Your Nations Warships, MKII

[The Akasha Colony]

> Imply baka gaijin amerfat can outsmart Glorious Nippon.

USN won because the Lexington class is beautiful.

Indeed, a shame they had to go dispose of Saratoga.

[Billugslovakc]

I guess so, i just through it was a cool idea. Maybe a large mm set of guns with a longer range would be better, maybe 252mm?

[The Akasha Colony]

BSN Norristromo

A Billugslovakc-class battleship.

This ship is notable for its 16 total 152mm L52 guns that run along its Port and Starboard beams. It has numerous SAM defences, but is designed for sea to land bombardments and engaging other ships.

It isn't going to do that well engaging other warships, especially with 152mm guns, they aren't going to have the range of the great guns carried by warships of WWI and WWII. Even if it had those guns it couldn't engage other warships that well, missiles are preferable.

For shore bombardment in support of an amphibious landing the guns aren't a bad idea, but you aren't going to need that many of these warships to support such a landing. Especially since you will have other warships and fighters to use missiles in support of the landing.

If they're modern 152 mm guns with modern ammunition, they'd likely have comparable range to most battleship guns. Doesn't make it any more useful for shore bombardment though.

[Spirit of Hope]

I guess so, i just through it was a cool idea. Maybe a large mm set of guns with a longer range would be better, maybe 252mm?

Honestly for shore bombardment that might be worse, you would be able to throw less shells per hour, and would have less total shells to throw.

For anti ship use a larger caliber isn't going to improve the warships capabilities. They aren't going to have the range to engage other warships no mater how big you make the guns. Missiles have guns beat there.

[Billugslovakc]

It isn't going to do that well engaging other warships, especially with 152mm guns, they aren't going to have the range of the great guns carried by warships of WWI and WWII. Even if it had those guns it couldn't engage other warships that well, missiles are preferable.

For shore bombardment in support of an amphibious landing the guns aren't a bad idea, but you aren't going to need that many of these warships to support such a landing. Especially since you will have other warships and fighters to use missiles in support of the landing.

If they're modern 152 mm guns with modern ammunition, they'd likely have comparable range to most battleship guns. Doesn't make it any more useful for shore bombardment though.

They are modern, if anything, this ship is designed to be engaging enemy fleets with plenty of cover. I'm sorry that i left it out, but the ship does carry a substantial missile armourment, its just the majority is AA, not Ship to ship. Also, it carries a lot of antimissile chignon batteries, if this makes the ship sound better. Personally, i kind of like the idea of a battleship bristling with several 152mm guns, so i think i'll keep it at that

[EsToVnIa]

If they're modern 152 mm guns with modern ammunition, they'd likely have comparable range to most battleship guns. Doesn't make it any more useful for shore bombardment though.

They are modern, if anything, this ship is designed to be engaging enemy fleets with plenty of cover. I'm sorry that i left it out, but the ship does carry a substantial missile armourment, its just the majority is AA, not Ship to ship. Also, it carries a lot of antimissile chignon batteries, if this makes the ship sound better. Personally, i kind of like the idea of a battleship bristling with several 152mm guns, so i think i'll keep it at that

You understand how modern naval warfare is conducted, right

[Billugslovakc]

They are modern, if anything, this ship is designed to be engaging enemy fleets with plenty of cover. I'm sorry that i left it out, but the ship does carry a substantial missile armourment, its just the majority is AA, not Ship to ship. Also, it carries a lot of antimissile chignon batteries, if this makes the ship sound better. Personally, i kind of like the idea of a battleship bristling with several 152mm guns, so i think i'll keep it at that

You understand how modern naval warfare is conducted, right

I will answer that in 3, simple words

NO FREAKN' IDEA

[Spirit of Hope]

If they're modern 152 mm guns with modern ammunition, they'd likely have comparable range to most battleship guns. Doesn't make it any more useful for shore bombardment though.

They are modern, if anything, this ship is designed to be engaging enemy fleets with plenty of cover. I'm sorry that i left it out, but the ship does carry a substantial missile armourment, its just the majority is AA, not Ship to ship. Also, it carries a lot of antimissile chignon batteries, if this makes the ship sound better. Personally, i kind of like the idea of a battleship bristling with several 152mm guns, so i think i'll keep it at that

From a realism perspective this still isn't a good idea for engaging other fleets. Missiles out range your guns, and you can not negate enemy aircraft and missiles by stuffing more SAM's into your battleship.

