import to those who are really into ships.
No, if you want grand Axis vs. Allies naval combat, you're stuck with the entire Pacific theater. Sorry. ::)
-
Marauder, what part of the harbor is the ship sunk in. I'm trying see if google or bing will show it.
You can't see her, I've looked on Google (I live about 5 miles from there)
I haven't looked for her in real life though
-
You can't see her, I've looked on Google (I live about 5 miles from there)
I haven't looked for her in real life though
I wasn't sure. Sometimes Google maps can see into the water sometimes. I know she deep in bottom, but you never know.
There wasn't any land marks from that old picture is i could spot the ship's form. I know it's long shot. xp
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Portland_harbour_south.JPG)
Apparently thats where she is, that dark shadow in the water I would assume is her.
-
Dude, I respect your enthusiasm but Colbosch is completely accurate. I fail to see how adding either of those battleships to the Graf Zepplin would make much of a difference.
Ponder Operation Rheinübung. Adding the Graf Zepplin would have done nothing to change how Denmark Strait went. It would have merely exposed the Graf Zepplin to potential damage from the Hood and Prince of Wales. After that, what would have been accomplished by its presence?
Tovey was sailing with Victorious in the hunt. During the hunt, Victorious used her Fulmars to scout. They had considerably more range than the 109s the Graf Zepplin would have had. The 109s and the Stukas would have not been able to threaten the Royal Navy (RN). On the other hand, heading the other way they wouldn't have helped much either. The Germans didn't have an aerial radar set so unless they were maintaining a particularly effective CAP (unlikely with only ten 109s on board) then their first warning would have been the Swordfish arriving. With the potential presence of 109s the Swordfish would have then been escorted by Fulmars and the two fighters would negate each other. In other words, Graf Zepplin doesn't save Bismarck.
-
ex-HMVS Cerberus, ironclad breastwork monitor, sunk off Black Rock, VIC in 1926.
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/styles/content_image_full_width_no_sidebar/public/P1010063.jpg?itok=B5PAa8lX)
(http://www.cerberus.com.au/cerberus_before.jpg)
Well visible in Google Maps - look for "historic shipwreck HMVS Cerberus"
The thought of sailing this:
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1200/5158696318_fd0ddec812.jpg)
from Newcastle-on-Tyne to Melbourne fills me with awe, and I can only imagine that internal doors had to be widened to allow the balls of the crew to pass.
-
How about the Concrete Battleship Fort Drum!!
-
Peruvian Navy's new Makassar class LPD. Pretty functional, basic Indonesian-Korean transport box.
(https://s22.postimg.cc/nmamvyypt/BAP-_Pisco-1-1024x683.jpg)
(https://s22.postimg.cc/whbh6hfsh/BAP-_Pisco-2-1024x768.jpg)
There are a couple of interesting ships in the background of the last picture here.
(https://s22.postimg.cc/cmpfkcsv5/BAP-_Pisco-3-1024x768.jpg)
-
I keep forgetting that Peru has a coastline.
-
(https://i2.wp.com/www.learning-history.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/fort-drum.jpg?resize=768%2C473&ssl=1)
(https://i2.wp.com/www.learning-history.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/fort-drum-4.jpg?fit=850%2C603&ssl=1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGxD_eaqh94
More stuff about Fort Drum.
-
Peruvian Navy's new Makassar class LPD. Pretty functional, basic Indonesian-Korean transport box.
Spiffy!
Have to wonder if they're worrying about having to invade someone, or if they want to make friends with a high profile HADRmobile.
Come to think of it, if it has good aviation facilities, it could probably make a good flag for drug interdiction operations.
-
Spiffy!
Have to wonder if they're worrying about having to invade someone, or if they want to make friends with a high profile HADRmobile.
Come to think of it, if it has good aviation facilities, it could probably make a good flag for drug interdiction operations.
These kind of ships are very handy for disaster relief operations.
-
Spiffy!
Have to wonder if they're worrying about having to invade someone, or if they want to make friends with a high profile HADRmobile.
Come to think of it, if it has good aviation facilities, it could probably make a good flag for drug interdiction operations.
The USN and RN have proven that modern LPDs are naval swiss army knives, especially useful for poorer countries and in peacetime.
Functions in OOTW include HADR ops of course, very important, ordinary supply trucking between ports, coastal hops to bypass rough terrain, playing mothership to extend the range of OPVs and helis, planting OPs on islands... lots of use for a big metal box that can carry choppers, patrol boats and landing craft alike.
Rotterdam-class LPD
(https://s22.postimg.cc/4i91qva4h/Landing_Platform_Dock_Rotterdam.jpg)
-
I imagine Peru also has a fairly large whatever that term is for the area where you're responsible for responding to distress calls. Talk about wanting to extend the range of OPVs..m
-
The two ships replace ex-USN Terrebonne Parish class LSTs. They were originally - about ten years ago - planning to acquire a pair of Newport LSTs from the USN, but the Koreans offered them a better deal that involved local production.
While the two LPD are considered "multipurpose vessels" in the Peruvian Navy, not dedicated amphibious units, Peru does have a marine brigade of about 3,000 men which are slated to be transported into action by the two LPD and two remaining LST; realistically the two LST will likely be discarded too once the second Makassar is in service. The Marines were recently reequipped with amphibious APCs for such operations, a battalion worth of LAV-II.
-
Thats pretty much what HMNZS Canterbury is used for... though its a very budget tiny example of this kinda platform.
But disaster relief in our neck of the woods... and military intervention if someone in our neck of the woods takes a leap off of sanity and collapses into a civil war/goes full junta, etc etc.
IE: Peacekeeping in the pacific. Being able to dump a dozen or so LAV IIIs and their associated infantry company on a beach in the pacific is actually a fairly significant force.
-
Rotterdam-class LPD
It's a somewhat bad example for that btw. Rotterdam and Johan de Witt are intended for actual amphibious reinforcement, not so much for multi-purpose HADR.
For HADR in its overseas posessions the Royal Dutch Navy uses the multipurpose vessel HNLMS Pelikaan, here in the back:
(https://abload.de/img/dutch-caribbeanj9sr3.jpg)
That there is basically the forward-stationed Dutch patrol fleet for the Caribbean. Pelikaan, two Hollands (touching off with the other two stationed at home) and two (out of three) Damen 4100 200-ton patrol vessels.
(https://abload.de/img/pelikaanqos0z.jpg)
If Rotterdam is used over there, it's either for a major operation demanding amphibious insertion or other support on a major scale (offhand the only such operation Rotterdam has been on was after the 2004 tsunami in Indonesia) or for actual amphibious warfare (training) of the Dutch Marines. For any minor operations - moving supplies, getting some marines around, inserting a small number of boats for that purpose, humanitarian aid after hurricanes and such - Pelikaan is used.
-
my Dad took this photo while on holiday in Cornwall the other day
-
Your dad has a very good camera!
-
Your dad has a very good camera!
I don't know if it was his iPhone or a different camera - he does have some sort of dSLR
-
Either way...very nice!
-
Your dad has a very good camera!
Either way...very nice!
I just spoke to him - dSLR with zoom lens
-
Very nice photo of the QE
-
I'm actually not a camera guy at all, I'm just incredibly envious because the only one I own is in my phone, and it's a true piece of crap, to the point that even if I got a chance to snap a picture of a ship like that, there's decent odds that even I would delete it.
-
(http://www.radiationworks.com/version2/longbeachreactor2.jpg)
A trio of lovely cruisers- the far left is USS Long Beach, the world's first nuclear-powered surface warship. At right is either the USS Albany or USS Chicago (I believe Chicago based on the superstructure). I don't see a hull number on the Cleveland-class at center, unfortunately.
-
Looks like 73 to me (just behind the anchor)...
-
Looks like 73 to me (just behind the anchor)...
That would make her... *looks at list* USS St. Paul, if you're right. I think you are, but it's hard to tell on this screen.
-
The second digit is definitely 3... The first might be something else, but I really think it's a 7.
-
That is one ugly missile cruiser. I wonder how top heavy it is and how it handled high winds with that gigantic structure.
-
That is one ugly missile cruiser. I wonder how top heavy it is and how it handled high winds with that gigantic structure.
I'm guessing you mean the Chicago? ^-^
Yeah, they weren't pretty ships. That's an aluminum superstructure though, which helped keep the topweight down (a practice that ended following the horrific damage to the Belknap due to a fire following a collision). The rounded edges helped keep a broadside wind from causing it to act like a sail the way it would with a blockier structure like... well, two doors down the dock. From what I've heard they were just fine as seakeeping ships, with a bit more tendency to roll than the old heavies like the Baltimores but less drastic in the rolls they did take- presumably because the big, heavy turrets were gone in place of relatively lightweight missile batteries.
As for Long Beach, it's interesting to look at her design and see the transition between the old cruisers and the new. She was the last one to use the classic heavy cruiser hull the Baltimores used, even while she was the first to cram a reactor in it. What's interesting is the intended Regulus battery just abaft of the main structure- that never ended up going anywhere, and she got five-inch guns mounted there instead (she was the first all-missile ship, as built, and only a direct order from Kennedy himself saw two open-mount guns put in). The early design even featured Polaris launch systems, a holdover from other surface ship ideas like the proposed modifications to the incomplete Kentucky and Hawaii (though it was quickly realized that submarines were a better idea for that, and no surface ship ever did get those missiles). Note also that the big blocky tower was for a phased-array radar system that proved inadequate in service- the Enterprise was the only other ship to carry it.
-
There was a Iowa class mod to the Illinois BB-65 that had the aft turret removed for a double Talos Missle launched. It had the big superstructure mods like the Albany Cruisers did.
-
There was a Iowa class mod to the Illinois BB-65 that had the aft turret removed for a double Talos Missle launched. It had the big superstructure mods like the Albany Cruisers did.
I believe you meant the Kentucky BB-66, USS Illinois (BB-65) was never completed. She was cancelled after he keel was laid down.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/USS_Illinois_BB-65.jpg)
-
Most plans were for the Kentucky (and the Hawaii, the never-completed third Alaska-class CB), Illinois wasn't all t hat far along by the time of cancellation- my guess is that even if Kentucky's conversion had proven successful, Illinois would have still been scrapped. Most of the plans around Kentucky and Hawaii revolved around the fact that they were well on their way to completion (Hawaii in particular), but hopelessly obsolete from the moment they'd go into service- so find a new job for mostly-completed hulls rather than be instant dinosaurs. With Illinois still being early, scrapping and re-using her materials (and slipway!) for other purposes likely would make sense.
Note that there were conversions to missile ship configurations put in the planning stages for the North Carolina-class ships as well, though the cost was shockingly high. (The South Dakotas didn't have such a plan, due to their being extremely cramped) The NC conversions would have seen #2 and #3 mounts removed (keeping the foremost mount for ballast), replacing them with Talos. A quartet of Terrier launchers were intended to replace eight of the ten 5-inch mounts. Much of the armor belt would have been removed as well (what use was it anymore, really?)- interestingly, this lowered their weight enough that speed would have likely come up by a couple of knots. But, again, the costs were much higher than the conversions for ships like the Albany, for not much more capability in the long run.
-
I believe you meant the Kentucky BB-66, USS Illinois (BB-65) was never completed. She was cancelled after he keel was laid down.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f1/USS_Illinois_BB-65.jpg)
This photo here. Is the conversion drawing concept.
-
I wonder if the US would have converted the Kentucky to a VLS ship if a) they terrible collision with the Wisconsin hadn't happened. b) The ship remain in mothballs long enough to be reactivated in the 1980s when VLS came into it's own with USS Bunker Hill (CG-52).
With room she could have offered with rear 16incher gone, she couldn't have been devastating ship if they unleashed VLS storm of missiles had they gone all the way with aft section if that artist 2006 painting had been conversion plan. I've seen others where entire ship weapons were stripped making her like the Albany-Class Guided Missile Cruisers.
-
The issue at that point is that the missile mounts still took up the same amount of space either way- it isn't like a Battletech situation where two medium lasers fit where a large laser did in terms of space. Those launchers were big and needed a lot of space both externally and internally- the spots formerly taken by 8-inch mountings on a heavy cruiser were perfect. But there's no room to put two where a former 16-inch mount went... so you still end up with roughly the same amount of Talos launchers. More Terriers thanks to the extra length, but even then only two more launchers- and really, if your missile cruiser is firing those in what wartime was expected to be in the 1950s/60s, you're toast anyway- Talos gets rid of the inbound nuke-hauling bombers, Terrier just gets rid of the bomber that killed you already. So a Kentucky refit likely can't do more than three launchers- that's more than an Albany, but not necessarily enough to make it worth the enormous expense.
Something to remember about the Talos... head back up to that photo I put up. See the twin-arm launcher on the Chicago? Behind it, that hump-looking structure is the loading mechanism for the launchers- that takes up a lot of room. But past THAT, see the two big radomes between the reloader and the bridge? Each of those is to guide a Talos missile- so you need two per twin-arm launcher (there's an identical setup on the aft end). A Kentucky with three twin-arm Talos needs SIX radomes, THREE reload humps, etc.- this is a lot of space needed, and while an Iowa isn't a small ship it's still starting to feel awfully cramped with all that. You've lot of actual displacement weight (and leaving off armor as in that North Carolina setup I mentioned above would help even more), but in terms of actual space there's some big problems here- an Albany makes a lot more sense in that regard, and apparently did for the Navy at the time as well.
(I'm not sure the removal of the bow really had any major sway on the plans for the ship- building a new bow wouldn't be overly difficult if they'd decided to, since you're already pulling her into dock for a major refit. Wisconsin simply saved a lot of drydock time by taking the already-built and not-used bow from Kentucky.)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/d5/25/00/d52500bf0de0e73fc5df5b50d4980838.jpg)
(https://www.okieboat.com/Copyright%20images/Talos%20Mk%207%20launching%20system%201024.jpg)
One of these things is not like the other thing ...
And moving heavy dense shells & charges is different from moving fragile telephone poles.
-
I once read some fluff about a sci-fi missile launcher which would assemble the projectiles for launch just before firing each round, and thought to myself no real military weapon would ever be that clunky and impractical... I stand corrected.
-
I once read some fluff about a sci-fi missile launcher which would assemble the projectiles for launch just before firing each round, and thought to myself no real military weapon would ever be that clunky and impractical... I stand corrected.
Early SAM tech- especially at sea- was remarkably clunky, no doubt. Talos wasn't anything unusual- the Soviet systems were just as awkward. It was a surprisingly long time before this stuff became the sleeker systems we know today- even the early Ticonderogas still had to use the same basic twin-arm launch system as these early ships, if not the at-sea assembly mess at least.
-
if they'd had modern vertical launch cells you might have been able to refit an uncompleted BB into a missile ship, but with the tech they had, that wasn't really an option. and in modern times refitting a WW2 era BB over to a VLS missile ship just isn't cost effective for what you'd get. closest we got was the fitting of the Tomahawk box launchers to the deck of the Iowa's. and even those proved rather limited use the handful of times they got deployed.
-
Onboard assembly systems were pretty much just Talos for the US and Masurca for France. M-1 Volna (SA-N-1) and M-2 Volkhov (SA-N-2) for the Soviets already used the same zero-missile-maintenance vertical-drum-reload concept that later Soviet systems retained (and that are pretty similar to those used for Terrier and derivative systems in the West).
-
if they'd had modern vertical launch cells you might have been able to refit an uncompleted BB into a missile ship, but with the tech they had, that wasn't really an option. and in modern times refitting a WW2 era BB over to a VLS missile ship just isn't cost effective for what you'd get. closest we got was the fitting of the Tomahawk box launchers to the deck of the Iowa's. and even those proved rather limited use the handful of times they got deployed.
Really, the entire 1980s Iowa-class refit was a half-assed affair designed to just get a quartet of scary-looking dinosaurs back in the water. The Soviets must have been utterly baffled by it behind closed doors, and I'd be willing to bet admirals from a lot of navies quietly were scratching their heads- not the least of which was in the U.S. Navy!
Cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles, okay, that's solid. Electronics to back them, great. Quad Phalanx... as the only AA protection? (We can safely discount the remaining 5"/38 batteries as realistic AA weapons in an age of Tu-22M threats). Not a Sea Sparrow in sight- yes, that's what escorts are for, fine. Gun batteries augmented by unmanned spotting aircraft, but otherwise no major upgrades. No ASW weaponry of any kind in an age when the Belgrano showed how desperately vulnerable a ship like this was to sub attack (and yes, again, escorts). The last point made worse by lacking any kind of onboard aircraft facilities other than a helo deck- no ability to CARRY them or help operate, just land them.
Other than a few missile boxes slapped on, upgraded communications, and removal of the ancient AA batteries, they were the same old ships. And by 1980s standards, that really wasn't a good thing. What their real use was going to be in wartime beyond the kind of bombardments the New Jersey performed off Nicaragua is pretty hard to spot- and even that wasn't as effective as one might like. The two that went to Kuwait in 1991 didn't do much that couldn't have been just as easily done by a Ticonderoga or an SSN, just Tomahawks for the most part.
-
I remember reading a letter to the editor in one of the defense industry magazines back in the 90's from an Engineering Duty Officer who had worked on the '80s refits. His whole point was DON'T bring them back again in the 90's. The safety and habitability issues were worse than the capability issues just outlined above.
-
honestly i'm surprised wit the Iowa's that they didn't just slap a Phlanx into every old AA gun mount they could without blocking LOF for the missiles.. if you aren't going to mount sea sparrow, at least mount enough CIWS to count as overkill..
-
honestly i'm surprised wit the Iowa's that they didn't just slap a Phlanx into every old AA gun mount they could without blocking LOF for the missiles.. if you aren't going to mount sea sparrow, at least mount enough CIWS to count as overkill..
Was probably pushing available electricity with the upgrades already.
Since it's a picture thread and since we're talking the "upgraded" Iowas why not
-
Sea Sparrow was at one point planned but quickly dropped when analysis found that firing the 16-inchers would damage the Sea Sparrows.
As for the R2D2, let's compare here:
- bow : CIWS would be in the firing line of main turrets forward
- superstructure, forward : removed (note: planned installation for Sea Sparrow in this point, basically platforms stretching from there to the 5-inch guns)
- superstructure, bridge sides : replaced with CIWS
- midships forward pair : making room for midships ABL platform
- midships center pair : replaced with CIWS
- midships aft pair : making room for Harpoon platforms
- aft superstructure : making room for aft ABL platform
- aft deck : removed (with iirc loading cranes mounted in their place)
- stern: CIWS would be in the way of helo deck
or in other words, they did mount them in every AA gun mount available.
-
They were mainly prized for their shore bombardment capabilities I think, plus lots of room for flag staff and fuel bunkerage.
Didn't the Cold War Iowas have laser guided 16" shells? And their armour was supposed to be proof against naval guns and subsonic antiship missiles right? In a fleet engagement I suspect their role was to chug towards the enemy fleet spitting shells and tanking fire, wrecking shit with those 16 inchers... and perhaps nuclear-tipped Tomahawks.
-
They were mainly prized for their shore bombardment capabilities I think, plus lots of room for flag staff and fuel bunkerage.
Didn't the Cold War Iowas have laser guided 16" shells? And their armour was supposed to be proof against naval guns and subsonic antiship missiles right? In a fleet engagement I suspect their role was to chug towards the enemy fleet spitting shells and tanking fire, wrecking shit with those 16 inchers... and perhaps nuclear-tipped Tomahawks.
Interestingly, the flag facilities were limited- much of that related to the PR mess from the New Jersey's refit for Vietnam. The grumbling that she was to be a glorified admiral's barge resulted in that ship's flag facilities (the same ones used two decades earlier by Halsey) not being reactivated- they were still sealed off during her time there. The same thinking wasn't kept in 1980, of course, but the upgrades to their facilities were pretty limited overall.
As for weaponry, the 16-inch guns had laser-guided shells, but due to the guidance systems (fins and such) the shells were actually 8"- accurate, but not nearly as powerful. Then again, in a world without armored warships, that's still plenty enough. Their armor was SAID to be proofed against ASMs, but whether that would have stood up to a full squadron's worth of Kitchen ASMs from the Soviet's Tu-22M fleet is questionable- having two CIWS mounts pointed at each broadside would help, for sure, but I wouldn't want to find out for sure.
Nuclear weapons are tricky. There's certainly nuclear warheads for Tomahawk, but whether any Iowa ever carried them is unknown publicly- ditto for the nuclear shells. That they likely existed is reasonable (if never solidly confirmed), but whether they ever went to sea and on which ships, we may never know.
-
i've never heard of 16 inch laser guided shells. i know we have 5inch and 155mm laser guided shells today (and GPS ones) but i'd never heard about 16 inchers, much less ones from decades back.
-
Their armor was SAID to be proofed against ASMs, but whether that would have stood up to a full squadron's worth of Kitchen ASMs from the Soviet's Tu-22M fleet is questionable- having two CIWS mounts pointed at each broadside would help, for sure, but I wouldn't want to find out for sure.
Nuclear weapons are tricky. There's certainly nuclear warheads for Tomahawk, but whether any Iowa ever carried them is unknown publicly- ditto for the nuclear shells. That they likely existed is reasonable (if never solidly confirmed), but whether they ever went to sea and on which ships, we may never know.
1,000-kg Mach 4 antiship missiles? Phalanx ain't gonna do shit against that. They might down 1 or 2 missiles but the fragments striking the ship would still cause some damage. No, the only real defence against a Backfire raid is Tomcats and not being found.
Of course the nuke deployments are classified, but rumour has always had it that at least one Tomahawk TLAM-N was carried by each Iowa on deployment.
Long, detailed and very fascinating post here chaps - https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2017/10/15/putting-cruise-missiles-on-wwii-battleships/
-
As for weaponry, the 16-inch guns had laser-guided shells, but due to the guidance systems (fins and such) the shells were actually 8"- accurate, but not nearly as powerful. Then again, in a world without armored warships, that's still plenty enough. Their armor was SAID to be proofed against ASMs, but whether that would have stood up to a full squadron's worth of Kitchen ASMs from the Soviet's Tu-22M fleet is questionable- having two CIWS mounts pointed at each broadside would help, for sure, but I wouldn't want to find out for sure.
[/size]
[/size]1,000-kg Mach 4 antiship missiles? Phalanx ain't gonna do shit against that. They might down 1 or 2 missiles but the fragments striking the ship would still cause some damage. No, the only real defence against a Backfire raid is Tomcats and not being found.
[/size]
[/size]But if the Tu-22Ms are launching at the BB then they aren't launching at the CV or amphibious ready group full of Marines and I'm not sure how many of them will make it home
-
I remember hearing laser guided version being developed, but i'm not sure. I was in service when the ships were in their last years. I know there was the "Katie" rounds 11 inch shells which were essentially Atomic Anne nuclear tip rounds,
There were three types of ammo the Armor Piercing and the High Explosive anti-structure ones.
-
I know there was the "Katie" rounds 11 inch shells which were essentially Atomic Anne nuclear tip rounds,
The W23 406mm nuclear shell for the BB 16-inch guns was in service from 1956 to 1962; all four ships were taken out of service during this time, it was pretty much a single production run that was retired at the end of its shelf life. It's rumoured that this was basically a W19 (Atomic Annie) warhead installed into an old HE shell.
During the 60s after decommissioning of the Atomic Annies and the reactivation of New Jersey for Vietnam there was also a proposal to sabot its stock of non-nuclear 11-inch ammunition to fire it from the BB, partly to get more range out of it. The program was cancelled in 1969 after New Jersey was deactivated.
I remember hearing laser guided version being developed, but i'm not sure.
The planned precision shell for the Iowas was GPS-guided. Cancelled in 1991 with the decommissioning.
It was part of a larger development program for modern ammunition for the reactivated battleships during the 80s. Planned were a SADARM bomblet version, a modernized HC and two (unguided/guided) subcaliber extended-range projectiles also carrying submunitions.
-
And their armour was supposed to be proof against naval guns and subsonic antiship missiles right?
Naval guns of the period, 76mm or so, sure! But anti-shipping missiles, any speed:
Soviet tests revealed that when a shaped charge warhead weighing 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) was used in the missile, the resulting hole measured 5 m (16 ft) in diameter (19.63 m2 (211.3 sq ft)), and was 12 m (40 ft) deep
Even a more conservative 6:1 warhead diameter/penetration ratio is ... nothing to sneer at.
Yes, Phalanx might have done better against an AS-1 Kennel. But pretty much every thing else the Soviets slung under their wings for anti-ship purposes was mach 1.5+
Correction - the AS-15 Kent is subsonic, but appeared in the mid 80s, and seems to be a Tomahawk equivalent more than a dedicated ship killer.
-
[quote author=JadeHellbringer link=topic=60593.msg1420 No ASW weaponry of any kind in an age when the Belgrano showed how desperately vulnerable a ship like this was to sub attack (and yes, again, escorts). [/quote]
Belgrano was lost so quickly because of the crew did not set proper water tight integrity. If water tight integrity had been set, the ship would have been a loss for the rest of the war, but most likely survived. The Brooklyn design was the base for most US cruisers during World War II.
Other than a few missile boxes slapped on, upgraded communications, and removal of the ancient AA batteries, they were the same old ships. And by 1980s standards, that really wasn't a good thing. What their real use was going to be in wartime beyond the kind of bombardments the New Jersey performed off Nicaragua is pretty hard to spot- and even that wasn't as effective as one might like. The two that went to Kuwait in 1991 didn't do much that couldn't have been just as easily done by a Ticonderoga or an SSN, just Tomahawks for the most part.
However, the engineering plants were well-preserved, and had not been used as much as much of the 1980's fleet. Many of the ships that were decommissioned quickly was largely from material defects over years of hard use. The years spent as high end mobilization assets meant the ships were in decent physical shape.
Of course, one of my dad's Department Head School (6-10 years) classmates was the Boiler Division Officer aboard Missouri in the 1980's. His division was comparable in size to a nuclear submarine crew.
Nuclear weapons are tricky. There's certainly nuclear warheads for Tomahawk, but whether any Iowa ever carried them is unknown publicly- ditto for the nuclear shells. That they likely existed is reasonable (if never solidly confirmed), but whether they ever went to sea and on which ships, we may never know.
"I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard any ship in the United States Navy." ;D
-
More Iowa talk but no pictures
-
"I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard any ship in the United States Navy." ;D
How many warshots were fired in a "full dump" before reloading, how many rounds does the ship carry; there's your max number of nonconventional weapons.
-
"I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons aboard any ship in the United States Navy." ;D
Are you trying to tell me that Under Siege is based on a false premise . . . :-[
-
How many warshots were fired in a "full dump" before reloading, how many rounds does the ship carry; there's your max number of nonconventional weapons.
Logical :thumbsup: Based on the link I posted above - an Iowa carries 8 Tomahawk armored launch boxes with 4 missiles each, which cannot (apparently) be loaded at sea. During Desert Storm 1 of the Iowas fired 24 rounds, the other 27, before receiving a cease-fire order for "classified reasons" ^-^
So... 5 to 8? Probably less. The same link gives a minimum of 1, maximum of 4 TLAM-Ns carried by each Iowa BB.
-
Are you trying to tell me that Under Siege is based on a false premise . . . :-[
In that nuclear weapons were aboard a battleship? Plausible. That a woman like that could get a job as an actress? Hard to believe. That Gary Busey could be XO of a battleship? We can only dream.
Of course, the ship that most of the movie was filmed on wasn't the Missouri at all, but her slightly older cousin...
(https://img.grouponcdn.com/pwa_test/3rC1LbU17NSpuWWCFBxc1167we6T/3r-674x446/v1/c700x420.jpg)
-
Are you trying to tell me that Under Siege is based on a false premise . . . :-[
The false premise that Steven theSeagull is a good actor?
-
(https://councillormikeobrien.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/aboukir.jpg)
The British Armored Cruiser, HMS Aboukir. She was a ship that fought in the First World War. She was built in 1900, where she served without much going on in her career.
She was was lost with two of he sister ships during a patrol in 1914 by German Submarine, U-9. She lost 527 men ultimately, as her sisterships were picked off one by one by the Submarine.
Incredibly the British government sold salvage rights in 1954, and those rights were sold couple times until Dutch company began take ships apart in 2011.
-
Incredibly the British government sold salvage rights in 1954, and those rights were sold couple times until Dutch company began take ships apart in 2011.
Huh. I thought the Brits were especially touchy about disturbing war graves.
-
Logical :thumbsup: Based on the link I posted above - an Iowa carries 8 Tomahawk armored launch boxes with 4 missiles each, which cannot (apparently) be loaded at sea. During Desert Storm 1 of the Iowas fired 24 rounds, the other 27, before receiving a cease-fire order for "classified reasons" ^-^
So... 5 to 8? Probably less. The same link gives a minimum of 1, maximum of 4 TLAM-Ns carried by each Iowa BB.
I figure between that total of 5-8 there's also probably a batch of TLAM-Ds to kill runways or large troop concentrations they never needed. (The Air Force did that job on the Highway just fine) So 3-4 of those, and a pair of TLAM-Ns for a nuclear derringer. Though that also presupposes that the two weren't specifically reloaded in port for just this sort of mission, and were carrying what I guess I'd call a 'patrol load' not specifically focused on playing Iraqi Jenga with thousand-pound warheads. Have to examine the TROMs and see when they last ported for rearmament and what timeframe that was with Desert Shield spinning up into Desert Storm. Sure it can be found somewhere, but I wouldn't know where to start looking myself outside of a trip to the Naval archives.
-
In that nuclear weapons were aboard a battleship? Plausible. That a woman like that could get a job as an actress? Hard to believe. That Gary Busey could be XO of a battleship? We can only dream.
The false premise that Steven theSeagull is a good actor?
Nope, that a Navy Seal would make a good chef . . . from my limited experience Navy chefs put together a good meal.
Well I guess he could be no worst than Army cooks who are "fitters and turners" (aka a machinist), they fit perfectly good food into pots and turn it into . . . :D
-
(https://councillormikeobrien.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/aboukir.jpg)
The British Armored Cruiser, HMS Aboukir. She was a ship that fought in the First World War. She was built in 1900, where she served without much going on in her career.
She was was lost with two of he sister ships during a patrol in 1914 by German Submarine, U-9. She lost 527 men ultimately, as her sisterships were picked off one by one by the Submarine.
Ah, yes...the "Live Bait Squadron"...
Ruger
-
Now something completely different. A sail ship
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/US_Revenue_Cutter_Chase.jpg)
This is the USRC Salmon P. Chase, she was in service with the United States Coast Guards predecessor service, the US Revenue Service. She began her service 1878 until in 17 July 1907. She is a three-masted bark which while in service, she training vessel. In a sense a predecessor to the USCGC Eagle. In 1907 she was transferred to the United States Public Health service as a quarantine ship where her ultimate fate is unknown...
-
3 for 1 deal today.
First, a concept image of China's 3rd carrier was leaked in an article, the image was taken down after.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/uquxahcy3/58l9vjoh52511.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/mb5csk28r/Capture.png)
Next, here's Tirpitz in a fjord
(https://s15.postimg.cc/smak9ej17/o6em3wph21511.jpg)
And finally, have I ever said how much I love the looks of the Slava-class... not half enough I reckon
(https://s15.postimg.cc/45seexq0b/38736859442_3fed3903bd_o.jpg)
-
Slava - the OS weapon of the Soviet Navy ;)
-
I wonder if ship in the middle of the Chinese carrier picture is the one underconstruction, the Type 002? There currently the original Type 001 (Liaoning) and first home made one Type 001A (rumored to be called the Shandong).
-
I wonder if ship in the middle of the Chinese carrier picture is the one underconstruction, the Type 002? There currently the original Type 001 (Liaoning) and first home made one Type 001A (rumored to be called the Shandong).
The last i read the 3rd home built carrier might be conventionally laid out. I think 002 was going to be a super Kuznetsov style carrier.
Edit: seems that was old info, 002 is 85kish tons standard style carrier.
-
Slava - the OS weapon of the Soviet Navy ;)
The O.G. Dragon's Breath :thumbsup:
I wonder if ship in the middle of the Chinese carrier picture is the one underconstruction, the Type 002?
Thats the theory...
-
most of the speculation sites seem to be assuming it'll be some variation of this style:
(https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/images/cv-002-2017-image01.jpg)
basically a Chibi-Nimitz..
-
Not to go too far into rule 4 territory, but the Chinese govt heavily controls communications and that photo is too clear & official-looking for it to have leaked out without approval. And I'll leave it at that.
That said, it's known that the type 002 was going to be a CATOBAR-type, catapults and arresting wires like American carriers. I don't know if they said if it was nuc-powered or not, but I doubt it, too many design differences for that.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/2cnosp.jpg)
Everyone does it.
-
Speaking of carriers (and this one was more successful than the Special K)
The Bearn!
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/f5fc2472dffa6f36ea1f70bbbafe56a8/tumblr_pas7m2rf9D1th7tzzo1_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/c4e65ef071f578a0e61fbe3a118317e0/tumblr_pas7m2rf9D1th7tzzo2_1280.jpg)
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/a4db18b87f4c83a59bd1f75483c0fc73/tumblr_pas7m2rf9D1th7tzzo4_1280.jpg)
(https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/interesting-arrangement-of-the-flight-deck-and-hanger-elevator-on-french-aircraft-carrier-bearn.jpg)
Always liked the look of the way her lifts opened up even if it was grossly inefficient.
(https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/frencg-carrier-bearn.jpg)
-
The ships that were suppose to have been the replacement for Bearn,Joffre-Class Carrier. One of the two of the class had begun construction, but was cancelled in 1940. When i was looking up the French Carriers, the class resembles Graff Zeppelin Class the Germans were making later in the war.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Joffre.svg/600px-Joffre.svg.png)
-
Bearn is an interesting ship in a lot of ways... she was awful, no bones about it. Compared to other contemporary capital-ship conversions like Akagi, Lexington, or Courageous, she was even worse looking. But she also was France's first step into making a carrier- and comparing her then to ships like Langley or Hosho, she looks a lot better. The French definitely didn't have the right hull on hand for the job- a dreadnought was just not as handy for conversion as a battlecruiser, period. Some innovations- like those bizzare elevators- were bad ideas that would have been fatal flaws in combat. But, it was a first step towards real carrier experience, and from that standpoint Bearn earned a place in history- that experience, after all, still has its lineage in place even today, as one of the world's few carrier powers (even if Aeronavale only runs one ship these days).
-
The French definitely didn't have the right hull on hand for the job- a dreadnought was just not as handy for conversion as a battlecruiser, period.
While the Japanese Kaga wasn't so bad for a carrier converted from a battleship hull, a closer comparison to Bearn might be the HMS Eagle from 1918...both ships ended up performing similar functions in World War II...both were slower than a carrier really needed to be once biplanes started going away and their airgroups were relatively small...by the end of their lives, what duties they were performing could be done more cheaply by escort carriers...
Ruger
-
While the Japanese Kaga wasn't so bad for a carrier converted from a battleship hull, a closer comparison to Bearn might be the HMS Eagle from 1918...both ships ended up performing similar functions in World War II...both were slower than a carrier really needed to be once biplanes started going away and their airgroups were relatively small...by the end of their lives, what duties they were performing could be done more cheaply by escort carriers...
Ruger
Oh absolutely agree on both counts. Japan oudid themselves on Kaga- she may actually deserve credit as the most successful battleship conversion, period. Even then, she was always a 'plan B' ship, not nearly as fast or capable as Akagi- and slowed down the carrier force. I recall reading she suffered from hull torsion problems somewhere, but can't find a reference to it anymore.
-
Meanwhile there's good reason everyone hides indoors during missile launches. Video: what happens when an SM-2 does a little introspection and the suicidal killbot with a hug fetish that controls the thing decides it's not going out for walkies.
https://youtu.be/ydsm1uzkNu4 (https://youtu.be/ydsm1uzkNu4)
NSFW German language warning, of course. Sachsen made it to port with no real injuries, but did have a great big scorch mark on her bow and bridge. Thank Poseidon it wasn't a Tomahawk's thousand-pound hello package; the SM-2 runs about 1/8 the warhead mass.
-
Meanwhile there's good reason everyone hides indoors during missile launches. Video: what happens when an SM-2 does a little introspection and the suicidal killbot with a hug fetish that controls the thing decides it's not going out for walkies.
https://youtu.be/ydsm1uzkNu4 (https://youtu.be/ydsm1uzkNu4)
NSFW German language warning, of course. Sachsen made it to port with no real injuries, but did have a great big scorch mark on her bow and bridge. Thank Poseidon it wasn't a Tomahawk's thousand-pound hello package; the SM-2 runs about 1/8 the warhead mass.
Wow
Very pleased to hear no one was hurt - says good things about the ship's design
-
Found a pic of the damage. The VLS is actually behind the SEA-RAM launcher, just in front of the bridge, so the crew got one hell of a fireworks show up close. Obviously there's at least one electronics pile that got zorched, and I imagine a few others as well, but damage doesn't seem to be more than superficial for the rest of it. One well-built ship, certainly. Plus, the design of those launchers uses armored cells for just that reason - incoming fire or malfunction can set off a missile, so having what amounts to the blowout panels and protected storage on a modern MBT makes a lot of sense.
Word is that the release system for the launcher failed, and retained the missile and its booster for the burn duration. Nothing on why yet, of course.
-
Looks like RAN will be going back to its roots and our next frigate will be the "Hunter" class (aka Type 26) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-29/bae-systems-selected-for-warship-building-program/9922666 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-29/bae-systems-selected-for-warship-building-program/9922666)
-
I'm reminded of that line from Weapons of Choice about how modern warships look so unthreatening and don't announce their capabilities with guns and turrets and whatnot.
-
Something to note in this incident- the VLS missiles are loaded individually, so the blast looks scary (and is, still), but is just one missile going off. Compare that to a problem with a bad round on an older ship with arm-style launchers and all the rounds stored in a magazine, and you're looking at the potential for losing your frigate. VLS means ripple-firing a lot more missiles in a short amount of time, among other bonuses, but this is one of its biggest advantages.
-
Plus, the design of those launchers uses armored cells for just that reason
A Mk41 isn't particularly armored. What we see in the video is the booster going off within the cell which the launcher is designed to redirect up- and outwards through the exhaust chute ("uptake"), with the automatic firefighting system immediately flushing the block with freshwater.
Word is that the release system for the launcher failed, and retained the missile and its booster for the burn duration.
Nah, that's just some people's layman suggestion based on the cover being semi-closed in this picture and the white burn mark for some suggesting that it redirected the fire that way:
(https://abload.de/img/attachmentvvs66.jpg)
However more likely the cover (designed to tilt open 90 degrees before launch) was simply damaged in the fire and fell back down afterwards, while the "burn mark" extends from the exhaust chute cover.
Found a pic of the damage. The VLS is actually behind the SEA-RAM launcher, just in front of the bridge, so the crew got one hell of a fireworks show up close
(https://abload.de/img/attachmenttks5b.jpg)
-
Lots of damage to the ship. Going to be down for a while.
-
Looks like RAN will be going back to its roots and our next frigate will be the "Hunter" class (aka Type 26) http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-29/bae-systems-selected-for-warship-building-program/9922666 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-29/bae-systems-selected-for-warship-building-program/9922666)
I personally think its a bad decision and they should have gone with the Spanish offering.
