Your Nations Warships, MKII

[The Soodean Imperium]

To be honest I dont get the fuss about rail guns. I mean shouldn't torpedo or missile spam be enough?

To some extent, it's an excuse to go back to making a ship's main armament guns instead of missiles. I will agree that gun-armed ships have an aesthetic that today's missile ships just can't capture, which is part of the reason I based many Soodean vessels on the less "blocky" appearance of Soviet missile warships. There's also a certain level of :elan: to firing off a thunderous gun broadside at close range rather than letting loose a few missiles and waiting for them to hit, despite the suicidal futility of pitting the former against the latter.

There's also the appeal of futuristic electro-powered weaponry, as well as the claims of insane muzzle velocities, which is why you'll occasionally see people slapping railguns on tanks and shore batteries in addition to warships.

[Kouralia]

Slightly more improved yacht WIP. What sorts of Radars should I be looking at for a Royal Yacht that should hopefully be able to hold its own against small numbers of aircraft or smaller surface combatants?

[Fordorsia]

Slightly more improved yacht WIP. What sorts of Radars should I be looking at for a Royal Yacht that should hopefully be able to hold its own against small numbers of aircraft or smaller surface combatants?

How do vessels with bows like that not drive themselves under?

[Kouralia]

Slightly more improved yacht WIP. What sorts of Radars should I be looking at for a Royal Yacht that should hopefully be able to hold its own against small numbers of aircraft or smaller surface combatants?

How do vessels with bows like that not drive themselves under?

*shrugs*

[The Akasha Colony]

Slightly more improved yacht WIP. What sorts of Radars should I be looking at for a Royal Yacht that should hopefully be able to hold its own against small numbers of aircraft or smaller surface combatants?

How do vessels with bows like that not drive themselves under?

Buoyancy. The water is generally just diverted around the ship's hull anyway, but there's enough flotation to counterbalance any downward pressure from the water.

[Vloskovia]

Designed a destroyer, any criticisms or suggestions for improvements?

Ostvind class destroyer

The Ostvind class destroyer was the primary destroyer of the Vloskovian Navy during the 1930's and 1940's. 20 were built from 1933 until 1939. Armed with six 120mm guns and eight 20" torpedo tubes, it was one of the most powerful destroyers in Europe at the time, although it was lacking in anti-aircraft armament, having only four 20mm AA guns. During a 1942-3 refit, they were upgraded by installing a radar system and more AA guns, including two Bofors 40mm mounts in place of the "B" turret.

Specifications:
Build Date: 1933 - 1939
Refit: 1942/43
Number Built: 20
Displacement: 2,500 long tons
Length: 118 m
Beam: 11 m
Draft: 3.8 m
Propulsion: Two shafts, 50,000 shp
Top Speed: 34 knots
Range: 4,900 nm
Armament (Initial): 6× 120mm Marinkanon L/55 M.30 (3×2), 8× Typ 32 508mm torpedo tubes (2×4) with 16 torpedoes, 2× depth charge launchers with 20 depth charges, 2× paravanes, 4× 20mm LVK-30 anti-aircraft guns

[Stahn]

Designed a destroyer, any criticisms or suggestions for improvements?

Ostvind class destroyer

The Ostvind class destroyer was the primary destroyer of the Vloskovian Navy during the 1930's and 1940's. 20 were built from 1933 until 1939. Armed with six 120mm guns and eight 20" torpedo tubes, it was one of the most powerful destroyers in Europe at the time, although it was lacking in anti-aircraft armament, having only four 20mm AA guns. During a 1942-3 refit, they were upgraded by installing a radar system and more AA guns, including two Bofors 40mm mounts in place of the "B" turret.

Specifications:
Build Date: 1933 - 1939
Refit: 1942/43
Number Built: 20
Displacement: 2,500 long tons
Length: 118 m
Beam: 11 m
Draft: 3.8 m
Propulsion: Two shafts, 50,000 shp
Top Speed: 34 knots
Range: 4,900 nm
Armament (Initial): 6× 120mm Marinkanon L/55 M.30 (3×2), 8× Typ 32 508mm torpedo tubes (2×4) with 16 torpedoes, 2× depth charge launchers with 20 depth charges, 2× paravanes, 4× 20mm LVK-30 anti-aircraft guns

Awesome drawing. I don't often see such large turrets that close to the front but I really like the design and am impressed by your drawing skills.

[Antarticaria]

To be honest I dont get the fuss about rail guns. I mean shouldn't torpedo or missile spam be enough?