I understand the appeal of the gun armed battle ship, but that doesn't mean that it is a good idea.

[Billugslovakc]

Good thing I'm a peaceful nation. Besides, my land position means that i rely more heavily on my army and airforce.

[EsToVnIa]

Why are you sinking money into a (frankly) outdated battleship then

[The Akasha Colony]

If they're modern 152 mm guns with modern ammunition, they'd likely have comparable range to most battleship guns. Doesn't make it any more useful for shore bombardment though.

They are modern, if anything, this ship is designed to be engaging enemy fleets with plenty of cover. I'm sorry that i left it out, but the ship does carry a substantial missile armourment, its just the majority is AA, not Ship to ship. Also, it carries a lot of antimissile chignon batteries, if this makes the ship sound better. Personally, i kind of like the idea of a battleship bristling with several 152mm guns, so i think i'll keep it at that

Good luck catching the enemy. Given the practical upper limits on warship speed, you'll almost certainly never get in range even if the enemy is unarmed.

[Billugslovakc]

How about we agree that even if it is impractical, it would still look freaked badass

[Billugslovakc]

They are modern, if anything, this ship is designed to be engaging enemy fleets with plenty of cover. I'm sorry that i left it out, but the ship does carry a substantial missile armourment, its just the majority is AA, not Ship to ship. Also, it carries a lot of antimissile chignon batteries, if this makes the ship sound better. Personally, i kind of like the idea of a battleship bristling with several 152mm guns, so i think i'll keep it at that

Good luck catching the enemy. Given the practical upper limits on warship speed, you'll almost certainly never get in range even if the enemy is unarmed.

My 152s have massive range so i think it compensates and the battleship is reasonably fast, like the Brismack (is that how you spell it

[Spirit of Hope]

How about we agree that even if it is impractical, it would still look freaked badass

It would look magnificent as its main powder batteries explode after the second missile impact. The middle of the ship lifted out of the water ever so slightly, flame and debris reaching into the sky. crew members jumping into the water to avoid the fire, and the command crew heroically going down with the ship.


Yes big gun warships look great, which is why I made a couple to use for shore bombardment.

[The Akasha Colony]

Good luck catching the enemy. Given the practical upper limits on warship speed, you'll almost certainly never get in range even if the enemy is unarmed.

My 152s have massive range so i think it compensates and the battleship is reasonably fast, like the Brismack (is that how you spell it

Bismarck was only about average in terms of speed as battleships of the era go, and most modern open ocean combatants would be able to outrun it without much problem. Or at best require you to spend days chasing them down.

And as "massive" as your range might seem to be, it's nothing compared to a missile. Not like your battleship has the reconnaissance assets to use its range, anyway.

How about we agree that even if it is impractical, it would still look freaked badass

Not really. With 152 mm guns located on the side it'd look terribly awkward. Nothing at all like the elegant centerline fore-and-aft mounts of the battleships of yore.

[The Soodean Imperium]

My 152s have massive range so i think it compensates and the battleship is reasonably fast, like the Brismack (is that how you spell it

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_15-52_skc34.htm

Bismarck's shells had a maximum range of 35 kilometers. It would take an armor-piercing shell 69.9 seconds to reach that range, in which time the enemy ship can change course (modern destroyers are quite agile) but the shell keeps falling toward the same spot. Base-bleed 155mm rounds can travel perhaps 50 kilometers or more, but travel time is increased, and with a battleship's fire-control systems you won't be able to engage anything hidden beyond the curvature of the earth (which is about ~40 kilometers away depending on your mast height and your target's mast height). There's a reason the accuracy of battleship guns at maximum range is measured in single-digit percentage points.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_%28missile%29

The RGM-84 Harpoon has a maximum range of 120 to 240 kilometers, depending on variant, and carries a 221-kilogram warhead. What's more, rather than falling toward a fixed point, it will actively home in on the target ship if said ship is within its seeker's field of view, allowing it to be fired over the horizon if another platform detects the target. It can even receive mid-flight course corrections if the target's location changes a lot. And this is one of the more mediocre anti-ship missiles out there.

Even if your ship could slightly exceed the speed of a guided missile destroyer, it would take hours or even days to catch up, in which time the other ship will be able to engage you at its leisure.