-
Speaking of the Kaga
As originally designed as one of the Tosa class Battleships
(http://i.imgur.com/NIbK0zY.png)
As initially completed with 2 x dual mount 8-inch guns on her middle flight deck and 3 flying off decks
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Kaga_Tateyama_Trials_1928.jpg)
As she would end her life, following a very expensive rebuild the Kaga was given a single flight deck and was one of the most capable carriers in the world despite being somewhat slower than her near sister the Akagi.
(https://www.asisbiz.com//ships/IJN-Kaga/images/Archive-Japanese-Naval-photo-showing-the-Japanese-aircraft-carrier-Kaga-during-sea-trials-02.jpg)
And the bomb hits that killed her, attacked by two squadrons of Dauntless dive bombers, the Kaga was doomed the moment she was hit. Although there was no aircraft on deck and the IJN wasn't preparing to launch its strike against the USN, her hangers were still full of ordinance and fueled up planes and when the fires broke out amongst them these weapons then became ticking bombs.
(http://www.midway42.org/TheBattle/Images/Kaga-Bomb-Hits.png)
-
Japanese vessels had pretty poor fire control, didn't they?
-
Japanese vessels had pretty poor fire control, didn't they?
Yes
It was more an issue of doctrine and training than anything dramatically different from the USN
If you are going to keep a load of planes fuelled and bombed up kicking around in your hanger, you need an armoured flight deck. I feel this is a bit like the triad one talks about with tanks - speed, armour and firepower - large air group, armoured flight deck, "prepped" aircraft hanging around.
-
I just checked - Wikipedia reports that the Illustrius class carriers were armoured with a 3" flight deck to give protection from 1000lb bombs.
-
I just checked - Wikipedia reports that the Illustrius class carriers were armoured with a 3" flight deck to give protection from 1000lb bombs.
IIRC, the British armored their flight decks due to doctrine...their ships would be mostly close to land, and therefore, land-based aircraft, but they were also closer to bases...
However, armoring a flight deck also makes repair more difficult...if they were severely damaged, the ship would be out of the war for months...whereas a wooden flight decks made damage repair far faster, so you have stories such as the USS Yorktown's return to the fight in a very short period after the Battle of the Coral Sea so she could be at the Battle of Midway...
IIRC, the Japanese did armor the flight deck of one of their carriers (the Taiho), but it wasn't until the Midway-class that the US did the same...but because we wanted to keep the large air groups of the Essex-class, we got into a spiral of increasing weight vs performance which led to increased size...in the end, the final design could carry an air group in excess of 135 aircraft, more than any other carrier at the time...
Ruger
-
Just to be clear, the term is "damage control"... "Fire control" refers to outgoing weapons fire.
-
Midway's results are really quite complicated, thanks to a combination of pressure, doctrine, operational and tactical ongoings and outright luck.
TLDR
1 - Prior to sailing, Nagumo was ordered to keep 50% of his aircraft available for an anti-shipping strike should the USN carriers be found.
2 - This meant that in reality the strike against Midway was pretty much guarenteed NOT to knock it out so a 2nd strike WOULD be needed.
3 - Recon planes found nothing. So without a threat in the area Nagumo ordered his reserve to be rearmed with bombs.
4 - Whilst all this is going on the IJN carriers were coming under repeated attacks from Midways aircraft (dive bombers, twin engine bombers, torpedo bombers and B-17s)
5 - Then the USN's carriers started getting involved as well
6 - Its at this point that IJN recon spots the US ships, initially beliving them to be a surface action group, no CV was spotted.
7 - Nagumo hesitates and keeps his aircraft being armed with bombs for Midway, after all, cruisers and DDs are no match for his force.
8 - A WILD YORKTOWN CLASS CV APPEARS!
9 - Nagumo orders the aircraft being bombed up to halt arming ops and to be re-armed with anti-ship bombs and torps.
10 - All the land attack ordanace is left on the hangar decks (it simply takes too long to move it down into the magazines)
11 - USN attacks are ongoing with heavy losses for no gain, but the pressure is stopping the IJN from getting into any operating tempo other than constantly launching CAP fighters.
12 - Midway strike planes land and this halts any flight deck operations as the aircraft are brought down to be re-armed and refueled.
13 - Nemesis arrives when divebombers from the Yorktown and Enterprise make their attacks. IJN hangers are mostly full of planes being bombed up, or refuelled or ready to be brought up to the flight deck to be spotted.
14 - Boom.
The IJN also did have weak damage control parties, unlike the USN where pretty much everyone was trained how to fight fires or deal with flooding. On the IJN it was down to specific teams of men and their officers (who did a lot more than the USN and were basically the equivalent of a senior seaman in USN terms).
Really if you want a good book about Midway, read Shattered Sword its pretty much the definitive book on Midway and how it all went wrong.
-
I personally think its a bad decision and they should have gone with the Spanish offering.
A 9000 ton FFG. Is the Australia's going to get TLAMS or something close?
-
A 9000 ton FFG. Is the Australia's going to get TLAMS or something close?
The main reason I think the Spanish option was better was because it shared like 80% parts commonality with their Hobart-class Destroyers, being based on the same basic hull and systems as it. That and unlike the other two finalist options, the Type 26 hasn't had a ship finished yet. Type 26 is risky... really risky. That and BAE "Budget Always Exceeded"
-
The main reason I think the Spanish option was better was because it shared like 80% parts commonality with their Hobart-class Destroyers, being based on the same basic hull and systems as it. That and unlike the other two finalist options, the Type 26 hasn't had a ship finished yet. Type 26 is risky... really risky. That and BAE "Budget Always Exceeded"
Not as bad as the faff the Indian navy's had getting its CV into the water, hugely over budget and very delayed.
-
The main reason I think the Spanish option was better was because it shared like 80% parts commonality with their Hobart-class Destroyers, being based on the same basic hull and systems as it. That and unlike the other two finalist options, the Type 26 hasn't had a ship finished yet. Type 26 is risky... really risky. That and BAE "Budget Always Exceeded"
You really aren't familiar with the Australian Warship production history are you?
Budget overrun is substantially less of a concern than having a ship that is terrible for ASW, like the F150.
-
The main reason I think the Spanish option was better was because it shared like 80% parts commonality with their Hobart-class Destroyers, being based on the same basic hull and systems as it. That and unlike the other two finalist options, the Type 26 hasn't had a ship finished yet. Type 26 is risky... really risky. That and BAE "Budget Always Exceeded"
You will probably find that was originally part of the plan. Unfortunately, our recent experiences working with Navantia may have resulted in a revision to the plan.
-
The same contest for the US Navy FFGX program is going on. With the Type 26, the FREMM, and the Spanish FFG also. With the Freedom and the Independence LCS designs in the mix also.
-
The same contest for the US Navy FFGX program is going on. With the Type 26, the FREMM, and the Spanish FFG also.
And in Germany for MKS180. Down to Type 26 vs an undisclosed Damen design. Wouldn't rate Type 26 as having much of a chance though.
-
IIRC, the British armored their flight decks due to doctrine
The Brits needed enclosed hangars mainly due to North Sea conditions, the armour belt on top was relatively secondary decision that proved fortuitous as they could shrug off bomb and kamikaze hits.
because we wanted to keep the large air groups of the Essex-class, we got into a spiral of increasing weight vs performance which led to increased size...
The "ideal" US carrier design had already been developed pre-WW2, but due to Washington Treaty tonnage limitations this would have resulted in an awkward 2.5 carriers. The USN opted for less tonnage and more hulls, yielding the Ranger design which massed about half the ideal displacement.
Thus Ranger was going to have 4 sister ships but had issues; the Yorktown design was better so 2 of those were built and then Wasp sort of cobbled together to fill up the remaining allowed tons.
Once the Treaty was done away with and war foreseeable, Hornet was built while the "ideal carrier" design finalised in the form of the Essex class.
Really if you want a good book about Midway, read Shattered Sword its pretty much the definitive book on Midway and how it all went wrong.
Reading now. It's detail heavy and focuses on the Japanese perspective. IMHO Craig Symonds' The Battle of Midway does a better job for readers unfamiliar with the battle, and reaches much the same conclusions.
On that note, TIL Akagi originally had 3 flight decks
(https://s15.postimg.cc/i9r5txzyz/KOfjz_Apll_Ho_LYw8_Rp_Tud_Dl2_G6wl5v_WU78_XYxjjk_Rls.png)
-
The "ideal" US carrier design had already been developed pre-WW2, but due to Washington Treaty tonnage limitations this would have resulted in an awkward 2.5 carriers. The USN opted for less tonnage and more hulls, yielding the Ranger design which massed about half the ideal displacement.
Thus Ranger was going to have 4 sister ships but had issues; the Yorktown design was better so 2 of those were built and then Wasp sort of cobbled together to fill up the remaining allowed tons.
Once the Treaty was done away with and war foreseeable, Hornet was built while the "ideal carrier" design finalised in the form of the Essex class.
What you state here is correct for pre-war, and US carriers with unarmored (wooden) flight decks...when designing the Midway-class, the requirements were to armor her flight decks similar to the way that many of the British flight decks were (although the "strength deck" would remain the hanger deck with the flight deck built on top...it was not until the Farragut-class carriers that the "strength deck" became the flight deck on US carriers)...but they wanted to maintain the 100+ aircraft capacity and 30+ knot top speed while doing so...
Note: British carriers usually had aircraft capacities of around 50 aircraft or less (hanger capacity) because of the mass of the armor vs. requirement to keep high speed on a relatively "moderate" tonnage...some of their carriers managed greater aircraft capacities (around 80 aircraft) by having double hangers (often with shorter hanger heights, which limited their use after the war during the jet age), and/or by means of deck-parking aircraft...
Trying to keep up the hanger capacity while armoring the flight deck and maintaining the 30+ knot top speed resulted in needed to increase the size of the engines, which led to a larger ship, which led to more mass being devoted to armor, which led to a reduction in speed, which led to larger engines, which led to...and so on, until a compromise was reached around 45,000 tons...
For comparison, 45,000 tons displacement is around twice the displacement of the Yorktown-class and a little more than the Lexington-class when deep-loaded, and roughly half again the displacement of an Essex-class carrier...when compared to the British carriers, the 4 ship Illustrious-class were roughly the same size as the Yorktown's, while the followup 2 ship Implacable-class carriers were roughly the size of the Essex's...the earlier HMS Ark Royal was built as a single ship class with tall double hangers, and no flight deck, and therefore displaced around the same as the Illustrious-class carriers, but with half again to double the aircraft capacity (which goes to show you what it cost these types of ships to armor the flight decks)...the Courageous-class carriers were older ships converted from "Large Light Cruisers", and displaced about the same as HMS Ark Royal...and we'll leave out the various light fleet carriers of each country (Independence and Saipan-classes for the US, and the Colossus , Majestic, and Centaur-classes for the United Kingdom that were mostly completed after the war was completed...at least on those ships that were built to completion)...
Ruger
-
Note: British carriers usually had aircraft capacities of around 50 aircraft or less (hanger capacity) because of the mass of the armor vs. requirement to keep high speed on a relatively "moderate" tonnage...some of their carriers managed greater aircraft capacities (around 80 aircraft) by having double hangers (often with shorter hanger heights, which limited their use after the war during the jet age), and/or by means of deck-parking aircraft...
The British carriers at end of war in the Pacific all had larger aircraft capacity then when they were operating in the Atlantic. Because they started deck parking. They couldn't reliably deck park in the Atlantic because of conditions.
-
The British carriers at end of war in the Pacific all had larger aircraft capacity then when they were operating in the Atlantic. Because they started deck parking. They couldn't reliably deck park in the Atlantic because of conditions.
But even with that, US ships typically carried anywhere from 10 to 50 more aircraft than their British counterparts (depending on classes compared) when doing the same...without factoring in the Midway-class ships...
Ruger
-
I suppose there's also the question of the size of construction slips; did the Brits have anything big enough to build Essex or Midway size hulls?
-
The Battleship HMS Vanguard was 44,500 long tons, USS Midway was 45,000 tons
I think they could have built something like her if they had wanted too. If i read it right, it wasn't in the cards, since economic hardships in Britain forced the reduction in the size and capability of the Royal Navy.
The Audacious-class aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal [R09] (was originally to be called HMS Irresistible), built in 40s and completed in the 1950s was largest of the UK's fleet. Which was weighed 36,800 tons.
Here she is in 1978 next to USS Nimitz, a year before she was decommissioned.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/HMS_Ark_Royal_USS_Nimitz_Norfolk1_1978.jpeg)
-
In the pic above HMS Ark Royal would have massed nearly 54ktons due to adding the angled flight deck (pioneered by her sister-ship HMS Eagle) and other bits.
But even with that, US ships typically carried anywhere from 10 to 50 more aircraft than their British counterparts (depending on classes compared) when doing the same...without factoring in the Midway-class ships...
The Yorktowns carried about 65+ in the hangar and 20+ aircraft parked on deck.
The contemporary Illustrious-class carried 36 in hangar and 20 on deck, but was also 25% lighter. The Implacable-class had a thinner armour belt, was more similar in mass to the Yorktowns and carried 48+ in hangars and 30 on deck.
Armour was one thing, but the British were also always hobbled as their designs were generally based off the treaty-compliant Illustrious-class. Deck parks helped the British Pacific Fleet carriers a lot.
-
I suppose there's also the question of the size of construction slips; did the Brits have anything big enough to build Essex or Midway size hulls?
The closest we came to Essex and Midway equivalents was with the Audacious class and the larger Malta class. The Audacious saw service as the Ark Royal and Eagle but the Maltas were all cancelled. The Malta's were smaller than the Midways but were still looking at maybe hauling 108 aircraft at full load as well as a heavy weapons loadout. If I recall the Midways also ran into problems when carrying their full air group at first, because it was just too much to control.
(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/gbcvmalta1.png)
(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/fdzvfb.jpg)
The Audacious class was smaller and more in line with the Essex class and as was said, two were completed, the Eagle and Ark Royal.
(http://www.seaforces.org/marint/Royal-Navy/Aircraft-Carrier/R05-HMS-Eagle_DAT/R05-HMS-Eagle-005.jpg)
-
Okay, I'm quoting RPG.net user Lenin at length, because he/she's done a smash-up job. Plus, it's posted in a member-only forum, so linking isn't possible.
Here's an interesting tidbit I found while looking into Chinese landing ships today.
This is the Haiyangshan 936 Type 072III-class LST in its usual configuration:
(http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/4/8/1/1708184.jpg)
Nothing weird about that, just your regular 7,000-ton displacement, 10-tank carrying LST, armed with a twin 37mm turret for self-defence purposes.
Earlier this year it was spotted wearing a fetching lavender shawl over the turret:
(http://globalwarnews.ru/upload/editor/news/2018.02/5a799d74125ab_1517919604.jpg)
Which was later revealed to be hiding this:
(https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/haiyangshanrailgun-1517507687.jpg)
(https://cdn2.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/980x551/public/images/methode/2018/02/06/bbae7704-0a53-11e8-a09e-8861893b1b1a_1280x720_214826.jpg?itok=An4TpGhZ)
(https://desu-usergeneratedcontent.xyz/k/image/1523/30/1523307049901.jpg)
(http://n.sinaimg.cn/mil/8_img/upload/f8bc40b5/w952h646/20180202/nrcS-fyrcsrw7774584.jpg)
Which appears to be a rail gun (http://"https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/china-in-worldfirst-deployment-of-experimental-electromagnetic-rail-supergun-aboard-a-warship/news-story/6aab73b4402e064d41e7b1af4639c5ed"):
(http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2018/february/China_PLAN_electromagnetic_railgun_annotations.gif)
From the looks of it, this is probably a test-bed, rather than an operational installation, but (http://"https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/chinas-supergun-to-be-fitted-to-new-destroyers/news-story/ab4866259d8321ef9525819fc6c8ddb8"):
Type 055s, here fitted with conventional turrets (with added black marker censorship in the background):
(https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/fd70e8dd687b4a708682c446976e7102)
All credit to Lenin for putting this together.
W.
-
Are we sure they're not just fooling folks with really big broomsticks? ;)
-
You can't ignore the lavender drapes. Grey, yes. But lavender is serious.
W.
-
You can't ignore the lavender drapes. Grey, yes. But lavender is serious.
W.
Though not as serious as chartreuse or fuchsia
-
I think the German Navy has dibs on those. RAN has to do with Ken Done prints :(
-
If that thing for real and not creative camoflague to fool western intelligence they have navalized Railgun. It could very well be a game changer that would shame the US bit for cutting the program at it's knees before it got off the ground so to speak. It was funding essentially put the US Navy effort on hold. I do wonder how they got that thing going so blood quick. Barrel may not last many firings perhaps.
-
The Type 055s are supposed to be designed with the wiring and generating capacity in place to support retrofitting a rail gun after the fact.
The amphib has been known to be a test rig for some months now. I don't think it's far along enough for them to be doing the retrofit yet considering the first Type055 hasn't even been commissioned yet.
-
Nice big gun.
-
I wonder of effective it will be.
At full tilt a mag rail could potential swiss cheese a ship. I would imagine a Iowa Class Battleship would have issues as well holding up to that.
-
Welcome to the future! One thing I will say, Chinese have taken over from the Soviets in terms of "brutal engineering done simply", but with the benefits of CAD & modelling. I'm sure there are teething problems, but this seems entirely on the level.
-
I wonder of effective it will be.
At full tilt a mag rail could potential swiss cheese a ship. I would imagine a Iowa Class Battleship would have issues as well holding up to that.
If not probably aimed, swiss cheesing won't hurt a ship if all those hits doesn't hit anything vital.
-
That... is pretty stunning. Performance shouldn't be as good as the USN railgun cause I don't think their superconductor tech is up to par, nor their metallurgy either so that barrel ought to wear out even faster. But it's kinda chilling nonetheless... to see the runner-up closing on your six.
-
On the one hand, best is the enemy of good enough, and the finest in United States Railgun technology is meaningless if the navy isn't interested in pursuing it.
On the other hand, we can't guarantee that the Chinese have actually got a practical railgun and not a propaganda piece.
-
I'm not sure; look at the mounting - it's insanely far forward and in a very thin, small area for major structural support (compared to regular warship gun mounts) and it's literally on the one deck plate above the front end's opening doors! I call shenanigans hard on this one; there's no room underneath the bloody thing for any typical kind of magazine (even railguns need shells), power generation systems (could be eventually exposed on deck, I admit), and sheer structural placement.
I call mockup at most, complete BS at worst. Seriously, you're putting a major cannon right at the bow tip with a giant hole in the hull's structural components all around it?
-
we were going to put ours onto a landing craft for tests.
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/140313-N-ZZ999-101.jpg)
the chinese one looks to be set up similar.. generators and such just lashed to the deck.
also:
http://www.newsweek.com/china-says-building-electromagnetic-railgun-seen-leaked-warship-photos-stunned-844932
and found this in another article:
(https://multitools.newscdn.com.au/multitools/slider/content/1521080358618/1521080567098.png)
-
China has no reason to lie about this. Underestimate their technological abilities at your own peril; remember that they manufacture most of the world's high-tech items.
-
I wonder about the usefulness of a rail gun. Just from a curve of the earth perspective. Where a simple cruise missile battery has a much further reach. Even if it isn't as sexy.
-
China has no reason to lie about this. Underestimate their technological abilities at your own peril; remember that they manufacture most of the world's high-tech items.
Given all the the Rule 4 things happening regarding China right now, I'd say that they would have plenty of reasons to lie about this.
-
I wonder about the usefulness of a rail gun. Just from a curve of the earth perspective. Where a simple cruise missile battery has a much further reach. Even if it isn't as sexy.
actually, with a high velocity, it can reach places further away than a normal gun can. The issue is closer in when there's plenty of covers and the high velocity negate having an arcing trajectory there.
-
I wonder about the usefulness of a rail gun. Just from a curve of the earth perspective. Where a simple cruise missile battery has a much further reach. Even if it isn't as sexy.
Guns can fire along curves quite easily, ask any artilleryman. :)
-
I'm not sure; look at the mounting - it's insanely far forward and in a very thin, small area for major structural support (compared to regular warship gun mounts) and it's literally on the one deck plate above the front end's opening doors! I call shenanigans hard on this one; there's no room underneath the bloody thing for any typical kind of magazine (even railguns need shells), power generation systems (could be eventually exposed on deck, I admit), and sheer structural placement.
I call mockup at most, complete BS at worst. Seriously, you're putting a major cannon right at the bow tip with a giant hole in the hull's structural components all around it?
It's a proof-of-concept, like installing it on a barge or cargo ship, which an LST essentially is. I'm not sure a magazine would be necessary - for testing, the rounds could be manually loaded.
It was covered back in February though: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/photos-show-china-preparing-to-test-naval-railgun/ (https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/02/photos-show-china-preparing-to-test-naval-railgun/) Wonder how the testing is going.
-
It's also about testing the technology. Even if there is no immediate role to be filled, there is always a need for more raw data to refine the engineering and theory.
-
Guns can fire along curves quite easily, ask any artilleryman. :)
Oh I know all about hyperbolic curves and all that. But when you are firing at speeds measured in mach numbers and escape velocities, you just don't point it up at a 45 degree angle to lob it over yonder apiece....
-
Assuming that it's got a muzzle velocity of mach 7, that's only 5187 mph vs the 25000 mph of escape velocity.
And presumably they're going to be using some pretty fancy computing software on their targeting system to insure accuracy.
-
China has no reason to lie about this. Underestimate their technological abilities at your own peril; remember that they manufacture most of the world's high-tech items.
The best case against this is their nuclear industry. Issues and accidents coming out of China are easily avoidable if you actually understand and can apply the knowledge you have memorized. They don't seem to have made that leap yet.
-
Seeing as we're talking about the Chinese.
(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/uLwAAOSwm-pZuLOJ/s-l1600.jpg)
The Ting Yuen, one of the Chinese Ironclad battleships that was built in Germany in the 1800s.
The Chinese went and built a 1:1 replica of her sistership as a floating museium
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/%E5%AE%9A%E8%BF%9C%E5%8F%B7%E4%BB%BF%E5%88%B6%E5%93%8120120727.JPG/1280px-%E5%AE%9A%E8%BF%9C%E5%8F%B7%E4%BB%BF%E5%88%B6%E5%93%8120120727.JPG)
-
I am still amazed that someone was able to afford built that.
-
Sounds like a great way to get around disarmament treaties. "We built one ship as per the agreement, however we also built several exact 1:1 replicas. For museum purposes, of course."
-
Sounds like a great way to get around disarmament treaties. "We built one ship as per the agreement, however we also built several exact 1:1 replicas. For museum purposes, of course."
That sounds quite appropriately Capellan, actually.
-
As a new build "museum ship" it would have to meet current "safety" requirements ;)
-
As a new build "museum ship" it would have to meet current "safety" requirements ;)
Which aren't a thing in China, so problem solved. ;)
-
Replica, not reproduction. I would expect modern (and small) engines in the engineering spaces considering the budget limitations. Kind of like the vizmod tanks/filming props that are mild steel or fibreglass shells over a bulldozer chassis or surplus T-55/Centurion.
-
Sounds like a great way to get around disarmament treaties. "We built one ship as per the agreement, however we also built several exact 1:1 replicas. For museum purposes, of course."
"It's only a model."
-
"It's only a model."
(https://www.model-space.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/1280x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/o/sots-gallery-image.jpg)
(http://www.wholesalemodelships.com/pictures/enlarged/sovereign-of-the-seas119.jpg)
(http://blob:https://imgur.com/cc3c9f21-9015-4bb9-812b-5dab16bb11eb)
The Soverign of the Seas.
-
A later version of Soverign of the Seas. Not a Model. ;)
(http://www.naviearmatori.net/albums/userpics/10315/Sovereign_Of_The_Seas_21_-_Nassau.JPG)
-
Random note on battlewagons - even in the 1980's, the Iowa needed something like 1800 crew. Most modern large DDGs from the 80's onward need something like 250-400, so each Iowa by itself needed as many sailors as an entire surface action group
-
Was really the reason why France got rid of its battleships back in the 50s; they required a crew of around 1500 men for full operations back then (just like the three carriers France was running as well), and were never fully manned. Their crews were repurposed for the new additional ships France was commissioning at exactly that time when the battleships decommissioned, i.e. new destroyers and cruisers.
-
Was really the reason why France got rid of its battleships back in the 50s; they required a crew of around 1500 men for full operations back then (just like the three carriers France was running as well), and were never fully manned. Their crews were repurposed for the new additional ships France was commissioning at exactly that time when the battleships decommissioned, i.e. new destroyers and cruisers.
Likewise the RN
-
To bad automation wasn't able to be apply to the larger capital ships. Some of those ships could stuff modern ships can only barely do. I know like shore bombardment is a sought out things for say the Marines. Yet US Navy keeps failing their efforts give them what they need. Cruise missiles are very precise weapons, but their hair expensive per shot.
-
Would it be possible to build a smaller ship that was only for artillery bombardment of land targets and have it be cheap?
-
To bad automation wasn't able to be apply to the larger capital ships. Some of those ships could stuff modern ships can only barely do. I know like shore bombardment is a sought out things for say the Marines. Yet US Navy keeps failing their efforts give them what they need. Cruise missiles are very precise weapons, but their hair expensive per shot.
plus it is hard to get the kind of sheer "boom" a 16 incher could deliver with any other weapon.. especially if you are angling for rate of fire..
(http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/wp-content/photos/dday39.jpg)
(Pointe du Hoc. Omaha Beach.)
-
Well HMS Queen Elizabeth still going through her training and trials.
She with RFA Tidespring doing refueling exercise.
(https://www.naval-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/06/Refuelling_elizabeth_Navy-2_edit.jpg)
I still think the way they did the windows for the flight control towers is bit...odd if not goofy looking.
As long it get's job done, it's fine.
-
Would it be possible to build a smaller ship that was only for artillery bombardment of land targets and have it be cheap?
Short answer - yes, look at WW1/2 Monitors or even some of the armed landing craft of WW2
Longer answer - probably but I suspect that the characteristics of a small ship capable of withstanding heavy artillery firing from her would render her fairly unwieldy for other operations and so she would not be able to deploy in or for other roles; one of the strengths of vessels like the mine countermeasures vessels and similar for the RN et al is their ability to be small patrol ships and undertake a variety of other roles
-
Would it be possible to build a smaller ship that was only for artillery bombardment of land targets and have it be cheap?
Just improvise, adapt and overcome :thumbsup:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3wZSwFvZzqM/TQryqUqUBMI/AAAAAAAAJzQ/d8iN4eU2PlI/s1600/1292498216_54678.jpg)
-
Just improvise, adapt and overcome :thumbsup:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3wZSwFvZzqM/TQryqUqUBMI/AAAAAAAAJzQ/d8iN4eU2PlI/s1600/1292498216_54678.jpg)
Just use the towed artillery put twice as many tubes on deck. Certainly making a 8" or bigger version of a M777 wouldn't be Brain surgery.
-
As I understand, unavoidable drifting, pitching, and rolling of the ship in question means that actually hitting a target area with a setup like that will be purely a matter of blind luck.
-
That was done by some of the landing ships in WW2 where the Priest SPG would fire on the way in for landing on the beach. I'm sure it wasn't overly accurate but the spray and hope you hit something is about the best you can do sometimes.
-
I forgot about the old WW2 Landing Craft being used as Fire Support ships. They mighty not have made big bang like the Battleships, but they certainly got enemy to take notice of them!
I found a what looks like a landing craft geared to do Fire Support via Rockets. It was Pintinterest find so I'm not sure what who/what she actually is.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=46816;image)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Tank_(Rocket)
60,000+ pounds of rocket fire all at once. RL20 that one, kids!
-
I recall hearing stories that the Allies learned the hard way that you had to ripple-fire the launch at least a bit, as early testing involving a mass launch in one moment caused an early prototype to cut itself in half. :o
-
Guns can fire along curves quite easily, ask any artilleryman. :)
True.
As I understand, unavoidable drifting, pitching, and rolling of the ship in question means that actually hitting a target area with a setup like that will be purely a matter of blind luck.
Also, true.That was done by some of the landing ships in WW2 where the Priest SPG would fire on the way in for landing on the beach. I'm sure it wasn't overly accurate but the spray and hope you hit something is about the best you can do sometimes.
If it were "direct lay" and they gunner timed it right but otherwise not a preferred technique.
Would it be possible to build a smaller ship that was only for artillery bombardment of land targets and have it be cheap?
I don't know that anyone has priced out the rocket catching autonomous barges Space-X uses but it is a thought.
-
Not all at once. Even with seawater across the deck, it melted the steel decking when they tried that. Ripple fire being thw correct solution
-
Not exactly naval now but the same guns that were on HMS Inflexible.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKmi0PN7LxM
-
Just use the towed artillery put twice as many tubes on deck. Certainly making a 8" or bigger version of a M777 wouldn't be Brain surgery.
Could use guided shells. Not sure how the FCS or stabilization systems would handle the ship rolling though.
Anyone notice what looks like a large ATGM being fired at the end of the line of SPGs there? :D
-
Just use the towed artillery put twice as many tubes on deck. Certainly making a 8" or bigger version of a M777 wouldn't be Brain surgery.
Sure, if you only ever want to use the vessel once.
Could use guided shells. Not sure how the FCS or stabilization systems would handle the ship rolling though.
Anyone notice what looks like a large ATGM being fired at the end of the line of SPGs there? :D
The concept has been considered, we have one exercise credited ship kill against a DDG by an LCH, it just happened to have a Leopard MBT on the tank deck, crewed and ready to go. In future the DDGs all simply shot first and demanded surrender later.
The problem with using shore based artillery on a ship is manifold, from deck destruction and damage to water tight integrity to personnel safety and HERO. Many governments decided years ago that air power was the answer to the problem, so that's what they rolled with. I'd love to see a gunnery ship, but the world has moved away from gunnery (a move I consider short sighted) and probably won't be going back that way for a long time.
-
This thread started with pictures of ships representing the states or cities people were born in.
Well you could have knocked me over with a feather when I found this:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/HMS_Orangeville_FL17101.jpg)
-
Worktroll - I assume that is where you were born/grew up?
If so, the equivalent for me would be:
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/ships/PARRAMATTA-03.jpg)
HMAS Parramatta (I) was one of six 'River' Class torpedo boat destroyers built for the Royal Australian Navy and served during WWI.
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/ships/PARRAMATTA-02.jpg)
HMAS Parramatta (II) was a Grimsby Class sloop that served in WWII until it was sunk by U-559 in the Mediterranean Sea while on convoy escort duty
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/PARRAMATTA%20Sydney%20Harbour%202.jpg)
HMAS Parramatta (III) (F05/DE 46) was a River class destroyer escort (a licence-built Type 12 frigate) that was in service 1961-1991.
(http://news.navy.gov.au/images/cache/746x497/crop/images%7Ccms-image-000009381.jpg)
HMAS Parramatta (IV) (FFH 154) is an Anzac-class frigate that was commissioned into service in 2003.
-
My birthplace in warship:
(http://www.sunreef.com.au/files/3414/2948/7786/hmas.jpg)
or:
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/NUSHIP_Brisbane_builders_trials.jpg)
-
USS Corpus Christi
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/USS_Corpus_Christi_PF-44_01.jpg)
USNS Corpus Christi Bay
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/USS_Corpus_Christi_Bay_%28ARVH-1%29.jpg/640px-USS_Corpus_Christi_Bay_%28ARVH-1%29.jpg)
USS City of Corpus Christi
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/00/USS_City_of_Corpus_Christi_%28SSN-705%29.jpg)
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Oakland_(CL-95)
Not quite where I was born, (No USS Monterey Park) but otherwise where I've been living for most of my life.
-
Loading a Kalibr missile into a Kilo-class SSK
(https://s33.postimg.cc/dorxevl1b/Kalibr_cruise_missile_Kilo_SSK_loading.jpg)
-
City of my birth
SMS Munchen
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/SMS_Muenchen_Bain_picture.jpg)
And I've spent most of my life living in a large city that lies between these two ships
USS Denver
CL-16
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ee/USS_Denver.jpg)
CL-58
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/USS_Denver_%28CL-58%29_underway%2C_circa_in_December_1942_%2819-N-39431%29.jpg)
LPD-9
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/USS_Denver_LPD-9.jpg)
USS Pueblo (Cold War era0
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Laika_ac_USS_Pueblo_%287960099660%29.jpg)
USS Pueblo [CA7] (Interbellum Era)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Acr0701.jpg)
-
City of my birth, USS Pocatello.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/USS_Pocatella_120800901.jpg)
-
There's none for the city I was born in, but I have lived in Portland, so...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/USS_Portland_has_conducts_its_first_set_of_sea_trials_in_the_Gulf_of_Mexico._%2835696636566%29.jpg/450px-USS_Portland_has_conducts_its_first_set_of_sea_trials_in_the_Gulf_of_Mexico._%2835696636566%29.jpg)
-
my place of birth hasn't been too fortunate shipwise.. a WW2 cruiser cancelled as just a keel, and a Independence class LCS still being built (supposed to be launched later this year.. but can't find anything on the status of it)
but between 1968 and 1994 this was the USS kansas City:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/USS_Kansas_City_%28AOR-3%29_underway_in_the_Pacific_Ocean_on_2_July_1987_%286654947%29.jpg)
a Wichita-class replenishment oiler.
but if we're willing to go out a bit more, my State is particularly blessed...
USS Missouri, BB-63
(https://travelknots.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/uss-missouri-pearl-harbor-hawaii.jpg)
USS Missouri, SSN-780
(http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wnpr/files/styles/medium/public/201405/virginiaclass.jpg)
-
13 HMS Londons according to Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_London
-
Shrapnel, where in the Springs, generally, are you? I was stationed at Carson for five years and loved it. Still trying to get there eventually.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKmi0PN7LxM
Ian (Forgotten Weapons) looks at a BIG gun. This one is one of Malta's defensive guns, but Italy put FOUR of these on their old battleships.
-
Heh... ONLY 35 guys to operate the thing (and 40 more as a back up to the steam engine that charged the hydraulic accumulators)… ::)
-
While there been many, some examples of USS Boston.
1884 protected cruiser - 60 year veteran of US Navy, seeing service off-on from Spanish-American War to WW2.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Uss_boston_ca.jpg)
CA-69 / CAG-1
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OnP6yz6VXHo/UGGpvyzoFrI/AAAAAAAAGbg/bJtovFCuGso/s1600/USS+Boston+6.jpg)
SSN-703
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aCr8tERheJk/Ta4-Dm2QgWI/AAAAAAAAANE/sXmn_fPbkEU/s1600/USS%2BBOSTON%2Bin%2BFremantle%2BAustralia%2B1983.jpg)
-
Well...
(http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/9/4/4/1685449.jpg)
RSN Bedok
Lead ship of the Republic of Singapore Navy's Bedok-class MCMV
-
Unfortunately there's nothing for Canvey Island so instead here's a Lord Nelson class Pre-Dreadnought, the UK's last pre-dreadnought battleships and actually launched after the Dreadnought.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/HMS_Agamemnon_%281908%29_profile_drawing.png)
(https://cdn8.bigcommerce.com/s-vdyx2gj/images/stencil/1280x1280/products/73713/89867/58ba68e28c237__13030.1492008546.jpg?c=2&imbypass=on)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/HMS_Lord_Nelson_%281906%29_and_HMS_Agamemnon_%281906%29_anchored_in_Dardanelles_in_1915.jpg)
-
there have been 5 HMS Essexes
-
True but its a bloody big County :p
-
Well...
(http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/9/4/4/1685449.jpg)
RSN Bedok
Lead ship of the Republic of Singapore Navy's Bedok-class MCMV
May there someday be an RSN Pasir Ris.
-
HMS Invincible used to have Sea Dart SAMs. They made flight ops complicated though.
(https://s33.postimg.cc/mtitskxy7/t_TF0_NHH_d.jpg)
-
In the spirit of the people posting ships from the city or place they are from. Being from Michigan here are mine.
USS Michigan 1843 the first iorn hull warship.
USS Michigan BB-27 the second US Dreadnought battleship.
USS Michigan SSGN-727 the second Ohio class sub
-
Ah, the Wolverine/Michigan. Talk about a wiki hole of weird history...
-
Speaking of USS Wolverine
(http://www.vintagewings.ca/Portals/0/Vintage_Stories/News%20Stories%20H/The%20Lakers/The-Lakers01.jpg)
(https://i1.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Seeandbee.jpg)
(https://ww2db.com/images/ship_wolverine10.jpg)
-
"Weird" doesn't even begin to describe it... :o
-
"Weird" doesn't even begin to describe it... :o
By weird ya mean awesome right? :D
-
I'd totally forgotten about those weird ships.
-
You tube has a video of training aircraft doing take off and landings on those paddlewheel flat tops.
-
Another odd flattop, the Thai Navy's Chakri Naruebet.
(https://www.naval-technology.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2017/09/thai8.jpg)
At under 12,000 tons she's a tiny carrier by modern terms. The idea was to operate Harriers and ASW helicopters, but the Harriers are out of service, and the ship hasn't seen much service beyond occasional training and 'show the flag' operations. She's been available for sale for several years, but no buyers have come forward (the Australians showed some interest about ten years ago but backed off).
-
Probably the diggers had a look at the state of the thing...
-
She's not doing so good. Apparently according to a Janes assessment, her anti-aircraft systems never worked due to a lack of fire control facilities, the hull is showing age and well...
Not really a carrier if you don't have anything to carry...
-
I saw it once described as an "overglorified royal yacht"
-
Not surprising. This is the same navy that's reviving their submarine service after almost 70 years "not for battle, but so that others will be in awe of us."
-
China just did a double launch of their cruiser sized, Type 055 Destroyers this recently. These ships have 12-13,000 ton displacement, with reportedly 112 VLS missile tubes and 130mm main gun.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=46839)
-
A Sth Korean company has found the Russian cruiser Dmitri Donskoi of Tsushima (in)famy. Reputed to have a large amount of bullion inside her when she was scuttled after fleeing Tsushima, the company promises to hand over 50% of any gold found to the Russian Govt, and invest 10% in a highway project.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a22345825/russian-shipwreck-gold-dmitri-donskoii/
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/DmitriyDonskoy1880-1905.jpg/640px-DmitriyDonskoy1880-1905.jpg)
-
Reading the book 'The Fleet that had to die' the Don is described as pretty much a floating joke crewed by incompetents and reservists, a very very obsolete ship that would have served better as a target than an actual fighting unit. But at Tishuma she fought like a lion and went down bravely. I would assume that the bullion aboard (if there is any) would have been used by the Russian fleet to pay for its food/water/coal on its massively long journey (which was a feat in itself).
-
With that trip being as long as it was, I'd be surprised if there was a lot left by the time she met her fate. it would mean they carried a hell of a lot more money than needed- not something I'd expect the czar to authorize.
-
With that trip being as long as it was, I'd be surprised if there was a lot left by the time she met her fate. it would mean they carried a hell of a lot more money than needed- not something I'd expect the czar to authorize.
Depends on whether they expected to return the way they came or not. While a significant amount would have been used on the way around the continents, that same amount would be required again if they were meant to work their way back.
-
With that trip being as long as it was, I'd be surprised if there was a lot left by the time she met her fate. it would mean they carried a hell of a lot more money than needed- not something I'd expect the czar to authorize.