To some extent, it's an excuse to go back to making a ship's main armament guns instead of missiles. I will agree that gun-armed ships have an aesthetic that today's missile ships just can't capture, which is part of the reason I based many Soodean vessels on the less "blocky" appearance of Soviet missile warships. There's also a certain level of :elan: to firing off a thunderous gun broadside at close range rather than letting loose a few missiles and waiting for them to hit, despite the suicidal futility of pitting the former against the latter.

There's also the appeal of futuristic electro-powered weaponry, as well as the claims of insane muzzle velocities, which is why you'll occasionally see people slapping railguns on tanks and shore batteries in addition to warships.

ahh I see.

[New Vihenia]

Roughly how big a cuboid would I need to put a nuclear reactor in?

Depend on type of your reactor.

Nonetheless for surface ship, you may look at NS Savannah..or this chart depicting reactor compartment of various US-Navy ships.

[Mitheldalond]

My friend is trying to convince me that this is MT. Suggestions?

As far as multi-kilometer super dreadnoughts go, it actually doesn't seem too terribly unreasonable. It has issues with trying to fill too many roles simultaneously, and there are some questionable things (railguns and whether all that crap would actually fit), but it has a few glaring weaknesses that will allow you to take them out with ease.

The main issue is that it has no anti-satellite or anti-ballistic missile weapons. And that's what kills it. It's easily big enough to detect from space, and the entire world will know when it leaves port. So here's how you kill them:

Intelligence assets report the ship's departure from port. Using its speed and heading, you establish a search grid for your spy and radar satellites. Dispatch a ballistic missile sub or two to wait for the ship. When the ship gets within ~5,000 miles of the subs, have them fire SLBMs with guided warheads. The satellites provide targeting data for the warheads.

The ship cannot defend itself from the ballistic missiles, nor can it evade them. It can't even retaliate because it can't detect or hit your subs that far away.

The end result is that this super dreadnought will be obliterated in a column of nuclear death as dozens (fewer would work too) of nuclear warheads (conventional warheads will work too, you'll just need more of them, and it'll be much less spectacular) rain down on it. You will have annihilated the enemy's most powerful warship before it can even get a single shot off.

Now take the opportunity to gloat while demanding their surrender. When they inevitably refuse, go about your business making them regret that decision.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

No siege of the dreadnought in a manner reminiscent of medieval sieges through smoothbore tank guns and close assault helicopter units ?

[Mitheldalond]

No siege of the dreadnought in a manner reminiscent of medieval sieges through smoothbore tank guns and close assault helicopter units ?

That's only for Longswords. No other ship is worthy of such treatment.

[Lubyak]

My friend is trying to convince me that this is MT. Suggestions?

As far as multi-kilometer super dreadnoughts go, it actually doesn't seem too terribly unreasonable. It has issues with trying to fill too many roles simultaneously, and there are some questionable things (railguns and whether all that crap would actually fit), but it has a few glaring weaknesses that will allow you to take them out with ease.

The main issue is that it has no anti-satellite or anti-ballistic missile weapons. And that's what kills it. It's easily big enough to detect from space, and the entire world will know when it leaves port. So here's how you kill them:

Intelligence assets report the ship's departure from port. Using its speed and heading, you establish a search grid for your spy and radar satellites. Dispatch a ballistic missile sub or two to wait for the ship. When the ship gets within ~5,000 miles of the subs, have them fire SLBMs with guided warheads. The satellites provide targeting data for the warheads.

The ship cannot defend itself from the ballistic missiles, nor can it evade them. It can't even retaliate because it can't detect or hit your subs that far away.

The end result is that this super dreadnought will be obliterated in a column of nuclear death as dozens (fewer would work too) of nuclear warheads (conventional warheads will work too, you'll just need more of them, and it'll be much less spectacular) rain down on it. You will have annihilated the enemy's most powerful warship before it can even get a single shot off.

Now take the opportunity to gloat while demanding their surrender. When they inevitably refuse, go about your business making them regret that decision.

This is assuming it's not escorted by something with ABMs or ASATs.

[Yukonastan]

Quick practicality question.

38cm cannon firing an APFSDS round, for maximum armor penetration? This'd be near-end-of-battleship era technology. (Early 40s)

[The Akasha Colony]

Quick practicality question.

38cm cannon firing an APFSDS round, for maximum armor penetration? This'd be near-end-of-battleship era technology. (Early 40s)

APFSDS wasn't a thing at the time. It would have far too short a range.

