Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Consortium of Manchukuo]

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?

If your nation managed to solve all of the accuracy problems years before they were in our world, develop the rounds early on (The british were just starting to use them in WW2 after all), make the leap from ground units to naval units (Or develop them for your navy first), and pursue this approach instead of all the other ones available (Such as getting higher penetration out of your basic cannon shells like the Italians did, up-gunning your warships, and shifting to plunging fire instead of hitting the thick belt armor) then it might be feasible. But as other people have pointed out, it simply would be extremely unlikely that your nation would do it. Its like asking if guided anti-tank missiles arming your forces would prevent enemy tanks from breaking through your nation in... 1939. Sure the technology is there, but is realistic to have managed to develop it to a stage where its actually useful? And with this you have a technological gap too, since by the time you've actually developed the stuff they're probably going to be obsolete soon anyway.

[Yukonastan]

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.

Alright, so in a realistic period sense, APFSDS is out of the question.

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.

Not entirely. My idea was NOT to illustrate the difference in accurate range, but to demonstrate that your conclusion of my (tank gun) range of 3-4KM vs 2.5KM effective range was entirely inadequate when applied to a battleship, whose guns are an order of magnitude larger, and hence have a range that is similarly increased. The rough length of a tank cannon is anywhere between 5.5 and 6.5 metres, and the average length of a battleship cannon is closer to 20 metres.

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.

The US had a few battleships in the 70s and 80s that were used in Vietnam, those had longer range rangefinders and radars than the WWII tube sets. Since I'm already saying "Screw you, era. I'll mash technology together", if fitted with modern targeting systems and very accurate drives and timed firing, you could still have flatter trajectories at semiridiculous ranges, and if you went for a more ballistic arc, your effective range would be completely stupidly long for a non-assisted shell.

[Stahn]

I am glad I was never a huge fan of battleships anyway. I can do without them just fine.

I kinda like the Kirov. I have some of them in my fleet. But I am designing my own ships now and I will be relying on smaller ships for the most part.

I haven't decided on what to do with my carriers (which are all of Soviet design) but for RP purposses I expect I will keep using some sort of carrier for Stahn.

I have two other rather large and powerful nations that also use carriers. One of them is going to keep using them. Davida has a large number of supercarriers and Welgium a large number of smaller steampunk carriers. Which I haven't designed or thought out so far.

What would be a good idea for a steampunk carrier? And I am not talking about airships.

[Mitheldalond]

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.

M829A3 weighs a total of 49 pounds (22.3 kg), of which 18 pounds (8.1 kg) is propellant and 22 pounds (10 kg) is the projectile.

A (non-saboted) projectile for the 5"/38 cal gun weighs 53-55 pounds (24-25 kg), and a full charge of propellant weighs 15.5 pounds (7 kg).

[The Akasha Colony]

Not entirely. My idea was NOT to illustrate the difference in accurate range, but to demonstrate that your conclusion of my (tank gun) range of 3-4KM vs 2.5KM effective range was entirely inadequate when applied to a battleship, whose guns are an order of magnitude larger, and hence have a range that is similarly increased. The rough length of a tank cannon is anywhere between 5.5 and 6.5 metres, and the average length of a battleship cannon is closer to 20 metres.

And my entire point is to demonstrate that this change in size is irrelevant. You will presumably be firing a proportionately larger projectile, which will be launched at essentially the same speed (or less) as a modern tank cannon. And that's the problem. A target twice as far away will have twice the time to move out of your target zone by the time the shell arrives, and the shell will have twice the distance to be affected by various atmospheric factors (although a heavier shell is more resistant to them). In fact, probably more than this because at greater distances, you would need a greater ballistic arc in order to keep the shell in flight.

And unlike tanks, which may routinely encounter stationary enemy vehicles and fortifications that allow them to actually engage reliably at such ranges, ships are essentially always in motion unless you happen to be fortunate to catch your enemy at anchor. In which case it probably won't even matter what you hit them with, you've already won.

The US had a few battleships in the 70s and 80s that were used in Vietnam, those had longer range rangefinders and radars than the WWII tube sets. Since I'm already saying "Screw you, era. I'll mash technology together", if fitted with modern targeting systems and very accurate drives and timed firing, you could still have flatter trajectories at semiridiculous ranges, and if you went for a more ballistic arc, your effective range would be completely stupidly long for a non-assisted shell.

More accurate targeting systems, motors, and timing won't make your ballistic trajectory flatter. Tests with sub-caliber shells were done, and the ranges weren't "completely stupidly long."