I don't have the book to hand but I would assume that the coal was paid for through the firms doing the colliering and thus wouldn't be paid for on the spot. I'd therefore assume that gold she might be carrying would be used to pay for food and the like as the coaling was done at pre-arranged places (with flexible dates).
Its odd though that the gold would be aboard the Dimitrii Donskoy, she was one of the oldest and least efficient ships the Russians sent east. You'd think that the Tsar and co would insist that it be aboard the flagship where it would be the safest (loyal man and modern ship).
-
Alleged gold, I should say.
-
The other side of it is that the Donskoi was likely expected to put into port and remain there- the expectation was that they'd arrive and have a bit of time to catch their breath before going to meet the Japanese navy in combat. I'd expect a ship like this to be left behind as a defense against an attack on the harbor- partly because she was so inept as a seagoing warship by this point, and partly because the whole reason this fleet had to come here was because Japan had proven to be pretty good at hitting anchored Russian ships a short time earlier.
If viewed through that lens, the ship not expected to see any combat against the Japanese wasn't a bad choice- nothing safer from harm than a ship not sailing into it anyway. It's a fantastically flawed plan, mind you, but the logic- flawed as it is- is there.
Tsushima always makes my head hurt. It's hard to find another large-scale engagement in naval history this one-sided- it's either this one or Surigao several decades later.
-
USS Milwaukee from 1864.
An unlucky lady that was sunk during the war by Rebel forces. She was salvaged shortly after war, but some ship salvagers suspects part ship may remain where she sank in the Mississippi. Her iron actually was used to build Eads Bridge that crosses the river and first to be made out all steel.
USS Milwaukee in 1864
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/Uss_Milwaukee_1864.jpg)
exMilwaukee now part of the Eads Bridge.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Eads_Bridge_from_Laclede%27s_Landing%2C_Sep_2012.jpg/300px-Eads_Bridge_from_Laclede%27s_Landing%2C_Sep_2012.jpg)
-
Its odd though that the gold would be aboard the Dimitrii Donskoy, she was one of the oldest and least efficient ships the Russians sent east. You'd think that the Tsar and co would insist that it be aboard the flagship where it would be the safest (loyal man and modern ship).
Admittedly you'd think so, because that would be entirely reasonable. And in ANY other fleet situation you'd probably be right. But you're forgetting this was the Voyage of the Damned, the Baltic Fleet of the proud Russian Empire on their way to glory at Tsushima.
There's a reason this trip was legendary. Enjoy.
-
Dear God, I laughed so hard I had to stop halfway for a lie down and some tea.
-
Speaking of the 2nd and 3rd Pacific Squadrons (all the pics enlarge)
The Battleship Navarin, one of the battleships that sailed with Rozhestvensky, based in part on the British Trafalgar class battleships the Navarin was shot up, torpedoed twice and finally sunk when it ran over some mines laid in front of her. Of her crew, only 3 survived.
(http://russiatrek.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/the-russian-imperial-fleet-battleship-1.jpg)
The Battleship Imperator Nikolai I, the flagship of the 3rd Pacific Squadron under the command of Rear Admiral Nebogatov who's 'self-sinkers' included this ship and a trio of coast defence battleships. Taking the short cut through the Med and the Suez canal, the 3rd Squadron didn't have anywhere near the problems that plagued the 2nd Squadron. Heavily damaged, the Imperator and several other badly battered ships surrendered to the Japanese the day after the battle of Tishuma.
(http://russiatrek.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/the-russian-imperial-fleet-battleship-2.jpg)
The Battleship Borodino, nameship of her class which is viewed as one of the most unsuccessful classes of pre-dreadnought battleships ever built. Based on the French made and built Tsesarevich, the Borodino's were 'improved' by the Russians, including expanded officers quarters, heavier machinery and a thinner belt to try and make them faster. It wasn't a success. As was mentioned in that post above, the Borodino's were heavily overloaded, top heavy and suffered many flaws and defects. At Tishuma the Borodino was heavily hit and suffered enough damage that a fire would set off her forward magazine with only one of her crew surviving.
(http://russiatrek.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/the-russian-imperial-fleet-battleship-10.jpg)
And finally the Battleship Oslyabya, flagship of Rear Admiral Dmitry von Fölkersam, second in Command of the 2nd Pacific Squadron. The Oslyabya and her sisters were a largely unsuccessful attempt at making a fast battleship. Armed with 10-inch guns and designed to be able to be as fast as an armoured cruiser but better gunned and protected but faster than a battleship, the ships never really performed up to spec. The Oslyabya went into battle but von Fölkersam didn't, he had passed away from a heart attack days prior to the battle. But she was still flying his flag and the Squadron was not informed of his death due to the fear it would impact the already crumbling morale. The Oslyabya was heavily shot up by armoured cruisers and would capsize due to uncontrolled and unstoppable flooding.
(http://russiatrek.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/the-russian-imperial-fleet-battleship-8.jpg)
This seems to also be the fleet forming up at Reval prior to departing for the Far East so it makes it an interesting picture. Also note the torpedo net booms out to the side, it makes for an interesting picture.
And finally!
A WW1 picture of the Battleships of the Baltic fleet. This appears to be all four pre-dreadnoughts the Russians had in service at the time, with the Slava leading the Tsesarevich whilst the more modern Andrey Pervozvanny and her sister the Imperator Pavel astern. These two ships had fully armoured hulls and didn't even have any scuttles (portholes) and had a mixed battery of 12-inch and 8-inch guns making them semi-dreadnoughts. I'm not sure what the cruisers are on the battleships starboard but their four funnels mean they are either Bayan class armoured cruisers or the Rossia and her sister the Gromoboi.
(http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/irootoko_jr/imgs/3/a/3aee825e.jpg)
*edit* Actually I think the cruisers to the left ARE Bayan class armoured cruisers, and the one to the rear is either the Rossia or Gromoboi as they had a very high and tall hull which matches the profile of the ship in the distance.
-
changing topic a little bit, it sounds like there has been a nasty accident in Missouri with a DUKW sinking on a lake with several deaths :'(
-
Speaking of the 2nd and 3rd Pacific Squadrons (all the pics enlarge)
Wow, thanks for the pics and history. I'm ashamed to admit I don't know enough about the Russo-Japanese War, so I'll be fixing that.
-
changing topic a little bit, it sounds like there has been a nasty accident in Missouri with a DUKW sinking on a lake with several deaths :'(
All over the news here in southern MO.. We've had storms brewing up quick. They were out on the water, a severe storm swept in, lake got choppy, and it capsized.
17 dead is the current count.. 9 of them from a single family. As well as the driver. 4 are in the hospital, critical cpndition. Two of those are kids.
Those ducks can carry upwards of thirty to forty people. No idea how many were on it total though. There were 31 people aboard.
The vehicle is currently under about thirty eighty feet of water, it might be a bit before they can haul it out.
Thankfully the driver radioed out a mayday and people came from a nearby marina and the Branson Belle steamboat replica to help rescue people.The
Edit: the business is currently shut down while they investigate why the duck was out on the lake with a storm warning in place.
-
If this doesn't trigger all your Cold War Krazny Oktyabr buttons, I don't know what will :D
https://youtu.be/mnP_z3qXDCQ
-
What no "one ping" in a thick scottish accent? >:D
-
What no "one ping" in a thick scottish accent? >:D
They "only" picked Gerard Butler for Indavertently Scottish Captain this time
Imagine if Billy Connolly was up to task :D
-
Imagine if Billy Connolly was up to task :D
I imagine that there would have been an unintelligible Scottish swear word between the 'one' and 'ping'
-
Am I the only one who reacted to the scene of the sub coming out of the explosion with "no way does a sub get that close to a blast and maintain structural integrity?"
-
(https://i.imgur.com/x34DtcK.jpg)
-
Am I the only one who reacted to the scene of the sub coming out of the explosion with "no way does a sub get that close to a blast and maintain structural integrity?"
It's one of those "has fallen" type movies
Any logical reaction to anything going on should start with "No way"
Typhoon and Akula?
-
Yep a Typhoon with an Akula for scale.
-
There's a reason they call the Typhoon "5 subs in very close formation"
-
So very nice to see the size difference.
-
It's one of those "has fallen" type movies
The best comment I saw was that it should be called "The Hunt for Red Olympus" ;D
-
I saw in the trailer that there were some of the shore batteries for anti-ship missiles. That was neat to see.
-
That underwater torpedo scene explosion of the sub reminds me of another movie, Virus of 1980 release with Sonny Chiba, Chuck Conners and others. Same arctic scene, except it was antarctic.
TT
-
Down Periscope did it best, and it was a comedy.
That underwater torpedo scene explosion of the sub reminds me of another movie, Virus of 1980 release with Sonny Chiba, Chuck Conners and others. Same arctic scene, except it was antarctic.
TT
-
Down Periscope did it best, and it was a comedy.
I've heard some folks call Down Periscope a Documentary :D
-
I thought the Down Periscope was really cool with the idea, of a older SS going after the navy bases. From what I understand the SS of now a days are quite quiet, even better then a SSN.
-
A modern SSK, yes. Especially one with air-independent propulsion. But not the relic depicted in Down Periscope :D
-
well, a modern build Conventional is usually quieter than nuclear.. but the older stuff from WW2 and early cold war, like the baleo class used in the film, not so much. too many non-hydrodynamic protrusions and shapes involved.
but those older subs are the ones usually being sold off to the third world, so as a concept the film made a lot of sense. especially the idea of the enemy being unconventional.
interestingly, in 2005 the Us navy borrowed a Gotland class sub and crew from the Swedish navy, for wargames of just that sort of scenario. it didn't go well for the US Navy, as the Gotland proved really hard to detect, and was able to sink a US Carrier group and several of our nuclear subs over the course of several scenarios conducted between 2005 and 2007.
admittedly the Gotland class is (and remains in 2018) one of the most advanced conventional subs in the world, with all sorts of systems to make it hard to detect (Air independent propulsion systems, anti-magnetic anomaly detection systems, etc) but since a lot of potentially hostile countries were starting to update to conventional subs with forms of such tech, it was a good learning experience.
-
That was entertaining. The USN kind of went into it as 'hey, this'll be handy training for us hunting Kilo-class boats and such, come on down and let us use you for target practice!'.
Oops. I suspect a whole lot of foreheads got slapped at the Pentagon when those exercises ended and the data started getting pored over. (I also suspect a lot of Baltic neighbors were surprised and intrigued by the results as well- the guy next door did WHAT to a Nimitz-group?)
-
The Gotland and its crew scored first in a regular NATO exercise. After which the USN requested a few more exercises specifically to reinvestigate the SSK threat.
Which of course was picked up by media and spun, still running stories as recently as a couple months back, that a European diesel sub has just obsoleted the entire USN fleet and all those multi billion dollar ships are sitting duck white elephants, what is the govt doing, oh the perfidy of the military industrial complex, yadda yadda
-
diesel subs are very quiet but they have a large number of tactical and strategic drawbacks that mean that pound for pound, nuclear boats are better.
Even with AIP motors and the latest batteries, a diesel sub is slower when running on its batteries as it will wear then down quicker, this gives a nuclear boat a higher tactical and strategic speed. The tactical speed means that the nuke boat has more defensive options open to it, it can run harder and faster than any DE boat without fear of running low on batteries and that extra speed could mean life or death.
I did recall reading somewhere that a diesel electric boat is more like a mobile minefield mainly due to their lower speeds. If you can position it to strike or are in a position where your targets are coming towards you, then you're very dangerous, but if you have to chase, then you're at a disadvantage because you've got to recharge the batteries some time and if you'r target is a 20 knot group of Warships moving away from you, you're probably never going to make that intercept.
-
The Gotland and its crew scored first in a regular NATO exercise.
Nah, SSK attack runs on CBGs were always pretty standard. In the 80s German, Canadian and British (and of course USN) SSKs were used (successfully), in the 90s and early 00s the rather modern Dutch and Australian SSKs were used. Gotland was leased in late 2004 with her crew specifically to tackle this problem.
The decisive factor was supposedly the series of HMAS Onslow sinking USS Carl Vinson in RIMPAC 98*, HNLMS Walrus sinking USS Theodore Roosevelt in JTFEX/TMDI 99, HMAS Waller sinking two SSNs and coming into attack range of USS Abraham Lincoln in RIMPAC 2000, again HMAS Waller sinking two LPDs in OP Tandem Thrust in 2001, HMAS Sheean sinking two LPDs in RIMPAC 02 and supposedly (without details) a pack of three Collins sinking two SSN and a CVN in exercises in 2003.
Your sentence is still correct though of course. RIMPAC or the Australian exercises ain't NATO exercises, and JTFEX/TMDI in '99 was multilateral beyond NATO i think.
* the same year French SSN Casabianca sank USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and Tico escort USS Anzio in OP Pean. In RIMPAC 96 Chilean Type 209-1400 CS Simpson sank USS Independence. 1997 broke the series as there was no carrier sinking in an exercise; however that year a Russian SSN was found in attack range of USS Constellation.
well, a modern build Conventional is usually quieter than nuclear..
Far less heat too. Nuclear subs are virtually unusable in littoral waters since they can even be detectable on IR from e.g. ASW aircraft in such conditions. Besides their size of course, at least for USN models.
Even with AIP motors and the latest batteries, a diesel sub is slower when running on its batteries as it will wear then down quicker, this gives a nuclear boat a higher tactical and strategic speed.
The speed is mostly decisive in defensively escorting a CBG at full speed. There have been experiments switching modern SSKs for SSNs operationally, in particular Australian and German SSKs; they've been found to operate fully equivalently and tactically scoring equivalently as well.
-
I am not a submariner or even a squid and I will happily be corrected by those who are that frequent this thread. However I get the impression from the submariners who I know (who are generally SSK operators), if you are having to use high speed and deplete your batteries then you are doing it wrong.
-
HMS Magpie, British Surveyor ship. Very brave crews with that wave.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=47139)
-
I am not a submariner or even a squid and I will happily be corrected by those who are that frequent this thread. However I get the impression from the submariners who I know (who are generally SSK operators), if you are having to use high speed and deplete your batteries then you are doing it wrong.
Yes and no, it all depends on the tactical situation. SSK's nave a notably different operational profile than nukes, and some of the manoevres do require high speed sprints, but they do tend to be the perennial slowpokes of the sea.
HMS Magpie, British Surveyor ship. Very brave crews with that wave.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=47139)
Looks like she is surveying a reef somewhere, noting that breaking wave. No danger to the crew provided she doesn't bottom out.
-
Picture the SSK like a deer hunter in a treestand, sitting in one spot silent as the grave and letting targets come to it. The SSN is more of a stalker, searching for and tailing its prey while making a little movement noise (pumps and reactor coolant systems).
Not that either hull couldn't do the other job, but the diesel can only stalk for so long before it has to recharge and that forces breaking way off your contact, while even crewed with nothing but pillows and bunny slippers while fully stopped, the nuclear sub is still percolating quietly.
-
I think Tom Clancy was the one who described SSKs as 'mobile minefields', able to dominate the area they're in but not really CONTROL it the way an SSN can- after all, the SSK has to come up for air, go home for fuel, all the fun things like that, while the nuke boat doesn't much care about any of that. I always liked that description. It's very apt in a way- because of the air and fuel requirements (particularly the former), an SSK tends to stay more in coastal areas that it can control- straights in particular, where the prey has to come right to it. (Imagine a Kilo sitting at an end of the Suez Canal, for example), while an SSN could go just about anywhere one could want so long as there's food and munitions on board for it.
-
Modern conventional subs have underwater endurance of 30+ days (Stirling engine or fuel cells), but it's true they're rather slow in that mode.
-
Aren't the submarine fleets of individual nations known to have not alot of Submarines in general, never mind ones with AIP equipped? Most countries i've read about Naval strength barely has a half dozen Submarines tops. That's not very sustainable force if things get rough right?
-
It's not too bad a navy to even have half a dozen operational submarines frankly
-
Aren't the submarine fleets of individual nations known to have not alot of Submarines in general, never mind ones with AIP equipped? Most countries i've read about Naval strength barely has a half dozen Submarines tops. That's not very sustainable force if things get rough right?
If that's all your opponent has as well, you're in good shape. Build to match the neighbors, all that.
-
If that's all your opponent has as well, you're in good shape. Build to match the neighbors, all that.
Yeah, most of those small sub forces were meant to supplement either the US or the Russians, or are a National Pride thing like the Argentinian or Indian Navy.
-
You'd be surprised to find out how few navies have "Enforce superiority over one or more oceans" in their mission statement. Same goes for "Expect to beat an ocean-controlling navy in a stand-up fight".
-
Seeing the trailer for Hunter Killer it reminded me of Battleship. Something that should be cool but you are not 100 % sold on the movie.
-
Seeing the trailer for Hunter Killer it reminded me of Battleship. Something that should be cool but you are not 100 % sold on the movie.
If a movie reminds you of 'Battleship', it's probably going to be more fun to eat a lit road flare than see that movie.
God, that was a piece of shit.
-
(https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/incomplete-french-battleship-jean-bart-sailing-from-casablanca-to-cherbourg-for-repairs-in-1945.jpg)
Some assembly required. Incomplete Jean Bart sailing from Casablanca to Cherbourg in 1945 for repairs.
-
If a movie reminds you of 'Battleship', it's probably going to be more fun to eat a lit road flare than see that movie.
God, that was a piece of shit.
It came out on my birthday, and so I felt duty-bound to watch it. It met my expectations exactly, and I was not let down in the slightest.
This says a lot about my expectations, and the size of the beer my friends bought me...
-
Yes and no, it all depends on the tactical situation. SSK's nave a notably different operational profile than nukes, and some of the manoevres do require high speed sprints, but they do tend to be the perennial slowpokes of the sea.
Cheers and thanks mate :thumbsup:
You'd be surprised to find out how few navies have "Enforce superiority over one or more oceans" in their mission statement. Same goes for "Expect to beat an ocean-controlling navy in a stand-up fight".
Even Australia as a "middle power" does not try to aspire to either of those missions. With the increasing levels of "interesting times" in Asia, we have committed to building 12 Shortfin Barracuda-class SSKs which should mean that at any one time we can put 3-4 boats out to sea to be able to contest the sea approach of an OPFOR to Australia.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zqkU9LgEHgs/VmefbefrNAI/AAAAAAAAMIs/5sk6CoS7WpIQbKhQUqmcPqMkSSo7f8Lew/s1600/Australian_Sea_1000_-_French_Shortfin_Barracuda.png)
-
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zqkU9LgEHgs/VmefbefrNAI/AAAAAAAAMIs/5sk6CoS7WpIQbKhQUqmcPqMkSSo7f8Lew/s1600/Australian_Sea_1000_-_French_Shortfin_Barracuda.png)
mate, if one discounts the superpowers Australia might well be amongst the top when it comes to taking sovereign defence seriously
in these days of straitened budgets few countries would just smack down the bucks and say "yes that'll be TEN submarines to go, please"
-
Instead, we learn from our mistakes from building the Collins-class, ie take a Swedish designed sub, make it 25% bigger and then wonder why is is an "underwater rock concert" until we spend a lode of extra money on a US combat system (that actually works) and a new propeller.
We buy a French nuclear submarine design, then ask them to rip out the nuclear reactor and turn into a diesel-electric for us as well as integrate a US combat system that they have never worked with.
What could possibly go wrong . . . :-[
-
God, that was a piece of shit.
:clap:
-
Aren't the submarine fleets of individual nations known to have not alot of Submarines in general, never mind ones with AIP equipped? Most countries i've read about Naval strength barely has a half dozen Submarines tops. That's not very sustainable force if things get rough right?
No one has the logistics to sustain things 'get rough' without a full mobilization. There are only so many spare crews, hulls, parts, munition stockpiles, and manufacturing capacity to go around. Look at what Vietnam did to the F-105. Also illustrated in the 1999 Kosovo air campaign when countries start running out of certain munition types.
Even with the shipbuilding capacity of say, South Korea or China, there's the issue of staffing and setting up the training pipeline to provide crews and officers.
Short of full mobilization, armed conflicts are generally run what you brung and then go to negotiations when losses hit a certain point. More hulls (assuming they can be funded or crewed) just shift that 'point' slightly
-
Instead, we learn from our mistakes from building the Collins-class, ie take a Swedish designed sub, make it 25% bigger and then wonder why is is an "underwater rock concert" until we spend a lode of extra money on a US combat system (that actually works) and a new propeller.
We buy a French nuclear submarine design, then ask them to rip out the nuclear reactor and turn into a diesel-electric for us as well as integrate a US combat system that they have never worked with.
What could possibly go wrong . . . :-[
Don't believe everything you read...
The Barracuda was designed as a conventional submarine, then was re-designed into a nuke, hence why the Shortfin Barracuda is conventional. It doesn't help that no other nation uses their subs the way we do, so no matter what we were going to need a modified design. Contrary to popular opinion, we do not want a nuke, they are extraordinarily expensive and difficult to maintain (compared to conventional) and lets just say they invoke an emotional response.
-
I don't but I always worry when we are the lead customer on an "Australianised" capability.
Agree with you on not going nuke, just a can of worms we really do not want to open.
-
There were some good parts of battleship. The Burke Destoryer unloading on the bad guy, and the Missouri being brought to life by the vets and the full broadsides form her that made me very happy. But the problem is that was about 30 seconds in that pile of crap movie.
-
Speaking of Australia,
HMAS Australia an I class Battlecruiser
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/HMAS_Australia_1914.jpg)
-
I will see your HMAS Australia (I) with a HMAS Australia (II) a Kent-class heavy cruiser (photographed transiting the Panama canal)
(http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/styles/content_image_full_width_no_sidebar/public/Panama%20Canal.jpg?itok=efrEHnRg)
and then raise you an Australia II (KA-6) 12-metre-class America's Cup challenge racing yacht, she was the first successful America's Cup challenger, ending a 132-year tenure (with 26 successful defences) by the New York Yacht Club.
(https://sailinghalloffame.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ANMS0062059.jpg)
(http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4613180-3x2-940x627.jpg)
-
While we are admiring the fancy ladies of the RAN, one of my personal favourites, HMAS Canberra I
(https://navalinstitute.com.au/wp-content/uploads/HMAS-Canberra.jpg)
-
And RE County class cruisers
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/83/11/67/83116722b22981def7466c93fe40ea14.jpg)
(https://i.stack.imgur.com/bX1kn.jpg)
(http://www.naval-history.net/Photo06caSussex1NP.jpg)
Kamikaze meets the side of HMS Sussex.
-
I hope it works out for Australia with the submarine program. The Collins was expensive mishandling given all the money they put into it and all the trouble they had with them. If the Barracuda were designed to be conventional, then it should work out. However, we've not seen samples of. I hope they include the Air Independence Propulsion in the design.
I do wonder why Australia didn't go with proven designs that are already in service. There was also the Scorpène-class submarine and the spanish's S-80s. I guess with leaks of info on the Scorpène-class submarine did add up well for use maybe. The Spanish S-80 could have worked out, heck they bought Frigate and LHD designs from them.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=47164)
-
Range is a bit issue for us downunder. When we want to transit up to where the "interesting times" are happening, you need a submarine with significant range. Not many conventional submarines out there that can meet that range requirements. The Shortfin Barracuda is a big enough boat that it should be able to meet the range requirements that the RAN wants. However, I understand that we have chosen not to install a AIP and to go with lead-acid batteries instead of Li-ion.
-
Hope it works out, Lead batteries has limited range in comparison.
-
Moving away from modern vessels (and the Rule 4 we've kind of butted up against a bit here and there...)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1hIX2qUn8-w/TtKfshpdC3I/AAAAAAAAAmM/wOdPpxDtttE/s1600/7711.jpg)
Three of the Tegetthoff-class dreadnoughts, with their unique triple gun mounts, at anchor late in WWI- likely following the loss of Szent Istvan, explaining why only three are here. Surprisingly good ships for first-attempt dreadnoughts, a successful debut of three-gun turrets (followed soon after by the Americans on the Nevada), and served well during the war- it's surprising that they ended up being Austria-Hungary's only dreadnoughts. Four were built, one lost during the war, with another one sunk immediately after the war's end.
-
The Spanish S-80 could have worked out, heck they bought Frigate and LHD designs from them.
The design problems with the S-80 are big enough that Navantia has consciously decided to not enter it for bids in any export tenders despite initial interest in particular in the Indian tender. Said design problems mostly center around the S-80 being overweight enough to not be able to resurface, and the solution being not to remove weight but to add volume in sixteen (!) separate sections. Oh, and the AIP doesn't work, so the first two will be delivered without it. Sometime in the 2020s.
-
And the dimensions changed enough that they are having to rebuild the docks they are meant to be serviced in because its too long for them or something if i recall?
-
And the dimensions changed enough that they are having to rebuild the docks they are meant to be serviced in because its too long for them or something if i recall?
Yep, that problem http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22249/oops-the-spanish-navy-is-constructing-new-submarines-that-are-too-big-for-their-pens
-
Any one have idea which ship this is? I found this image randomly.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=47179)
-
From a Google Image Search it's HMS Conway.
-
A school ship built in 1859, and which had an inglorious ending nearly a century later:
While being towed back to Birkenhead for a refit in 1953, she ran aground and was wrecked, and later burned.
Such a shame ... it sounded like they'd intended to keep her, but you can see the bend in the middle - that keel's given way.
I only hope it was a kind of Viking sendoff.
-
Also from the wikipedia article, HMS Conway was originally HMS Nile a two-deck 90-gun second rate ship of the line of the Royal Navy, launched on 28 June 1839 at Plymouth Dockyard. She was named to commemorate the Battle of the Nile in 1798.
-
Such a shame ... it sounded like they'd intended to keep her, but you can see the bend in the middle - that keel's given way.
I only hope it was a kind of Viking sendoff.
Snap crackle pop: things you only want to hear from breakfast, not your ship. That said, she was a fine looking ship with a hell of a service run.
-
(https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/scuttled.jpg)
Coast Battleship #2 (ex-USS Massachusetts, formerly BB-2) is scuttled following artillery test-bombardment off the northwestern Florida coast in January of 1921. The wreck was intended to be salvaged and scrapped, but ended up left in place to be pummeled by further shore gun tests- today it's an artificial reef, and popular with divers. Note that the ship's guns have been removed prior to the exercise, and the massive rent in the starboard bow forward of the forward gun mount. With all ammunition and coal removed, the hits that did this can't have been via secondary explosion, which is interesting- that means those hits must have been some serious firepower.
-
(https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/scuttled.jpg)
Coast Battleship #2 (ex-USS Massachusetts, formerly BB-2) is scuttled following artillery test-bombardment off the northwestern Florida coast in January of 1921. The wreck was intended to be salvaged and scrapped, but ended up left in place to be pummeled by further shore gun tests- today it's an artificial reef, and popular with divers. Note that the ship's guns have been removed prior to the exercise, and the massive rent in the starboard bow forward of the forward gun mount. With all ammunition and coal removed, the hits that did this can't have been via secondary explosion, which is interesting- that means those hits must have been some serious firepower.
Probably 14" guns, I thought it took a few more years before the 16" came out.
-
The article I had talked about it being 'experimental', so it's possible these were 16" tests- timing would be right to find out if the gun worked right before building them into the Colorados (and if not, just go with the tried and true 14" used in the Californias). Not sure BuOrd ever did build an 18-inch prototype, but this is how I'd test it if I did have one.
-
16"/45 caliber gun entered production in 1921. 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun were in 43.
18"/48 caliber Mark 1 gun was prototyped in 1920 and only 1 built.
Could be either a 16" or an 18" Either one shoots cars, and makes swimming pools.
-
At least she still exists. It was interesting design, glad she wasn't scrapped.
More ships,
USS New York in her early days! I look at that picture, with he going flank. I expect a "Toot Toot" coming from it. ;D
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/USS_New_York-1.jpg)
-
Must not be far from home- the bridge wings are still extended. Great shot of her!
-
From ships to weapons of ships
-
Interesting. Two quad mounts, looks like they're side-mounted rather than central, so likely a cruiser? Certainly looks big enough to be one. The crew look American though, and they didn't put torpedoes on deck of cruisers much (and not in THOSE numbers even when they did). Any idea where this is from?
-
Sims class destroyer perhaps.
-
unfortunately I can't answer that one I spotted it on Facebook on the World of WarShips page
-
Another fun picture
-
Interesting. Two quad mounts, looks like they're side-mounted rather than central, so likely a cruiser? Certainly looks big enough to be one. The crew look American though, and they didn't put torpedoes on deck of cruisers much (and not in THOSE numbers even when they did). Any idea where this is from?
Actually, the tubes closest to the photographer is center mounted. I suspect this is a destroyer of Mahan Class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahan-class_destroyer
"12 × 21 inch torpedo tubes (533 mm) (4 × 3). One tube mount was on the centerline between the stacks, and the other two were port and starboard just behind the aft stack."
I checked the whole category of USN Destroyers of WW2; Somers and Sims Class had the same torpedo launcher setup as well.
-
Another fun picture
From the arrival into Pearl in 1940? IIRC.
Nice snap.
-
From the arrival into Pearl in 1940? IIRC.
Nice snap.
It's actually late-war, Pennsylvania in front followed by Colorado and several cruisers. Note the modified foremast setup for the Pennsylvania compared to her arrangement at Pearl Harbor, and the porcupine arrangement of the secondary guns- now 5"/38s instead of the old single-purpose batteries.
-
Aside from the Oklahoma, wasn't there another retired WWII battleship that sank in tow after the war? I thought it was the New York.
I could just be mis-remembering things.
-
Aside from the Oklahoma, wasn't there another retired WWII battleship that sank in tow after the war? I thought it was the New York.
I could just be mis-remembering things.
Warspite did
-
Warspite did
Warspite didn't sink, she put up a fight, broke her tow and ran aground having to be broken up in situ.
-
and Prinz Eugen capsized under tow after the Bikini tests
-
Aside from the Oklahoma, wasn't there another retired WWII battleship that sank in tow after the war? I thought it was the New York.
I could just be mis-remembering things.
Brazilan battleship São Paulo did, in 1953, off the Azores.
-
I read last month that the USS Indianapolis had been located. What a tragic chapter of history that was, even if it was a part of war and how things sometimes go.
In tribute, here she is in dry dock.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/b1/0d/9f/b10d9f3daa7dce1e573326b0ade369f0--uss-oklahoma-pearl-harbor.jpg)
-
Hate to tell you, rebs, but that's actually a Nevada-class battleship (note the two tripod masts and the three-gun turret followed by two-gun turret, unique to that class). Can't tell if it's Nevada or Oklahoma, but looks like mid to late 1930s- no sign of five-inch gun directors or the quad-.50 cal 'birdbath' setups in the aft tripod. A great feature of that shot is that you can clearly see the ported-over 'scalloping' on the hull, where they had five-inch guns in casemate mounts when they were completed- they'd been removed for years, but the scalloping remained for their entire careers. The following Pennsylvania and New Mexico class ships had this as well.
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160728174824-01-nh-53230-copy-exlarge-169.jpg)
This is the Indianapolis- note the single short tripod mast, clipper bow with no scalloping along the sides, three-gun turrets, and the 'break' in the superstructure amidships for the ship's aviation facilities (the battleships of the day tended to carry their planes on the fantail and atop the aft gun turrets)- you can actually see the aircraft if you look closely. This likely was taken roughly at the same time period as your Nevada shot, mid to late '30s.
-
The USS Salem, which in the 50's played the bad guy in the movie Battle of the River Plate where she was used as the Graf Spee in the movie.
(https://www.jaycashman.com/uploads/2017/08/IMG_5117--jo.jpg)
(https://i0.wp.com/hauntjaunts.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Salem-aerial-09-web.CREDIT-Al-Coombs1.jpg)
Its understandable though, the Des Moines class cruisers are certinally a large and imposing ship, longer and heavier than a WW1 Invincible class Battlecruiser
-
Its understandable though, the Des Moines class cruisers are certinally a large and imposing ship, longer and heavier than a WW1 Invincible class Battlecruiser
Not just large and imposing, but downright terrifying as far as cruisers go. She's got nine eight-inch machineguns on board; each barrel has a cyclic rate of six seconds per round under heavy fire. So every minute, that's ninety rounds out to 30,000 yards; that's an AP throw weight of 30,000 pounds and 23,400 for HE. That's a hell of a lot of outgoing.
-
Not just large and imposing, but downright terrifying as far as cruisers go. She's got nine eight-inch machineguns on board; each barrel has a cyclic rate of six seconds per round under heavy fire. So every minute, that's ninety rounds out to 30,000 yards; that's an AP throw weight of 30,000 pounds and 23,400 for HE. That's a hell of a lot of outgoing.
And against an Invincible class Battlecruiser, that's a very punishing firepower.
-
Oh indeed a cruiser like this could probably take on any WW1 era battleship as built, even something like a Queen Elisabeth or Koenig class would be at risk from a rain of AP shells at long range with their thin deck armour.
-
Thats a nice photo of the Salem. Always wanted to see her.
The range of the 8" on the Salem out ranged most big guns of WW1. The rate of fire of the gun with the speed of the ship would be a huge advantage. The fire control of course was much better.
-
HNLMS Abraham Crijnssen was a Dutch minesweeper serving in the Far East when WWII broke out.
She was the last Dutch ship to escape the Dutch East Indies ahead of the Japanese advance, and did so by disguising herself as a small island and only moving at night ;D
-
it aint crazy if it works
-
related to crazy stuns, I've been told a looonnngg time ago that all the crazy situations of the old movie ''Operation Petitcoat'' are real things that appened to the pacific sub fleet during WWII. I always wondered if that person pulled my leg or if she was right.
-
mainly in the same way that most M.A.S.H. episodes were also real.. they were real things, but didn't all happen to the same people or at the same time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Petticoat#Historical_accuracy
-
I knew about the pink sub but not the others. Tony Curtis role was practicaly himself before acting and I don't know if a ship had to do child delivery under fire.
-
Hate to tell you, rebs, but ...
Google search failed again.
Still, that is a nice shot of the Nevada at dry dock. One thing that never fails to awe me is those old shots of the great ships. So much steel and projected power.
Got to say, you sure know your ships. Did you serve in the fleet?
-
(http://i.imgur.com/N6rv6rA.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Scharnhorst_class_cruiser_diagrams_Janes_1914.jpg/657px-Scharnhorst_class_cruiser_diagrams_Janes_1914.jpg)
The Scharnhorst class armoured cruiser, an evolutionary development of the Prinz Albert and Roon classes, all of which looked similar to the Scharnhorst, the later cruiser was larger, more heavily protected, faster and better armed. Built with an eye towards overseas service the two ships of the Class, Scharnhorst and Gnisenau would form the core of the Imperial German East Asia Squadron based out of Tsingtao and here they were joined by four light cruisers including the famous Emden which would go on to win fame and even admiration from the British in World War 1.
-
(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/38071616_1080480708781370_427380096702087168_o.jpg?_nc_cat=0&oh=243f2b7557b5d2e9e8593044eab212b6&oe=5BC64EF1)
Apparently this torpedo was marked as a dummy or training round, and was fired by the K-469 (Victor I) at the K-178 (Hotel class SSBN). It is actually a full live round, and has impacted directly next to the reactor. Fortunately the fuse didn't function and the round was a dud.
Incident happened in October 1989.
-
Not just large and imposing, but downright terrifying as far as cruisers go. She's got nine eight-inch machineguns on board; each barrel has a cyclic rate of six seconds per round under heavy fire. So every minute, that's ninety rounds out to 30,000 yards; that's an AP throw weight of 30,000 pounds and 23,400 for HE. That's a hell of a lot of outgoing.
I told a tour of the ship while back when she first was brought into Quincy, MA. The old crewmate told me some interesting stories. Apparently he said the main guns abilities of the ship were classified. Apparently the missile program funding was too important, the Navy didn't want Congress know that the guns were capable shooting down Jet aircraft.
-
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zqkU9LgEHgs/VmefbefrNAI/AAAAAAAAMIs/5sk6CoS7WpIQbKhQUqmcPqMkSSo7f8Lew/s1600/Australian_Sea_1000_-_French_Shortfin_Barracuda.png)
I just read that as Draconis Combine Naval Systems!
TT ;D
-
Yep, BT does terrible things to your mind :D
-
You mean awesome things. :thumbsup:
-
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/hackensack/2018/08/14/hackensack-submarine-uss-ling-flooded-intentionally-memorial-plaques-stolen/989139002/
-
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/hackensack/2018/08/14/hackensack-submarine-uss-ling-flooded-intentionally-memorial-plaques-stolen/989139002/
To the vandals
(https://i.imgflip.com/u2ct6.jpg)
-
What friggin LOSERS. Omg. Why would they do that. They hate the ship that much? Thank god the interior wasn't flooded if i'm reading that report right. They'll need hell of crane to life it from the floor of the river.
It does bring questions: Will they able restore submarine ability's ability to purge the water in the tanks out to make it light enough to life? Part me wishes engines were operational enough it could pull itself out of the mud. It's warship, ancient sure, but engines if condition could do it.
I hope hell they find those guys and beat the tar out of them before they turn them in. Omg. :ticked:
-
Actually it says the interior was flooded. Which is a worse act than the theft of the plaques. Plaques can be remade. The interior of the sub and all the historical artifacts inside will have been ruined.
-
The river's not deep enough for her to float, she's embedded in several feet of mud, and the insides are flooded. I'm going to assume that the technology to lift her either doesn't exist, can't reach her location, or would be implausibly expensive. As such it seems like there are three options:
1: Build a cofferdam and then a permanent dry mount for her in place.
2: Scrap her.
3: Let her rust away.
1 is obviously the ideal choice, but is also the most expensive. 2 would suck, but let's be honest, still loads better than 3. On the upside, 3 seems unlikely. The article mentioned that the owners of the adjacent land are planning to build housing there, and I doubt they'd stand for leaving 2.5 kilotons of solid tetanus in their shiny new backyard.
-
I have a hunch the new landowners set something up to rid themselves of a development problem instead of wanting to work something out.
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/hackensack/2018/08/14/hackensack-submarine-uss-ling-flooded-intentionally-memorial-plaques-stolen/989139002/
-
How is a flooded sub stuck in mud less of a problem for them than an intact sub?
Unless they're cartoon-level evil-for-evil's sake or think they can make a fair amount of cash scrapping her themselves, I don't see the point.
-
How is a flooded sub stuck in mud less of a problem for them than an intact sub?
Unless they're cartoon-level evil-for-evil's sake or think they can make a fair amount of cash scrapping her themselves, I don't see the point.
If anything, they would have made it an attractive piece for their development area.
-
I have a hunch the new landowners set something up to rid themselves of a development problem instead of wanting to work something out.
I like the way you think. But given that this makes it harder to remove, and this new info about property development, how's this:
Ex-caretakers of the boat, incensed that property developers would soon get rid of it, deliberately scuttled the boat to sabotage the project and saved the one artifact that they believed worth treasuring - the memorial plaques.
-
Depends on the quality of the consultants hired to do the job? Especially if you don't want to leave a trail is my guess. Enough specific damage was done to the sub itself and the bronze from the plaques were stolen.
