Your Nations Warships, MKII

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

And her AA armament was pretty good, as you say, but they didn't have enough too protect from around 300-400 us planes.

It was actually mediocre to inferior compared to other guns in the same period. The training and elevation speeds were slow even in powered mounts, the magazine held 15 rounds that were all gone in 4 seconds and had to be handloaded after it had been expended, compared to the Bofors in American service which you could load as it fired, the magazine issue was so bad it actually halved the cyclic rate of fire from 200-260 to 110 effective. Hitting power and range like any other 20-25 mm mount during the war left much to be asked. Overall, it compared well to the 20 mm Oerlikon but was terribly inferior to the Bofors.

[Oaledonia]

Speaking of AA armament on ww2 ships, would a ship around the size of a cruiser armed with a stupidly huge amount of anti aircraft weapons that fallows around large capital ships like battleships and provides aa support, be a good idea?

http://www.shipbucket.com/Never%20Built%20Designs/Japan/CAAA%20Kumano%201943.png

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Speaking of AA armament on ww2 ships, would a ship around the size of a cruiser armed with a stupidly huge amount of anti aircraft weapons that fallows around large capital ships like battleships and provides aa support, be a good idea?

http://www.shipbucket.com/Never%20Built%20Designs/Japan/CAAA%20Kumano%201943.png

12.7 cm Type 89? 10 cm Type 5 or get out.

[Zerinfriom]

And her AA armament was pretty good, as you say, but they didn't have enough too protect from around 300-400 us planes.

It was actually mediocre to inferior compared to other guns in the same period. The training and elevation speeds were slow even in powered mounts, the magazine held 15 rounds that were all gone in 4 seconds and had to be handloaded after it had been expended, compared to the Bofors in American service which you could load as it fired, the magazine issue was so bad it actually halved the cyclic rate of fire from 200-260 to 110 effective. Hitting power and range like any other 20-25 mm mount during the war left much to be asked. Overall, it compared well to the 20 mm Oerlikon but was terribly inferior to the Bofors.

Yeah you are right,

The Yamato was a beautiful ship if you ask me.

[United Marxist Nations]

Dude, seriously. Yamato was shorter than the Iowas, all 24 Essexes, the Midways, and every other US carrier since then.

Yamato is ridiculously over-hyped. She is famous only because she had the biggest guns of any battleship ever, not because of her accomplishments of prowess in battle. Yamato accomplished literally nothing over her entire career. Seriously, read the "service" section of the Wikipedia article. Worst is the Battle off Samar, where she was sent running by essentially a single destroyer.

It's also worth noting that Yamato had a very powerful AA armament, with 162 25mm guns in 1945.

No the Yamato was longer than the Iowas, and the Essex, probably the Mid way,

And her AA armament was pretty good, as you say, but they didn't have enough too protect from around 300-400 us planes.

No, it wasn't longer, it was larger.

That is why ships tend to move in formation, it maximizes their firepower; mutual protection, and all that.

[Allanea]

Is it possible to have a recoilless armament on a warship with a muzzle velocity comparable to that of a conventional armament in the same caliber?

[Zerinfriom]

No the Yamato was longer than the Iowas, and the Essex, probably the Mid way,

And her AA armament was pretty good, as you say, but they didn't have enough too protect from around 300-400 us planes.

No, it wasn't longer, it was larger.

That is why ships tend to move in formation, it maximizes their firepower; mutual protection, and all that.

Yeah that is what I ment,

And also that, I think it was Cruisers in the first circle, cruisers, in the next one, then larger cruisers, and battleships, then the carrier, was the standard formation for the US.

But the Yamato was way to under used, and when it was they where utter failures,

[Mitheldalond]

Well, if we're doing modernized battleships, then how's this look for a moderately extensive overhaul of the Iowas?

Iowa-class battleship:
• 9 x 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns
• 96 x Mk 41 VLS cells:
- 48 x RIM-66 SM-2
- 48 x Tonahawk anti-ship missile
• 6 x Mk 22 GMLS - 11 (66) x RIM-66, 5 (30) x RGM-84 Harpoons
• 2 x Mk 143 ABL - 8 x TASM
• 4 x 32-cell Mk 56 on-deck VLS - 128 x ESSM
• 4 x Phalanx/SeaRAM CIWS

The Mk 41 modules take the place of 6 of the Mk 143 armored box launchers (the two aft most launchers are retained). The Mk 22s will replace the remaining six 5"/38 turrets.

We went over this.
BBV or get out.