[The Pacifican Islands]

Slightly more improved yacht WIP. What sorts of Radars should I be looking at for a Royal Yacht that should hopefully be able to hold its own against small numbers of aircraft or smaller surface combatants?

A CIWS

[Yukonastan]

Quick practicality question.

38cm cannon firing an APFSDS round, for maximum armor penetration? This'd be near-end-of-battleship era technology. (Early 40s)

APFSDS wasn't a thing at the time. It would have far too short a range.

DM53 KEP has a stated effective range of 4KM, fired from a 120mm l/55 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M830 HEAT has a stated effective range of 2.5KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M829A1 APFSDS has a stated effective range of 3KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

Far too short a range, wat.

[The Akasha Colony]

APFSDS wasn't a thing at the time. It would have far too short a range.

DM53 KEP has a stated effective range of 4KM, fired from a 120mm l/55 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M830 HEAT has a stated effective range of 2.5KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M829A1 APFSDS has a stated effective range of 3KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

Far too short a range, wat.

Battleship engagement ranges even in the 1940s were on the order of 20+ km, barely on the horizon at all.

[Yukonastan]

DM53 KEP has a stated effective range of 4KM, fired from a 120mm l/55 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M830 HEAT has a stated effective range of 2.5KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M829A1 APFSDS has a stated effective range of 3KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

Far too short a range, wat.

Battleship engagement ranges even in the 1940s were on the order of 20+ km, barely on the horizon at all.

Remember that I'm showing modern tank cannons here, with only a 12cm bore. I'm talking of taking the concept, upscaling it, using special propellant bags that have a hole in the middle, and applying it to something like the SK C/34 cannon that were mounted on the Bismarck and Tirpitz.

By having the rounds accelerated to a higher muzzle velocity, then as a result of the sabots falling away and the now vastly smaller cross section of the penetrator, the round can fly a lot flatter, meaning that you not only stretch to ridiculous ranges, but also to ridiculous target effects at normal ranges. Imagine a battleship being shot clean through to see what I mean.

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

APFSDS wasn't a thing at the time. It would have far too short a range.

DM53 KEP has a stated effective range of 4KM, fired from a 120mm l/55 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M830 HEAT has a stated effective range of 2.5KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M829A1 APFSDS has a stated effective range of 3KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

Far too short a range, wat.

Battleships have ranges in the upwards of dozens of kilometers. If I recall the Empire of the British had significant amounts of trouble with correct accuracy with early APDS(Which would be all that would be available and not the later APFSDS). Even late era battleship accuracy still was problematic enough, never mind using rounds that had difficulty hitting targets with high reliability under a kilometer away during tests. I can look around for the evidence to back it up, I remember it clearly enough but not the source though. By the time it took to solve this, its probable the battleships would be obsolete, at which point there isn't a reason to develop it.

Edit: Found that thing about poor accuracy, (Source is here under the section relating to the tests at Isigny.)

5) 57mm Gun, M1
a) APC, M86 will penetrate the sides and rear of the 'Panther' Tank at 1500 yards.

b) Sabot fails to penetrate front glacis slope plate and gun shield at 200 yards. Due to difficulty experienced in obtaining hits no conclusion as to the effectiveness of this ammunition was reached.

Finding 5a is clear. But 5b is a little more complicated. The conclusion indicates that APDS would not penetrate the Panther frontally at minimal range. But the board could not determine the range at which it would penetrate the sides because they quite simply couldn’t hit the target. The conclusion is stated in neutral terms, but represents a growing point of contention. Despite British praises of their sabot rounds, the US Army could not abide by the inaccuracy that they saw with the new British rounds.

[Yukonastan]

DM53 KEP has a stated effective range of 4KM, fired from a 120mm l/55 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M830 HEAT has a stated effective range of 2.5KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M829A1 APFSDS has a stated effective range of 3KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

Far too short a range, wat.

Battleships have ranges in the upwards of dozens of kilometers. If I recall the Empire of the British had significant amounts of trouble with correct accuracy with early APDS(Which would be all that would be available and not the later APFSDS). Even late era battleship accuracy still was problematic enough, never mind using rounds that had difficulty hitting targets with high reliability under a kilometer away during tests. I can look around for the evidence to back it up, I remember it clearly enough but not the source though. By the time it took to solve this, its probable the battleships would be obsolete, at which point there isn't a reason to develop it.