Someone knew what to do to make it no longer usable as a museum and helped themselves to some side cash. It looks to be in worse shape than the USS Pompanito in San Francisco as it is, so this would force the city or even government perhaps to step in and remove it for cheap or free, thus not bothering the landowners.
How is a flooded sub stuck in mud less of a problem for them than an intact sub?
Unless they're cartoon-level evil-for-evil's sake or think they can make a fair amount of cash scrapping her themselves, I don't see the point.
-
That's a sad plausible possibility too.
I like the way you think. But given that this makes it harder to remove, and this new info about property development, how's this:
Ex-caretakers of the boat, incensed that property developers would soon get rid of it, deliberately scuttled the boat to sabotage the project and saved the one artifact that they believed worth treasuring - the memorial plaques.
-
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/bergen/hackensack/2018/08/14/hackensack-submarine-uss-ling-flooded-intentionally-memorial-plaques-stolen/989139002/
Gutless, worthless filth.
-
How is a flooded sub stuck in mud less of a problem for them than an intact sub?
Just so we're clear, USS Ling was already "stuck in the mud" in that position in the river way before this. The reason for this is that it is sitting in a canal dredged in the 70s that was never kept up properly and thus filled up with silt. The problem in flooding the Link is also less the depth - that's something that can be worked - and more the fact that the hull below the pressure vessel has virtually entirely turned to rust and barely exists anymore. Supposedly the pumps have actually been running for years now to remove water flooding in...
See e.g. this NYT article (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/12/nyregion/submarine-hackensack-uss-ling.html) from early 2017.
As for the property developers, the museum had their lease terminated in 2016 (a year after it actually closed) - for the landside premises that is, as the submarine is parked in public property. After the museum closed the Navy supposedly retrieved all memorial items from the site that it had loaned to them - except the sub - around the same time since the museum could not provide documentation as to how it plans to keep these safe and in proper order.
-
Another ship or part of one was found. The USS Abner Read was a Fletcher-Class Destroyer operating off the Aleutian island of Kiska on Aug. 18, 1943. Her stern was blown off when she during the night ran into a Japanese mine, which took off the stern from the 170 frame.
Private funded Company has now found the 74 year old stern up right, apparently intact. Maybe it will finally give closure to the 70 men that died at in their racks when ship's stern was severed.
USS Abner Read was towed to port, a new stern was added to the ship. Unfortunately she was taken out later in the Pacific during the actions in Leyte Gulf.
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/wdrdr43.jpg)
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/1442949562826.jpg)
-
Oof, that's why you compartmentalize your warships...
-
Oof, that's why you compartmentalize your warships...
Huge amount of damage
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/dcbc78b7bb61356fe736065d04358b09/tumblr_pdboqxRaNf1wl2734o1_400.jpg)
The bow of the Italian Battleship Littorio following her sistership the Vittorio Vento. I'd still say that this class of ships was one of the most handsome of WW2 designs.
-
Huge amount of damage
I just took a closer look at that damage report. Jesus, that explosion was right beside three magazine rooms....and then the 5" round gunpowder room next door.
-
Lucky crew
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/dcbc78b7bb61356fe736065d04358b09/tumblr_pdboqxRaNf1wl2734o1_400.jpg)
The bow of the Italian Battleship Littorio following her sistership the Vittorio Vento. I'd still say that this claof ships was one of the most handsome of WW2 designs.
When I see drawings and models of that ship it's always the aft turret off the main deck that gets my eye. A good design ship just in serviced with the Italians.
-
A good design ship just in serviced with the Italians.
I have to disagree. There’s a ton of very technical information here (http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm). However, the gist of it is that the Vittorios were the worst of the major battleship classes and not by a close margin.
-
I have to disagree. There’s a ton of very technical information here (http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm). However, the gist of it is that the Vittorios were the worst of the major battleship classes and not by a close margin.
You beat me to it. Handsome ships, but hideously inefficient. They compare very negatively to similar-era ships from other nations, even those that followed the treaties rather than play lip service to them. The guns were poor quality, the secondary battery was split between single-purpose surface and air systems rather than dual-purpose as British and American ships did, their armor setup was ghastly, and that anti-torpedo system the Italians were so fond of was only slightly better than opening the seacocks and helping the Allies do the job. All this despite tacking on several thousand tons (secretly) more than comparable ships like the King George V or North Carolina- even their vaunted speed wasn't much more than contemporaries.
Awful ships that had the benefit of not having to face modern battleships- had KGVs come to the Med in place of QE and R class ships, there's no situation in which they outperform the Royal Navy.
-
The Littorio's were inefficient ships, but that have a stunning look to them that just screams classy.
(https://www.chuckhawks.com/gunneryt.jpg)
(http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNIT_15-50_m1934_Vittorio_Veneto_pic.jpg)
(http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bk/assets/littorio-web2.jpg)
-
So typical Italian engineering: Looks great but a bit dodgy under the hood? :D ;D
-
Yeah I guess I was being really nice on the design of the ship. A paper tiger, but really nice looking.
-
Here very old pictures, Ironclad USS Essex from 1863. Built in 1856 as a river steamer, she was best known for he actions as part of the Mississippi river fleet. She was originally named New Era as a civilian ship, but was changed when she enter service with US Army and US Navy.
(https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/sZFVfM6z4s1cAl4vaLLzMmKqoXk=/http%3A%2F%2Fa.amz.mshcdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F03%2Fironclads-12.jpg)
(https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/peGz2ShUqhr3tBrP7XMfP_GDYac=/http%3A%2F%2Fa.amz.mshcdn.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F03%2Fironclads-11.jpg)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/eddcecedecfd99ab31f4c18ec3a298af/tumblr_pedzkaE7IN1ws46zho1_540.jpg)
Another very inefficient but very handsome in that square jawed rugged kind of way design, the Bismarck is still a horribly overhyped design.
-
Handsome indeed, but certainly under-gunned... :thumbsup:
-
Handsome indeed, but certainly under-gunned... :thumbsup:
Bismarck? Ohhhhhh no. Not SMARTLY gunned, but certainly not UNDERgunned.
The thing to remember is that German naval weapons tended to be pretty much the best in the world- they tended to be equivalent to a caliber larger on another nation's ships (for example, even the Royal Navy determined the 11-inch guns on the Nassau were equivalent in hitting power and range to the 12-inch guns on Dreadnought. This generally was the case throughout the battleship era when the Germans built a new gun). Bismarck's guns may have been 'mere' 15-inch guns, but the hitting power was determined to be roughly equivalent to the 16"/45 of the U.S. Navy's North Carolina class despite being a slightly smaller shell. They were also very noticeably more powerful than the famed 15"/42 used on most Royal Navy battleships of the inter-war era like the Queen Elizabeths or Hood.
Secondary weaponry is where Bismarck suffered, but even then she was a menace- just not a smart one. The 5.9-inch surface batteries were powerful weapons that were deadly against destroyers, and the ink spent on the famed German 88mm/4.1-inch flak gun is all very deserved, but having single-purpose secondary batteries was a sin the Germans should have known better than to commit to- while they had a large gap between their last real battleship (Baden) and Bismarck, they also had been building large warships again for ten years prior to Bismarck being laid down (the pocket battleships and Scharnhorsts), and there should have at least been some movement towards a dual-purpose secondary gun/primary destroyer gun in that time. As late as winter of 1944 though, the feasibility studies for the ridiculous 'H'-class still showed the split battery. It's not an unforgivable sin, but it's not a great look- it's a lot of weight and deck space taken up by guns that either sit silently during an air attack, or don't have any real impact in a surface battle. The damage there is mitigated by the fact that Bismarck wasn't paying more than lip service to the 35,000 ton limit, so who cares how heavy the ship gets? (Littorio and Yamato both had the same bad idea in the secondary batteries and the same lack of caring for the same reason, though Yamato ended up with a large reduction in the surface batteries early on)
Light AA, Bismarck could have probably been a little smarter as well, and it's worth noting that Tirpitz repeatedly added to her own light AA battery over time- I suspect that if Bismarck had survived to France she'd have done the same over her career (as so many capital ships did during the war). Tirpitz also ended up with torpedoes for a brief time, interestingly- a very rare thing for a WWII capital ship to have. That she had them only briefly suggests it wasn't a great experiment.
And lastly, fire control. The best guns in the world are meaningless if you can't hit the damned target, and Bismarck's fire control suite was excellent- while the radar was still fairly primitive (and disabled early in her great voyage), the optics for the main and secondary batteries was as good or better than just about any other capital ship afloat. (Which makes the decision by Adm. Lutjens to hold fire against the Hood as long as he did all the more baffling, but that's another discussion)
Could Bismarck have been a better design? Absolutely, 100%, there's no question that this was a retread of the Baden and it showed some of the same mistakes and WWI-era thinking that could have been improved on. But even with that in mind, Bismarck's broadside compares well to the Nagato or Colorado, and penetration power (if not weight of broadside) comes up better than the King George V. There are many things to be said about Bismarck, but 'undergunned' is not a term I'd ever use for that monster.
-
the ink spent on the famed German 88mm/4.1-inch flak gun is all very deserved
4.1-inch is 105mm, which the Bismarck did use in 8 twin mounts for AA.
88mm AA was used in WW1 for capital ship AA, and after that only on 1920s light cruisers. Bismarck did not carry any. The Deutschland class heavy cruisers were originally fitted with 88mm AA, but rearmed with 105mm AA before WW2.
-
Well that's what I get for tapping on my phone from (flawed) memory. I stand corrected and tip my cap to you. ;)
Also, here's Tirpitz because image thread.
(http://www.kbismarck.com/battleship-tirpitz.jpg)
-
10.5cm/65 SK C/33 in Twin Mount Dop.L. C/31 on Prinz Eugen:
(https://abload.de/img/wnger_41-65_skc33_pe_i1eir.jpg)
The mount was designed such that it would autocompensate for the ship's rolling btw.
-
Was the gun armored? Gunnery crew looked like it would have been terribly exposed!
-
Probably splinter protection at best, anything larger than that will cause..'issues' for the gun crew and mounting.
The Biz's biggest problem though was that her armour scheme, whilst very good was also at the same time very dated, and still harkened back to the layouts of the previous generation of ship with an eye towards fairly close range engagements and didn't take into account the development of all or nothing protection, instead spending a considerable amount of weight on armouring up a lot of hull space.
Also some of the design choices were baffling, the result was that she was incredibly hard to sink, but quite easy to disable. And i'm not talking about the torpedo hit here. She lost two turrets to one hit, her her electrical systems heavily disrupted and lost her primary fire control very quickly.
-
Was the gun armored? Gunnery crew looked like it would have been terribly exposed!
Closeup:
(https://abload.de/img/105mm-2s8ied.jpg)
Ammo feeding crew was off-mount though anyway:
(https://abload.de/img/105mmzyd4l.jpg)
-
Yeah, those were a heavy splinter protection, enough to stop bomb fragments or strafing fighters but not direct bomb hits. The Germans never subscribed so much to the American-style 'all or nothing' armor system, but acknowledged that for stability's sake sometimes you couldn't give everything capital-scale armor. So these mounts weren't overly well-armored- the 5.9-inch mounts, however, were proofed against light cruiser-scale fire (since they were intended for anti-destroyer work, after all).
Marauder has the right of it though, Bismarck's armor was based on Baden, which in turn was based on German assumptions of what WWI naval warfare would look like- by the time that class was going into service Jutland (and to a lesser extent Dogger Bank) had shown that a lot of assumptions were pretty much useless. (Granted, that lesson was learned easier for them than it was for the British! Armor your magazines, dammit!). The result is that while the belt was elephant-hide thick, the deck was surprisingly thin on Baden and again on Bismarck- plunging fire could have been a major problem (which again questions why Lutjens held fire the way he did- it meant that he wasn't fighting back at a point when his ship was at its most vulnerable. Of course, as proven in the Denmark Straight, it was also where Hood was most vulnerable...)
Of course, the real flaw wasn't so much the armor, as iffy as it was, but the lack of any options when it came to the rudders and screws. Bismarck used a strange three-screw system that I've not really seen on most other designs, combined with dual rudders. There was no system to eject the rudders in the event of catastrophic damage to them, nor even really any good access to the system outside of a shipyard- the result was that when the one-in-a-million torpedo actually found home, there weren't many available options- the rudders were jammed, divers couldn't head over the side with explosives to clear them, and even if they had the three-screw system meant it would be much more difficult to maneuver the ship without the bad rudders (by comparison, the Iowa's four screws mean that turning the ship by running one side's props at power and reversing the other side would give her at least some control over the ship, if not an ideal situation. Bismarck would have struggled heavily if it had been an option- as it was, the rudder being jammed meant it was a useless attempt).
Funny, isn't it? If that torpedo hits a meter forward or aft of where it actually hit, Bismarck likely makes it to Brest for repairs, and the war in the Atlantic looks completely different from that point forward. The RAF likely would harass her during repairs, of course, but reunited with Prinz Eugen and with the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau on-hand as well... that's a squadron of ships that could take any convoy's escort and win. Remember that Lutjens prior work to the Bismarck operation was running those two battleships on successful raids during the winter, and the only times he was stymied was due to convoy escorts including old battleships like the Malaya and Resolution. And while they'd still be a threat, they'd also be likely overwhelmed by Bismarck and her friends.
-
Would that have really disrupted convoy traffic, or would it just have really motivated the US to sink her?
-
Big Lizzie on her way to the States
(https://i.imgur.com/Y2iTJA5.jpg)
-
I think the Twin 105mm gun on the German ships WW2 is the coolest looking weapon system. More then the Twin 5"/38 on the US ships.
The Bismarck 2nd with the 12-150mm and the 16-105mm were more powerful then the US Fast Battleships but the 16" guns really could bring the pain well over the Bismarck, almost a 60% greater throw weight.
-
Is QE going to pick up her air wing from US?
-
Funny, isn't it? If that torpedo hits a meter forward or aft of where it actually hit, Bismarck likely makes it to Brest for
repairs, and the war in the Atlantic looks completely different from that point forward. The RAF likely would harass her during repairs, of course, but reunited with Prinz Eugen and with the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau on-hand as well... that's a squadron of ships that could take any convoy's escort and win.
At which point the Americans and British bombers go all-in on Bismarck's squadron, to the point the Germans find themselves fighting in the shade.
-
At which point the Americans and British bombers go all-in on Bismarck's squadron, to the point the Germans find themselves fighting in the shade.
This was early summer of 1941, so no Americans. The RAF was able to harass the three heavy ships at Brest post-Bismarck, but not do much beyond that. (It did prompt the plan to move the ships home via the Channel Dash, along with the loss of the Bismarck.)
-
Is QE going to pick up her air wing from US?
Yes, they are going for live tests on the F35's and see how they work on the ship.
-
Big Lizzie on her way to the States
(https://i.imgur.com/Y2iTJA5.jpg)
what a beauty she is, I would love to see her up close!
-
Big Lizzie on her way to the States
(https://i.imgur.com/Y2iTJA5.jpg)
"Do these helicopters make my arse look big?" :D
-
I think the Twin 105mm gun on the German ships WW2 is the coolest looking weapon system. More then the Twin 5"/38 on the US ships.
Except those particular, the crew had to hand load the shells *outside* the mount. Where as on the twin 5" mount, everything is done inside a proper enclosure.
-
Except those particular, the crew had to hand load the shells *outside* the mount. Where as on the twin 5" mount, everything is done inside a proper enclosure.
During the war there were plans for a "C/38" version of the twin 105mm mount which would have been a fully enclosed turret, also with faster elevation and train rates, and which would have included ammunition feed hoists with automatic loading. It would also have weighed around 44 tons (not that different from the twin 5", actually on the low side). Was planned for the cancelled H Class battleships, two prototypes were finished.
The C/31 version in the pictures above was originally planned to be fitted with the 88mm.
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQOoV8681kN5_8tEQmtvMw4Ck0JdEO38fvLm4PE_i3KJ2PZHO4R)
While I don't know if they were any good, and their design does strike me as somewhat anachronistic even at the time, I do like the looks of the Sverdlorv class
-
In reality the Bismarck chase is full of golden BBs.
1 - The Hood's hit (or magazine fire or what ever it was)
2 - The PoW's hit on the Bis's forward fuel tank (which in essence mission killed her)
3 - The torpedo hit on the rudders
4 - Loosing Anton and Bruno turrets to a single hit from the Rodney (IIRC the shell cut the hydralics for A and the blast of it going off jammed B)
5 - The hit very early on to the Bis main fire control from an 8-inch shell
And if I recall at Denmark Straight, the Germans held fire at first because they might have thought they were being attacked by cruisers and had misidentified by British ships coming at them and it was a case of 'no need to fire, they will break off...oh crap!'
and totally agree the Sverdlov's look very handsome, its the Italian design for you :D
-
the looks of the Sverdlorv class
throwback much
I feel like I'm looking at some kind of WW2 armoured citadel
In reality the Bismarck chase is full of golden BBs.
yes, it feels like one of those BT games with half a dozen headshot-lifesupport-crits and triple-engine-crits a side
-
First sentences from the Wikipedia entry:
The Sverdlov-class cruisers, Soviet designation Project 68bis, were the last conventional gun cruisers built for the Soviet Navy. They were built in the 1950s and were based on Russian, German, and Italian designs and concepts developed prior to the Second World War.
Now I am VERY surprised that the Sverdlov did not become the benchmark for efficient ship design...
-
Going back to the Lizzy...why does she have two citadels?
-
IIRC one bridge controls the ship, the other is for the air group.
-
Going back to the Lizzy...why does she have two citadels?
In a nutshell, she's a conventionally powered carrier not a nuc
The space in the middle would have been filled with trunking (both belowdecks and above) to direct the exhaust out, which is strictly unnecessary. Like an inverted Y shape rather than straight up and out. Look at the giant honking stack on USS Lexington CV2 for example.
Eliminating that creates lots more deck and internal space, but you still need an island position forward for steering and aft for flight ops - hence, two islands
It seems a novel solution yet apparently straightforward and duh-why-didnt-I-think-of-that-earlier. So much so that other navies are also mulling 2-island carriers now.
-
First sentences from the Wikipedia entry:
Now I am VERY surprised that the Sverdlov did not become the benchmark for efficient ship design...
Capability isn't always efficiency, even if it is well armed, well armored, and a good sea-keeper. I'd also point out that this is the Russian navy, whose record across history is...well, about the only times they've ever won a major naval engagement they outnumbered their enemy approximately ten to one, or they were fighting the Turks.
-
Is QE going to pick up her air wing from US?
Nope, going over for trials with F-35B's though. All kinds of take off & landing trials using American F-35B's. I don't think they have enough aircraft ready for an air wing or two. When it does deploy, a US Marine unit will comprise about half of the aircraft on board for a while.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/aug/18/hms-queen-elizabeth-aircraft-carrier-heads-to-us-to-carry-first-aircraft
-
In reality the Bismarck chase is full of golden BBs.
1 - The Hood's hit (or magazine fire or what ever it was)
2 - The PoW's hit on the Bis's forward fuel tank (which in essence mission killed her)
3 - The torpedo hit on the rudders
4 - Loosing Anton and Bruno turrets to a single hit from the Rodney (IIRC the shell cut the hydralics for A and the blast of it going off jammed B)
5 - The hit very early on to the Bis main fire control from an 8-inch shell
And if I recall at Denmark Straight, the Germans held fire at first because they might have thought they were being attacked by cruisers and had misidentified by British ships coming at them and it was a case of 'no need to fire, they will break off...oh crap!'
and totally agree the Sverdlov's look very handsome, its the Italian design for you :D
Really, most naval battles come down to strange occurrences being the key factor in the end. A couple of favorite examples from the Pacific War are the confusion over what the targets in the smoke were at Samar, causing the Northern Force to turn away from Taffy-3 despite the Yamato herself having a greater displacement than the entire American force, and... well, this one takes a few.
During the Second Battle of Guadalcanal, the four American destroyers leading the American formation were knocked out early and in quick succession by the Japanese leading formations, and blazed brightly. The leading battleship, South Dakota, turned to evade the burning wreckage- by making a few points to starboard. This moved the wrecks off to the ship's port side- and put South Dakota between the bright flames and the Japanese fleet, who saw the unmistakable outline of a modern battleship and gave the South Dakota a fierce beating as a result.
Washington, trailing her cousin, came upon the same wrecks of course, but turned a bit to PORT to avoid them, putting the fiery wreckage between the Japanese and Washington- and thus keeping their lookouts from seeing her (no radar on the Japanese ships, while both American battleships had it). As a result, no one realized there was a second American battleship in the area until the first 16-inch shells slammed into the battleship Kirishima a short time later. The Japanese force was forced to retreat, pursued by what might as well have been a vengeful ghost for all the good fighting back was doing. (Washington was only hit once by a five-inch shell, avoided the wild torpedo shots thrown into the night in her direction, and effectively won the battle alone following South Dakota being disabled)
So think of it this way. Washington turns to port, avoids detection, beats the hell out of Kirishima, sends the Japanese force fleeing into the night. If that doesn't happen- she gets hit like South Dakota did, doesn't get as lucky avoiding torpedoes as she and her cousin both actually did, etc.- then what? The Japanese force gets in a night of shelling Henderson Field, which likely means the Japanese convoy carrying badly-needed supplies can make it to the island the following day as well. The loss of Kirishima effectively ended the Japanese attempts to bombard the airfield with heavy guns- they may continue those efforts if they feel like they took the best the Americans could throw at them and won. Henderson continues to get beat on, the army forces on the island continue to be reinforced, and Guadalcanal eventually could fall. If THAT happens, Japan has control over the airfield they were building in the first place, can now hit northern Australia with bombing raids and cut off the sea channels connecting Australia to the Americans...
When you look at it that way, a slight turn to port instead of starboard by the Washington changed the entire Pacific War- a small decision that had enormous consequences.
-
Nope, going over for trials with F-35B's though. All kinds of take off & landing trials using American F-35B's. I don't think they have enough aircraft ready for an air wing or two.
Not enough pilots either I'd bet.
The 3 Brit test F35Bs are on the West Coast doing other test stuff, so the F35Bs landing on QE will be American, piloted by a mix of Brit, US and civvy pilots.
There are about 10 operational F35Bs in the UK doing flight training and more weapon integration. The UK Govt is committed to fielding 24 operational F35Bs (excluding the 3 test platforms which should never leave the States) for QE's first tour in 2022.
-
That might take a little longer...a 35C ate the fuel basket two weeks ago during a refueling and took a class A mishap to the engine. It managed to land under its own power, as did the F-18 it was drawing off of. Not really sure just HOW that happened; it's certainly going to slow things down though.
-
That might take a little longer...a 35C ate the fuel basket two weeks ago during a refueling and took a class A mishap to the engine. It managed to land under its own power, as did the F-18 it was drawing off of. Not really sure just HOW that happened; it's certainly going to slow things down though.
That was the F-35C, they may not ground the F-35Bs.
-
...the entire Pacific War- a small decision that had enormous consequences.
It would have prolonged things, but the overall outcome wouldn't have changed. The US had sheer weight of production on its side. The US could replace their losses, while the Japanese really couldnt. Japan was already bleeding badly thanks to the US Submarine fleet as is.
-
It would have prolonged things, but the overall outcome wouldn't have changed. The US had sheer weight of production on its side. The US could replace their losses, while the Japanese really couldnt. Japan was already bleeding badly thanks to the US Submarine fleet as is.
In a bubble, no, but remember that the reason the two battleships went in is that they were all that was left- only one carrier was running at that point (Enterprise, in damaged condition- everything else was either lost or in long-term repair), and even the available cruisers and destroyers were down to the bottom of the barrel. Sending modern battleships into tightly-congested waters in a night fight against destroyers and cruisers? You had to be in true desperation to do that. American industry was just gearing up for the big push, but if Henderson got beat up that night there's no guarantee Japan couldn't have found a way to sue for peace from a dominant position if they were the only power remaining in the Pacific. One damaged carrier vs. two Shokakus and several smaller carriers... even if Saratoga rejoins quickly you're still dealing now with those Japanese carriers plus Henderson. Give it a few months and you start seeing Essex-class and Independence-class ships, but for that last few months of 1942 Japan controls the Pacific and can do as they please, more or less.
-
That was the F-35C, they may not ground the F-35Bs.
May not be grounded, but I imagine there's going to at least be a hard look as to whether whatever happened was related to the F-35's refueling equipment, and whether anything needs to be changed in that regard. It's a major mishap with the airframe after all; I've never heard of another aircraft outright ingesting a fuel probe before.
-
May not be grounded, but I imagine there's going to at least be a hard look as to whether whatever happened was related to the F-35's refueling equipment, and whether anything needs to be changed in that regard. It's a major mishap with the airframe after all; I've never heard of another aircraft outright ingesting a fuel probe before.
Hell, A-7s used to ingest entire Skyhawks. True story. Spit the tailhook out the exhaust and continue your takeoff warmup. ;D
-
Did they ever comment on the taste?
-
Give it a few months and you start seeing Essex-class and Independence-class ships, but for that last few months of 1942 Japan controls the Pacific and can do as they please, more or less.
Knowing the full American industrial might is just about ready to start paying dividends?
And that the Kido Butai is at the bottom of the ocean?
They'd just have fought on. No way a suit for peace would be accepted.
-
Did they ever comment on the taste?
A bit too salty.
-
That was the F-35C, they may not ground the F-35Bs.
B & C use the same aerial refueling method. And I'm pretty sure the space that the B uses for the big vertical lift fan is another gas tank in the A & C, so the B's probably run lighter on fuel.
-
Knowing the full American industrial might is just about ready to start paying dividends?
And that the Kido Butai is at the bottom of the ocean?
They'd just have fought on. No way a suit for peace would be accepted.
Once again, the sheer numbers are impossible to overcome. http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm
More merchant shipping in each year individually, 1942 through 1945, than Japan laid down combined for all seven years of 1939-1945. Overall eight times as much cargo ships put in the water in the same time. Same with aircraft production for the years 1943 and 1944, each year put out more birds than Japan did the entire war. The sheer fleet disparity in flattops, even if Japan had absolutely smashed us at Midway, meant that in the end those losses wouldn't have mattered more than in the short term - perhaps a year, perhaps only six months.
Plus there's the biggest sign of the industrial power of the US at the time, and that was inventing literal alchemy and creating the atomic bomb two and a half years after the very first sustained chain reaction in Chicago - which was almost a year to the day after Pearl Harbor and while the US was deep in a war footing. Not the technical accomplishment, but the sheer fact we had the leftover economic power to blow an extra two billion contemporary 1939 dollars on a complete pie-in-the-sky theory while building that monstrous fleet and air armada and army.
-
Did they ever comment on the taste?
How do you think A-8s fledge into F-8s?
-
In a bubble, no, but remember that the reason the two battleships went in is that they were all that was left- only one carrier was running at that point (Enterprise, in damaged condition- everything else was either lost or in long-term repair), and even the available cruisers and destroyers were down to the bottom of the barrel. Sending modern battleships into tightly-congested waters in a night fight against destroyers and cruisers? You had to be in true desperation to do that. American industry was just gearing up for the big push, but if Henderson got beat up that night there's no guarantee Japan couldn't have found a way to sue for peace from a dominant position if they were the only power remaining in the Pacific. One damaged carrier vs. two Shokakus and several smaller carriers... even if Saratoga rejoins quickly you're still dealing now with those Japanese carriers plus Henderson. Give it a few months and you start seeing Essex-class and Independence-class ships, but for that last few months of 1942 Japan controls the Pacific and can do as they please, more or less.
From what I've observed of America, not likely to accept peace, once their ire is raised they take a while to cool off. From what I observed of Japan, not going to sue for peace, once the dream of conquest set in they weren't ever going to want to stop without serious reversals.
B & C use the same aerial refueling method. And I'm pretty sure the space that the B uses for the big vertical lift fan is another gas tank in the A & C, so the B's probably run lighter on fuel.
Won't necessarily ground the fleet, but it will prevent them from air to air refueling until the cause is discovered and rectified. Expect an airworthyness exception to be lodged.
-
I agree it won't ground the fleet, but it will change operations and planning.
On a side note HMS QE pulled in to Florida last night https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/1037376570103681025?s=17
-
I think this was a Imperial German Battleship SMS Hindenburg that was scuttled At Scrapa Flow.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48027)
I think she little flooded.
-
I think this was a Imperial German Battleship SMS Hindenburg that was scuttled At Scrapa Flow.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48027)
I think she little flooded.
Look ma! I'm a submarine!
-
Alt history time - what if the Midway battle results were reversed? What if the Kido Butai lost one ship, but destroyed the American force?
I'd say it's likely Australia itself would have seen heavy fighting, but the invasion would have been beaten off with heavy losses for the Japanese.
If the US submarines didn't succeed in sinking the Kido Butai, a massive carrier battle would have taken place near the end of 1943, all the power of the new Essexes and Independences against the Japanese fleet... Which would have destroyed them to be sure.
The Pacific Campaign and Overlord would have been delayed a year. German troops would have longer to recuperate, retrain and rearm with next-gen weapons after the Barbarossa losses.
Won't necessarily ground the fleet, but it will prevent them from air to air refueling until the cause is discovered and rectified.
F-18's refuelling basket broke off
-
That is indeed Hindenburg, third of the Derfflinger-class battlecruisers. She was completed too late to take part in Jutland (she effectively replaced the sunken Lutzow in the battlecruiser force), but never saw combat as a result. I'm going off memory, but I don't think she's one of the ships still on the bottom of Scapa Flow, pretty sure she was raised and scrapped sometime in the inter-war period, but don't quote me on that.
Nice looking class of ships, and as battlecruisers go (a ludicrous idea in-general, IMHO) rather good ones despite having only 12" guns.
-
Live action Arpeggio of Blue Steel?
I think this was a Imperial German Battleship SMS Hindenburg that was scuttled At Scrapa Flow.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48027)
I think she little flooded.
-
Live action Arpeggio of Blue Steel?
(http://pa1.narvii.com/5721/8158115949295d17818fe5b142484cd6ddb68753_hq.gif)
-
I agree it won't ground the fleet, but it will change operations and planning.
On a side note HMS QE pulled in to Florida last night https://twitter.com/HMSQnlz/status/1037376570103681025?s=17
Art gallery my ass... :o
Now that's funny! Ya gotta read some of those twitches...
TT
-
(http://pa1.narvii.com/5721/8158115949295d17818fe5b142484cd6ddb68753_hq.gif)
Shame we never got to see more of the Royal Navy, USN, and KM ships.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/Js6I03T.jpg)
The last casemate-cruisers built anywhere were the Omahas, and even they were sort of a weird hybrid design in that regard. Here, USS Marblehead shows off her odd look- the four smokestacks and tall tripod are distinctive. Each end had a twin-6" turret, but at each end of the superstructure were several casemate 6" mounts as well- one can be seen clearly directly below the tripod just above the main deck level.
-
HSwMS Gotland came after the Omahas. Gotland was technically a 5500t FL light minelaying seaplane cruiser. And carrying her main battery of six 6" guns in two twin turrets (fwd and aft of superstructure) and two single-gun casemate mounts. The casemates were removed in 1953 to save some weight in order to install a radar topside. She continued to serve until decommissioned in 1956, eleven years longer than the last USN Omaha.
(https://abload.de/img/gotland1949k0fcv.jpg)
(https://abload.de/img/15_cm_kanon_m_19306vdcf.jpeg)
P.S.: Supposedly the outfit had already been decided on when the government decided to build her smaller than originally planned. While cutting her seaplane capacity from 12 to 8 was apparently acceptable, cutting the guns wasn't - and thus the original third turret was removed from the design and the guns from that instead mounted in casemates.
-
The Gotland has always struck me as an interesting design and a choice of compromises that came together to make a pretty darn unique ship. In reality the only thing like her in her role was the much large IJN Tone class ships which were built to not only fight with their 8-inch guns but provide scouting for friendly forces with their mass of seaplanes.
(https://i.redditmedia.com/PVlloLMRvimFQ6hnmD7Mdf8i7h7yAkfwJYbI6qc18Dg.png?s=9e42e4227b32ea03887e27d7a7bd5762)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Japanese_heavy_cruiser_Chikuma.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/7hcEJbg.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/csp5mZv.jpg)
-
The gun placement on the Tone class always looked wrong to me.
-
Yeah
What was wrong with pointing all guns forward?
-
More deck room needed for all barrels forwards as you'd basically have to have space for an extra length of the barrels as if a 3rd turret was there. So by having two forward and to pointing astern it does make sense. It still is a horribly awkward arrangement and would have been fixed if the IJN had adopted triple mounts but they are bulkier and broader and they wanted speed, so kept the beam of their ships down and used the extra turrets to add more length to the hull and thus help with speed.
Its quite clever, its bloody ugly, but clever none the less.
-
The arrangement was also used by US in it's earlier years with the Brooklyn and St Louis Class Light Cruisers.
I guess the US having more production capacities on their hands could make fix.
Though i like their lines, i don't know how effective the Worcester Class Light Cruisers would had they been used in World War II. I kind thought it was waste of ship having decommission them ten year later. 12 6in guns, in 6 turrets, with clusters of unarmored single & dual 3-in/50 Mk33 guns backing them up.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ACDJfuoLdAI/WA_Y4zNxYQI/AAAAAAAAIBk/1ZL645-k4CUBRPQMGp-bNag0gPUZzZJWACLcB/s1600/Roanoke%2BWorcester%2Bclass.jpg)
-
More deck room needed for all barrels forwards as you'd basically have to have space for an extra length of the barrels as if a 3rd turret was there. So by having two forward and to pointing astern it does make sense. It still is a horribly awkward arrangement and would have been fixed if the IJN had adopted triple mounts but they are bulkier and broader and they wanted speed, so kept the beam of their ships down and used the extra turrets to add more length to the hull and thus help with speed.
Its quite clever, its bloody ugly, but clever none the less.
No, sorry, I don't get it. In the current arrangement, there's no difference in deck space whether C and D turrets point forward or aft.
Why couldn't C and D have been arranged superfiring just like A and B? Now that would have saved a bit of deck space.
-
The Worcesters would have probably been lethal.
The 3-inch AA gun could fire at a very high ROF and would have been firing proximity fused shell so even more effective against aircraft. The 6-inch gun was also a dual purpose mount and would have been lethal against aircraft (again proximity fused shells) and althoug hthose 6-inchers never really performed up to spec, they were still damn fast firing weapons at 12 RPM per gun
Not Tiger's guns fast - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujoT_3XUp5M
but fast enough.
-
I know weight and space is a major issue on the "10000 ton treaty" limit. Maybe if you could of raised one of the turrets so you can maybe get 6 guns forward. Not all battles are broadside.
-
Center of gravity also probably played a part. Putting that much weight that high up would have been bad for sea keeping.
-
Center of gravity also probably played a part. Putting that much weight that high up would have been bad for sea keeping.
And Japanese cruisers were already known for their bad (or at least worse than other navies) seakeeping for this reason...
Ruger
-
And Japanese cruisers were already known for their bad (or at least worse than other navies) seakeeping for this reason...
How a Kongo never tipped over is beyond me.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Haruna_1934.jpg)
-
Nor how any of the lookouts managed to keep their lunch down... :P
-
For real though.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/rice-disease-mystery-edo-tokyo-navy-beriberi
Nor how any of the lookouts managed to keep their lunch down... :P
-
For real though.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/rice-disease-mystery-edo-tokyo-navy-beriberi
That happen when their meals consist NOTHING but polished white rice. People who weren't affected by it because they were eating other food in addition to it.
-
How a Kongo never tipped over is beyond me.
*laughs in Fuso*
(https://i.imgur.com/2MrEx1h.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/5RTOzGj.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/M1uwFP7.jpg)
-
That was an interesting read, Luciora, thanks! Hobbes has the right of it, though... the Japanese had figured out that particular problem well before WWII.
-
That was an interesting read, Luciora, thanks! Hobbes has the right of it, though... the Japanese had figured out that particular problem well before WWII.
Didnt stop the Army from thinking the men can get by with just rice and spirit.
-
*laughs in Fuso*
(https://i.imgur.com/M1uwFP7.jpg)
I laughed at that last one. I guess Admirals like being on top of the actions see their guns fire.
Was the reason they were so high, they needed stay clear of the blasts of the guns?
-
I laughed at that last one. I guess Admirals like being on top of the actions see their guns fire.
Was the reason they were so high, they needed stay clear of the blasts of the guns?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagoda_mast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagoda_mast)
Ruger
-
I don't think they would of tipped over, but any crew up there during heavy seas would get some seasickness
-
I laughed at that last one. I guess Admirals like being on top of the actions see their guns fire.
Was the reason they were so high, they needed stay clear of the blasts of the guns?
mostly for fire control. Guns were getting higher Velocities, and more elevation thus they could shoot further. They were getting such that the guns could shoot farther than the gunners could see. By having spotter and fire control higher in the mast, they could fire the guns at targets that were further away.
Most western Navies decided on aircraft spotters to get the extra height. the IJN used aircraft, but also wanted the ships to be as capable even if the planes were unavailable.
-
(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_battleships_Yamashiro,_Fuso_and_Haruna.jpg)
Fuso certainly had heck of a large mast. Must gave the look outs nose bleeds being so high up! ;D
I'm not sure how easily someone get sea sick from that sort height.
-
Pickles, tofu, a bit of fish, white rice... That was the typical Japanese diet. Very low on vitamins.
Didnt stop the Army from thinking the men can get by with just rice and spirit.
Every general from Henry V to this day has probably said the same thing to his troops lacking some vital equipment or other
"Who cares if we don't have supplies, our weapons are inferior and we're hopelessly outnumbered! We have the warrior spirit! And one of us is worth ten of them!"
-
The problem was that the IJA really did belive that elan and dash and Warrior (or in this case the Yamato) Spirit would help them see through. The often suicidal bravery, the willingness to follow orders and not break under fire or any abuse was a hallmark of the Imperial Japanese forces in WW2. But putting this aside, they were in essence a barely mechanised WW1 infantry heavy army and their Officers and NCO's were horrifically inflexible, once a plan was made, they'd stick to it and see it through to the end, even if that plan was clearly "Walk into a woodchipper." The Japanese term Ganbatte can be used to describe doing a task even if its rubbish or bound to fail, but you don't want to loose face so you see it through to the bitter end. That was the IJA in a nutshell. Even when something went horribly wrong, they'd stick to their plan out of fear of admitting failure and loosing face which was a HUGE thing back then.
-
Nah. Don't think there's that much difference between East and West. Nobody has a monopoly on defiant last stands... Or tactical stupidity.
"Ganbateh" is used to this day, exactly the same way as "Go on!" and "Pour it on em!" and even "Hoo-ah!"
The IJA in particular did have this mentality. But again, no real different from any organisational groupthink that drives companies off the cliff or into the jaws of horribly unrealistic profit/victory projections...
-
Nah. Don't think there's that much difference between East and West. Nobody has a monopoly on defiant last stands... Or tactical stupidity.
"Ganbateh" is used to this day, exactly the same way as "Go on!" and "Pour it on em!" and even "Hoo-ah!"
The IJA in particular did have this mentality. But again, no real different from any organisational groupthink that drives companies off the cliff or into the jaws of horribly unrealistic profit/victory projections...
I've sometimes thought this a kind of 'samurai value' that is sometimes interesting to contrast and compare with the BTU 'Clan value' that is similar, but not quite the same.