[Yukonastan]

Not entirely. My idea was NOT to illustrate the difference in accurate range, but to demonstrate that your conclusion of my (tank gun) range of 3-4KM vs 2.5KM effective range was entirely inadequate when applied to a battleship, whose guns are an order of magnitude larger, and hence have a range that is similarly increased. The rough length of a tank cannon is anywhere between 5.5 and 6.5 metres, and the average length of a battleship cannon is closer to 20 metres.

And my entire point is to demonstrate that this change in size is irrelevant. You will presumably be firing a proportionately larger projectile, which will be launched at essentially the same speed (or less) as a modern tank cannon. And that's the problem. A target twice as far away will have twice the time to move out of your target zone by the time the shell arrives, and the shell will have twice the distance to be affected by various atmospheric factors (although a heavier shell is more resistant to them). In fact, probably more than this because at greater distances, you would need a greater ballistic arc in order to keep the shell in flight.

And unlike tanks, which may routinely encounter stationary enemy vehicles and fortifications that allow them to actually engage reliably at such ranges, ships are essentially always in motion unless you happen to be fortunate to catch your enemy at anchor. In which case it probably won't even matter what you hit them with, you've already won.

The US had a few battleships in the 70s and 80s that were used in Vietnam, those had longer range rangefinders and radars than the WWII tube sets. Since I'm already saying "Screw you, era. I'll mash technology together", if fitted with modern targeting systems and very accurate drives and timed firing, you could still have flatter trajectories at semiridiculous ranges, and if you went for a more ballistic arc, your effective range would be completely stupidly long for a non-assisted shell.

More accurate targeting systems, motors, and timing won't make your ballistic trajectory flatter. Tests with sub-caliber shells were done, and the ranges weren't "completely stupidly long."

More accurate targeting systems, smoother motors, and trackingpoint style firing allow the gun itself to be aimed more accurately, thus enhancing Ph.

[Roski]

Don't talk about ships until you have a carrier that can fly into space.

Notice my rather distinct lack of posts here.

[The Akasha Colony]

More accurate targeting systems, smoother motors, and trackingpoint style firing allow the gun itself to be aimed more accurately, thus enhancing Ph.

Which has nothing to do with the ballistic arc or projectile range. Neither solves the problem that it simply becomes increasingly difficult to hit a moving target at greater ranges with a given projectile speed.

[Yukonastan]

More accurate targeting systems, smoother motors, and trackingpoint style firing allow the gun itself to be aimed more accurately, thus enhancing Ph.

Which has nothing to do with the ballistic arc or projectile range. Neither solves the problem that it simply becomes increasingly difficult to hit a moving target at greater ranges with a given projectile speed.

Next odd round, and this one was apparently either trialled, proposed, or at least designed, scramjet KEP. Not a subcal, is fired from a rifled barrel, but after firing, a scramjet motor ignites. Apparently it was to give the Iowa-class ships stupid long ranges for shore bombardment.

[Mitheldalond]

Which has nothing to do with the ballistic arc or projectile range. Neither solves the problem that it simply becomes increasingly difficult to hit a moving target at greater ranges with a given projectile speed.

Next odd round, and this one was apparently either trialled, proposed, or at least designed, scramjet KEP. Not a subcal, is fired from a rifled barrel, but after firing, a scramjet motor ignites. Apparently it was to give the Iowa-class ships stupid long ranges for shore bombardment.

We call those missiles, or rockets if they're unguided. They don't need to be fired from cannons.

[The Akasha Colony]

Which has nothing to do with the ballistic arc or projectile range. Neither solves the problem that it simply becomes increasingly difficult to hit a moving target at greater ranges with a given projectile speed.

Next odd round, and this one was apparently either trialled, proposed, or at least designed, scramjet KEP. Not a subcal, is fired from a rifled barrel, but after firing, a scramjet motor ignites. Apparently it was to give the Iowa-class ships stupid long ranges for shore bombardment.

In the end, the fancy rounds developed for the Iowas during their last round of modernization would have ended up having costs similar to a guided missile but would be restricted to just four ships in the navy, whereas a conventional missile could be carried by other surface ships and aircraft. A host of new rounds were devised or tested during the 1990s, including two separate sub-caliber programs, a new full-bore HE shell, and a submunition shell, but in the end they weren't worth it for such a specialized platform given the costs involved.

[Yukonastan]

Next odd round, and this one was apparently either trialled, proposed, or at least designed, scramjet KEP. Not a subcal, is fired from a rifled barrel, but after firing, a scramjet motor ignites. Apparently it was to give the Iowa-class ships stupid long ranges for shore bombardment.