Too much structural modification. I'd rather avoid cutting through 7.5 inches of armor steel as much as possible. I'll probably have to do a bit to fit the Mk 41s and maybe the Mk 22s, but that's nothing compared to ripping up half of the stern.

Besides which, I've already got plenty of carriers, and I can just park a couple AEW Sea Kings on the landing pad as it is.

[United Marxist Nations]

No, it wasn't longer, it was larger.

That is why ships tend to move in formation, it maximizes their firepower; mutual protection, and all that.

Yeah that is what I ment,

And also that, I think it was Cruisers in the first circle, cruisers, in the next one, then larger cruisers, and battleships, then the carrier, was the standard formation for the US.

But the Yamato was way to under used, and when it was they where utter failures,

In all fairness, there was a pretty good reason they were under-used. When you make an investment that big, you try to keep it from getting blown up. Plus, their loss would have been a huge morale loss, due to its symbolism (Yamato being an archaic name for Japan, the ship was basically supposed to represent Japanese spirit incarnate), so it had to be protected. As for whether it could have had much impact, maybe a tactical impact in a set-piece battle, but not really in the grand-scheme of things.

[Zerinfriom]

Yeah that is what I ment,

And also that, I think it was Cruisers in the first circle, cruisers, in the next one, then larger cruisers, and battleships, then the carrier, was the standard formation for the US.

But the Yamato was way to under used, and when it was they where utter failures,

In all fairness, there was a pretty good reason they were under-used. When you make an investment that big, you try to keep it from getting blown up. Plus, their loss would have been a huge morale loss, due to its symbolism (Yamato being an archaic name for Japan, the ship was basically supposed to represent Japanese spirit incarnate), so it had to be protected. As for whether it could have had much impact, maybe a tactical impact in a set-piece battle, but not really in the grand-scheme of things.

Yeah there was that too, it was a preety good reason too not be used.

But still a one on one broadside clash between the Yamato, and Iowa would've been one for the history books.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

It was actually mediocre to inferior compared to other guns in the same period. The training and elevation speeds were slow even in powered mounts, the magazine held 15 rounds that were all gone in 4 seconds and had to be handloaded after it had been expended, compared to the Bofors in American service which you could load as it fired, the magazine issue was so bad it actually halved the cyclic rate of fire from 200-260 to 110 effective. Hitting power and range like any other 20-25 mm mount during the war left much to be asked. Overall, it compared well to the 20 mm Oerlikon but was terribly inferior to the Bofors.

Yeah you are right,

The Yamato was a beautiful ship if you ask me.

Extra note, 20 mm Oerlikon had a 60 round spring driven spiral magazine, and fired 250 rpm effective at the least, 25 mil Type 96 get out. Well glad I swapped the Type 96 for the 40 mm Bofors at earliest possible.
For anyone intending to modernize battleships with new engines, do note that in Yamato's case the compartment was covered by 200 mm's of armour, making regular maintenance a hassle and replacements all but impossible without decommissioning the ship and ripping out the superstructure and the deck armour wholesale. I do not know if any other battleships has this problem but I do advise to leave the engines in. Oil fired steam turbines as most BB's had during WWII was plenty powerful enough.

[Zerinfriom]

So

USS Gerald R. Ford

Future? or Failure?

[Mitheldalond]

So

USS Gerald R. Ford

Future? or Failure?

The US is really the only nation on earth that has mastered the art of carrier building. They aren't going to suddenly screw up something they've been perfecting since WWII.

[Zerinfriom]

So

USS Gerald R. Ford

Future? or Failure?

The US is really the only nation on earth that has mastered the art of carrier building. They aren't going to suddenly screw up something they've been perfecting since WWII.

Yeah defiantly agreed.

[The Akasha Colony]

For anyone intending to modernize battleships with new engines, do note that in Yamato's case the compartment was covered by 200 mm's of armour, making regular maintenance a hassle and replacements all but impossible without decommissioning the ship and ripping out the superstructure and the deck armour wholesale. I do not know if any other battleships has this problem but I do advise to leave the engines in. Oil fired steam turbines as most BB's had during WWII was plenty powerful enough.

This is true of every battleship I know of, given that the point of deck armor was to protect vital equipment like the engines. Battleship engine replacements and significant overhauls were only common in the inter-war era when the treaties prevented the construction of new ships, so nations like Italy and Japan put significant effort into modernizing their existing ships. IIRC one of the reasons Bismarck ended up with steam turbines rather than the proposed diesels was that the diesels would require more frequent maintenance, which would be difficult in their given location (even though the diesels would give superior range).