To use a simple example, a DCMS MechWarrior, and a Ghost Bear MechWarrior are in a bar...in walks a mercenary. No, wait, wrong story.
[OT snip] Sometimes, style overcomes substance and you see decisions that defy logic.
-
The Japanese were not alone in a tendency to ride a plan down in flames, or in using plans lacking in complexity. The Russians had many of the same aspects. Including a military culture that heavily discouraged and penalized failure.
The difference was the Russians had both a stronger industrial base and greater manpower, and thus could afford to take the sorts of losses such traits tend to generate.
-
The Soviet issue was mainly due to the Purges of their military leadership and the Commissars and co having the power of life and death over anyone who disobeyed orders.
-
Japan's death or glory mindset meant that they actively avoided putting in safety measures into their planes and ships that other nations were using, didn't it? The Zero deliberately didn't have armor or a parachute, as I recall, so when it got hit it tended to be destroyed quickly and the pilots didn't survive.
-
That was more because it was needed to get the performance needed. they didn't go out of their way to build a structurally dangerous aircraft. All that safety stuff costs weight and that would reduce performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9l8CsKP0SY&t=
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0Mu4jJ0S0s
Go on about the strengths and weaknesses of the Zero.
-
They didn't intentionally build a structurally dangerous aircraft, no, but they weren't as interested in keeping the pilots alive and sacrificed most other aspects of the Zero in exchange for maneuverability.
-
They didn't intentionally build a structurally dangerous aircraft, no, but they weren't as interested in keeping the pilots alive and sacrificed most other aspects of the Zero in exchange for maneuverability.
Probably bought into the same "speed is life" school as designers of the battlecruiser... with perhaps better results since the Zero did just great until the Allies developed fighters with more survivability AND equal or better speed.
How much does desperation factor into all this I wonder? Did the Japanese fight any less determinedly (stubbornly) than the British might have? Or than the French or Polish actually did?
-
That was more because it was needed to get the performance needed. they didn't go out of their way to build a structurally dangerous aircraft. All that safety stuff costs weight and that would reduce performance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9l8CsKP0SY&t=
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0Mu4jJ0S0s
Go on about the strengths and weaknesses of the Zero.
The philosophy also applied to the IJN. Their damage control performance is well known. Why that is so is how they organized and train Damage Control aspect; from what I understand they used smaller and specialized teams, so a majority of the crew isn't well versed in Damage Control compared to an USN ship crew.
-
Could I trouble the esteemed gentlemen wishing to debate the relative merits of the Zero to take it to the Aviation Pictures thread? Please? :)
-
I'm not saying any more on the Zero, I only brought it up as another example of the IJN's tendency to specialize to the point of causing problems for themselves.
-
The philosophy also applied to the IJN. Their damage control performance is well known. Why that is so is how they organized and train Damage Control aspect; from what I understand they used smaller and specialized teams, so a majority of the crew isn't well versed in Damage Control compared to an USN ship crew.
According to Shattered Sword, as you said the damage control teams were far smaller than their USN equivalents. They, like you, said that unlike USN ships where everyone was trained in at least some aspects of damage control, fire fighting etc. Aboard IJN ships they had specialized damage control teams but even these guys were about as good as the average USN repair crew, and there was a lot less of them. The IJN was also apparently top heavy, using lower ranked officers where other navies would use senior sailors/NCO's.
I'd recommend reading Shattered Sword, its very very interesting and succeeds in being data heavy without being boring.
-
Very OT, but sort of not...
My company use Chinese factories and I've talked to several people who work there. Extreme respect for authority and "personal honor" is very common in Asia. So much so that quality control gets difficult - the boss is never wrong, so if something fails it must be your fault but you can't show that!
Personally I think that's why the Japanese are so into quality management system. They realize they have the problem, so rather than trying to change the whole culture they create a system where the "honorable" thing to do is to report and fix the problem, but it's an impersonal system so you don't have to blame the boss!
-
The GLOBE study is pretty much the current last word on these things
http://globeproject.com/results/
Both the Country List and Culture Group tabs are very interesting reading, and de rigeur for any postgrad business school nowadays. Cultural differences are absolutely a thing, like it or not, but these things are incredibly complex and lie on a spectrum. The scene Sabelkatten mentions above? Incredibly common. Offices and departments tend to be built around singular persons as figurehead, decision-maker, spokesperson, etc. The Great Man philosophy of leadership is still believed in, one way or another.
But is that much different from cults of personality seen in the West? Like those revolving around Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and so on? From this side of the pond it looks awfully similar.
Anyway back to business...
If you could design a surface fire-support bombardment vessel aka "battleship" (as it evolved to be from late-WW2 onwards) from scratch, what would you put on it?
New Jersey and Missouri, ca. 1981
(https://s15.postimg.cc/s7nlo2yvf/iowas.jpg)
Michael Monsoor
(https://s15.postimg.cc/ri4tbpiwb/DDG-1001.png)
Yuri Andropov/Pyotr Velikiy
(https://s15.postimg.cc/ylcorcbh7/kirov.jpg)
Project Lider (artist concept)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/hktsinj0b/project_lider.jpg)
-
I'd suggest Project Lider owes more than a little heritage to the Kirov.
And the Kirov gets my vote, for looks if naught else. But the concept of a nuclear powered missile ship - with easily upgradable missiles - would be kinda cool.
-
The forecastle tower on this design of the Lider is quite notifiable. Don't think this design will be built.
Looks like the Japan Navy Ships that were talked about a couple of posts ago on this page.
-
Lidar is being held up due to the economic problems. So it might well be vapor wear. I found it usual that the ship being noted as a Destroyer.
What is this stepback from cruisers? :(
US Navy announced a new Large Combatant, but they are stressing it's a destroyer at the moment. They worried about the cost going up because of the type of ship it is?
-
It's not about capabilities at all. It's about perception. Destroyers sound cheaper than cruisers, therefore easier to get past a funding committee.
-
It's not about capabilities at all. It's about perception. Destroyers sound cheaper than cruisers, therefore easier to get past a funding committee.
Could do the NATO thing where everything is a Frigate!! Don't matter if it tips the scales at 7000 tons
-
You're getting it. :)
Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser...those terms mean literally nothing in terms of actually classifying ships' size or capabilities. It's 100% about what the nation's navy/government feel like calling it. Near as I can tell, it's been like that for decades.
-
You're getting it. :)
Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser...those terms mean literally nothing in terms of actually classifying ships' size or capabilities. It's 100% about what the nation's navy/government feel like calling it. Near as I can tell, it's been like that for decades.
Remember, when the Tico's were first coming online, they were destroyers. In 1974, the US had 6 ships in service classes as cruisers but had 21 "frigates" that were between those cruisers and destroyers in size...meanwhile, the Soviet Union had 19 "cruisers" that were mostly the size of ththe American "frigates"...to resolve this "cruiser gap", the US reclassed the "frigates" as "cruisers" in 1974 (except the Farragut's, which became destroyers...ocean escorts and patrol frigates became the new "frigates". The final bill of this change was reclassify the Tico's from "destroyers" to "cruisers"...this occurred in 1980...
Ruger
-
Could do the NATO thing where everything is a Frigate!! Don't matter if it tips the scales at 7000 tons
Actually, Germany has a project for ships that were originally billed as "new corvettes"... or, rather, first as "new medium combat units", then "corvettes", then "multi-role combat ships" (still going with that). Which grew. And grew. And currently design-wise are bigger than Burkes. And will probably - of course - be called frigates when they come into service around 2026.
-
The UK also did some naming shenanigans, the Invincible class were not carriers, they were called for political consumption, through-deck cruisers.
-
What is this stepback from cruisers? :(
Might also sound better in the media that one is deploying a "destroyer" or "frigate" rather than "something we would have happily called a battlecruiser about 30 years ago and can possibly defeat a whole 1970s DESRON by itself"
Actually, Germany has a project for ships that were originally billed as "new corvettes"... or, rather, first as "new medium combat units", then "corvettes", then "multi-role combat ships" (still going with that). Which grew. And grew. And currently design-wise are bigger than Burkes. And will probably - of course - be called frigates when they come into service around 2026.
Where can I read more about the MKS 180s?
-
(http://www.screanews.us/NewYork/UssNY/JpgUssNY/UssNY20.jpg)
Occasionally I like throwing a photo into the photo threads. ^-^
-
Where can I read more about the MKS 180s?
There ain't really all that much on it out there, because the whole thing is design-to-cost, and until the government has picked one out of the remaining two (non-public) designs there's nothing definitive.
Conceptually it's planned as a big brother to F125 - basically the same with added VLS and a second flexdeck area at the stern. The then two flexdeck zones will host modules similar to LCS (with a wider variety*, and not mounted in some fancy way but simply plug-and-play standard 20' TEU), while the VLS provides permanent AAW Layer 2 (w/ESSM Blk 2). Plus upgraded** NSM for primary surface-to-surface missile system, but F125 will get be refitted with too. And only two speedboats for boarding operations instead of four. Everything else pretty much matches the F125 by requirements.
* planned modules: ASW (default; 3 units for 6 ships), MCM (hunting with drones or diver support), MIO (like F125), Tactical SIGINT/EW (no longer talked about publicly for reasons).
** requirements: 300+ km range, variable-effect warhead, RBS15 Mk3 equivalent electronics and options.
-
(http://www.screanews.us/NewYork/UssNY/JpgUssNY/UssNY20.jpg)
Occasionally I like throwing a photo into the photo threads. ^-^
Where's USS Ranger? We can't do an Operation Torch Order Of Battle without Ranger.
-
And USS (Thomas) Edison...
(https://i.imgur.com/8VDZcpI.png)
On 24 October 1942 Edison set sail from Norfolk with a task group bound for the invasion at Fedhala, French Morocco, 8 November. She engaged shore batteries and enemy destroyers at Cape Fedhala and protected shipping lying off the beachheads during the Naval Battle of Casablanca:
A total of 362 rounds were fired,
74 at the shore battery,
20 in the first engagement,
and 268 in the second destroyer engagement,
of which it is estimated that 200 rounds were fired at the first destroyer and 68 at the second.
All firing was director-controlled, rapid, continuous fire. The average gun range for the first firing was 9,500 yards, for the second 14,000 yards, and for the third 12,500 yards...
...It is particularly pleasing that the guns maintained a sustained rapid fire of 268 rounds (average 68 rounds per gun) at an estimated rate of at least 12 shots per gun per minute without casualty.[2]
Interesting that the Wikipedia article would mention how cool it was just to be throwing that many shells downrange without additional detail about accuracy. 200 rounds were fired at the first destroyer, but how many hit?
-
Where's USS Ranger? We can't do an Operation Torch Order Of Battle without Ranger.
Clearly Langley replaced her. Also starring USS Oklahoma as "USS Massachusetts".
-
The Russian Federation's solo Aircraft Carrier, Kuznetsov.
Boy does she pump out a lot soot out of her stack. This picture was taken when the ship cruised by UK as part their tour of the Atlantic.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48114)
If the carrier could talk "Does this view make my stern look fat to you?"
-
I had to checked, she's steam powered and diesel powered?
-
Old tire combustion engine powered.
-
There's a ship that looks like she should only be able to make right turns.
-
Occasionally I like throwing a photo into the photo threads. ^-^
Oh you.
If you could design a surface fire-support bombardment vessel aka "battleship" (as it evolved to be from late-WW2 onwards) from scratch, what would you put on it?
New Jersey and Missouri, ca. 1981
(https://s15.postimg.cc/s7nlo2yvf/iowas.jpg)
Michael Monsoor
(https://s15.postimg.cc/ri4tbpiwb/DDG-1001.png)
Bottom line up front (BLUF): I want four twin-mounted 155mm/L52 turrets that fire 4-6 rounds per minute out to a range of 50km unassisted. I want a deep magazine and one that shares complete commonality with current land systems. I want the ship to be both stealthy and armored; I'd like the Navy to buy one per Marine infantry regiment (active and reserve) for a total of 10.
As a someone that has actually heard the phrase, "Land the Landing Force," let me offer this perspective. I want the amphibious task force, which is home to the transport group, the bombardment group, etc. to provide things that I don't have during the initial stages of the landing and rapid build-up of combat power.
Given that, I'd want a hybrid between the BB and the DDG-1000s to replicate the tactical missions of the artillery I haven't landed yet. So without a self-deploying amphibious howitzer I would want a ship that could replicate the destruction, suppression, obscuration, illumination, and marking missions that a howitzer battalion can with the same flexibility in fires. Current naval cannon have high velocities and flat trajectories which is ok for suppression or punching through ships but not great for massing, duration suppression, etc. Four twin-turrets lets me replicate an artillery battalion afloat while keeping one turret in a general support role or in case of casualty. 155mm/L52 with complete commonality gives me a shared resource. If there was a self-deploying amphibious howitzer in the inventory it would allow me to reinforce the artillery battalions upon landing and while they were moving. FYI, "reinforcing" as an artillery mission is a relationship between artillery units and it basically entails having two battalions act as one instead of one battalion functioning a fraction of capacity while moving and shooting. Stealthy and armored, well I like stuff for folks who understand the phrase, "stand into danger," "move out and draw fire," and or, "...get in the pit and try to love someone."
MODIFIED to add the Kid Rock, Bawitdaba line.
-
A good use for a retired warship http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-11/newcastle-couple-buy-a-warship/9992160 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-11/newcastle-couple-buy-a-warship/9992160)
-
If you could design a surface fire-support bombardment vessel aka "battleship" (as it evolved to be from late-WW2 onwards) from scratch, what would you put on it?
Actually...it would be something like this if i was making it.
(http://www.avalanchepress.com/monitors_big_files/monitor11.jpg)
A number of years back this same question came up in soldier of fortune magazine. As an avid reader; I sent in this suggestion and it was actually printed.
I'd humbly suggest that matching guns with an enemy ashore calls for an overmatch in firepower. Whatever else a modern warship needs, I frankly lack the background for.
-
Old tire combustion engine powered.
I don't understand why is she giving off smoke if she is being towed? :brew:
-
A good use for a retired warship http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-11/newcastle-couple-buy-a-warship/9992160 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-11/newcastle-couple-buy-a-warship/9992160)
That's some project they are taking on
-
Does anyone know if there is a list of RN ships-of-the-line active during the Napoleonic Wars? Cuz I'm working on drawing one up.
Bottom line up front (BLUF): I want four twin-mounted 155mm/L52 turrets that fire 4-6 rounds per minute out to a range of 50km unassisted. I want a deep magazine and one that shares complete commonality with current land systems. I want the ship to be both stealthy and armored; I'd like the Navy to buy one per Marine infantry regiment (active and reserve) for a total of 10.
...
Stealthy and armored, well I like stuff for folks who understand the phrase, "stand into danger," "move out and draw fire," and or, "...get in the pit and try to love someone."
Is BLUF a US military term? It's a wonderfully succinct acronym.
Current commonality 155mm/L52 firing out to 50km unassisted - is that possible?
Deep magazine - say 3,000 shells? You could work the whole battery all day with that
Coincidink or not, that sounds like all three DDG-1000s stuck together. Maybe something the size of Kirov could carry that... a modified San Antonio class perhaps.
A good use for a retired warship http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-11/newcastle-couple-buy-a-warship/9992160 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-11/newcastle-couple-buy-a-warship/9992160)
I applaud the sentiment, but it feels like they may have underestimated the operating cost of such a venture.
-
Current commonality 155mm/L52 firing out to 50km unassisted - is that possible?
155mm L/52 fires to 56 km with V-LAP base-bleed ammunition (which i guess counts as assisted), or to 50 km with out-of-the-box Vulcano 155 BER (which is an unguided sabotted subcaliber glide bomb). Vulcano 155 GLR, the guided version, can run 80 km.
If you could design a surface fire-support bombardment vessel aka "battleship" (as it evolved to be from late-WW2 onwards) from scratch, what would you put on it?
A bit more creative: Take the good old Mk102 naval rocket launcher and scale it up to fire 227mm (x4m length), which would put it at a quite large size compared to the original. Even at say one-sixth the firing rate per launcher compared to the original that's an on-target throw-weight equivalent to a TacTom per minute per mount guided out to 85+ km (compared to perhaps half that for a twin 155mm Vulcano GLR system), and with considerable range margins beyond that if current projects to enhance the GMLRS Unitary range envelope come into play.
-
Is BLUF a US military term? It's a wonderfully succinct acronym.
It is. I used it all the time in the Army and it predates this TLDR thing that I can never remember the meaning of.
-
Still use FUBAR & SNAFU, along with Charlie Foxtrot, more at my work.
(Note: not at all ex-military. Best described as BUFF.)
-
It is. I used it all the time in the Army and it predates this TLDR thing that I can never remember the meaning of.
To Long, Didn't Read. :-)
I had to checked, she's steam powered and diesel powered?
Steam powered, diesel provides the ships electrical power and low speed high efficiency engines. It works quite well as the furnaces use diesel as well.
If you could design a surface fire-support bombardment vessel aka "battleship" (as it evolved to be from late-WW2 onwards) from scratch, what would you put on it?
??? A Battleship isn't a surface fire support platform, in fact most of the battleship captains throughout history would be quite insulted if you wanted to use their ship killing weapons for shore bombardment. In the context of amphibious operations, battleships would remain in deep water in overwatch positions, observing the battlespace and intercepting and destroying anything that attempted to interfere with a landing.
What you are thinking of is a cruiser, with sub-capital weapons around 8". The cruisers were the work horses of the navies of pre-cold war era, they were there to kill lighter ships, run from heavier ships and bombard shore targets.
-
I don't understand why is she giving off smoke if she is being towed? :brew:
because her power is generated from her diesel generators.
-
The Special K's engines are apparently a nightmare and in horribly poor condition, there's a reason why every time she deploys, she always has an ocean going tug go with her.
-
The Special K's engines are apparently a nightmare and in horribly poor condition, there's a reason why every time she deploys, she always has an ocean going tug go with her.
WERE. This last sortie to Syria and back was her last for a few years, she's undergoing a mid-life refit that will see her engines repaired/refitted (possibly replaced, if they're too bad), SSMs removed, electronics upgrades, and other much-needed upgrades and fixes. She's not expected back in service for a couple of years (2021 is planned, but that's awfully optimistic).
-
They'll probably need to be replaced and considering the faff the Russians had trying to turn a Kiev into a small carrier for the Indians with a similar refit, lets just say I don't have much faith that 2021 is at all optimistic, 2025 - 2028 yes. As for if she'll stay in budget, who knows.
I will say though that the Kiev conversion is a handsome lil thing.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/INS_Vikramaditya_during_trials.jpg)
-
...and apparently has a very tight low-speed turning radius. That's well done.
For a look at what the other members of the class looked like... bad quality, but gives a better look at the scale of the ships.
(https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/nk1143gr.jpg)
-
Not sure what it is about them, but I absolutely love the Kievs. 8)
-
Oh you.Bottom line up front (BLUF): I want four twin-mounted 155mm/L52 turrets that fire 4-6 rounds per minute out to a range of 50km unassisted. I want a deep magazine and one that shares complete commonality with current land systems. I want the ship to be both stealthy and armored; I'd like the Navy to buy one per Marine infantry regiment (active and reserve) for a total of 10.
As a someone that has actually heard the phrase, "Land the Landing Force," let me offer this perspective. I want the amphibious task force, which is home to the transport group, the bombardment group, etc. to provide things that I don't have during the initial stages of the landing and rapid build-up of combat power.
Given that, I'd want a hybrid between the BB and the DDG-1000s to replicate the tactical missions of the artillery I haven't landed yet. So without a self-deploying amphibious howitzer I would want a ship that could replicate the destruction, suppression, obscuration, illumination, and marking missions that a howitzer battalion can with the same flexibility in fires. Current naval cannon have high velocities and flat trajectories which is ok for suppression or punching through ships but not great for massing, duration suppression, etc. Four twin-turrets lets me replicate an artillery battalion afloat while keeping one turret in a general support role or in case of casualty. 155mm/L52 with complete commonality gives me a shared resource. If there was a self-deploying amphibious howitzer in the inventory it would allow me to reinforce the artillery battalions upon landing and while they were moving. FYI, "reinforcing" as an artillery mission is a relationship between artillery units and it basically entails having two battalions act as one instead of one battalion functioning a fraction of capacity while moving and shooting. Stealthy and armored, well I like stuff for folks who understand the phrase, "stand into danger," "move out and draw fire," and or, "...get in the pit and try to love someone."
MODIFIED to add the Kid Rock, Bawitdaba line.
Can I interest you in a WW2 Light Cruiser? 4 triple 6" gun turrets... not sure about the low observability though
Still use FUBAR & SNAFU, along with Charlie Foxtrot, more at my work.
(Note: not at all ex-military. Best described as BUFF.)
Foxtrot Oscar is one of the more commonly used phrases in my place of work, as in "I'm going to Foxtrot Oscar" when 5 o'clock strikes
-
Can I interest you in a WW2 Light Cruiser? 4 triple 6" gun turrets... not sure about the low observability though
Da, we can do that comrade.
(http://www.shipspotting.com/photos/middle/1/2/0/2761021.jpg)
-
Not sure what it is about them, but I absolutely love the Kievs. 8)
Pre or post conversion to "true" carrier?
Ruger
-
Pre
of course
Just look at that beaut
(https://s15.postimg.cc/ex1l06edn/Novorossiysk_1.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/7ic977km3/Novorossiysk_2.jpg)
-
Oh definitely pre, though Vikramaditya is still quite the looker.
-
Hurricane Florence bearing down on the U.S. east coast brings this to mind...USS Narwhal submerged in the Cooper River at Charleston, South Carolina during Hurricane Hugo.
(https://i.imgur.com/e4jpwNR.jpg)
-
Wouldn't having a submarine submerged in (relatively) shallow water be a bad situation? Unless they grounded, and were confident they could stay grounded with the surges?
-
If there's insufficient time to get the boat to deep water(either the hurricane shifted track suddenly, or the sub wasn't ready to put to sea in time), partially submerged may still be better than fully surfaced. At the least, that's less of the boat exposed to flying debris.
-
As long as it's a soft bottom underneath. Hope they had lots of negative buoyancy, and didn't get stuck in the mud afterwards (see also USS Halibut, on it's adventures in the Sea of Ohkotsk)
-
Link with a little more info: https://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-uss-narwhal-rode-out-hugo.html (https://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-uss-narwhal-rode-out-hugo.html)
-
modern subs, due to their physical design (the 'albacore hull' i've usually seen it described as) are actually more stable under water than on the surface. so having most of the hull submerged is probably safer than it being on the surface, much less in a dock.
and from what i understand, modern subs don't handle being on the bottom very well, the way the older subs did. haven't been able to find out why
-
Link with a little more info: https://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-uss-narwhal-rode-out-hugo.html (https://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2005/08/how-uss-narwhal-rode-out-hugo.html)
Some of the comments talk about passing through underwater during Typhoon/Hurricane. They said as soon as the subs got above 400 feet, the storm turbulence affected them.
-
I've felt the deck move when deep too. Not sure what was going on above the surface, but it couldn't have been good.
-
of course
Just look at that beaut
(https://s15.postimg.cc/ex1l06edn/Novorossiysk_1.jpg)
(https://s15.postimg.cc/7ic977km3/Novorossiysk_2.jpg)
The Kiev class, which is basically a pictorial definition of greebling
-
INS Vikrant (new one under construction) This is dated picture being launched and fitted out with a bridge. I wasn't able find a current picture of the ship. Construction is going slow.
From her bridge design, maybe it's me. However the old HMS Hermes seems to have left impression with their Navy's designers, since the carrier's island resembles Hermes's superstructure/island.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48145)
-
INS Vikrant (new one under construction) This is dated picture being launched and fitted out with a bridge. I wasn't able find a current picture of the ship. Construction is going slow.
From her bridge design, maybe it's me. However the old HMS Hermes seems to have left impression with their Navy's designers, since the carrier's island resembles Hermes's superstructure/island.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48145)
I spy with my little eye a phased array assembly, lacking the actual element plates. Wonder if they are buying or developing one?
-
The Kiev class, which is basically a pictorial definition of greebling
80s Russian warships in general were greebling personified, and it was AWESOME :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
I spy with my little eye a phased array assembly, lacking the actual element plates. Wonder if they are buying or developing one?
It was fitted for a Russian radar, currently a Selex one is fitted on
Don't know if they will now upgrade it further for the incoming Barak 8
-
Some of the comments talk about passing through underwater during Typhoon/Hurricane. They said as soon as the subs got above 400 feet, the storm turbulence affected them.
My dad was on a missile sub in the 60's. He mentioned the same thing when he talked about going under a hurricane.
-
Does anyone know if there is a list of RN ships-of-the-line active during the Napoleonic Wars? Cuz I'm working on drawing one up.
https://threedecks.org/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_line_of_the_Royal_Navy
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_frigate_classes_of_the_Royal_Navy
hope this helps
-
80s Russian warships in general were greebling personified, and it was AWESOME :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
It was fitted for a Russian radar, currently a Selex one is fitted on
Don't know if they will now upgrade it further for the incoming Barak 8
I shall have to find out. :-)
-
80s Russian warships in general were greebling personified, and it was AWESOME :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Try painting minis of some. It gets old fast.
-
Vikramaditya was modified off the Admiral Gorshkov ex Baku was a modified Kiev class carrier with more SS-12 missiles modified Tower area and 100mm guns replaced the 76mm guns, and different radars and other things.
-
Does anyone know which Italian Cruiser this is?
The picture I found stated this ship was visiting Malta in July 1955. (https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205016349) The name isn't one I've seen though it's Italian spelling. Only ship I know that was named Luigi was scrapped during this visit decade but last name doesn't match. The name I wrote on the picture is what could read on the stern of the ship.
-
Interesting. I suspect the name on the hull isn't in the original image.
To help, this is one of the last of the Italian 'Condottieri' type light cruisers, which consisted of several sub-classes. The last of these (and I don't recall the exact name, but I know that name isn't one of them) had ten 6" guns instead of the eight guns of the prior ships (one of these two, the Garibaldi, was modified into a missile cruiser and served for several decades after the war). This is definitely one of those last two ships, from the triple-mount gun.
Very weird.
-
Try painting minis of some. It gets old fast.
is true
good thing me not paint warship minis, me just admire pretty picture :D
so me can admire Sovremenny-class destroyer with hundreds of antennae and greebly bits, not get headache :D
(http://weaponsystems.net/image/s-lightbox/n-Sovremenny%20class/--/img/ws/sh_des_sovremenny_o1.jpg)
-
Vikramaditya was modified off the Admiral Gorshkov ex Baku was a modified Kiev class carrier with more SS-12 missiles modified Tower area and 100mm guns replaced the 76mm guns, and different radars and other things.
There's a Luigi Di Savoia in the last batch of the Condottieri cruisers :
https://www.world-war.co.uk/italy/abruzzi.php3
... Also reported as Abruzzi, from the last part of the namesake, because let's face it, the full name in very long ::). Different abbreviations of the name may be the cause of the confusion.
The long post-WW2 career also matches.
-
Thanks for clarifying that up, Van Gogh! Those Italian names can be confusing sometimes for me.
Tough day for Royal Australia Navy.
HMAS Australia in 1944 after six Japanese planes had their way with her...
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48153)
-
The idea is that your off-shore bombardment ships maximize flexibility. The turret on this ship is mobile and can be transferred quickly inland.
(https://ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/img/LCM/LCM-Mk6.gif)
-
could you mount three 155mm howitzers into a single ship turret? i'm thinking if you want a shore bombardment vessel, you could pack several 155's into a turret, then slap at least 3 turrets onto a cruiser sized ship. that would give each ship the equivalent of an entire army field battery.
-
More turrets rather than bigger turrets. My mildly uninformed opinion is that guns don't mechanical failures as often as the rest of the turret does. That's why I went with a 4x2 setup rather than a 3x3.
-
could you mount three 155mm howitzers into a single ship turret? i'm thinking if you want a shore bombardment vessel, you could pack several 155's into a turret, then slap at least 3 turrets onto a cruiser sized ship. that would give each ship the equivalent of an entire army field battery.
155mm equals 6.1 inches... there were plenty of 6 inch triple turret ships in WW2...the Japanese used 155 mm triple mounts...
Not exactly the same guns but...
Ruger
-
Without knowing all the technical details but I assume having more turrets allows you to engage more individual targets (so 4x2 turrets would allow you to possibly engage upto 4 different targets simultaneously whereas 3x3 turrets would only allow you to engage 3 simultaneous targets) not such a big issue in ship-to-ship sea engagements but I assume much more useful when you are providing naval gunfire support to an amphibious landing force that has just pushed on from the beachhead and may have many small units engaging with the OPFOR simultaneously.
-
More turrets also limit the potential drop in firepower if there's damage of any kind, be it enemy action or mishandling. Remember that it was an over-ram of powder bags in one of Iowa's guns in 1989 that effectively gutted the whole turret and killed 47 sailors. More turrets with fewer guns, admittedly, means that a single gun failure doesn't run the risk of taking a third (or half!) of the ship's firepower with it.
-
more turrets = more space, but this hypothetical ship already seems pretty darn big so that shouldn't be a problem
artillery batteries also often work in 2-gun detachments IINM
https://threedecks.org/
this is exactly what I wanted
cuz the Wiki list doesn't have a filter option to see exactly what was operating in what year
-
More turrets rather than bigger turrets. My mildly uninformed opinion is that guns don't mechanical failures as often as the rest of the turret does. That's why I went with a 4x2 setup rather than a 3x3.
Incorrect uninformed opinion. :P The gun is the most common point of failure, even if most are just a stoppage rather than a defect, second most common is the loading system, those tend to be genuine defects, the turrets themselves tend to be near on bullet proof. Besides which, multi-gun turrets are a bit of a thing of the past, they are complicated beasts not well suited to auto-loaders, and require a lot of a secondary armament.
Without knowing all the technical details but I assume having more turrets allows you to engage more individual targets (so 4x2 turrets would allow you to possibly engage upto 4 different targets simultaneously whereas 3x3 turrets would only allow you to engage 3 simultaneous targets) not such a big issue in ship-to-ship sea engagements but I assume much more useful when you are providing naval gunfire support to an amphibious landing force that has just pushed on from the beachhead and may have many small units engaging with the OPFOR simultaneously.
You are more limited by channels of fire control, even though every ship maintains optical targeting, it's not ideal. When engaging a swarm attack MGA isn't really the way to go, these are designed to hit much larger targets. NG serials generally only call for a single channel of fire control, so while you can fire more than one gun, you can't really fire at more than one target.
As an aside, why is everyone so focused on NGS? A ship is far more likely to shoot in anger against another ship or aircraft than a land target, they generally aren't well equipped of postured for it. NG wouldn't even comprise 5% of what a warship is meant to do in battle, so why get so hung up on it? CAS stacks are frequently better at providing pinpoint fire, land based artillery can generally bring more guns to bear, and those guns are specifically made for that rather than multi-purpose. The only time NGS will be called for is an amphibious landing, or when the grunts have over extended. Warships are meant to be at sea, not tied to the coast line with limited maneuverability.
-
@Nightlord1 - cuz I posed a hypothetical question about a fantasy modern shore bombardment vessel
Happened after surfing and I saw pics of Iowa's and DDG1000s
-
@Nightlord1 - cuz I posed a hypothetical question about a fantasy modern shore bombardment vessel
Happened after surfing and I saw pics of Iowa's and DDG1000s
I feel dirty even thinking about NG...
But seriously, NG is only done with sub-capital weapons, except for posterity or in fiction. Capital scale guns were exclusively the domain of ship killing weapons, a role now filled by ASMs. The sub-capital weapons were where the NG came from, so you want a cruiser, four single gun turrets, 120mm in each (it's a better naval gun, the 155mm is just too big and unweildy) with four operators for the spot net.
You want at least 32 VLS cells fitted with ESSM, for self protection and delousing, another 32 VLS cells for TLAM.
You want a major communications hub, able to run LOS UHF/SHF data comms, using digital links to designate targets and pass to the ships guns, and other units in the TF.
You want a nice generous flight deck for attack helicopters, with a field maintenance hangar to keep them airborne, FW can be handled by the carrier further out at sea.
You want a long range air search radar, for detection of air contacts and GCI.
You want three surface search radars, one for navigation, one for long range detection and tracking and one for high definition tracking close to ship and shore.
You want at least 8 channels of fire control, four for the guns, four for air and surface contacts or CEC.
You want an ASM decoy system.
You want 4 C-RAM or CIWS.
You want 10 Typhoon or Mini Typhoon systems for counter swarm.
Once you've crammed that into one ship:
You want an AAW destroyer or cruiser within mutual support range to get the seaward MARSTRK aircraft.
You want an AEW&C aircraft to inform the force, CAP is optional with the DDG there you have good AAW capability.
You want a truly exceptional IO campaign to draw the defenders away from the landing zone so your marines can actually make it up the beach and dig in.
You want the previously mentioned CV/CVN at sea to provide CAP/CAS aircraft.
You want FFG/FFH patrolling for SS/SSN along with CV borne ASW aircraft, along with a couple of P3C/P8A.
-
more turrets = more space, but this hypothetical ship already seems pretty darn big so that shouldn't be a problem
in ye olden days, it mean more armour and *that* was the problem; assuming you aren't going to try to seriously armour the ship then it makes less of an issue
Incorrect uninformed opinion. :P
I think you mean incorrect uniformed opinion, Charlie 6 is a retired USMC artillery officer
The gun is the most common point of failure, even if most are just a stoppage rather than a defect, second most common is the loading system, those tend to be genuine defects, the turrets themselves tend to be near on bullet proof. Besides which, multi-gun turrets are a bit of a thing of the past, they are complicated beasts not well suited to auto-loaders, and require a lot of a secondary armament.
I think that, regardless of the point of failure, the reality is that it is not uncommon / unheard of for the turret systems to fail because for naval air defence you want fast traverse and rapid fire but the engagement will likely be measured in seconds while for naval gunfire support for land forces you are looking at a much longer bombardment without pause
I don't know the last time a ship sank another ship with gunfire for anything above fast attack craft but with the lack of armour on most parts of most ships I suspect that the battle would be short and bloody
As an aside, why is everyone so focused on NGS? A ship is far more likely to shoot in anger against another ship or aircraft than a land target, they generally aren't well equipped of postured for it. NG wouldn't even comprise 5% of what a warship is meant to do in battle, so why get so hung up on it? CAS stacks are frequently better at providing pinpoint fire, land based artillery can generally bring more guns to bear, and those guns are specifically made for that rather than multi-purpose. The only time NGS will be called for is an amphibious landing, or when the grunts have over extended. Warships are meant to be at sea, not tied to the coast line with limited maneuverability.
The USN has a mandate to provide NGS for the USMC and I am sure the Royal Marines would like it if the RN could do the same. While the occasions may be uncommon, most* of the UK and USA's recent** conflicts have been within range of or for naval gunfire - the Falklands, Gulf War 1, Gulf War 2, Grenada, Libya, Yugoslavia etc - and littoral warfare is likely to remain a significant possibility moving forwards.
*I accept that Afghanistan and South Sudan are both landlocked countries but I have RN friends who have deployed to both!
**within my lifetime (born 1981)
Nightlord01 - I have gone through and broken up your main post not so much to nit-pick as to answer sensible questions and points from you
-
Just to point out amphibious assault is still done:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Umm_Qasr A four day battle to secure the port and city by 3 Commando, 15th MEU, and GROM. I hesitate to suggest that had there been an Iowa offshore, it might have been a mere four hour battle, though there'd have been a lot less of Umm Qasr to hold on to after the battle.
Hell, just a few months ago, Yemen beat back a Saudi-led coalition amphibious assault at Hodeideh and claimed at least one warship sunk doing it. I can't imagine they had much sea-to-shore firepower; the Saudi navy's very much a local-waters force. A total of three La Fayettes (assume only one available for operations) and four local design frigates (assume two at best) plus a smattering of little things from thousand-ton corvettes to little patrol boats. This does not make much in the way of supporting a from-the-sea operation, even with UAE and other states joining in.
So yeah, I think they just proved that NGS is still important.
-
Incorrect uninformed opinion. :P The gun is the most common point of failure, even if most are just a stoppage rather than a defect, second most common is the loading system, those tend to be genuine defects, the turrets themselves tend to be near on bullet proof. Besides which, multi-gun turrets are a bit of a thing of the past, they are complicated beasts not well suited to auto-loaders, and require a lot of a secondary armament.
I'm not talking about the external armor so let me clarify, correctly: the cannon doesn't fail. You have to make the cannon, be it the tube or breach, fail and this is true whether on land or on sea unless you achieve tube wear. The problems occur, as you cite and where I meant, in the other turret related mechanisms such as long auto loading feed systems, etc. Mind you, I've seen a cannon tube blown off a howitzer due to an ammunition failure but nothing was wrong with the tube beforehand. So no, the gun isn't the most common point of failure.
You are more limited by channels of fire control, even though every ship maintains optical targeting, it's not ideal. When engaging a swarm attack MGA isn't really the way to go, these are designed to hit much larger targets. NG serials generally only call for a single channel of fire control, so while you can fire more than one gun, you can't really fire at more than one target.
Two things, I watched a demonstration at NWDC Dahlgren that would offer a different opinion. Here's the link: https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=96508 I had my own opinion but it had nothing to do with a rapid engagement with the 5". Frankly, I was a bit more surprised that the USN was just figuring out interlocking and overlapping fields of fire. Secondly, control channels isn't a problem so long as you're willing to be flexible in designing communication systems to support it...like is done on land. Now that I recall, I've actually had this conversation with a DESRON gunnery officer. He put out the same line of nonsense until I pushed him to admit he hadn't thought about having to do it. Then we got talking about 5"/54 & 5"/62 ranges and he realized he couldn't do much because relative to everyone else (who aren't penalized by losing a couple or three nautical miles to bathymetry) the 5" gun is a self defense weapon. I think I ended the conversation with a "well I'm glad you tried" and wish that he carried that lesson for the rest of his career.
...CAS stacks are frequently better at providing pinpoint fire, land based artillery can generally bring more guns to bear, and those guns are specifically made for that rather than multi-purpose. The only time NGS will be called for is an amphibious landing, or when the grunts have over extended. Warships are meant to be at sea, not tied to the coast line with limited maneuverability.
Let me focus on this. CAS and missiles have to be doing the deep shaping operations as neither are capable are doing things like immediate suppression (rounds needed in less than two minutes), duration suppression (rounds needed for ten minutes to cover maneuver), marking targets for aviation, or providing obscuration ('cause there are tons of smoke missiles out there) but also key is the point that there aren't that many amphibious howitzers or missile systems. So what does the landing force do after the self-deploying landing vehicles with infantry arrive and while the engineers with bulldozers are making sure there aren't any mines? The landing force relies on the ships. Also, remember that the landing force is there to accomplish the tasks of the amphibious force and until the landing force is capable of doing that on their own...it the fleet's responsibility to make it happen. I'm paraphrasing US/NATO doctrine but that's the gist of the gig. Oh yeah, there is that 10 U.S. Code § 5063 thing the US folks have to worry about. Kind of a, "Sorry, the law actually says you're the proponent for amphibious operations Marine Corps. Figure it out."