We call those missiles, or rockets if they're unguided. They don't need to be fired from cannons.

It wasn't a rocket, it seriously was a 16" shell fitted with a scramjet engine. It was designed for ballistic arc fire, from a rifled cannon, and spin-stabilized. It was NOT a rocket or a missile.

[The Akasha Colony]

We call those missiles, or rockets if they're unguided. They don't need to be fired from cannons.

It wasn't a rocket, it seriously was a 16" shell fitted with a scramjet engine. It was designed for ballistic arc fire, from a rifled cannon, and spin-stabilized. It was NOT a rocket or a missile.

What he means is that at the end of the day, while it may be fired out of a gun, it is functionally still a missile. It requires all the expense and complication of a conventional guided missile, but also requires a big gun tube to fire and must be protected against the stresses of firing.

[Triplebaconation]

We call those missiles, or rockets if they're unguided. They don't need to be fired from cannons.

It wasn't a rocket, it seriously was a 16" shell fitted with a scramjet engine. It was designed for ballistic arc fire, from a rifled cannon, and spin-stabilized. It was NOT a rocket or a missile.

It was actually a "vehicle."

[Yukonastan]

It wasn't a rocket, it seriously was a 16" shell fitted with a scramjet engine. It was designed for ballistic arc fire, from a rifled cannon, and spin-stabilized. It was NOT a rocket or a missile.

It was actually a "vehicle."

Alright, alright, I just got the memo about having to have lolhueg flying carriers. I'll stick to my IDT and MGV threads. *cri*

[Allanea]

Let us suppose I have a cruiser and a frigate operating near a shore (close enough to be in range of ATGMs). Specifically:

this cruiser.

Because the player who owns the cruiser does not expect to be shot at (for IC plot reasons), I am finagling a way to arm several people on the shore with ATGMs (as many as 100 ATGMs can be sent in, but not heavier weapons on account of the fact these people are guerillas whom I am supplying).

Within the confines of this scenario:

1. Do I understand correctly that the ATGMs should be able to hit the cruiser, and that (provided that the launches are a surprise) it would be very unlikely for the ATGMs to be shot down?

2. Let us further suppose that I have 10 ATGM crews dispersable, and that the ATGMs are a disposable type. As soon as the first missiles are off, the crews grab another tube each, and prepare another launch. Assuming again that the first launch is a surprise, how quickly can the ship's crew prepare a response?

3. Would it be possible to eventually sink the ship in this manner, or cause damage to it that will force it to be retired? (The goal is to damage the ship for its financial value, as the other player's nation is small and can only afford one ship of this class).

The ATGMs are NS-wank ATGMs, for the record, and have a very high penetration capability.

[Purpelia]

Have you considered simply claiming you hit something important like the bridge and radar systems? The death of a few bridge officers and knocking out some very expensive electronics should not retire the ship but will be just as good as far as PR goes.

[Connori Pilgrims]

Let us suppose I have a cruiser and a frigate operating near a shore (close enough to be in range of ATGMs). Specifically:

this cruiser.

Because the player who owns the cruiser does not expect to be shot at (for IC plot reasons), I am finagling a way to arm several people on the shore with ATGMs (as many as 100 ATGMs can be sent in, but not heavier weapons on account of the fact these people are guerillas whom I am supplying).

Within the confines of this scenario:

1. Do I understand correctly that the ATGMs should be able to hit the cruiser, and that (provided that the launches are a surprise) it would be very unlikely for the ATGMs to be shot down?

2. Let us further suppose that I have 10 ATGM crews dispersable, and that the ATGMs are a disposable type. As soon as the first missiles are off, the crews grab another tube each, and prepare another launch. Assuming again that the first launch is a surprise, how quickly can the ship's crew prepare a response?

3. Would it be possible to eventually sink the ship in this manner, or cause damage to it that will force it to be retired? (The goal is to damage the ship for its financial value, as the other player's nation is small and can only afford one ship of this class).

The ATGMs are NS-wank ATGMs, for the record, and have a very high penetration capability.

If the objective is to sink the vessel, then ATGMs might not do it. HEAT warheads will generally cause large holes and damage behind said holes in the hull, but unless you've compromised its watertight integrity (by hitting below the waterline or you exploded its magazines) it won't be going down.

[Kouralia]

How does this yacht look?

It's the Kouralian Royal Yacht, and is designed to be as :NS: as possible. Off the top of my head, it can carry...