How about we agree that even if it is impractical, it would still look freaked badass

Serious tip: if you think gun-armed ships look cool... then RP in an era when gun-armed warships were the norm.

I'm going through a Pre-Dreadnought phase right now, but Heaven knows I'd never use pre-dreadnoughts in an MT war.



(pictured: what six 152mm guns lined up along each side of a ship looks like)

[Billugslovakc]

Well, i think I'm just going to lay my card out on the table and walk away from this situation; very, very slowly.

[The Soodean Imperium]

Well, i think I'm just going to lay my card out on the table and walk away from this situation; very, very slowly.

Again, if you want to use gun-armed warships in their proper eras, that's fine (though even then there are limits to how many guns you can realistically fit on a hull etc).

A wooden Man-Of-War would is fine in the Napoleonic era but would be easy prey for the Bismarck; the Bismarck is fine in World War II but would be easy prey for a modern guided missile destroyer.

[Husseinarti]

NS makes bad SB boats?

[EsToVnIa]

NS makes bad SB boats?

([url=http://s13.postimg.org/qh7wnqtnr/leguyader.png]Image)[/url]

([url=http://s13.postimg.org/957k2b06f/charlemagne.png]Image)[/url]

([url=http://s13.postimg.org/oo4zzf8h3/chacal.png]Image)[/url]

too small

can't see them

[United Marxist Nations]

If the appeal of the battleship is that it is big and looks badass; there are other kinds of ships you could get that have those aspects and, while they certainly aren't ideal, would at least be easier to justify, like Kirov-class or equivalent.

[Valdiu]

What about an older missile submarine converted to have an exceptionally flat "landing pad" faired into the hull and a hangar too? And if I bumped the number down to two "technology demonstrators" whose production class was not produced but the two prototypes are operational?

Still not a good idea.

Why do you want a pane carrying submarine?

By making it "flatter" you damage the subs ability to hide, the sub will be increasingly noisy in the water making it easy to spot. So you loose the big bonus of using a submarine, stealth.

Submarines are also unstable on the surface. They won't sink, but they aren't going to be a good platform to land or take a plane off of. Likely only in the calmest weather would flight operations be possible, loosing you the great advantage of the carrier the ability to launch planes under most conditions.

All right. I've abandoned the basic idea, but in theory, if I were to do this, a launch-rail type thing would probably be best, (I-400 style) correct?

For that matter, what about a rail on which cheap UAVs could be mounted?

[Spirit of Hope]

Still not a good idea.

Why do you want a pane carrying submarine?

By making it "flatter" you damage the subs ability to hide, the sub will be increasingly noisy in the water making it easy to spot. So you loose the big bonus of using a submarine, stealth.

Submarines are also unstable on the surface. They won't sink, but they aren't going to be a good platform to land or take a plane off of. Likely only in the calmest weather would flight operations be possible, loosing you the great advantage of the carrier the ability to launch planes under most conditions.

All right. I've abandoned the basic idea, but in theory, if I were to do this, a launch-rail type thing would probably be best, (I-400 style) correct?

For that matter, what about a rail on which cheap UAVs could be mounted?

You could do that, but again it would still probably make more noise as the rail moved through the water. If you want to launch UAV's put them in a container that can be launched out of the subs torpedo tubes, or missile tubes, that will raise to the surface and then launch the UAV. This probably will limit the UAV somewhat, but will allow you most uses of a UAV.

[Valdiu]

All right. I've abandoned the basic idea, but in theory, if I were to do this, a launch-rail type thing would probably be best, (I-400 style) correct?

For that matter, what about a rail on which cheap UAVs could be mounted?

You could do that, but again it would still probably make more noise as the rail moved through the water. If you want to launch UAV's put them in a container that can be launched out of the subs torpedo tubes, or missile tubes, that will raise to the surface and then launch the UAV. This probably will limit the UAV somewhat, but will allow you most uses of a UAV.

Would VLS work?

[Spirit of Hope]

You could do that, but again it would still probably make more noise as the rail moved through the water. If you want to launch UAV's put them in a container that can be launched out of the subs torpedo tubes, or missile tubes, that will raise to the surface and then launch the UAV. This probably will limit the UAV somewhat, but will allow you most uses of a UAV.

Would VLS work?

If you design it right. I believe some modern submarines use VLS cells in certain submarines.