-
Sounds more like a job for something like a coastal defence ship/coastal battleship/monitor. Yeah, Burkes have a 5" gun but it's analogous to using an F-22 to strafe using its Vulcan. It exposes an extremely expensive platform to a lot of risk in a role it's fairly mediocre at. That Burke is out-gunned by a tank platoon in a gun fight after all.
Without needing to keep up with a CVBG, the bombardment ship wouldn't need the long, fine hull form required for high speeds, nor nearly as much machinery, so it can be shorter and cheaper for the same displacement. That means less surface area to protect (compare the Revenge and Queen Elizabeth class battleships to the Hood to see what a difference a few knots of speed makes). If seakeeping on the open ocean is a secondary concern, it can have a shallower draft (like cruise ships compared to ocean liners) in order to get closer in shore, etc.
Or you know, just rig up something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Tank_(Rocket) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landing_Craft_Tank_(Rocket))
-
Let me reverse this:
Once you've crammed that into one ship:
You want an AAW destroyer or cruiser within mutual support range to get the seaward MARSTRK aircraft.
You want an AEW&C aircraft to inform the force, CAP is optional with the DDG there you have good AAW capability.
You want a truly exceptional IO campaign to draw the defenders away from the landing zone so your marines can actually make it up the beach and dig in.
You want the previously mentioned CV/CVN at sea to provide CAP/CAS aircraft.
You want FFG/FFH patrolling for SS/SSN along with CV borne ASW aircraft, along with a couple of P3C/P8A.
Yes...because that's how numbered fleets do business? I'm not certain why you are making this a point? Except the IO piece because relying on deception is a really dumb course of action. Also, I, as a Marine, didn't want to "dig in". While I'm all-in on Clausewitz's defense is the stronger form of warfare I do want to maneuver to that point rather than assume it because my boat ride was arduous. "It" being that point where my opponent is dumb enough to do exactly what I want him to do.
I feel dirty even thinking about NG...
Already noted
But seriously, NG is only done with sub-capital weapons, except for posterity or in fiction. Capital scale guns were exclusively the domain of ship killing weapons, a role now filled by ASMs. The sub-capital weapons were where the NG came from, so you want a cruiser, four single gun turrets, 120mm in each (it's a better naval gun, the 155mm is just too big and unweildy) with four operators for the spot net.
You want at least 32 VLS cells fitted with ESSM, for self protection and delousing, another 32 VLS cells for TLAM.
You want a nice generous flight deck for attack helicopters, with a field maintenance hangar to keep them airborne, FW can be handled by the carrier further out at sea.
You want a long range air search radar, for detection of air contacts and GCI.
You want three surface search radars, one for navigation, one for long range detection and tracking and one for high definition tracking close to ship and shore.
You want at least 8 channels of fire control, four for the guns, four for air and surface contacts or CEC.
You want an ASM decoy system.
You want 10 Typhoon or Mini Typhoon systems for counter swarm.
This isn't intended to be a independent deployer outside of peacetime. Instead this is meant to be as protected as the amphibious warships carrying the landing force or the carrier carrying the air wing. In that context, why would it need a "long range air search radar", "a generous flight deck", 64 VLS cells when it isn't about TLAMS, and for-the-love-of-all-that-is-Holy-in-the-indirect-fire-realm would anyone think a 127mm cannon round is suitable for engaging land targets? The 5" cannons generate a longitudal elliptical pattern. Nobody fights that way on land! Whether two-up & one back or one-up & two back, dispersion is a function of breadth and depth not just one or the other. Besides, the ammunition variety stinks. If every ship were heavily armored I would get the high muzzle velocity approach. Hell, I'd advocate for a M1A2 cannon on ships in that case but the requirement is more howitzer (all angles of fire/middling muzzle velocity) than cannon (high muzzle velocity and flat trajectory).
But yes, a major communication hub is critical.
You want 4 C-RAM or CIWS.
Four total, yes; four each, no.
-
Nope, I'm done.
-
If you guys want a good warship movie, and as odd as this is going to sound. Might I suggest The Battleship Potemkin. You can easily find it on youtube in varying qualities and the film itself is basically a propaganda piece but ignoring that, there's a LOT of yummy naval bits and bobs because they used. Filmed aboard the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battleship_Dvenadsat_Apostolov
Which they then made up to look like the Potemkin with some visual changes you see a lot of workings of a Pre-dreadnought type ship. In the 'chase' and the build up towards in in the films climax (although the Leningrad steps is probably the films most famous scene) you see the crew preparing a ship for action, clearing the guns, lots of interior shots of the engine room and guns being operated. You even see one gun position using the Continuious Aim training system that was used to help improve accuracy on undirected guns.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Knyaz%27Potemkin-Tavricheskiy1905Constanta.jpg)
-
USMC 13th MEU deploys with the USS Essex
I count 10 Ospreys, 6 F35Bs and 5 Super Stallions... Is that the whole embarked ACE?
(https://s8.postimg.cc/k8o2g34lh/f35b_essex.jpg)
-
There might be some UH-1Y or AH-1Z below decks in the hangar bay
-
I count 4 Super Stallions (3 in line with the Ospreys and one to the stern of the island). Where is the 5th?
-
I count 4 Super Stallions (3 in line with the Ospreys and one to the stern of the island). Where is the 5th?
Sorry, bigger picture attached here
The blurry bit next to the forward Sea Sparrow launcher is a heli
But upon relook I realise it's a Seahawk. So that's 4 Stallions and a Seahawk, possibly visiting
-
I'll bet they're wishing they had a ski jump for the F-35s, I wonder how much more they could carry at take off with one?
-
I'll bet they're wishing they had a ski jump for the F-35s, I wonder how much more they could carry at take off with one?
Nah, cuz they apparently prefer to have the spot space for choppers so they can launch more helis simultaneously
-
Nah, cuz they apparently prefer to have the spot space for choppers so they can launch more helis simultaneously
This.USMC 13th MEU deploys with the USS Essex
I count 10 Ospreys, 6 F35Bs and 5 Super Stallions... Is that the whole embarked ACE?
(https://s8.postimg.cc/k8o2g34lh/f35b_essex.jpg)
You only see the LHA in that pic but there might be two MV-22s in the hanger. There is definitely another H-60 which is likely taking the picture. The LPD is likely carrying the HMLA det. The H-60s are part of the USN SAR and they are always deployed.
-
And one crappy update about the USS Ling.
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/09/ghost-hunter-charged-with-breaking-into-flooded-submarine/
-
Those low lifes! The Historical ship wrecked already, they go ahead possibly making it worse for those own fantasy-scifi money making schem/hobby? Really?
I have friend who a Ghost Hunter, their a lot more respectful than these two creeps.
Moving on....with naval pictures.
Since Halloween is coming soon, unfortunate thing with bad Ghost Hunter caused trouble with USS Ling, here some pictures of derelict ships
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48267)
This is the derelict of the World War I Submarine, UB-122. She was a Mark III Class Submarine for the Imperial German Navy. This ship among others were in the process of being scrapped, but this ship sort got away...became stranded in English river banks of Medway. She was deemed to not have anything with any urgent need to be scrapped or remove hazardous materials, so she been left in place. She arguably only German submarine visual to anyone looking for wrecked submarine in England.
-
She arguably only German submarine visual to anyone looking for wrecked submarine in England.
Even the only remaining wrecked submarine of any country on any beach worldwide.
Other than it there's only the supposed remains of a German midget submarine in heavily deteriorated state in Argentina discovered two years ago.
-
I'm in for shipwrecks! Let's do this
(https://media.iwm.org.uk/ciim5/277/341/large_000000.jpg)
One of the prior iterations of this thread had a post from me about the Russian battleship Slava, destroyed in 1918 after a pummeling from a pair of German dreadnoughts during the Battle of Moon Sound. The baffling operation of this ship is worthy of a look sometime yourself if you get a chance, but during the battle Slava:
+Jammed her forward gun turret after a mere eleven shots due to rack & pinion gear breaking
+Was to keep enemy minesweepers from clearing the thick minefield keeping the Germans away- however, Slava and other ships pulled away from the battle line to have lunch served, and as a result weren't there while the German minesweepers cleared a path
+Was then soundly pummeled upon her return by dreadnoughts Koenig and Kronprinz- the former doing the fatal damage to Slava
+When it was found that she was drawing too much draft to enter harbor, she was going to be scuttled near the beach- but her crew abandoned the engineering spaces without permission, so when the captain gave the order to stop no one was there to actually follow his orders. The ship beached instead (shown above), suffered a magazine explosion, and settled. The wreck wasn't scrapped until the mid-1930s.
I want to emphasize part of the above: Slava was lost due to the German battleships being able to engage her because the mines were swept clear of their path... because the crew, despite having a gun turret broken and needing repairs, retired for lunch and didn't keep the minesweepers under pressure. THEY LOST THEIR SHIP BECAUSE THEY WERE HAVING LUNCH.
-
Guess they were dying for a bite to eat.
-
For want of kasha, the battle was lost
-
what is it with the WW1 Russian navy and total incompetence? seems like you look at any ship in it and they're full of stories like that. even if you ignore the ships who's careers ended in 1905 with "and then in the battle of Tsushima"
-
Even the only remaining wrecked submarine of any country on any beach worldwide.
Not true. The Sub Marine Explorer still rests on a beach in Panama's Pearl Islands where it was abandoned in 1869.
Constructed in 1863 for the Pacific Pearl Company, it's crew kept dying of "fever" (decompression sickness was unknown at the time) leading to its abandonment.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Sub_Marine_Explorer_Wreck.jpg)
-
THEY LOST THEIR SHIP BECAUSE THEY WERE HAVING LUNCH.
So at least they didn't lose their lunch. :-X
-
HMS Success
She was 32-gun Amazon-class fifth-rate frigate in the British Navy. Whom was commissioned in 1781.
She had fairly long and successful career. She fought in the American Revolutionary War & War of 1812, the French Wars. She was captured briefly by the French but returned. Until she was Hulked in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in 1814. Where she began her 2nd career as a Guard Ship, Prison Ship among other things before, She was broken up in 1820.
I would say, if you ended up on the ship as prison ship, I don't think you were a success what you were doing. xp
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48276)
-
(https://78.media.tumblr.com/2011ba0e5f147874b14139f92e3ca0c3/tumblr_nl9igccU1P1uoai9lo1_500.jpg)
IJNS Amagi. Struck by USN aircraft while at Kune naval base in 1945.
-
Honda Point! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Point_disaster)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/NH_66721_Honda_Point.gif)
-
Honda Point! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_Point_disaster)
Court martial
Captain E.H. Watson, shown here as a commander, 1915
The seven-officer Navy court-martial board, presided over by Vice Admiral Henry A. Wiley, commander battleship divisions of the Battle Fleet,[7] ruled that the disaster was the fault of the fleet commander and the flagship's navigators. They assigned blame to the captain of each ship, following the tradition that a captain's first responsibility is to his own ship, even when in formation. Eleven officers involved would be brought before general courts-martial on the charges of negligence and culpable inefficiency to perform one’s duty.[6] This was the largest single group of officers ever court-martialed in the U.S. Navy's history.
Oooof.
-
Oooof.
Yeah, but Captain Watson did the honorable thing and assumed full and sole responsibility for the incident instead of blaming others or new technology or some other factor. Not everyone would do that.
Ruger
-
The editors of the Army and Navy Journal wrote, "Captain Watson has given a splendid example of the finest attributes of character overcoming the elemental instinct of self-preservation. Voluntarily waiving the fundamental right of a defendant to place the burden of proof upon the prosecution, and to refrain from testifying under oath to any facts that might tend to incriminate himself, he took the witness stand and not only freely testified to facts relating to his own culpability but also volunteered his opinion under oath that he was wholly responsible for the disaster, and that none of his subordinates should be blamed."
A true leader. No excuses. No finding a scapegoat. Took full responsibility for his decisions and for the errors made by his sub-ordinates who were under his command and following his orders.
-
Not quiet a Warship, but darn lucky he survived! (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45623130)
This kid was essentially fishing in his fishing hut when strong winds took his fishing hut out to sea for 49 days.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48300)
Apparently this teenage Indonesian was in this hut that situated 77 miles off the coast of Indonesian island of Sulawesi in July.
Strong enough pull anchoring and set him a drift until he close to Guam. He survive via fishing, and burning part of his hut's fencing.
Apparently he had short range radio, he manage contact a ship passing him while others didn't even see him. He was close enough radio worked.
He was flown back to his family once coast guard spotted him.
-
(http://www.combinedfleet.com/kikuzu1.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Kikuzuki_(1926) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_destroyer_Kikuzuki_(1926))
Rusting wreckage of the destroyer Kikuzuki, a Mutsuki-class destroyer lost very early in the Pacific War. Torpedoed by aircraft while in port, she was raised later and beached by the Americans who wanted to find things like code books or torpedo schematics. The wreck is still there- and not in great shape, as you can see (note that the photo is itself more than a quarter-century old, safe to say time hasn't improved things for her!). The bow is at right, with the stern against the beach. One of the smokestacks is still vaguely recognizable. What appears at a glance to be a small craft alongside the overturned bow actually is the lower portion of the bow- the upper portion has slid off the rest of the wreck and lays on its side.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3j5QgNS/f35_qe_1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRZTmz1v/f35_qe_2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrrGJ16K/f35_qe_3.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCYS9zpn/f35_qe_4.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/FFTTBY2g/f35_qe_5.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wv0QZrbT/f35_qe_6.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkC4vD5D/f35_qe_7.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJzR6PgB/f35_qe_8.jpg)
Proud day for the Royal Navy
I remember someone previously asked when we would get to see fast jets operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth? Wish granted.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3j5QgNS/f35_qe_1.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/FRZTmz1v/f35_qe_2.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nrrGJ16K/f35_qe_3.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCYS9zpn/f35_qe_4.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/FFTTBY2g/f35_qe_5.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wv0QZrbT/f35_qe_6.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/VkC4vD5D/f35_qe_7.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJzR6PgB/f35_qe_8.jpg)
Proud day for the Royal Navy
I remember someone previously asked when we would get to see fast jets operating from HMS Queen Elizabeth? Wish granted.
yeap. proud day for lockheed as well-the boys in Texas, where the F-35 is made. But 'tis double proud for the Royal Navy, because they got their carrier-mojo back-that is, they've built a good one.
-
A forgotten Leviathan, the SS Vaterland.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fG98EjIsvDU/maxresdefault.jpg)
A Pre-WW1 German Liner the Vaterland was built to be the largest and most luxurious ship in the world and exceeded anything else in terms of sheer size being 20 meters longer and 2000 tons heavier than the Titanic class. She didn't see much service before the Great War and was instead detained in the USA where she would eventually become the USS Leviathan a troop transport. Post war she was refitted again for cruising but she wasn't financially viable, especially as a US flagged ship she was subject to prohibition laws then in effect.
(http://www.titanicinquiry.org/images/ships/vaterland.jpg)
-
USS Conneticuit facing an unlikely foe in the ice pack
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Torpedoed_USS_Kearny_%28DD-432%29_alongside_USS_Monssen_%28DD-436%29_at_Iceland%2C_19_October_1941_%2880-G-28788%29.jpg)
The USS Kearny, she was a Benson-Livermore-class destroyer that served during World War II.
The picture above i her with USS Monssen along side after a torpedo attack in 7 October 1941 by U-568 (U can see the hole at her side). She survived the attack, when her floatilla of Destroyers were summon to assist Canadian escorts ships under attack by the said Wolfpack. What's interesting here, she was a triggering point for Hitler to declare War on US 2 months later. This was because she was protecting a British convoy during a Wolfpack submarine attack.
She survived the war and was mothballed until 1972 where she meet her end being scrapped. :-\
-
Wth...
Half the pic is lines... censored maybe?
TT
-
I can see the whole picture. Must be an issue with your connection or browser.
-
Yeah I see them now...
Must have been a bad load up.
Cause all I saw was the stacks to bridge and the bit of the deck with 2 sets of single mount guns and thought what a weird shape...
But now I can see two ships docked together.
TT
-
USS Connecticut facing an unlikely foe in the ice pack
A bear without an anti-ship missile?
-
Trying hard not to think of any Tu 95 puns...
-
USS Conneticuit facing an unlikely foe in the ice pack
Do you have bigger picture. Even with it clicked it's too darn hard to see the bear.
-
It's a stealth bear.
-
Do you have bigger picture. Even with it clicked it's too darn hard to see the bear.
Unfortunately not I was reading about Conneticuit and that flagged up so I googled it just uss Conneticuit and bear there's a few
-
Unfortunately not I was reading about Conneticuit and that flagged up so I googled it just uss Conneticuit and bear there's a few
I guess we need to just bear with it.
Speaking of Bears! Kuma-Class Japanese Light Cruisers....aka Da Bears.
These were early 1918s Light Cruisers, which were high speed ships. They were armed with 5.5 inch guns in semi-armored turrets, arranged with 2 front and mid decks and pair in the back. They also had pair of 8cm quad torpedo launchers mid-decks. The ships were obsoleted due to arrival of Naval Aviation. Original newer ships of the class of five were suppose to have been fitted with 8 quad launchers, firing 40 torpedoes! However, they won't have faired as well in coming days of naval aviation to Admiralty, which lead to two of the ships being converted to the role of high-speed transport, and one fitted out as a one-way manned torpedo carrier.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuma-class_cruiser#/media/File:IJN_Kuma_in_1930_off_Tsingtao.jpg)
The attached picture is a colorized picture of one of the ships, Tama
-
There were some interesting plans for Japan's light cruisers during the war- it was clear before things even started that the Kuma, Nagara, and Tenryu class ships (and a case to be made for the Jintsus as well) were dangerously obsolete. Among the plans were the torpedo-cruiser concept mentioned in Wrangler's post- this would have removed some of the guns, minelaying equipment, etc. for Long Lance tubes- Kitakami would have had 16 per side, Oi a whopping 20 per side. Other ideas included Kaiten human-torpedo motherships (an idea that never worked out), conversion to an AA-cruiser similar to what the Americans planned for the Omahas (this would have seen four twin-3.9-inch mounts installed, along with multiple triple-25mm), but most ships saw only minor modifications before their losses, more often than not to submarines.
Japan's heavy cruisers such as the Myoko and Takao classes were some of the most dangerous warships of the Pacific War. Their light cruisers were... not great. It was a different design philosophy than what other navies had, so it's hard to compare a ship like Nagara to a contemporary like the Southampton or Brooklyn fairly, but they weren't great combatants by any standard- the 5.5" gun wasn't a great weapon, and had almost zero AA capability- it even struggled to turn quickly enough to track a fast-moving surface target. The armor was splinter-worthy only, a direct 4-inch or larger hit would be plenty to wipe out the mount and everyone huddled within. There wasn't much in the way of magazine protection vertically- damage to a turret could easily cause an explosion below. Some didn't even have the ability to carry Long Lance, being stuck with the old 8th-Year design (which wasn't BAD, but removed one of the Japanese navy's most powerful weapons from their repertoire). The 25mm was an awful AA weapon (though that problem was shared across the whole IJN, not just these ships). All in all they were outclassed realistically by late-1930s American destroyers like the Fletcher, let alone other cruisers.
-
Considering the fact that Kuma Class and her other two sister Classes were designed as "destroyer leaders", flagships for the destroyers. Their designs reflected that. IJN didn't scrap them for newer light cruisers, but had to use them for something they were not originally designed for
-
Considering the fact that Kuma Class and her other two sister Classes were designed as "destroyer leaders", flagships for the destroyers. Their designs reflected that. IJN didn't scrap them for newer light cruisers, but had to use them for something they were not originally designed for
They were, and of course on a few occasions early in the war some of them actually got to perform that role (Sendai and Nagara during the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, in particular). Overall though, with the possible exception of Yubari, the Japanese light cruisers- even the wartime construction like the Agano- were just awful for the jobs they ended up having to do. Really, the Omahas weren't a lot better to be fair, but the Americans didn't have to lean on those ships nearly as much thanks to wartime construction.
-
They were, and of course on a few occasions early in the war some of them actually got to perform that role (Sendai and Nagara during the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, in particular). Overall though, with the possible exception of Yubari, the Japanese light cruisers- even the wartime construction like the Agano- were just awful for the jobs they ended up having to do. Really, the Omahas weren't a lot better to be fair, but the Americans didn't have to lean on those ships nearly as much thanks to wartime construction.
Considering that OMaha was supposed to be a scout cruiser, it ended up a leaky sea-boat.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/IJN_DD_Shigure_in_1939.jpg)
One of the great legends of the Japanese navy, the destroyer Shigure regularly was thrown into some of the toughest fighting of the war, and came home every time... which is great if you're aboard Shigure. The problem, of course, is that on three different occasions she was also the only survivor of the force she started with- which isn't so great. Still, she was a celebrated ship for this status in the fleet, and despite her 'curse' it was very popular for IJN forces to have her in their screen.
At Vella Gulf she was the sole survivor out of the four destroyers to enter the engagement, the others all being ruined by torpedo fire. (It was later discovered that she too was hit, but the warhead was a dud!). She was the sole survivor of Nishimura's Southern Force that attempted to interfere with the American invasion of the Philippines as well, then escorted the carrier Unryu when that ship was lost- and the other two destroyers with the carrier were lost shortly after. Shigure seemed to always escape, but always alone. However, that last operation truly was the last for her, torpedoed in January 1945 by the submarine Blackfin and finally lost.
-
The IJN's pre WW2 naval doctrine was kind of similar to the RN in WW1 in regards to its light cruisers. Light Cruisers were tasked with acting as command ships for destroyer flotilla's. As they didn't have too much of an actual empire to patrol, the cruisers were tasked with leading destroyers and together acting as the eyes and a striking arm of the fleet. And following WW2 the IJN instead focused on heavy cruisers and didn't really replace its light cruisers who grew increasingly obsolete especially as the IJN destroyers grew in size until they could happily accomodate a Commander and any staff or extra radio equipment.
But they didn't really change their doctrine, at Midway the IJN's CV's destroyers were lead by the CL Nagara. They did make some more modern CL's but that was using the triple 6-inch turrets off the Mogami and Yamato class ships once they were removed or replaced with a 8-inch guns in the case of the Mogami's.
-
I just got this great book on river gunboats, but it doesn't cover most monitors (which are intended as ocean-going) could anyone recommend a really good book on that subject?
-
Monitors.....fun gunships off the river (nowadays). I think depends on their fire control, Romanian Navy loves these things.
I don't know how effective they are given that their like using tank turret mounted guns as their main batteries.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48588)
-
When you consider what their likely opponents would be (other rivercraft, units crossing bridges, etc.), tank weaponry is probably quite sufficient. I'd think they've planned ahead enough to compensate for things like rough water and such for aiming.
-
Is that a a panzer IV turret on the monitor?
-
Its a 100mm Gun from a Tank. Probably a T-55 Tank. I kinda want a miniature for that Monitor. Its pretty well armed, would be a good unit for a Battletech fight.
-
When you consider what their likely opponents would be (other rivercraft, units crossing bridges, etc.), tank weaponry is probably quite sufficient.
The primary mission was to assault enemy groups that would try to cross the river (amphibious, fording in some places and such), which would have included armored units at least on overwatch. Secondary mission was to provide fire support - both direct and indirect - to own ground units operating on the river shores.
Realistically, they're more like floating tanks for a specific area. The Danube Delta is an insane mess of hundreds or thousands of rivers, lakes and islands all interconnected with each other - and the border runs right along it.
(https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/danube-delta-romania-aerial-view-260nw-1060164635.jpg)
Is that a a panzer IV turret on the monitor?
It's an adapted TR-85 turret, a Romanian evolution of the T-55.
(https://abload.de/img/cg2ag1wj3albjth6aqpah38c9g.jpg)
-
Its a 100mm Gun from a Tank. Probably a T-55 Tank. I kinda want a miniature for that Monitor. Its pretty well armed, would be a good unit for a Battletech fight.
The ye olde Monitor we have the game with twin AC/20s and trinary of SRM2s not good enough? ;)
-
The ye olde Monitor we have the game with twin AC/20s and trinary of SRM2s not good enough? ;)
Given that there are minimal terrain features to hide behind on most watery BT maps, something with a range beyond 9 hexes isn't a terrible idea.
-
The ye olde Monitor we have the game with twin AC/20s and trinary of SRM2s not good enough? ;)
The Romanian monitors come with that turreted medium rifle, what probably counts as an AC/2 on the back deck, four MG in separate turrets and four LRM20.
As in two 40-cell MLRS that retract underdeck for reloading...
I kinda want a miniature for that Monitor.
(https://abload.de/img/48__800x589_9rf79.jpg)
1/350, but should fit in nicely in BT on three hex bases.
-
The Romanian monitors come with that turreted medium rifle, what probably counts as an AC/2 on the back deck, four MG in separate turrets and four LRM20.
As in two 40-cell MLRS that retract underdeck for reloading...
(https://abload.de/img/48__800x589_9rf79.jpg)
The Brutar IIs are nice, but look up the Kogalniceanu for maximum firepower for tonnage. Keep the 100mm tank gun, add a second turret with one aft, keep the two reloadable 122mm 40-shot MRLs...then add two twin-30mm turrets and two quad-14.5mm turrets as well, and Strelas to get rid of pesky aircraft that won't get close enough to your gun nests.
-
1/350 fits in many different ways.
-
I've always swapped the AC/20's for a twin AC/10's and upgrade those 2-Packs to Quads, allowing the use of Infernos or Smoke rounds to be added to the standard HE salvos.
TT
-
Getting new naval combat vehicles in TRO 3075 & 3085 was a gift. We needed couple more vehicles, even their usefulness is rare. Mauna Kea has a AC/10 + LRM15. With variants, with LB-X 10 and another with double LRM15.
The Romanian Monitors sort of remind me of the Mauna Kea.
-
Might be best to start a thread elsewhere for Battletech monitor stats, guys. As interesting as it is (I've built a few customs myself in that regard), let's keep this thread to what it's supposed to be.
-
Cute widdle Bofors stealth cupola
https://zippy.gfycat.com/KlutzyWickedGerbil.webm
-
Cute widdle Bofors stealth cupola
https://zippy.gfycat.com/KlutzyWickedGerbil.webm
Unfriendly link. It wants me to download an app to view
-
Speaking of Kidd, getting back to our happy naval pictures. Named for Rear Admiral Isaac Campbell Kidd, the USS Kidd DDG-993, modified Spurance Class Destroyer variant originally intended for Imperial Iranian Navy, however political shifts allow her and her sister ships to come into the service of the US Navy. The Kidd and her 3 sisterships were blessed with the capablity few ships at time had,to be able to handle the heat of the Gulf with it's fabled A/C and it's uniquely armed Mk26 missile launchers, being only collective Spurance class dedicated to handle enemy aircraft working with newly commissioned Ticondroga Class ships.
She like her sister ships remain in commission in Taiwan's navy, unlike most of the Spurance Class which has been turned into razor blades or artificial reefs with exception of the exPaul Foster, which is now test bed ship.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48604)
USS Kidd DDG-993
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/US_Navy_111117-N-FC670-282_The_decommissioned_Spruance-class_destroyer_ex-Paul_F._Foster_%28EDD_964%29_conducts_a_successful_demonstration_of_shipboard.jpg/1280px-US_Navy_111117-N-FC670-282_The_decommissioned_Spruance-class_destroyer_ex-Paul_F._Foster_%28EDD_964%29_conducts_a_successful_demonstration_of_shipboard.jpg)
exUSS Paul Foster
-
Unfriendly link. It wants me to download an app to view
Hmm works fine for me.
-
Cute widdle Bofors stealth cupola
https://zippy.gfycat.com/KlutzyWickedGerbil.webm
i'm equal amounts impressed at the speed that deployed and dismayed that it looks so much like a small star destroyer.
-
Visby Class Corvette. one of the few 'stealth" warship designs that actually got built.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9f/71/ce/9f71cea145ff1e7d0986a571a86415b2.jpg)
(http://www.marinebuzz.com/marinebuzzuploads/WaterjetsPropelSwedensVisbytoSuccess_126AE/visby_class_equipment.png)
-
Now if we could just get that hangar and SAMs that were supposed to be included... :(
-
https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/battleship-texas-day-at-revolver-brewing-tickets-50781875958
So apparently the first step to preserving a warship is to distribute free beer. Why didn't anyone tell me sooner?!?
-
Well joking here:
If everything is bigger in Texas, it'll be a dingy DDE and 2oz beers elsewhere!
Joking aside, wow :drool: .
TT
-
well it does help to get some corporate sponsorship, even if its just a
small brewery
-
USS Norfolk DL-1. Destroyer Leader, she was flagship for a fleet number times.
(http://destroyerhistory.org/assets/coldwar/dl1norfolk_01.jpg)
She was based on Atlantis Class Light Cruisers, where she where her main role was submarine hunter. The main guns were more gear for anti-aircraft, with 8 3inch guns in four turrets, with new Alpha Weapon system, which was anti-submarine rocket. It was forerunner of the ASROC launchers came along shortly after. She was bit expensive, so the class never got into serial production.
(http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/pix2/05020140.jpg)
-
Hm, I wonder what the text on the side says, let's rota-
shiplaunched nuclear anti-submarine rocket
well isn't that ten gallons of **** you in a five gallon can.
-
Hm, I wonder what the text on the side says, let's rota-
shiplaunched nuclear anti-submarine rocket
well isn't that ten gallons of **** you in a five gallon can.
https://www.lowes.com/projects/images/buying-guides/Paint/sandpaper-buying-guide-inline-grit.jpg
Russian Toilet Paper for that " five gallon can ".
TT
-
shiplaunched nuclear anti-submarine rocket
I get it! Instead of spending all that money on fancy sonars and torpedoes and crap, you toss one of those off every once in a while, and when it goes off any subs in the area get Bakered right out of the water. When they come back down, they're on the surface, so you can use guns and other anti-surface stuff against them. It's just like using birdshot to hunt penguins! :D
-
Don't laugh, it nearly happened in '62. Soviet submarine B-59's CO and political officer both wanted to launch a tipped torp at the US blockade around Cuba, the sub's XO would not agree to the three-man-required launch. Had it happened, that would have been the end of the USS Randolph and most of if not all her escorts.
(http://www.talkingproud.us/Military/SovietFoxtrots/files/sublocationsoct27026.jpg)
-
Don't laugh, it nearly happened in '62. Soviet submarine B-59's CO and political officer both wanted to launch a tipped torp at the US blockade around Cuba, the sub's XO would not agree to the three-man-required launch. Had it happened, that would have been the end of the USS Randolph and most of if not all her escorts.
Thank gaud for that bit of reasoning to a hot head. He could triggered WW3, i can't imagine world be livable place if hat had happened.
I don't think the ships in that era would have been really prepared to fight a war at sea with that sort of fire power. Wasn't nuclear tip torpedoes heavy? They would have had limited range right? I can't image the submarine firing the thing would have gotten far from after firing that. Won't it been effected by the blast in some way?
-
It was a 10kt weapon, and yeah, it was a fire-and-forget weapon...by which I mean 'fire it and forget living past it.' For comparison, Crossroads Baker was a 23kt device vs the Saratoga, though that was also 450 yards away. Had it been a direct hit, what of Randolph wasn't wiped out in the fireball would have reenacted the Arkansas' backflip. And of course, the go order would have been given, and a very short and one-sided (we know now) nuclear war would have broken out.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Russian_Foxtrot_Class_Submarine_B-39_-_panoramio.jpg)
B-59's sister B-39, currently homeported ... in San Diego.
ADMIN EDIT: Fixed your img tag. This has been your daily egregious use of administrator power. Tip your waiter. +Hellbie+
-
The one-sided bit is news to me. Was one nation's arsenal greatly overstated?
-
Iirc at the time the Russian long range nuclear strike capability (bombers and missiles) was smaller than they were leading the world to believe. They were doing things like fly the same squadrons of bombers over parades in loops to make it seem like they had several times more than they did. Similar tactics were being used for shorter ranges nuclear strike as well, though not as extensively since they did have plenty of those, just not as many as they wanted the world to think.
Look up bomber gap and missile gap. It was one of the reasons the U-2 and later A-12/SR-71 were developed, to get better Intel on the actual numbers.
-
Thank gaud for that bit of reasoning to a hot head. He could triggered WW3, i can't imagine world be livable place if hat had happened.
I don't think the ships in that era would have been really prepared to fight a war at sea with that sort of fire power. Wasn't nuclear tip torpedoes heavy? They would have had limited range right? I can't image the submarine firing the thing would have gotten far from after firing that. Won't it been effected by the blast in some way?
There weren't a lot of expectations that the sub would come home from launching a nuclear torpedo... though to be fair, there weren't a lot of expectations that there would be a home to come home to, either. If you're using weaponry of that caliber, the survival of the delivery crew is no longer much of a concern.
That said, the blast doesn't carry through water the way it does through air- the immediate area around an underwater explosion is really something (look up the effect on USS Arkansas at Bikini Atoll sometime), but further out you're in a lot better shape than you would be from an air blast. Not GREAT shape, but better. If you launch from a good ways out, there's at least potential to survive still.
Ah, hell, it's a picture thread. See the dark spot on the water column, on the right side? A moment earlier, that was the mooring spot for Arkansas. A 26,000 ton dreadnought got torn apart in there, flipped on her bow and spun around before being slammed down onto the (briefly exposed) ocean floor. Some of the ships there are worth diving on today, like the Saratoga or Nagato, but Arkansas... not so much. There's not a lot to see other than mangled plating.
(To emphasize, that's likely not the SHIP, but the spot where her bulk blocked the water from flying up, like sticking your hand in a waterfall.)
(https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/archive/tXs8qG7tN4iSBZLTixUh_1082116344.jpeg)
-
Don't laugh, it nearly happened in '62. Soviet submarine B-59's CO and political officer both wanted to launch a tipped torp at the US blockade around Cuba, the sub's XO would not agree to the three-man-required launch. Had it happened, that would have been the end of the USS Randolph and most of if not all her escorts.
(http://www.talkingproud.us/Military/SovietFoxtrots/files/sublocationsoct27026.jpg)
That guy was Vasili Arkhipov who in a different sub was on the K-19 sub that had all the problems that was "loosely" portrayed by Liam Neeson in that K-19 The Widowmaker movie.
-
MTB 102 was the Royal Navy's prototype modern torpedo, and at 48 knots (unladen), possibly the fastest ship in the WWII RN. She also has the distinction of being the smallest RN vessel to serve as a flagship - after the destroyer HMS Keith was cirppled, Rear Admiral Wake-Walker transferred his flag to her to oversee the last few days of Operation Dynamo. She served that same role in the 2017 movie :)
-
The one-sided bit is news to me. Was one nation's arsenal greatly overstated?
The Soviets, yes. They had about 3-500 operational and on-duty warheads at the time of the CMC, compared to 3,500 for the USA. About a hundred of these Soviet weapons were online in Cuba, with delivery systems; another fifty to sixty had no means of getting anywhere (and aren't counted in operational figures.)
For example, in October, the United States had, at its disposal for a large-scale attack on the Soviet Union, over 3,500 “fully generated” nuclear weapons, with a combined yield of approximately 6,300 megatons. At peak alert on November 4, the US Strategic Air Command forces that were ready for employment in retaliatory attacks included 1,479 bombers, 182 ballistic missiles, 2,952 total nuclear weapons, and 1,003 refueling tankers.
The Soviet Union had approximately 42 ICBMs capable of reaching the United States, no SLBMs, a long-range bomber force of 150 Bear and Bison bombers that would have had to face a formidable US-Canadian air-defense system of fighter interceptors with nuclear air-to-air missiles, and BOMARC (Boeing Michigan Aeronautical Research Center) and Nike Hercules surface-to-air missiles. Soviet general Anatoly Gribkov stated that Khrushchev and his military advisers knew “that US strategic nuclear forces outnumbered ours by approximately 17 to 1 in 1962”
The simple math is, "America is hurt but survives intact, Europe generally takes it in the face, and the Soviet Union becomes a distant and unkind memory." Anyway, more ships, namely B-59's target - USS Randolph, which was already slightly famous for picking up Gus Grissom and John Glenn from their first spaceflights in 1961 and '62 respectively.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/96/USS_Randolph_%28CVS-15%29_underway_on_25_October_1959_%28USN_1059601%29.jpg/800px-USS_Randolph_%28CVS-15%29_underway_on_25_October_1959_%28USN_1059601%29.jpg)
-
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/c7e346582f32ab035349d8bdb411337e/tumblr_pgkbymtJYo1s27r5eo1_1280.jpg)
How to utterly ruin a perfectly...okay, not that good, but seriously, this made it worse, battleship! The Marat!
-
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/c7e346582f32ab035349d8bdb411337e/tumblr_pgkbymtJYo1s27r5eo1_1280.jpg)
How to utterly ruin a perfectly...okay, not that good, but seriously, this made it worse, battleship! The Marat!
How so?
Their refits made for ugly boats, for sure, but there's some very utilitarian but effective stuff going on here. The turrets being spaced like that (rather than superfiring like most navies' ships) means that a lucky hit will disable a turret, but likely won't be able to disable more than that without doing catastrophic damage that sinks the ship. Metacentric height is low as well thanks to there not being any raised mounts (and thus heavy turrets/barbettes up higher than the main deck). It means a much longer belt to cover the four magazines and machinery spaced throughout, but this was also a first step into building a dreadnought, and others like the British and Americans made hefty errors early on as well. As refitted dinosaurs went, these weren't bad ships for the second-line roles they served in during WWII.
Marat in particular is interesting, having had #4 gun mount returned to service even after the ship was sunk by dive-bombing. Must have been a hell of an engineering feat to pull that one off.
-
The base design of the Russian Dreadnoughts wasn't bad, the fully armoured hull and the ice breaker bow was intereseting and the hull armour was from the Russian experiences in the Russo-Japanese war but the Soviet refits of it ruined them and made them very poor sea boats due to changes in ballast etc. One sailed to the UK for the Kings Coronation review and she had to put into a French port becuase she suffered significant damage in a storm and even had her bow section stove in. Plus the refit with that structure and bent funnel really did make the ships ugly :s
-
Welcome back, U.S.S. Lexington (CV-2)
(https://www.funker530.com/wp-content/uploads/2-20.jpg)
Edit: Oops. Didn't catch on that this news was months old. Anyways, enjoy another pic of Lady Lex the First. RIP, Paul Allen.
-
There weren't a lot of expectations that the sub would come home from launching a nuclear torpedo... though to be fair, there weren't a lot of expectations that there would be a home to come home to, either. If you're using weaponry of that caliber, the survival of the delivery crew is no longer much of a concern.
That said, the blast doesn't carry through water the way it does through air- the immediate area around an underwater explosion is really something (look up the effect on USS Arkansas at Bikini Atoll sometime), but further out you're in a lot better shape than you would be from an air blast. Not GREAT shape, but better. If you launch from a good ways out, there's at least potential to survive still.
Ah, hell, it's a picture thread. See the dark spot on the water column, on the right side? A moment earlier, that was the mooring spot for Arkansas. A 26,000 ton dreadnought got torn apart in there, flipped on her bow and spun around before being slammed down onto the (briefly exposed) ocean floor. Some of the ships there are worth diving on today, like the Saratoga or Nagato, but Arkansas... not so much. There's not a lot to see other than mangled plating.