• A light helicopter and possibly some light UAVs
• As many as four small launches
• Up to 4 'CB-2010'-sized boats
• Up to a full Squadron of Swimmer-Canoeists or other Light Infantry
• A Troop of SIlverfin Guards Commandos (Marines) for defence

For Defence it has...

• Seven 15.5mm/12.7mm Metal Storm CIWS stations
• Two 2pdr not!Dardo weapon stations
• One 6pdr rapid-firing gun
• A Smattering of VLS with SAMs and AShMs

In terms of 'actual Yacht-y things', it has...

• One 'State Apartment'
• Four 'Distinguished Apartments'
• A Swimming Pool
• A Gym
• Two wooden-decked outdoors leisure decks
• A Cinema
• A Ballroom/Central Entertaining Room
• A Swanky Staircase
• etc.

It's also got a nuclear reactor. Sound feasible?

[Allanea]

It is clear that at the first opportunity I must gift your leadership a swankier yacht.

[Allanea]

Let us suppose I have a cruiser and a frigate operating near a shore (close enough to be in range of ATGMs). Specifically:

this cruiser.

Because the player who owns the cruiser does not expect to be shot at (for IC plot reasons), I am finagling a way to arm several people on the shore with ATGMs (as many as 100 ATGMs can be sent in, but not heavier weapons on account of the fact these people are guerillas whom I am supplying).

Within the confines of this scenario:

1. Do I understand correctly that the ATGMs should be able to hit the cruiser, and that (provided that the launches are a surprise) it would be very unlikely for the ATGMs to be shot down?

2. Let us further suppose that I have 10 ATGM crews dispersable, and that the ATGMs are a disposable type. As soon as the first missiles are off, the crews grab another tube each, and prepare another launch. Assuming again that the first launch is a surprise, how quickly can the ship's crew prepare a response?

3. Would it be possible to eventually sink the ship in this manner, or cause damage to it that will force it to be retired? (The goal is to damage the ship for its financial value, as the other player's nation is small and can only afford one ship of this class).

The ATGMs are NS-wank ATGMs, for the record, and have a very high penetration capability.

If the objective is to sink the vessel, then ATGMs might not do it. HEAT warheads will generally cause large holes and damage behind said holes in the hull, but unless you've compromised its watertight integrity (by hitting below the waterline or you exploded its magazines) it won't be going down.

Would ATGMs also cause fires inside the ship?

[Korva]

Let us suppose I have a cruiser and a frigate operating near a shore (close enough to be in range of ATGMs). Specifically:

this cruiser.

Because the player who owns the cruiser does not expect to be shot at (for IC plot reasons), I am finagling a way to arm several people on the shore with ATGMs (as many as 100 ATGMs can be sent in, but not heavier weapons on account of the fact these people are guerillas whom I am supplying).

Within the confines of this scenario:

1. Do I understand correctly that the ATGMs should be able to hit the cruiser, and that (provided that the launches are a surprise) it would be very unlikely for the ATGMs to be shot down?

2. Let us further suppose that I have 10 ATGM crews dispersable, and that the ATGMs are a disposable type. As soon as the first missiles are off, the crews grab another tube each, and prepare another launch. Assuming again that the first launch is a surprise, how quickly can the ship's crew prepare a response?

3. Would it be possible to eventually sink the ship in this manner, or cause damage to it that will force it to be retired? (The goal is to damage the ship for its financial value, as the other player's nation is small and can only afford one ship of this class).

The ATGMs are NS-wank ATGMs, for the record, and have a very high penetration capability.

How are they guided? Because I wouldn't trust wire guided missiles to be too reliable over water.

[Allanea]

These.

Fire-forget heatseekers with backup SACLOS.

[Hasmonea]

If the objective is to sink the vessel, then ATGMs might not do it. HEAT warheads will generally cause large holes and damage behind said holes in the hull, but unless you've compromised its watertight integrity (by hitting below the waterline or you exploded its magazines) it won't be going down.

Would ATGMs also cause fires inside the ship?

Probably - those are HEAT warheads they're packing.

Reportedly the bulk of the damage from the Hezbollah missile attack on INS Hanit was fire damage, the flight deck (I'd think it especially flammable what with aviation fuel and what not in there) among the areas that caught on fire.

And when we're talking about fire, damage control is the key, and it so happens Sa'ar 4.5 corvettes are very packed and loaded vessels, undoubtedly a detriment to damage control.

[Allanea]

אתה ישראלי?

I think that the Hanith was hit with an anti-ship missile, wasn't it?