Battleships also have guns of dozens of centimetres in calibre, that are dozens of metres long. Tank guns, specifically the one that I mentioned, has a dozen centimetres of bore, and is 6.6 metres long. A tank gun is a peashooter compared to a battleship.

But let's leave the technological developments and eras of use behind (because the plot), and let's say that I have smoothbore 38cm cannons (with 20m of barrel) on a dreadnought, and hence, fin-stabilized ammunition. Let's say that I have a say 15cm subcalibre finned dart, that is fired with a sabot to fit it in that 38cm barrel.

Would, under these idealized circumstances (in an alternate universe), would this be a feasible battleship armament?

[Oaledonia]

No siege of the dreadnought in a manner reminiscent of medieval sieges through smoothbore tank guns and close assault helicopter units ?

That's only for Longswords. No other ship is worthy of such treatment.

U wot?

[Mitheldalond]

APFSDS wasn't a thing at the time. It would have far too short a range.

DM53 KEP has a stated effective range of 4KM, fired from a 120mm l/55 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M830 HEAT has a stated effective range of 2.5KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M829A1 APFSDS has a stated effective range of 3KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

Far too short a range, wat.

Mark 8 armor-piercing shell has a stated effective range of 32 km when fired from the Iowa-class battleship's 16"/50 cal Mark 7 naval gun.

55 pound shell fired from a 5"(127mm)/38 cal Mark 12 naval gun has a range of 16 km.

Far too short a range indeed.

[The Akasha Colony]

Battleship engagement ranges even in the 1940s were on the order of 20+ km, barely on the horizon at all.

Remember that I'm showing modern tank cannons here, with only a 12cm bore. I'm talking of taking the concept, upscaling it, using special propellant bags that have a hole in the middle, and applying it to something like the SK C/34 cannon that were mounted on the Bismarck and Tirpitz.

By having the rounds accelerated to a higher muzzle velocity, then as a result of the sabots falling away and the now vastly smaller cross section of the penetrator, the round can fly a lot flatter, meaning that you not only stretch to ridiculous ranges, but also to ridiculous target effects at normal ranges. Imagine a battleship being shot clean through to see what I mean.

The problem is that by the 1940s, engagement ranges were moving almost beyond the horizon. It's also worth noting that even tanks at the time did not have APFSDS ammunition, at most they had APDS or APCR. Might as well just say you're already building missile ships if you're going to be pushing technology that far.

It's also not even the most effective way to defeat an enemy battleship at range. Plunging fire, along with proper shell design, should be more than sufficient to defeat any reasonably practicable battleship with a 38 cm gun. The Italians got penetration figures approaching those of the American 16" Mk 7 out of their 38 cm pieces.

Battleships also have guns of dozens of centimetres in calibre, that are dozens of metres long. Tank guns, specifically the one that I mentioned, has a dozen centimetres of bore, and is 6.6 metres long. A tank gun is a peashooter compared to a battleship.

Irrelevant. A larger bore does not mean a greater accurate range. A 155 mm tank cannon does not have a noticeably longer accurate range than a 120 mm tank cannon simply because it is larger.

But let's leave the technological developments and eras of use behind (because the plot), and let's say that I have smoothbore 38cm cannons (with 20m of barrel) on a dreadnought, and hence, fin-stabilized ammunition. Let's say that I have a say 15cm subcalibre finned dart, that is fired with a sabot to fit it in that 38cm barrel.

Would, under these idealized circumstances (in an alternate universe), would this be a feasible battleship armament?

No. Because by then, your engagements would be taking place at such a range that direct fire would be pointless, and plunging fire on a ballistic trajectory would be of greater import.

[Yukonastan]

DM53 KEP has a stated effective range of 4KM, fired from a 120mm l/55 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M830 HEAT has a stated effective range of 2.5KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.
M829A1 APFSDS has a stated effective range of 3KM, fired from a 120mm M256 Rheinmetall 120mm cannon.

Far too short a range, wat.

Mark 8 armor-piercing shell has a stated effective range of 32 km when fired from the Iowa-class battleship's 16"/50 cal Mark 7 naval gun.

55 pound shell fired from a 5"(127mm)/38 cal Mark 12 naval gun has a range of 16 km.

Far too short a range indeed.

Once again, since tank ammunition needs to be carried in land vehicles it is an order of magnitude smaller than battleship ammunition.
Point of contention was that a HEAT shell, as an analogue for a standard naval shell, flies 2.5KM from a certain tank gun, and an APFSDS flies 3 KM from the same gun.