(To emphasize, that's likely not the SHIP, but the spot where her bulk blocked the water from flying up, like sticking your hand in a waterfall.)
(https://mymodernmet.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/archive/tXs8qG7tN4iSBZLTixUh_1082116344.jpeg)
A few recentish pictures of whats in Bikini Atoll
http://www.petemesley.com/lust4rust/wreck-trips/bikini-atoll/wrecks/
-
Mark 6 Patrol Boat
(https://www.janes.com/images/assets/885/40885/p1531374.jpg)
https://youtu.be/3CzUsKwOlLg (https://youtu.be/3CzUsKwOlLg)
-
Interesting... that's definitely one way to lay out a small craft cockpit.
-
I just love the fact that they give the Mk38 25mm cannon to the Engineer to operate 8) that would almost have me swapping blue for white.
-
Here is a photo of the HMS QE in NYC!!!
-
I just love the fact that they give the Mk38 25mm cannon to the Engineer to operate 8) that would almost have me swapping blue for white.
The engineer is an enlisted sailor.
-
I just love the fact that they give the Mk38 25mm cannon to the Engineer to operate 8) that would almost have me swapping blue for white.
The engineer is an enlisted sailor.
Would he care as long as he gets to fire that off everytime?
TT
-
I realise that I would have to "work for a living" but it would be a small sacrifice to get control the navalised Bushmaster cannon plus the two water jet engines pushing the patrol boat along at 40 kts.
Although I would probably flunk basic sailor training because I am not a strong swimmer and I tend to do a lot of burley-ing (I believe you Americans call it "chumming") in boats.
-
(I believe you Americans call it "chumming") in boats.
What feed the Sharks er Sea Foxes er Sharks again? ( Pick a name and stay with it alrighty now! )
Oh being friendly, eh two mates a bunk friendly or more drinkin' buddies?
Either way, twas an old naval thing, might still happen nowadays... not any more ( I think :-\ ).
TT
( I've just explored that name burley and got three variants : light brown KY USA tobacco, Manly and Huge-intimidating :o )
-
Shark feeding and I guess that is the other thing, I like to stick with my rule about staying away from environments where I am not the top of the food chain.
-
But the Bushmaster.... ::)
TT
-
( I've just explored that name burley and got three variants : light brown KY USA tobacco, Manly and Huge-intimidating :o )
In the Australian usage of the English language https://www.shimanofish.com.au/content/fish/oceania/au/en/homepage/articles/fishing-with-burley.html (https://www.shimanofish.com.au/content/fish/oceania/au/en/homepage/articles/fishing-with-burley.html)
But the Bushmaster.... ::)
TT
I know . . . tough decisions . . .
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gPSDe4HNN8s/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
Well PM sent...
TT
Oh and a Pic:
(http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/asia/japan/submarines/soryu_class/pictures/16SS_Soryu_class_SS-501_diesel_Electric_Submarine_JMSDF_Japan_002.jpg)
Soryu-class
-
I realise that I would have to "work for a living" but it would be a small sacrifice to get control the navalised Bushmaster cannon plus the two water jet engines pushing the patrol boat along at 40 kts.
Although I would probably flunk basic sailor training because I am not a strong swimmer and I tend to do a lot of burley-ing (I believe you Americans call it "chumming") in boats.
You do realise that the RAAF is there for the individuals who can't take the strict discipline and control of the Australian Public Service right?
Don't need to be a strong swimmer either, provided you can remain with your head above water for 15 minutes in a swimming pool. That's actually a lot harder to do than most people thing though. Don't worry too much about the sea sickness, you get used to it. :)
-
Well you know what they say: "Navy navigate by the stars. Army sleep under the stars. Air Force choose their hotels by the stars" :D
-
Well you know what they say: "Navy navigate by the stars. Army sleep under the stars. Air Force choose their hotels by the stars" :D
Having worked in a Joint HQ, I can attest to the accuracy of that saying too. :-)
That's why we love travelling on AF money, they understand the little things matter.
-
US VetNam Era LCT-6 Landing Craft converted into River Monitors.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48841)
They were largely converted vehicles used by the US Army during the conflict. Some where famous for their nasty "Zippo" Flamers.
It just accrued to me, that Battletech's Monitor craft resemble a landing craft's hull. I wonder if this is where idea of Monitor's appearance came from Vietnam one.
-
US VetNam Era LCT-6 Landing Craft converted into River Monitors.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48841)
They were largely converted vehicles used by the US Army during the conflict. Some where famous for their nasty "Zippo" Flamers.
It just accrued to me, that Battletech's Monitor craft resemble a landing craft's hull. I wonder if this is where idea of Monitor's appearance came from Vietnam one.
The River Battleship!
-
meanwhile the "we took an existing tank turret and built a gunboat for it" fits the Soviet BK series gunboats from WW2. they used T-34 turret, literally one just yanked off the same factory lines that made the tanks. this made them easy to upgrade as well, as by the end of the war they'd gotten an upgrade by the simple expedient of pulling the T-34 turrets in favor of the T-34/85, with its heavier gun.
of course, before WW2 they were using the turrets off the T-28.. i suspect those crews were very happy to get the T-34 turrets in the first place.
there were two main ones. the BK 1124 was a larger vessel that had 10 crew, two tank turrets, as well as a pair of MG's in their own Turret.
(https://weaponsandwarfare.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/bk1124.jpg?w=584)
(http://images32.fotosik.pl/393/6dfccd03f39eae6f.jpg)
there was also an AA gun version replacing the tank turrets with 76.2mm AA guns.
while there was a slightly smaller version (a few feet shorter basically) that had only the one tank turret, the BK1125.
early models had the T-28 turret and both had extra machineguns (7.62mm PB-5 Turrets)
(http://www.o5m6.de/redarmy/img/BK%20pr1125%20Early%20Right_small.jpg)
(http://www.o5m6.de/redarmy/img/BK%20pr1125%20Medium%20Left_small.jpg)
later models (the BKA 1125) added a Katyusha rocket launcher instead of the extra MG's. at the end of the war they had a twin MG turret similar to the 1124 installed as well.
(http://wio.ru/fleet/gal/p1124rs.jpg)
(http://wio.ru/fleet/gal2/s40.jpg)
both types saw a lot of use on the Volga
you could probably do a RL20 variant of the Monitor fairly easily that replicates this type of layout.
btw, if you go on Amazon you can find a 1/350 scale plastic kit for the BKA 1125 made by Zevzda, for less than ten bucks. not sure how it stacks up against an IWM Monitor Mini size wise, but it might be a way to get either a Monitor or a Mauna Kea
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-VmlGp0YuGU4/VO6R_N-sbgI/AAAAAAAAGyw/-JCl4P3mpA4/s1600/armored%2Bboat%2B2.jpg)
(image found here (http://supergalacticdreadnought.blogspot.com/2015/02/new-ogre-unit-armored-boat.html) which doesn't give the size)
-
The Austrian Navy before it was retired in 2006:
(https://abload.de/img/abmlv_noebrecht82i54.jpg)
The main gunboat, A604 Niederösterreich:
(https://abload.de/img/noeinsatz69df4.jpg)
Since the Austrian Navy is a part of its Army, the armament used was entirely Army too. For Niederöstereich, that means that that turret on the superstructure is directly lifted from the IFV version of the SPz Saurer vehicle (carrying a 20mm gun), while the bow mount is directly lifted from the APC version of the SPz Saurer vehicle (carrying a .50cal MG). Other than these, the boat originally carried an army 20mm AA gun on the back deck; this was later replaced with a tripod mount for another .50cal MG on which instead a 84mm Carl Gustav recoilless rifle could also be mounted.
P.S. also note smoke grenade launchers.
-
The Brazilian River Monitor Parnaíba (U17) holds two titles now. She now the oldest active (combat active) commissioned warship in the world and oldest monitor still patrolling the waters.
Commissioned in 1937, was active during World War II and to this today.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48845)
-
The Brazilian River Monitor Parnaíba (U17) holds two titles now. She now the oldest active (combat active) commissioned warship in the world and oldest monitor still patrolling the waters.
Commissioned in 1937, was active during World War II and to this today.
(https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=60593.0;attach=48845)
Freshwater is an excellent preservative. It's why SS Saint Marys Challenger sailed for most of 107 years (there were a few in lay-up) on the Great Lakes. Apparently, as a de-powered barge, she's still plying the sweetwater inland seas.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/St._Marys_Challenger.jpg/1024px-St._Marys_Challenger.jpg)
-
Last week the Canadian Govt signed a deal to buy 15 British Type 26 frigates
Quite a major win for British shipbuilding
-
Last week the Canadian Govt signed a deal to buy 15 British Type 26 frigates
Quite a major win for British shipbuilding
Are they going to be built in Canada? The Brits are pretty desperate to get as many built as possible, they aren't too choosy as to who actually builds them.
On paper the Type 26 is probably the best FFG going at the moment, but there's substantial risk to mitigate due to no extant platforms to test.
-
Last week the Canadian Govt signed a deal to buy 15 British Type 26 frigates
Quite a major win for British shipbuilding
I don't think that's where the torpedo launcher would go. You see the "opening" between Torpedo Defense System and Phalanx CWIS? That would be the best location for the torpedo launcher without a side image.
-
Are they going to be built in Canada? The Brits are pretty desperate to get as many built as possible, they aren't too choosy as to who actually builds them.
On paper the Type 26 is probably the best FFG going at the moment, but there's substantial risk to mitigate due to no extant platforms to test.
No idea about the construction work. But BAE'll take any win I figure, and there'll be some royalty fees too.
This is going to be one of (if not THE) biggest non-American ship classes of the future, with the UK operating 8, Australia 9, and Canada 15.
I don't think that's where the torpedo launcher would go. You see the "opening" between Torpedo Defense System and Phalanx CWIS? That would be the best location for the torpedo launcher without a side image.
That's the boat bay.
So far artists' concepts are placing the tubes aft of the boat bay.
-
Those FFG's kind of remind me of the Lafeyette class.
-
That's the boat bay.
So far artists' concepts are placing the tubes aft of the boat bay.
That's better and it look like its just ahead of the 30mm cannon mount.
-
That properly not going sit well with the domestic shipyards. However, i do wonder if they still retain the ability to build military grade warships beyond size of small Off-Shore Craft.
-
I'm half-betting they're gonna use the same torpedoes that they put on helicopters, with the placement. It'd be right next to the munitions elevators for the hangar, so both can be serviced by the same system. Granted, I'm speculating, but I like my assumptions.
-
Some big sales for the Type 26 already. Good for Canada picking a ship.
-
Can those VLS cells be reloaded from onboard magazines at sea, or once you've fired your 24 SAMs for example, do yuo have to sail home & re-arm?
-
Can those VLS cells be reloaded from onboard magazines at sea, or once you've fired your 24 SAMs for example, do yuo have to sail home & re-arm?
I know the Burkes are able to, but I'm not sure if that's possible for VLS across the board or if that's just an American thing that others haven't worked out (or just haven't needed to- how far are ships like South Korean destroyers really straying from home generally?) Since most VLS systems come in a shipping container that gets loaded into the cell as a one-piece item, it should be as simple as just transferring it over, rigging it to a gantry vertically, and lowering it in- but how capable individual ship types are of that at-sea, I'm not actually sure.
-
No idea about RN or other navy ships. US resupply ships used to be able to do it, but not any more. It was always a difficult operation and less than practical anyway.
http://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2017/08/01/navy-planning-to-bring-back-at-sea-missile-reload-capability/
Currently all VLS cells are only reloadable in port.
(https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/3i-eE-ChJSCyP58JqluQA_XqUzI=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/DTTWVG754NHB7CZTIXELYFJOX4.jpg)
-
Oh? I knew they used to (I saw a video of a Burke doing it years ago) but didn't realize they stopped doing it.
That image does show the container though, so I don't feel like a TOTAL idiot now. ;D
-
Two things I'm noticing, first the water, I don't think you can find flatter water anywhere you can get two Navy ships. Second, that's a loooot of rust behind the CIWS
-
Two things I'm noticing, first the water, I don't think you can find flatter water anywhere you can get two Navy ships. Second, that's a loooot of rust behind the CIWS
Hadn't noticed the rust. Huh. I guess the crew knows what decks and surfaces the chief is too short to see to inspect. ;D
-
I remember a long time ago that the VLS equipped ships had a crane on each end of the ship that was part of the VLS for reloading at sea. From recent pics I'm guessing they don't do that any more. Have they taken the cranes off the older ships? I found a page that looks like it explains what I'm talking about. http://www.tpub.com/gunners/196.htm (http://www.tpub.com/gunners/196.htm)
-
They have, yes. VLS used to be 61 cells - three of the 8x8 magazine slots were filled with the reload crane. Now they just let the supply ships take care of it and run a full 64 launchers.
Can those VLS cells be reloaded from onboard magazines at sea, or once you've fired your 24 SAMs for example, do yuo have to sail home & re-arm?
They can be reloaded, but not from onboard magazines - think of the VLS as the entire magazine, with the ammo pointing out all at once. By comparison, the old Mk 26 two-armed-bandits aboard pre-VLS systems had between 24 and 44 missiles, depending on the hull. Basically you ended up with a better use of the available space, since you don't need a launcher/trainer assembly nor reloading gear; fill that space with More Missiles and just put a big tin hat over the top of it to keep the rain off. Launch as you like.
-
Wasn't the Type 26 Class Frigates cut down to 8 ships domestically for the Royal Navy because they cost too much for them to foot the bill? They were suppose go full swing with the Type 31 light frigates as cheaper alternative, with exports being another way to cut costs using that ship. I remember reading of a Type 27, but i guess they dropped that idea.
-
Pretty much, yes. The UK Defence Budget is in big trouble, mainly because they quietly folded in the entire nuclear deterrent budget into Defence - equivalent to a sudden cut of tens of billions of pounds.
-
I know the Burkes are able to, but I'm not sure if that's possible for VLS across the board or if that's just an American thing that others haven't worked out (or just haven't needed to- how far are ships like South Korean destroyers really straying from home generally?) Since most VLS systems come in a shipping container that gets loaded into the cell as a one-piece item, it should be as simple as just transferring it over, rigging it to a gantry vertically, and lowering it in- but how capable individual ship types are of that at-sea, I'm not actually sure.
Generally speaking it's considered far to dangerous to re-ammunition at sea. Having taken part in a heavy jackstay to transfer a dummy missile from a supply ship to a frigate, I 100% agree with that too. If that had been a real missile, I wouldn't have been on the forecastle. :P
-
The quad pack VLS for the Sea Sparrow do they have to fire all 4 at once or one at a time?
-
The quad pack VLS for the Sea Sparrow do they have to fire all 4 at once or one at a time?
I think they launch one at a time from a sub-cells per tube launcher. Naval Technology (https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/evolved-sea-sparrow-missile-essm/) get's into unclassified description of the thing.
However a youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd2U_jOqzsA) can best show it. From looks of it, single missile is fired in this video. It is a Mk 56 Launcher, vs dedicated launcher like a trainable Mk 29 missile launcher or newer Mk 56/57 VLS launcher which essentially a small vertical launcher version of mk29.
-
The quad pack VLS for the Sea Sparrow do they have to fire all 4 at once or one at a time?
One at a time. I believe in full auto mode typically 2 missiles are fired at 1 target.
-
Given how expensive the missiles are and that unlike in Battletech, missiles are designed to actually kill what they hit with one shot, I'd be surprised if any missile system was designed to launch multiple missiles simultaneously.
-
Given how expensive the missiles are and that unlike in Battletech, missiles are designed to actually kill what they hit with one shot, I'd be surprised if any missile system was designed to launch multiple missiles simultaneously.
sometimes, just sometimes, you want to make it absolutely clear that they're not going to dodge their way past you. xp
-
sometimes, just sometimes, you want to make it absolutely clear that they're not going to dodge their way past you. xp
Given how expensive the missiles are and that unlike in Battletech, missiles are designed to actually kill what they hit with one shot, I'd be surprised if any missile system was designed to launch multiple missiles simultaneously.
Sort of. Traditionally double engagement is only done against targets that are difficult to hit. Bear in mind these are ESSM, not SM2, ESSM is a point defence missile, so if you're firing it, you really don't want to miss, because you won't get another shot.
To answer the question RE one at a time or all at once, it's one at a time, quite a smart system on the whole although entirely evolutionary, as opposed to the parent Mk 41, which was revolutionary at inception.
-
Given how expensive the missiles are and that unlike in Battletech, missiles are designed to actually kill what they hit with one shot, I'd be surprised if any missile system was designed to launch multiple missiles simultaneously.
Oh it comes in handy. Reportedly, purportedly, supposably... ESSM's Pk against a supersonic antiship missile about to ruin your day is such that TPTB prefer to fire 2 missiles. Same for SM2s. Whereas the Aster 15/30 system has better Pk and so is comfortable firing 1 missile.
How true any of that is... ::)
-
Isn't it shoot, shoot, rescan, shoot?
W.
-
They are called "miss-les not hit-les. As proven many many times in warfare what works on paper and maybe even tests don't work in real life.
-
Oh it comes in handy. Reportedly, purportedly, supposedly... ESSM's Pk against a supersonic anti-ship missile about to ruin your day is such that TPTB prefer to fire 2 missiles. Same for SM2s. Whereas the Aster 15/30 system has better Pk and so is comfortable firing 1 missile.
How true any of that is... ::)
Just remember that Pk is provided by the manufacturer.
-
Given how expensive the missiles are and that unlike in Battletech, missiles are designed to actually kill what they hit with one shot, I'd be surprised if any missile system was designed to launch multiple missiles simultaneously.
RAM by design can be used for "sector clearing" against massed targets, firing up to the full 21-cell launcher as a missile stream within 10 seconds. For singular targets it only fires a single missile, but depending on success the launchers will keep putting missiles into the air in set interval until the target is down (typically two with the second fired before the first has intercepted; up to six missiles in defense plans per engagement, in proper installations spread over multiple launchers so as to engage from multiple angles and lower ECM/EW effectiveness).
In the relevant seeker mode for "sector clearing" it is used against massed targets - mostly on the water - with missiles themselves picking out the target that best matches their target spectrum and subsequent missiles switching over onto the next-best target once that one is destroyed. Block 2B, currently under development, includes a missile-to-missile datalink meant to improve coordination within the swarm of missiles in the air in that regard.
-
A guy i knew in the service in the 90s told me of a mishap his ship during a training exercise. I believe it was the Wainwright, if I'm not mistaken, she one of the Belknap Class Guided Missile Cruisers we had in service. She was stationed in Subic Bay in the Philippines at time. The exercise in question, where she had fire a target drone missile from one of it's RIM-2 Terrier Missile launcher so they could do target practice. Essential the idea was to have the drone fly in circle around the ship, this was so the crew could test fire a SM-2 and shoot it down.
Unfortunately, someone made snafu and made the circle to go around the ship whee bit small. So the drone ended up on intercept course for the ship. Apparently there was something was wrong with the Phalanx, so that was down. SO they used the Mark 42 5-inch/54-caliber gun to shoot thing down, which they succeeded. Good thing it was a dumb per-programmed drone!
Mishaps tend to be made classified, but it's been long enough since its ok talk about it. I wasn't there, so i got no way prove it didn't happen, but the guy i spoke to was fairly straight forward guy.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/USS_Wainwright_%28CG-28%29.jpg/1280px-USS_Wainwright_%28CG-28%29.jpg)
-
Isn't it shoot, shoot, rescan, shoot?
W.
There's multiple firing patterns in doctrine, shoot, shoot look, shoot look shoot, that sort of thing. It all depends on how your doctrine is written, as to how many of what you will fire when and in what order.
-
RAM by design can be used for "sector clearing" against massed targets, firing up to the full 21-cell launcher as a missile stream within 10 seconds.
Has anyone ever live fire tested that?
I mean, anyone wanting to blow like 20 Bugatti Veyrons in 10 seconds...
-
When you take into account the cost of amo, it is hard to considered real life weapons firing tests without your head spinning.
-
Kinda hard to know it'll work without lobbing a few of them, and seeing the effect on a target helps you build stronger hardware. A good shoot-ex has lots of valuable data for everyone all around, unless you're an unfortunate Tomcat pilot.
-
(https://images2.alphacoders.com/196/196560.jpg)
http://www.cv6.org/ship/damage/default.htm
Man she took so much beating in the Pacific War.
-
(https://images2.alphacoders.com/196/196560.jpg)
http://www.cv6.org/ship/damage/default.htm
Man she took so much beating in the Pacific War.
And she kept coming back for more...any wonder she had the most battle stars of any US warship in that war, and almost as many as you could possibly get for the Pacific War?
Ruger
-
RAM by design can be used for "sector clearing" against massed targets, firing up to the full 21-cell launcher as a missile stream within 10 seconds. For singular targets it only fires a single missile, but depending on success the launchers will keep putting missiles into the air in set interval until the target is down (typically two with the second fired before the first has intercepted; up to six missiles in defense plans per engagement, in proper installations spread over multiple launchers so as to engage from multiple angles and lower ECM/EW effectiveness).
In the relevant seeker mode for "sector clearing" it is used against massed targets - mostly on the water - with missiles themselves picking out the target that best matches their target spectrum and subsequent missiles switching over onto the next-best target once that one is destroyed. Block 2B, currently under development, includes a missile-to-missile datalink meant to improve coordination within the swarm of missiles in the air in that regard.
Has anyone ever live fire tested that?
I mean, anyone wanting to blow like 20 Bugatti Veyrons in 10 seconds...
i suspect it got tested during development. wouldn't be hard to go to White Sands, set up the RAM mount on a testing stand, and launch test missiles at it.
i doubt it has ever been tried in the field under combat conditions.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/USS_Laffey_%28DD-459%29.jpg)
USS Laffey, a Benson Class Destroyer. She was noted for her service in the pacific theater during World War II.
She was noted on her first major outing of rescuing the survivors from her flagship, USS Wasp. Her most noted actions was during the Battle of Guadalcanal. This would be her final campaign, where she fought in the Battleship Hiei head on, gave all it could against the battlewagon, injuring the Japanese Task Force's commander which would cause the Taskforce itself to be unable coordinate it's efforts properly.. Eventually, the Hiei got a hit with her 14 inch guns on the Laffey's fantail, it lead to the ship being abandoned.
-
Mildly surprised she still had a fantail after taking a 14" salvo...
-
that may well be why the crew finally abandoned her. when half your ship is suddenly missing, it tends to be a big GTFO signal..
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/46/USS_Laffey_%28DD-459%29.jpg)
USS Laffey, a Benson Class Destroyer. She was noted for her service in the pacific theater during World War II.
She was noted on her first major outing of rescuing the survivors from her flagship, USS Wasp. Her most noted actions was during the Battle of Guadalcanal. This would be her final campaign, where she fought in the Battleship Hiei head on, gave all it could against the battlewagon, injuring out the Japanese Task Force's commander. Eventually, the Hiei got a hit with her 14 inch guns on the Laffey's fantail, it lead to the ship being abandoned.
http://www.laffey.org/uss_laffey_dd_459.htm
-
Special K continues to special on...
(https://i.postimg.cc/xC2Mdg2J/Special-K.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g2xvtnsJ/Special-K-2.jpg)
-
If ships were football teams, the Special K would be the Cleveland Browns. ;D
-
Well that will take a while to sort out. Someone dock's prematurely or it just in bad repair like everything else we ever think of Russia's infrastructure.
-
Well that will take a while to sort out. Someone dock's prematurely or it just in bad repair like everything else we ever think of Russia's infrastructure.
The poor Russian Navy. Trying to get things going again and then that happens.
-
I'll take 'what isn't going freaking anywhere for a year' Alex. If she was on a drydock, was she undergoing hull repairs? There's a number of short scaffolds and at least one crane set up all below the waterline, clearly not expecting the ship to hit water anytime soon. Opened hull?
And if PD-50 went down with any sort of list or pitch, then...yikes.
Found this: "A power outage has been blamed for the incident in the northern city of Murmansk which left a four by five metre hole in the ship above the waterline."
-
If she was on a drydock, was she undergoing hull repairs?
They were probably installing the "new" boilers that were supposedly delivered in September.
-
Apparently Kuznetsov wasn't opened up at the time, but a power failure killed the pumps used in the drydock ship and it's completely submerged. Kuznetsov herself has been towed to another yard in Murmansk, "repairs will continue" says Sputnik news. One person from PD-50 is missing, unspecified whether one of her sailors or a workman or someone else.
-
The Type 001A (improved Kuznetsov) took the Chinese shipyards around 5 years to build and outfit her. I suspect they could just make a new one faster/cheaper than the Kuznetsov can be 'fixed'. I suspect part of the problem with the Kuznetsov is where the unexpected shipyard incident occurred - that's way up north. Like... over the top of Finland north. It's a long way around to the Black Sea or Vladivostok and there's a long history of bad things happening to very large ships under tow.
-
I was trying find a scary warship or something for Halloween post here.
USS Independence comes up! That made me laugh. The guy who wrote it up when the ship came in for refueling, said it was "Big, Scary-Looking Navy Ship Refueling in Humboldt Bay"
(https://lostcoastoutpost.com/media/uploads/post/7377/IMG_1153.JPG)
I didn't find this ship scary looking.
-
If I was in charge of painting and preserving that thing, I'd be scared...
-
Paint it yellow and it'd look like a giant metal banana.
-
In my first liberty port, Thessaloniki, Greece, I was asked by a local if I had come from the battleship. I embarked on USS OAK HILL (LSD-51).
-
Paint it yellow and it'd look like a giant metal banana.
(http://mariafresa.net/newimages/banana-clipart-minion-banana-13.jpg)
-
I was trying find a scary warship or something for Halloween post here.
USS Independence comes up! That made me laugh. The guy who wrote it up when the ship came in for refueling, said it was "Big, Scary-Looking Navy Ship Refueling in Humboldt Bay"
Maybe the writer's seen the accounting ;D
-
As a tangent inspired by certain other games: Can anyone recommend some good naval gaming rules?
Nothing ovetly complex, beer and pretzels level. Looking at something that could get a decent sized fleet battle done in 2-3 hours at most. A summary of their base mechanics would be appreciated, too.
-
Naval Command is pretty good.
Detection is pretty simple. You roll a die, add your radar stat(if you've gone active) and maybe a situational modifier or two, and if you've beaten your target's EW stat, you've detected him and can now shoot. Shooting is much the same, with a single die roll plus a couple modifiers for weapon quality and situation trying to beat that same EW stat to lock on to the target. Finally, the target tries to shoot down your shot, rolling a die plus modifiers and trying to beat the missile' defense value. If that last roll fails, you hit and do damage. Airstrikes function almost exactly the same way, with a few different modifiers to show the difference. Detection and misdirection are huge parts of the game, and once the missiles stat flying, things happen FAST. Deciding when to go active with your sensors is almost always a white-knuckle decision. Despite all that, it's very much a game first and simulation second, with playability taking precedence over detail accuracy.
It's available on Wargamevault, and the author's website has complete stats for a lot of navies.
-
Why no, I can't get enough of Slava-class cruisers, why?
Lookit all them doodads stuffed all over the ship though.
-
I've always liked the Slava class cruiser. Lots of angry firepower on that ship.
-
HMS Viking, the RN's only 6-stack destroyer.
-
Was there reason why there was so many stacks on the early 20th century ships? Due to placement of the engine rooms?
-
I assume it is a stack per a boiler furnace.
-
I assume it is a stack per a boiler furnace.
Pretty much, mostly though it's because of the distance between furnaces. Modern ships use smaller engines which can generally be co-located, meaning you can actually have more than one exhaust pipe in a single stack, reducing the number of stacks. Old ships not so much, they'd run their boilers and furnaces sequentially down the ships centre line, with a stack above each one.
Insulation, fuel and engine technologies have come a long way, not even counting new types of engine like the GTRB or nuclear heat generation, a modern boiler is half the size of a turn of the century boiler of equivalent power. Smaller engines, closer together use need stacks.
-
Old ships not so much, they'd run their boilers and furnaces sequentially down the ships centre line, with a stack above each one.
Actually it was typically one stack per boiler room, sometimes with one stack for two adjacent boiler rooms. The 3-5 boiler rooms on such ships then each had 3-4 boilers mounted in them. The reason why you had this arrangement was that cruisers at that time typically grouped each boiler room with an adjacent machinery room, and the next boiler room would only come behind that. This was done for redundancy against battle damage at the time.
Post-WW1 this arrangement was given up, and you basically had a group of boiler rooms and behind them a group of machinery rooms. The exhaust from all adjacent boiler rooms could then be more easily routed through a single stack. The reason for the new arrangement was to save weight, which was typically then placed in additional armor. The new arrangement also required less space in ship length. The downside of it was that there were increasingly cruisers with only 2 boiler rooms which then in theory could be taken out entirely by hitting exactly the bulkhead between the two boiler rooms.
The one exception to giving up this arrangement was Britain, which kept the original redundancy arrangement except for five single-stack cruisers of the Leander class built from 1929; the last three of the class were completed with redundancy arrangement and two stacks. Hence why their WW2 cruisers built in the 30s typically still had 2 or 3 stacks.
That the size and number of the boilers was largely irrelevant in this development was largely irrelevant can be seen with Japanese cruisers btw - they kept using larger numbers of small boilers, but grouped their rooms together and rearranged the machinery rooms in front and behind them.
-
Actually it was typically one stack per boiler room, sometimes with one stack for two adjacent boiler rooms. The 3-5 boiler rooms on such ships then each had 3-4 boilers mounted in them. The reason why you had this arrangement was that cruisers at that time typically grouped each boiler room with an adjacent machinery room, and the next boiler room would only come behind that. This was done for redundancy against battle damage at the time.
Post-WW1 this arrangement was given up, and you basically had a group of boiler rooms and behind them a group of machinery rooms. The exhaust from all adjacent boiler rooms could then be more easily routed through a single stack. The reason for the new arrangement was to save weight, which was typically then placed in additional armor. The new arrangement also required less space in ship length. The downside of it was that there were increasingly cruisers with only 2 boiler rooms which then in theory could be taken out entirely by hitting exactly the bulkhead between the two boiler rooms.
The one exception to giving up this arrangement was Britain, which kept the original redundancy arrangement except for five single-stack cruisers of the Leander class built from 1929; the last three of the class were completed with redundancy arrangement and two stacks. Hence why their WW2 cruisers built in the 30s typically still had 2 or 3 stacks.
That the size and number of the boilers was largely irrelevant in this development was largely irrelevant can be seen with Japanese cruisers btw - they kept using larger numbers of small boilers, but grouped their rooms together and rearranged the machinery rooms in front and behind them.
Heh, waddaya know. I just remember seeing the old Kent (County) class Australia, DC diagrams she was a beautiful ship, but her boiler rooms were all sequentially arranged, one after the other with a machinery room aft of them, except for no 2 boiler room, which was the other way around. Each boiler room had a stack above it, the machinery spaces used pretty much all of the below decks space right in the middle of the ship. Looking at the spec I'd say there were two boilers and furnaces mounted in each room. Seems pretty typical of 1930s British design.
Photo just for stamps
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/73/HMAS_Australia_Oct_1937_SLV_straightened.jpg/2560px-HMAS_Australia_Oct_1937_SLV_straightened.jpg)
-
how does that all compare to modern conventionally powered ships? i know that Diesels replaced steam on some of the smaller ships, but the big ones still use oil fired boilers, feeding steam turbines.
unrelated question (though all deriving from some research i've been doing for an RPG writing project), some of the Kitty Hawk class of carriers had an ASW sonar mounted in the bow (the AN/SQS-23 sonar, according to wikipedia). since the ships didn't mount torpedoes or other anti-submarine weaponry as far as i can tell, what was the point of giving them an ASW focused sonar?
and if they had been equipped with torpedo launchers or ASROCs or whatever, would the combo even be useful for ASW work, given the size of the carrier?
-
how does that all compare to modern conventionally powered ships? i know that Diesels replaced steam on some of the smaller ships, but the big ones still use oil fired boilers, feeding steam turbines.
unrelated question (though all deriving from some research i've been doing for an RPG writing project), some of the Kitty Hawk class of carriers had an ASW sonar mounted in the bow (the AN/SQS-23 sonar, according to wikipedia). since the ships didn't mount torpedoes or other anti-submarine weaponry as far as i can tell, what was the point of giving them an ASW focused sonar?
and if they had been equipped with torpedo launchers or ASROCs or whatever, would the combo even be useful for ASW work, given the size of the carrier?
Most modern ships are gas fired turbines or large two stroke diesels.
-
Naval Command is pretty good.
It's available on Wargamevault, and the author's website has complete stats for a lot of navies.
I was looking for more WWII oriented rules, but that looks to be worth a look too.
Anyone else?
-
I was looking for more WWII oriented rules, but that looks to be worth a look too.
Anyone else?
Naval Thunder is WW 2, with an expansion for WW 1 and interwar. Including stats for the Lexington-class BCs.
-
The USS Ranger, sailing gunship/training/survey ship built in 1876. She had a long life and a lot of names! Most her career she was the Ranger, while during First World War within year she was renamed Rockport and the Nantucket to name few while she was in commission, she would become the TV Emery Rice in 1940 as training ship for civilians officers. She sadly was decommissioned and scrapped in 1958, after becoming a museum ship.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/USS_Ranger_%281876%29.jpg)
This is image of her while she was anchor off the coast of California near Mare Island Navy Yard in 1899.
Fortunately, her unique 61 ton compound back-acting type Steam Engine was preserved and American Merchant Marine Museum in Kings Point. She certainly beautiful ship, same rest her wasn't preserved.
-
Must be the BT board or looking at the image on my phone, but at first I thought it had a wolf head on a black background in the upper sail.
-
Must be the BT board or looking at the image on my phone, but at first I thought it had a wolf head on a black background in the upper sail.
I see a stylized cute doggo with its tongue hanging out
-
how does that all compare to modern conventionally powered ships? i know that Diesels replaced steam on some of the smaller ships, but the big ones still use oil fired boilers, feeding steam turbines.
unrelated question (though all deriving from some research i've been doing for an RPG writing project), some of the Kitty Hawk class of carriers had an ASW sonar mounted in the bow (the AN/SQS-23 sonar, according to wikipedia). since the ships didn't mount torpedoes or other anti-submarine weaponry as far as i can tell, what was the point of giving them an ASW focused sonar?
and if they had been equipped with torpedo launchers or ASROCs or whatever, would the combo even be useful for ASW work, given the size of the carrier?
The sonar could be used to vector and ASW Helo in on target, or just to avoid the submarine. Most likely though, it was just to be able to energise the water, pump enough sonic energy into the water and you will find the submarine.
You don't need to be able to attack the sub for there to be benefit in knowing where it is. Since the carriers all had data link, they can transmit the position of submarines to other ships for those ships and helos to take out.
-
unrelated question (though all deriving from some research i've been doing for an RPG writing project), some of the Kitty Hawk class of carriers had an ASW sonar mounted in the bow (the AN/SQS-23 sonar, according to wikipedia). since the ships didn't mount torpedoes or other anti-submarine weaponry as far as i can tell, what was the point of giving them an ASW focused sonar?
According to a quick Google, USS America of the class was the only psot WW2 US aircraft carrier to ever mount a sonar, so it was certainly out of the ordinary.
The SQS-23 was a very large, very long range sonar that escort frigates had trouble fitting on and outranged all ASW weapons of the time. Think the Light Gauss Rifle of sonars. Hence at the time it was perhaps a thought in the minds of TPTB, hey, why not stick one on. We've lots of space and it just might find something the escorts missed.
Bear in mind that this was in the era where the Kitty Hawk-class were still firing Terrier SAMs and the sonar used vacuum tubes.
But it never did amount to much and the sonar was removed later. There endeth the Great Carrier Sonar Experiment.
-
Only CVA-66 USS America actually carried the sonar. JFK carried the dome, but no sonar inside.
It was supposedly intended to improve discovery of the quieter Soviet November class SSNs being commissioned during its building time, and was planned as a wider fleet rollout (it was part of FRAM II for the Essex carriers, with 8 units receiving the sonar dome but not the sonar) but basically aborted with only the America installation ever tested. Factually it was replaced with ASCAC in the early 70s, an analysis center for underwater threats merging information from other ships and in particular sonars carried and sonobuoys dropped by ASW units within the carrier air wing (after they transitioned from attack carriers to multi-mission).
The SQS-23 sonar was the same unit that FRAM I already installed on 79 Gearing class destroyers.
-
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/4dddc084632749e6deacbb641cece062/tumblr_phgzi9Rm7o1wxt13jo1_1280.jpg)
-
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/4dddc084632749e6deacbb641cece062/tumblr_phgzi9Rm7o1wxt13jo1_1280.jpg)
Not seen: The helmsman of the newer ship flipping off the older one while leaning on the ship's horn as he passes, because the geezer won't stay in the slow lane.
-
That looks like all my battles in Civilation when you have such a huge tech advantage.
-
That looks like all my battles in Civilation when you have such a huge tech advantage.
Dammit! Why doesn't this website have a like button.
-
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/4dddc084632749e6deacbb641cece062/tumblr_phgzi9Rm7o1wxt13jo1_1280.jpg)
Obligatory can't-let-the-frogs-get-the-better-of-us
(https://i.postimg.cc/V6qgLm8d/45351006-969a7c2c-640.jpg)
-
Not seen: The helmsman of the newer ship flipping off the older one while leaning on the ship's horn as he passes, because the geezer won't stay in the slow lane.
Sail before steam!
Obligatory can't-let-the-frogs-get-the-better-of-us
(https://i.postimg.cc/V6qgLm8d/45351006-969a7c2c-640.jpg)
Here we see the Type 45 in it's natural environment of tied up to a quay waiting for engine repairs...
-
I like the aquatic Ogre next to the aircraft carrier ...
-
That looks like all my battles in Civilation when you have such a huge tech advantage.
At that range I would put my money on the sailing ship.
-
Only if the first broadside (of 12, it looks like) manages to hit the bridge. Otherwise, the range will rapidly open.
-
Only if the first broadside (of 12, it looks like) manages to hit the bridge. Otherwise, the range will rapidly open.
If that first broadside doesn't hit them, there's also the 20mm cannon and 12.7mm guns, a quick few bursts from the former will probably take out most of the gun crews.
-
That is a great photo.
-
Not seen: The helmsman of the newer ship flipping off the older one while leaning on the ship's horn as he passes, because the geezer won't stay in the slow lane.
Is "Steam gives way to sail" no longer part of the laws of navigation? ;)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/43/33/3b/43333bb343c73e5b94f0958dc63f34bf--amerigo-aircraft-carrier.jpg)
-
Is "Steam gives way to sail" no longer part of the laws of navigation? ;)
It never was, the International Law of the Sea only states that the more maneuverable vessel is the give way vessel when the navigation tracks of the two vessels intersect.
So, if your sailing vessel is a yacht, and the other vessel is a Very Large Container Carrier, then you're to maneuver to avoid collision, as it is highly likely the VLCC is constrained in any meeting you will have.
-
Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen-class frigate HNoMS Helge Ingstad collided with the tanker Sola this morning and subsequently ran aground in order to prevent her from sinking. All 137 crewmembers have been evacuated.
But it looks seriously dire. If it's not a write-off, this looks like years worth of yard time.
Latest pic she's almost completely on her starboard side.