17 killed and 39 injured on the USS Cole beg to differ.

See, this is the thing about "insurgency" that NSers like Roski would do well to understand. As the old Mao quote runs, "the guerilla must move among the people as a fish swims in the sea." This doesn't mean amassing a huge army of peasants with AKs and hurling it forward at the enemy until they run out of ammunition or are buried under your bodies. It means waiting for small opportunities to hit where the enemy is vulnerable, gradually wearing them down in the hopes that their political willpower will fade faster than yours.

Obviously, packing explosives into a perfectly good frigate - or even a speedboat - and sailing it right into the enemy on the open seas is stupid. If the enemy can see your ship, identify it as hostile, and man battle stations, then your chances of closing the distance and ramming them before you're destroyed are just about nil. Indeed, if you happen to have a lot of seaworthy but obsolete warships when invaded by a larger power, you're much better off using them to lay mines in key straits and harbor entrances.

But in an actual insurgency situation, where you have little meaningful conventional military capability and have resorted to guerrilla warfare, "modern fire ships" might be one's best option. Again, think back to the USS Cole, or even the occasional harassment of US and UK warships by Iranian speedboats. In a busy harbor, where there are dozens of small craft moving back and forth, it can be hard to tell who's friendly and who's hostile. Maritime regulations make it clear that you should keep your distance from a warship, but is the captain willing to risk the political fallout of killing some illiterate fishermen who just wanted a closer look? Even a few seconds' hesitation might buy one enough time to duck out of the traffic and attempt to ram. And even if the ship is back in action after three years, the effects on morale at home and abroad are significant.

But this is NS, where "insurgents" get their own fighter jets and destroyers, so w/e.

Which is why the USN no longer docks its warships in unsecure ports. A warship in port is the same as any other target in a city, it is no longer "at sea." None of the proposed techniques aside from mining would work at sea.

So

USS Gerald R. Ford

Future? or Failure?

Ford is only an update to the original Nimitz design.

It's also worth noting that Yamato had a very powerful AA armament, with 162 25mm guns in 1945.

This is actually not a very powerful anti-aircraft armament. The 25 mm guns, and even the Allied 20 mm Oerlikons, were woefully inadequate by 1945. They had a limited rate of fire and tracked too slowly to effectively engage late war aircraft. Yamato's 127 mm guns were decent, but Musashi never received her full set, and the Japanese never had anything equivalent to the intermediate-caliber 40 mm Bofors or even the German 37 mm.

[Novorden]

How about HMS Vanguard with her 73 40mm Bofors AA guns.

[The Akasha Colony]

How about HMS Vanguard with her 73 40mm Bofors AA guns.

The Iowas had 80. Although by the time Vanguard was commissioned, they were already slated to be replaced by the 76 mm.

[Allanea]

Is it possible to have a recoilless armament on a warship with a muzzle velocity comparable to that of a conventional armament in the same caliber?

Reposting with picture.

[Lykens]

Is it possible to have a recoilless armament on a warship with a muzzle velocity comparable to that of a conventional armament in the same caliber?

Reposting with picture.

Do you know which ship that is?

The Russian Wikipedia page for it isn't cooperating on the English version.

[Allanea]

It's the destroyer Engels.

Belonging to this class.

[Oaledonia]

Yeah that is what I ment,

And also that, I think it was Cruisers in the first circle, cruisers, in the next one, then larger cruisers, and battleships, then the carrier, was the standard formation for the US.

But the Yamato was way to under used, and when it was they where utter failures,

In all fairness, there was a pretty good reason they were under-used. When you make an investment that big, you try to keep it from getting blown up. Plus, their loss would have been a huge morale loss, due to its symbolism (Yamato being an archaic name for Japan, the ship was basically supposed to represent Japanese spirit incarnate), so it had to be protected. As for whether it could have had much impact, maybe a tactical impact in a set-piece battle, but not really in the grand-scheme of things.

Fuso was also a classic name for Japan. As was Yamashiro and other ships
But they esploderd :c

Excuse to post a recent addition to muh shipz

[Padnak]

Would incentiveizing the growing of facial hair by captains in my navy have any downsides?

for maximum Captain Haddock-ness

[Gallia-]

They end up looking ridiculous.

Only moustaches should be allowed:

[San-Silvacian]

unf.

[Padnak]

They end up looking ridiculous.

Only moustaches should be allowed:

moustaches only make you look like a failed car salesman