(https://i.postimg.cc/YSJ3GL2N/Jd9oj6-X475-Y7h4-Wh-KQIdw-Jbct-5i-El-Xc-NGA1uhso-Ki8.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3wkNdd1/XN33ROj.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/90Xqrc9t/1WrHXli.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zvdHh4Sm/Dre-WC6-YUw-AA-bc5.jpg)
-
Strip her clean of weapons and advanced tech as that ship appears to be a write-off. That gash on the side looks like a killing blow. I would feel sorry for the ship(s) that might attempt to recover her and tow her back for repairs.
-
Looks like it's going to turn turtle
-
Ow. Yeah, that's... not so good.
-
A little perspective. Looks properly beached now. Hopefully it is stabilised. Work now underway on managing the oil spill.
Skjold-class boat on the lower left corner.
-
Ouch.
It's not funny enough for a joke about Norwegians even thought I'm Swedish... :(
-
How the hell did they manage to ram a supertanker who had the right of way/traffic in calm seas?
The ship is being bolted to the sea ground to keep it from slipping away further, but it should be pretty salvagable and repairable according to the Navy. They steered/towed it to the shallows once the accident had happened and they thought it would sink.
-
I have feeling someone fell asleep at the wheel.
I don't think this guy...
(https://static.vesselfinder.net/ship-photo/9724350-248020000-50e2f6ceb6afb2141b8791f434b3917d/1)
Solo TS would have been hard to avoid..
-
I'm beginning to suspect that maritiming is a LOT harder than any of us imagine, even in good conditions.
-
The Norwegian coast is pretty notorious for strong currents and winds. It might just have been bad luck in a narrow passage.
-
The area where it happened is over 5km wide. No shaols or anything, you can see the marked area on the map attached - depths are 100+ meters.
Weather was clear with 11 m/s winds. Ie normal autumn weather.
-
All 137 crewmembers have been evacuated.
127 left the ship on her liferafts, the remaining ten (incl. the captain) stayed onboard for another two hours until she was beached.
How the hell did they manage to ram a supertanker who had the right of way/traffic in calm seas?
Even worse, in one version of the story (there's a couple by now, and none by the Navy itself) they apparently managed to slip inbetween the tanker and the tugboat that was towing it out of the fjord.
It's also notable that different sources give different times for the accident - between 4:03 am and 4:26 am. The frigate turned on AIS at 4:03 am according to the Navy.
-
The timeline is pretty clear - at 04:03 the naval resurce service recieves a message that a frigate and tanker had collided. At 04:04 the frigate turned on AIS (automatic identification system) and is stationary, at 04:11 the frigate send an emergency message to the naval rescue service about the collision.
-
Is that normal procedures for this? The American collisions happened in early morning as well.
-
I find it interesting that warships seem to make a habit of sailing without AIS. Do combat aircraft typically fly with their transponders off? I know the Brits were annoyed with one of the Russian visiting flights a year or two ago because they had their transponders off, so were effectively invisible to ATC
-
AIS is not mandatory for warships, only for civilian ships above 300 tons.
Considering the information sent over AIS I can see why the military isn't running with it on. It would make an ambush very easy to accomplish. Also can give into on the capabilities of said ships and their full locations.
-
The Russians military is rather notorious for flying with transponders off even for completely routine missions...
Wasn't the Norwegian ship part of the big NATO exercise? Might have been the reason the AIS was off. Also just read that witnesses claims the frigate was drifting before the collision. Unconfirmed, but technical failure would explain it.
-
Is that a recent pic Wrangler? Cause if not it looks like it's got some damage on the port side of the very front of the bow.
-
AIS is not mandatory for warships, only for civilian ships above 300 tons.
Considering the information sent over AIS I can see why the military isn't running with it on. It would make an ambush very easy to accomplish. Also can give into on the capabilities of said ships and their full locations.
I'm surprised it's not required in friendly waters and harbours when not at war footing I can understand it in open waters but how long will it be until this happens to a passenger ferry of some sorts and the loss of life is considerable
-
Is that a recent pic Wrangler? Cause if not it looks like it's got some damage on the port side of the very front of the bow.
Old pic, there has been pictures on the news here about the ship post-collision where you can see clear damage to it's starboard anchor mount and above it. So it seems it almost hit the frigate head on, and it's anchor mount and anchor ripped the ship a new one.
-
Ever since USS Cole, i suspect all warships have to treat heavy traffic waters as potential threat zones, which means going dark.
-
Also can give into on the capabilities of said ships and their full locations.
You don't really need AIS for that. There's enough "oceanographic ships", "fleet service boats" and "fishing trawlers" - at least in this particular theater.
Ever since USS Cole, i suspect all warships have to treat heavy traffic waters as potential threat zones, which means going dark.
European ships generally (!) go dark upon entering any mission theater. Transfers are done lit.
-
I'm very pleased the crew are all ok - we should be able to make jokes soon
I'm currently trying to work out something about needing to reinstate the old punishments for falling asleep on watch...
4am is when your physiology is at its lowest point (eg cortisol levels) so I'm not surprised that is when ships see the most accidents, I think it is when most problems happen due to human error type issues generally and it is also known as a time people often "slip away" (or die as we might put it more bluntly)
-
I'm surprised it's not required in friendly waters and harbours when not at war footing I can understand it in open waters but how long will it be until this happens to a passenger ferry of some sorts and the loss of life is considerable
This has cropped up a couple of times with the US Navy recently. They run with it in receive only mode for operational security according to more than one article. Something came out not too long ago that they are to use the full AIS now in high traffic areas.
-
That hull damage doesn't look too bad at first glance - it's a lot of hull plate ripped off, of course, but the hit doesn't seem to be all that deep into her side. Wide and tall, but shallow; much of the innards should be structurally intact. Compare that to the penetrating hit on Cole. Interesting that 127 of her crew got off in boats, and ten stayed aboard to manage the beaching - that strongly suggests injuries were miniscule, if any, and further suggests the impact damage wasn't all that hard.
Flooding on the other hand, well, that's a different situation as low as she is at the stern, but at least her most pricey bits on the superstructure seem to have stayed out of the water.
-
I'm very pleased the crew are all ok - we should be able to make jokes soon
I'm currently trying to work out something about needing to reinstate the old punishments for falling asleep on watch...
I'd suggest keel-hauling the scurvy bilge-rat, but at the current state of the ship that's not quite the punishment it used to be...
-
Let's get back to pictures.
USS Cairo then
(https://www.marineinsight.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/160599.jpg)
and now
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AvCOzxKSFT0/SGqJlHBqMtI/AAAAAAAACmg/Kg6E4pv4N3M/s1600/Mississippi+261.jpg)
-
That's a cool display
-
I understand leaving her like that, but I'd love to see a fully restored vessel someday.
I love the City-class. No clue why, but every so often my brain likes to inflict upon me a repeating mental image of one of these cruising down the river while(somehow) blasting the area with Abba.
-
What i have read is her condition is worsting being still open air like she is. I hope they do inclose the ship so they keep her from deteriorating more.
-
Something similar to Vasa?
-
I love the City-class. No clue why, but every so often my brain likes to inflict upon me a repeating mental image of one of these cruising down the river while(somehow) blasting the area with Abba.
Representative of the type, aren't they? Any tune in particular?
-
Take a Chance On Me.
No clue why my brain links that song to Civil War gunboats. I don't even know the lyrics, aside from that one line! :bang:
-
Ever since USS Cole, i suspect all warships have to treat heavy traffic waters as potential threat zones, which means going dark.
Being run over by commercial traffic is also a rather non-trivial threat. Arguably, being run over by a supertanker is going to cause far more damage than anything that will fit on a speedboat.
It's analogous to jaywalking while wearing a cloak of invisibility. :D
Speaking of invisibility... various missile boats/corvettes
Taiwan's so far only Tuo Chiang class corvette (567t full load)
(https://i1.wp.com/taiwanenglishnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/tuochiang.jpg)
China's Type 022 missile boat. I swear there's something about that super-intense blue in the colour scheme that seems to blow out the saturation of the photos until they look like were taken with a 40 year old point-and-shoot (83 in service, 224t full load)
(http://www.globalmil.com/uploads/allimg/100409/1-1004091HT5.jpg)
Finnish Hamina class fast attack craft (4 in service, 250t)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.defender.hr/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/9f1bba71e2428457372b6b31ef8d634f.jpg)
Norwegian Skjold class corvette/FAC (6 in service, 274t full load)
(https://preview.redd.it/dp8rxkiv8ndz.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=f3b3205c4a769f5e9c1f5871f339ad58efe39abc)
Swedish Visby class corvette (5 in service, 640t)
(https://external-preview.redd.it/K-IlvjI7onT09V1YH1nFgDA_caJR4MLcuZO_cQXh4hQ.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=5586159934b4f8f1244a4c6dc6e3659a366d2ccc)
I noticed that for supposedly stealthy ships, they all have a bunch of dangly bits that would greatly increase RCS
-
How about this photo of Norway FFG Helge Ingstad after collision with a Tanker and the crew ran aground so it wouldn't sink and to get the crew off.
-
if your stealth is too good, you end up an unnatural flat spot against the background noise from the sea surface. plus they aren't really aiming for invisibility so much as just looking smaller/different than they are.
-
I noticed that for supposedly stealthy ships, they all have a bunch of dangly bits that would greatly increase RCS
Stealth is relative. One of the most common joint exercises between corvette squadrons in the Baltic consists of German boats sneaking into a maneuver zone, firing missiles at multiple Visbys and then trying to get out of the upsurging network.
Norwegian Skjold with CVN75 during Trident Juncture:
(https://abload.de/img/skjoldpscqd.jpg)
-
I guess, if you can't afford to build subs enmasse, build little stealthy ships.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AvCOzxKSFT0/SGqJlHBqMtI/AAAAAAAACmg/Kg6E4pv4N3M/s1600/Mississippi+261.jpg)
If they could properly run a building around it, then partially restore the thing with the armor on one side, and a little on the other, but leave the rest skeletal like that, it'd be a fantastic museum. Seeing just how thick and sturdy the protection was, while exploring the construction and actual function of the ship on the other side would be amazing - and doing demonstrations of gun handling and whatnot for all the spectators to see on the outside of the ship, maybe with a little popper firework to get a wee puff of smoke out of it.
-
83 Type 022 missile boats??? Good grief, those things fire in mass i don't care how good your anti-missile systems are, their going take someone down with enough those force multipliers for missiles.
-
Meanwhile, Special K is kill.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/11/russia-admits-that-it-cant-retrofit-aircraft-carrier-after-accident/ (https://thediplomat.com/2018/11/russia-admits-that-it-cant-retrofit-aircraft-carrier-after-accident/)
They don't have a berth anywhere big enough for the ship, PD-50 can't be raised without at a year's work and significant foreign help, and there's no way to repair the damage without that drydock. Rumor I hear from USN friendos is that the hull's penetrated just above the waterline, so no going into open seas or else the flooding will become a major problem. They can't really move it, apparently, and they don't have anyplace to put it without building a whole new port just for Kuznetsov.
I'd say she's done.
-
She's not entering service anytime remotely soon, but the Russians have been willing to put a hull back into service after it's been rotting for a decade or two.
I'd say even odds.
-
True, though (rule 4 skirting) at the time she was rebuilt oil prices were skyrocketing and Russian exports were funding the hell out of a lot of things. Nowadays, not so much, and they've been tightening the belt across the board. If things change, and assuming she doesn't sink from that hole in her side, then yeah they'll push her back in service but that's going to require a LOT of investment. National pride and all, though, being able to power project is a big thing.
Personally I'd abandon it, focus on the submarines, and start sacrificing children to Bereginia or Vodianoy. Seriously, the Russian naval history is...well, someone's gotta be the far end of the bell curve.
-
Strip and scrap the K, buy a new one off the Chinese.
-
The irony in that is enough to jumpstart Khrushchev himself from the grave...
-
Indeed. The wheel turns and turns.
I'm reminded of the Kirov class, Admiral Nakhimov they have in the yard for refit. And it's a hell of a refit, practically gutted the Cold War era insides for new stuff, seem to have even cut off and rebuilt the bow and other hull sections.
Thing is, it's such a big rebuild it's practically a new ship. One wonders if a new ship might as well have been built. Ditto for Special K...
(https://i.postimg.cc/DyVM8V6h/q-60-url-https-s3-amazonaws-com-the-drive-staging-message-edi.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/9QCgYGsN/atom-cruizer.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/qqKDjQkW/DBf-ON7-SWs-AAd-FU0.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/4NbByYnv/Russia-Admiral-Nakhimov-Cruise-CGN-Upgrade.jpg)
-
Holy crap, it looks like they's taken the ship down it's hull plates trying rebuild it.
I don't like the Russian's behavior over the years, be interesting if their military may try pursue the Storm Class Carrier they had been showing model of. Their going need something.
-
Holy crap, it looks like they's taken the ship down it's hull plates trying rebuild it.
I don't like the Russian's behavior over the years, be interesting if their military may try pursue the Storm Class Carrier they had been showing model of. Their going need something.
considering its age, and how out of date it was, they probably have. pretty much everything but the hull needs repairs, replacement, or updating by now.
honestly, i suspect that the final cost would be higher than building a new ship, but since a new ship would require a bunch of R&D work they don't want to spend time on, they are going with an extensive rebuild. they do have a lot of old hulls they can refit after all, and they can probably work up a refit plan faster for those older hulls than they can design a new ship.
and i agree it will be interesting to see if they decide to go for the new carrier design they've shown off. but they've talked supercarriers several times without going in for it, so who knows.
-
I've always thought the Kirov class is one of the nicest looking ships floating. I think the lines we so nice and smooth for a Russian Ship.
-
Subs you say?
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/11/unidentified-submerged-object-filmed-off-swedish-coast/
I wonder what class that sail belongs to.
-
don't trust that site. ever. they have been caught presenting fictional material as real multiple times. and when you post comments pointing that out, they delete the comments.
-
Wow that's a Kirov? I knew they were doing some work on one of the class but that's absurd! That looks more like a complete rebuild, but then again to replace her reactors and the like that's whats needed.
-
Any bets they'll convert her to COGAG/CODAG? The Russian navy doesn't have the best reactor history after all.
-
doubt it. the reason they were refitting that one and not one of the older ships was the fact its reactor was still in usable condition. they had originally planned to refit Admiral Ushakov and Admiral Lazarev, but their reactors were in such bad condition after having been sitting in mothballs since 2009 they couldn't refit them without it being expensive and dangerous. (the reactors had been defueled, but apparently their conservation status wasn't enough to keep the reactor hardware in good condition)
though apparently they have done at least a little work on the Admiral Lazarev, in 2014, so perhaps it isn't as bad and they'll give it a go. it is the only one they have in their pacific fleet, after all. but the Admiral Ushakov is going to be scrapped.
-
doubt it. the reason they were refitting that one and not one of the older ships was the fact its reactor was still in usable condition. they had originally planned to refit Admiral Ushakov and Admiral Lazarev, but their reactors were in such bad condition after having been sitting in mothballs since 2009 they couldn't refit them without it being expensive and dangerous. (the reactors had been defueled, but apparently their conservation status wasn't enough to keep the reactor hardware in good condition)
though apparently they have done at least a little work on the Admiral Lazarev, in 2014, so perhaps it isn't as bad and they'll give it a go. it is the only one they have in their pacific fleet, after all. but the Admiral Ushakov is going to be scrapped.
In one sense, that may be the very BEST outcome for Russia's navy in the longer term. Their economy can't stay stagnant forever, and as tech inevitably advances, they could find that the next Carrier they try to build will have significant material and durability savings built in just due to no longer being saddled with 'Soviet workmanship' on such a large and complex machine.
-
It just seems odd that such a large refit would be done to a ship. The Kirovs are quite old and may not be around much longer after the refit. Sure some may of been sitting around doing nothing, but that is still wear and tear.
-
It just seems odd that such a large refit would be done to a ship. The Kirovs are quite old and may not be around much longer after the refit. Sure some may of been sitting around doing nothing, but that is still wear and tear.
maybe it's a way to 'shake the rust' off their shipbuilding industry?
-
Once the Kirovs go, the last of the large capital ships (aside from the carriers) will be gone. Economy is tough justify them unless someone in power is bent to have a big showy ship. Destroyers are getting larger, becoming main (non-aviation) combatant of navies who can afford them.
-
Some nations don't ever build destroyers any more, they just build really big Frigates with the capability and firepower of a destroyer.
I guess one nations Frigate is a different nations Destroyer.
-
I guess one nations Frigate is a different nations Destroyer.
Exactly. What one nation calls a destroyer, another might call a frigate another might call a corvette. And in every single case, they're all correct, as there is no higher authority to contradict them.
-
Exactly. What one nation calls a destroyer, another might call a frigate another might call a corvette. And in every single case, they're all correct, as there is no higher authority to contradict them.
I guess it goes both ways. Destroyer sounds scarier then a Frigate or even Cruiser. I guess some nations do it different now to not sound so scary by calling their "Destroyer" a Frigate.
Im still trying to figure out what a Global Combat Ship and where that fits in??
-
I guess it goes both ways. Destroyer sounds scarier then a Frigate or even Cruiser. I guess some nations do it different now to not sound so scary by calling their "Destroyer" a Frigate.
Im still trying to figure out what a Global Combat Ship and where that fits in??
Problem is with the generalization of weapon systems globally. Essentially, the GCS is essentially a Frigate.
4-8 Anti-Ship Missiles (Long range), 16-32 Anti-Aircraft Missiles (VLS), 1 "Medium" 5inch or "Light" 3 inch / 57mm Cannon, 1 CIWS. 3-5k tons general (average), 1 Hanger/Landing Spot, two triple anti-submarine torpedo launchers, sonar, radar . Done.
-
Im still trying to figure out what a Global Combat Ship and where that fits in??
Easy, the Type 26 GCS will be the premier anti-submarine frigate of the Royal Navy.
In the modern Royal Navy, a "destroyer" (Type 42, 45) is an anti-air warfare (AAW) warship, while a "frigate" is either an anti-submarine (ASW) warship (Type 22, 23, 26) or a general-purpose (GP) warship (Type 12, 19, 31). This isn't to say a "GP frigate" can't do ASW (it can) or an ASW warship doesn't have anti-air missiles (it does), it's a matter of specialised design and hardware and relative capability. A Type 45 has longer-ranged Aster 30 SAMs than a Type 26's Sea Ceptor CAMM; a Type 26 will have the Sonar 2087 towed array sonar, torpedoes and helicopter while the Type 42 only has a bow-mounted sonar and helicopters.
The RAN does something similar; the Hobarts will be the AAW "destroyers" and the Hunters (aka Type 26 GCS) will be the ASW "frigates".
Likewise the Canadian Navy had the Iroqouis AAW "destroyers" and Halifax ASW "frigates". They've purchased the Type 26 GCS but the project calls for both AAW and ASW variants, probably 3 and 12 respectively. Let's see what they end up calling the ships - probably just "frigates".
-
I guess it goes both ways. Destroyer sounds scarier then a Frigate or even Cruiser. I guess some nations do it different now to not sound so scary by calling their "Destroyer" a Frigate.
Im still trying to figure out what a Global Combat Ship and where that fits in??
At the risk of being labelled a heretic by my Navy counterparts...
Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, these are all outdated terms, they once indicated a particular size, armament and function for the vessel, which didn't necessarily conform to WWII ideals. Yes, there is a standard, but it was NATO only, incorporated into the STANAG arrangement of the 1950s (A very large military STANdards AGreement primarily among the NATO countries). Effectively this STANAG defined how NATO and allied nations would define their ships to maximise interoperability, thus we ended up with all western ships able to accommodate for each other. Basically while there may be significant variations in unit capability, a DDG would still be a DDG, an FFG would remain comparable to other FFGs and so on.
Of course, as technology and design principles advanced, we have shifted ever more into ships with global capabilities, except ASW, warships remain bit players in that realm for good reason. If you look at most modern frigates and destroyers, they now have Aegis, SM2 MR, HMS/TASS, etc. Only their assigned roles vary considerably, using essentially identical systems to do two different roles on two different platforms. This process began in the 80's, but has continued strong right up until today, and will continue to do so while ever software controls can trump equipment fit. Cruisers have become more of a status symbol, with only the nations willing to fork out substantial amounts of money and lives in a single platform feeling they are required.
-
How would you classify the Danish Absalon Class ship. Its a FFG with transport uses??
I guess because the LCS Freedom and Independence have transport uses also, so to make them more useful??
-
I guess because the LCS Freedom and Independence have transport uses also, so to make them more useful??
Transport i don't know, the modules may help with that. Initially LCS carry modules is it's unique thing let it do anything within limitation of the mission bay. So they could become any kind of ship or have any kind of equipment for missions that standard ships won't necessary be able to under take. If they need mine sweeping ship, they could slap a couple modules for that, and equip the hangar with Helios geared to that task. If they need more extensive anti-submarine vessel, they can have could modules for that sort thing, torpedoes, towed sonar array, etc.
Problem is those modules had to be made, frankly the sea frames (aka the ship, without stuff on it) didn't turn out the way they thought they would. The LCS weren't suppose to be frontline ships, but essentially second line combatants. They originally were part trio of designs suppose to change way the navy does tasks. Those people who came up with it, were gone by time something came out and service kept changing their minds on what they wanted this thing to be. More so, the US Navy needs dedicated small warships, they're in my option too traditionally minded to have a concept of a lesser Frigate that could do multi-missions that were not as heavily armed as ships in their size in the past.
Also the ships aren't perfect, they have new concepts of propulsion not see on previous ships, new hull forms, like triple hull etc.
They have problems with corrosion that plague the first ships, so there some doubts how well they could do in real fight.
Right now, the US Navy trying make successor if they can find the budget for it a new FFGX but essentially the current ships beefed up are among the contenders.
Freedom Class Ship, USS Freedom
(https://i0.wp.com/defpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/USS-Freedom-LCS-1.jpg?resize=800%2C445&ssl=1) .
-
How would you classify the Danish Absalon Class ship. Its a FFG with transport uses??
"Taskforce Command Ship" - if you want a traditional term use "destroyer leader".
Because it functions as one, basically bringing force multipliers (limited amphibious capability, helo capacity, networking core) to the field for the taskforce it commands while suffering considerable limitations compared to other ships of its size when acting alone. That's how it's used in exercises and deployments so far too.
The German F125 functions much the same, although with a different focus among its force multipliers (land attack, helo capacity and maritime interdiction), and to a much lesser extent (blurring the line towards frigates) the German MKS180 and Italian PPA.
-
Russian Borey Class SSBN
(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/boeri.jpg)
-
Oh my... trying to zoom in on what's under all the scaffolding at far left. Looks cruiser-y.
-
Actually I think that's Kuznetsov. It looks like there's a ramp to the right of the "tower" and it's certainly got the height for that hull, plus the scaffolding really resembles the shape of the tower. That "spindle" shape at the top of the "tower" certainly seems to be in the right place for (I'm guessing) that drum-shaped radar housing on top of stuff. Granted, it's not perfect, and the angle makes it difficult to say but the scale seems right based on other pics of Kuznetsov with scaffolding around the tower. I can't think of anything else it'd be in Russian naval waters, with that shape, unless it was the one they sold the Chinese a while back. That depends on how old the Borey photo is.
-
I think you're right. Viewing it on a phone screen made it tricky, but zooming in the structure does look like the right shape. I'm sold. (Which likely means this is a very recent photo, since her refit didn't start until her return from her Syria operations. Of course, that refit has hit a small snag now...)
-
How would you classify the Danish Absalon Class ship. Its a FFG with transport uses??
I guess because the LCS Freedom and Independence have transport uses also, so to make them more useful??
The modern FFG has become a multi-role combatant, with true emphasis on "multi". DDG's, having retained the idea of a "pure" warfighting platform, tend to have avoided this issue, but it's easy if you look at the relationship between the two as that of the old capital ships vs escorts. Capital ships were there to fight other warfighters, that's it. Escorts were there to do everything else. So the modern DDG is there to fight, the modern FFG's are there to do everything else.
Honestly, I'm not happy with the push to have FFG's/DDG's carry troops and equipment, sure we always filled the spare hangar with miscellaneous gear, some of it for delivery, but it looks like they want to penny packet out all the troops throughout the formation, which is wasteful and can have deleterious effects on force independence and EMSEC. But as usual, no one listens to one crusty old senior sailor when it comes to ship design, and I won't even step into crewing...
-
DDGs may have been designed as "pure" warships, but when we retired our FFGs, they got stuck with more than a few FFG duties. To say that drew a lot of complaints would be an understatement ("We're using a billion dollar ship to do WHAT??").
-
I'd still love even comparitive layout of what duties are traditionally assigned to what type of ship in various navies.
So much seems to be unwritten institutional knowledge.
-
I'd still love even comparitive layout of what duties are traditionally assigned to what type of ship in various navies.
So much seems to be unwritten institutional knowledge.
It's all nation specific, even if most of the terms are evolved from the original European terminology. It doesn't help that most of those terms came about before there was any idea of standardisation, let alone unification.
I won't bother going into Carriers or Amphibious Assault Vessels as these are largely self explanatory, but essentially:
A Cruiser is a large to very large surface combatant with a focus on ASuW and AAW (they are capable enough to fill both roles simultaneously) and tactical control of other vessels. They may have some ASW self protection ability, but it won't be much. Cruisers technically should be the control ship for a squadron, to coordinate the actions of the other members of the squadron. In the modern world a Cruiser is frequently interchangeable with a large Destroyer.
A Destroyer is a large surface combatant with a major focus on AAW since the Cold War, prior to that they had ASuW focus although some were ASW focused. Destroyers were the screen units in formations during WW II, where they would present the wall of steel around the most important vessels and actively detach to seek out localised hostile vessels. Once again ASW capabilities should be self protective in nature.
A Frigate is a medium to large surface combatant with a focus on ASuW, secondary role of ASW, with self protection capability for AAW. Frigates have become multi-role in recent years, far more so than any other type of ship. Slightly smaller than Destroyers they are now less about overt combat and more about controlling sea space, but can be capable combatants in their own right.
A Corvette (Not used very often anymore, most vessels in this class are considered OPV or Frigates) is a small to medium vessel primarily focused on ASuW, but occasionally used for ASW. These are small cheap vessels designed to operate relatively close to land and counter the military sea space control. They are not designed for prolonged engagements, intended to skulk about, hit the opponents with lots of missiles, and run away bravely, preventing an opponent from acting in a cohesive manner.
An Offshore Patrol Vessel is a small vessel with a focus on constabulary operations but retaining several functions of high end warfighting, likely to be fitted with missiles and limited command and control functions, they can act as a small Corvette in a very limited manner.
A Patrol Craft is a small to medium vessel with a focus on constabulary operations such as border protection, anti-smuggling and counter-piracy. There is little to no genuine warfighting capability onboard, with no missiles of command and control systems, although they will contribute to surveillance operations.
Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates are all designed to spend extended time at sea in deep water, they have capabilities that allow them to work together to provide greater effect over all than each of them working separately. OPV and Patrol Craft are minor vessels that will only ever go into combat circumstances in extremis, don't have the fuel bunkerage, food or ammunition for sustained periods at sea, and mostly cannot resupply at sea. Corvettes are a bit of an enigma, which is why there are very few of them around now, they can fill a Frigate's role to a limited extent, have longer legs than a OPV or Patrol Craft, but can't generate a command and control environment like a Cruiser, Destroyer or Frigate, as well as being far more limited in armament.
-
It's all nation specific, even if most of the terms are evolved from the original European terminology. It doesn't help that most of those terms came about before there was any idea of standardisation, let alone unification.
I won't bother going into Carriers or Amphibious Assault Vessels as these are largely self explanatory, but essentially:
A Cruiser is a large to very large surface combatant with a focus on ASuW and AAW (they are capable enough to fill both roles simultaneously) and tactical control of other vessels. They may have some ASW self protection ability, but it won't be much. Cruisers technically should be the control ship for a squadron, to coordinate the actions of the other members of the squadron. In the modern world a Cruiser is frequently interchangeable with a large Destroyer.
A Destroyer is a large surface combatant with a major focus on AAW since the Cold War, prior to that they had ASuW focus although some were ASW focused. Destroyers were the screen units in formations during WW II, where they would present the wall of steel around the most important vessels and actively detach to seek out localised hostile vessels. Once again ASW capabilities should be self protective in nature.
A Frigate is a medium to large surface combatant with a focus on ASuW, secondary role of ASW, with self protection capability for AAW. Frigates have become multi-role in recent years, far more so than any other type of ship. Slightly smaller than Destroyers they are now less about overt combat and more about controlling sea space, but can be capable combatants in their own right.
A Corvette (Not used very often anymore, most vessels in this class are considered OPV or Frigates) is a small to medium vessel primarily focused on ASuW, but occasionally used for ASW. These are small cheap vessels designed to operate relatively close to land and counter the military sea space control. They are not designed for prolonged engagements, intended to skulk about, hit the opponents with lots of missiles, and run away bravely, preventing an opponent from acting in a cohesive manner.
An Offshore Patrol Vessel is a small vessel with a focus on constabulary operations but retaining several functions of high end warfighting, likely to be fitted with missiles and limited command and control functions, they can act as a small Corvette in a very limited manner.
A Patrol Craft is a small to medium vessel with a focus on constabulary operations such as border protection, anti-smuggling and counter-piracy. There is little to no genuine warfighting capability onboard, with no missiles of command and control systems, although they will contribute to surveillance operations.
Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates are all designed to spend extended time at sea in deep water, they have capabilities that allow them to work together to provide greater effect over all than each of them working separately. OPV and Patrol Craft are minor vessels that will only ever go into combat circumstances in extremis, don't have the fuel bunkerage, food or ammunition for sustained periods at sea, and mostly cannot resupply at sea. Corvettes are a bit of an enigma, which is why there are very few of them around now, they can fill a Frigate's role to a limited extent, have longer legs than a OPV or Patrol Craft, but can't generate a command and control environment like a Cruiser, Destroyer or Frigate, as well as being far more limited in armament.
This is all very useful! Thank you!
I note; no class of ship specifically focuses on ASW as normal, eh? The DEs are gone, I guess?
-
This is all very useful! Thank you!
I note; no class of ship specifically focuses on ASW as normal, eh? The DEs are gone, I guess?
Destroyer Escort was more or less same as the Frigate.
-
The Helge Ingstad this morning:
(https://gfx.nrk.no/IRSf_JyVXuN_I-8qYZc4ywaE31n6wBVvbtant-TA4FKA)
The wires put up to keep it in place all snapped and it slid further down the bottom. :(
-
Looks like a wreck to me...
-
On a nicer note, I saw this in port this afternoon:
-
Sup, IWO JIMA.
-
The Helge Ingstad this morning:
(https://gfx.nrk.no/IRSf_JyVXuN_I-8qYZc4ywaE31n6wBVvbtant-TA4FKA)
The wires put up to keep it in place all snapped and it slid further down the bottom. :(
Two jokes spring to mind:
1) all hands to the pumps!
2) oooo, we got a new submarine!
-
Just went to Norwegian Navy wiki page and she's already been stricken from the list of active ships.
-
Oh, shit.
Just went to Norwegian Navy wiki page and she's already been stricken from the list of active ships.
Trust Wiki editors to be quick off the mark.
-
I assume that this will be a CLM for the Captain and the Officer of the Watch that was on-duty at the time.
For those who are not familiar with military acronyms CLM = Career Limiting Move.
-
Heavy hit. She went from proud combatant to ...blub blub, i'm a sub... xp
I guess the shore was too deep where she try to ground her self. I wonder if it made it worse.
-
They're going to need a larger bag of rice to dry that thing out.
-
Just went to Norwegian Navy wiki page and she's already been stricken from the list of active ships.
i'd call that premature.. she's still in a lot better shape than the Ships at Pearl Harbor for example. and those were refloated and back in service. modern electronics would make the repair and rebuilding take a bit longer but i'm sure they could still do it.
-
Possible? Yes.
Cost effective? Doubtful.
-
Doubtful cost effectiveness has never stopped organisations when pride is at stake, Exhibit A https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qantas_Flight_1)
-
I think you meant this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_Route
-
Nope that is the one I meant:
The damage was such that the aircraft was initially a write-off, but to preserve its reputation Qantas had it repaired at a cost of $100 million. By returning the aircraft to service, Qantas was able to retain its record of having no hull-loss accidents since the advent of the Jet Age.
(https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5539477/FIG2c.jpg)
(https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/44964/e00012_001.jpg)
(https://img.odometer.com/filter:scale/quill/3/8/f/7/7/4/38f77403/7da7a934e58e694078a7dceb7580cbbcf9beb849.jpg?mw=615)
-
Dang.
I don't think I'd have been happy to learn I'd booked a flight on that plane after it had crashed like that.
-
Accident happened in 1999, it returned to service in 2003 and flew until 2012 before it was withdrawn from service, sold off and scrapped.
Anyway enough of a detour, back to boats . . .
HMAS Adelaide moored in Port Morseby, Papua New Guinea this week in support of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.
(https://www.deccanherald.com/sites/dh/files/styles/article_detail/public/article_images/2018/11/12/papua%20new%20guinea%20afp-1541990012.jpg?itok=xk9WwMPR)
-
This is all very useful! Thank you!
I note; no class of ship specifically focuses on ASW as normal, eh? The DEs are gone, I guess?
Pretty much, DE's were ships devoted not so much to ASW as convoy escort, of which ASW is a major component. They are a variant of Destroyers built to be cheap, plentiful and nasty. Of course all of that required some sacrifice, and that came at the cost of overall capability and survivability. Moreover, submarines are a relatively new combat arm and remain extremely rare and expensive, so they don't have the same historical classes to counter them as older vessels.
Depending on the class, crewing requirements etc, a submarine needs to achieve an incredible kill ratio to be economically sound as a weapon system. They are hideously expensive, crews take years to reach proficiency, the vast majority of people couldn't even countenance proceeding to sea on one, and they operate in the most unforgiving environment currently possible. Expending submarine assets on a tactical mission is either wasteful or desperate, potentially both. As a result ships will avoid submarines, if possible, and use aircraft to prosecute them if only to keep them away from the task group. Better to risk 3-8 people on an aircraft than 200-300 on a ship, besides they're only aircrew, not anyone important... Just kidding :)
-
Speaking of Sunken.
Here nice looking boat, USS Virginia BB-13.
(https://nmsmonitor.blob.core.windows.net/monitor-prod/media/img/virginia3.jpg)
She was a lead class of early Battleships. She took part of the Great White Fleet tour of the World in 1907 to 1909. She didn't really never got chance to struct her stuff so to speak was mainly used a patrol vessel, crisis response ship. She was only deployed once during First World War to bring in German merchant ships and she was slightly modified with additional commendations help bring troops home from the War.
Her most (cough) notable use was when she was made as part the General Billy Mitchell's demonstration show hoe vulnerable Capital Ships were to Air power. She was sunk in 1923. Her hull apparently is still intact despite everything to this day off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.
(https://nmsmonitor.blob.core.windows.net/monitor-prod/media/img/virginia5.jpg)
She was neat ship, small but packing good firepower for a ship that's only 14,000 tons and 414 feet long. If you can now digest that Zumwalts are roughly in her tonnage range! I think her only glaring flaw in her design is her turret two is mounted on Turret one. That must been "interesting" experience when both guns were in use.
World of Naval Warfare certainly has evolved alot since when BB-13 sailed the open seas.
How she is now, NOAA image of the exVirginia.
(https://nmsmonitor.blob.core.windows.net/monitor-prod/media/img/virginia4.jpg)
-
Some of the original Little Crappy Ships(TM)
HMCS Sackville (Flower-class corvette)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/HMCS_Sackville_-_Halifax.JPG/1280px-HMCS_Sackville_-_Halifax.JPG)
HMAS Diamantina (River-class frigate)
(http://i.imgur.com/ibOH6q3.jpg)
Both classes were built to commercial standards, frequently in commercial yards. Canada may have had the third-largest navy in the world at the end of World War 2, but numerically, almost all of the ships were built cheap and stacked high. (The newly re-purposed corvettes and frigate designations, plus a handful of destroyers, many of them leftover American WW1-era hulls, 2 light cruisers, and 2 escort carriers)
-
While they were Little Crappy Ships that were not built to last, HMAS Diamantina was finally paid off in 1980 (following WW2 she was put into reserve but then reactivated in 1959 as a Oceanographic Research Ship). A long career for a cheap, disposable frigate.
-
Sackville? is there a Baggins?
-
I have a soft spot for the little Flowers. Ugly ships, pretty names, and war-winning work.
-
USS Quartz (IX-150) recently got a new job...
To become a sunken reef barrier soon...
She was built in '43 and launched later in Dec., becoming a workhorse floating warehouse till the end of the war. Later going to ' Sunny Bikini Islands ' for a radiation workout, declared Rad free, she was shipped to a Paper Mill stateside to become a breakwater. Here she languished for years in the bitter storms off British Colombia until recently. The Mill closed off the Lagoon and won't be needing here again... plans are to ship her off the coast to make a sunken artificial reef-like structure with several others... supposedly dive able.
TT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Quartz_(IX-150) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Quartz_(IX-150))
-
time to pick a name for the next thread, since this one will be locked soon.
-
Finding a name for CV-6 shouldn't be much of an Enterprise ;).
-
Sackville? is there a Baggins?
My thoughts exactly
-
Finding a name for CV-6 shouldn't be much of an Enterprise ;).
Or we could just "deep six" that idea ;)
-
Admiral Gregorovich-class frigate
Very clean looking, for a Russian ship
(https://i.postimg.cc/xdh6gJ9p/Capture.png)
-
Very clean for a Russian Ship.
-
Looks like they have finally found the Argentine submarine that went missing last year.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-17/argentine-submarine-missing-for-one-year-found-deep-in-atlantic/10507924 (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-17/argentine-submarine-missing-for-one-year-found-deep-in-atlantic/10507924)
Hopefully the families will now have some closure.
-
I'm betting the guys at Thyssen are getting ready for a lot of late night work, now that they have the wreck. Water through the snorkel, battery failure, and then an apparent battery explosion on a sub that was overhauled in 2009? It's half a mile deep, unfortunately; they won't be able to bring the thing back up or retrieve the crew. On Patrol, then, but at least we know where.
-
Glomar Explorer went a lot further down than that.
-
I'd let them rest in peace, on eternal patrol
-
Glomar Explorer went a lot further down than that.
Yeah, but she failed and lost most of the sub - and was scrapped by Chinese breakers in 2015 anyway. This wouldn't be any classified sneaky operation where 'well we got a little bit' is okay because it's the cold war, either. Let them rest.
Fortunately, it's not so deep that you need top-tier submersibles to get there (compared to, say, Titanic or the Trench), so it shouldn't be too hard to get a good investigation down there and find out just what happened.
-
Its 40 odd years later now, surely we have better recovery technologies now?
Not for any mil-int purposes, but to recover remains and find out what caused the accident.
-
Sounds like they may go into her find out what blew up. Water coming in via the snorkel wasn't good news when they originally reported it.
-
Looks like this thread had run aground on the page limit. Go launch a new one!
-
Putting the root causes in place is important, although "Don't cut your submarine in half" sounds like a likely recommendation. Things like which sections flooded and which got crushed are all evidence.
But yes, that can all be done without dishonouring the grave site.
W.