NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Anagonia]

As they currently are, the Iowas are not suited for upgrades. Battleships are designed for maximum hull integrity and armor strength- cutting them open to replace engines or remove armor is not realistic barring a keel up rebuild. Which mind you, is entirely possible if that's how your canon works, seeing as the whole "it'd be cheaper to build a new ship - there's no reason to build brand new battleships" seems to be ignorable. Blame national pride and history or something, I don't know.

If your nation has such a boner for battleships that they're willing to spend huge amounts of cash without looking at effectiveness per dollar there really is no reason they can't just build a new class. Take a look at GE&T in that case- modern nuclear guided missile battleships abound.

Any actual upgrades of an Iowa would require stripping the majority of its systems for modern replacements. Unless construction was delayed until the 50s and it was redesigned as a BBN, you're stuck with 40s eras boilers. At best, propulsion might be improved by newer propellers, but that's about it. Weapons-wise, you can certainly attempt to upgrade its antiair capabilities by replacing the 5 inch guns with 76mm OTO Melaras and adding in additional CIWS e.g. Sea-RAM, but don't expect to be able to operate the ship without the support of a task group. As far as shore bombardment goes, you'd be much improved in the development of guided submunition rounds for the 16 inch guns, which would probably greatly increase the effective area of each salvo. Retain the ABLs and Harpoon launchers. Electronics and fire control systems will have to be overhauled to a modern standard- iirc there are issues with radars being damaged by the shock of the main guns firing however.

So what I presented is a brand new design, regardless of how I look at it? I remember it being stated that the hull design was from a Zumwalt (sp?). So I have to, regardless of how I look at it, make it a new design? Correct?

Now if I understand correctly, keep the turrets, but design munition rounds that fire off as missiles or are these guided bullets?

Thank you, you've given me much to consider.

[Laritaia]

What about this submarine here, then? Mesh between Gato-class and Akula and intended as a World War II diseal (sp) powered submarine. Is it feasible while looking at this image that this design could be incorporated to a modern navy as a training ship?

Barracuda-class

i don't think there is space on a Gato for any of the akulaesq systems

And even besides that the Gato's hull form is hopelessly outdated, to the extent that it's utility for training is extremely limited, beyond teaching new submariners exactly how crappy it was being on a submarine in "ye olden times".

but again due to the redefinition of realism and the forum's stated dislike of my answering questions with a blunt "no" i'm gonna go with "sure, whatever"

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

They would be GPS guided shells like Excalibur carrying cluster bomblets.
WWII and up to 60-70's era submarines (if you have boats from UdSSR), are way too loud to be survivable in the 21st century.

[Anagonia]

What about this submarine here, then? Mesh between Gato-class and Akula and intended as a World War II diseal (sp) powered submarine. Is it feasible while looking at this image that this design could be incorporated to a modern navy as a training ship?

Barracuda-class

i don't think there is space on a Gato for any of the akulaesq systems

And even besides that the Gato's hull form is hopelessly outdated, to the extent that it's utility for training is extremely limited, beyond teaching new submariners exactly how crappy it was being on a submarine in "ye olden times".

but again due to the redefinition of realism and the forum's stated dislike of my answering questions with a blunt "no" i'm gonna go with "sure, whatever"

Okay, I didn't clarify.

The design is intended to have been manufactured during Anagonia's World War years. It is designed to represent an old submarine design, not intended for war. The design was inspired between an akula and a gato, but that shouldn't mean it couldn't exist in this universe. Should it? Or should I scrap it because of that?

I'm not sure how the thread derailed from what you understand realism as. The entire debate before wasn't about realism, or saying "no", it was about a huge misunderstanding because all I had to do was be blunt and I didn't. I count that as my fault.

[Anagonia]

They would be GPS guided shells like Excalibur carrying cluster bomblets.
WWII and up to 60-70's era submarines (if you have boats from UdSSR), are way too loud to be survivable in the 21st century.

Oh! I never knew about guided shells! Okay, that opens up possibilities. SO you're basically switching the conventional rounds over to fully guided.

I agree they are, but the question was would it make a good training sub for submarine cadets.

[The Akasha Colony]

I came here because I consider you and your peers experts. I wanted advice on what you'd think should be in the design, not being told over and over again I'm foolish or a part of some "conspiracy" to "want battleships". It's entirely silly to tell me I "want battleships" when they've been a part of my canon since 2003.

What I didn't want was...whatever the hell just happened.

What we mean by "want battleships" is exactly that. "Your nation" is merely an assembly of words on the internet and thoughts in your head (and maybe some writings on paper), like all of the rest of ours. Thus, battleships exist in your nation's canon only because you want them to and it is entirely your choice as to whether to remove them and simply retcon them out or keep them. They continue to exist in spite of contradicting advice because you continue to want them to exist. No one can force you to keep them and their existence is not some immutable fact of life. Yes, they've been around for a while in your canon and all that, but that could be changed with literally a few keystrokes. If George Lucas can change who shot first, you can change your canon.

You had the misfortune of dropping into a subject that perhaps more than any other, these threads generally hate. Because like clockwork they come up every few weeks or months when someone else pops in and wants their battleships because "battleships rule the waves, not the bloody bird farms!" or something similar or they think they've found some way to keep their battleships useful that somehow eluded IRL naval planners the world over. And then they ask for advice and justification and the weary response is almost always "inb4 personal army." No other similar subject I can think of comes up as often, not quad-track tanks, not multiple-gun tanks, not five-different-tank-type armies, etc. That's why that given reaction happened.

What about this submarine here, then? Mesh between Gato-class and Akula and intended as a World War II diseal (sp) powered submarine. Is it feasible while looking at this image that this design could be incorporated to a modern navy as a training ship?

Barracuda-class

It doesn't look like something that would be built during WWII. Which is not too surprising once you start incorporating late Cold War elements into it.

A WWII submarine would not be very good as a modern navy training ship. Submarines in particular have fixed lifetimes because over time, the stress from repeated submergence and surfacing cycles wears them out and there's no way around this. And a WWII submarine wouldn't be designed for the sort of equipment used today, so what would the crew be training on? They'd be learning on WWII systems that are totally different from the more modern systems used today. Taiwan has a few old leftover GUPPYs but this isn't for lack of trying, given the political difficulties most nations face in selling them military equipment.

So what I presented is a brand new design, regardless of how I look at it? I remember it being stated that the hull design was from a Zumwalt (sp?). So I have to, regardless of how I look at it, make it a new design? Correct?

Now if I understand correctly, keep the turrets, but design munition rounds that fire off as missiles or are these guided bullets?

Thank you, you've given me much to consider.

Gun-launched missiles are legitimately a bad idea for a warship. Like, a really bad idea, and an active step backwards in capability. They're worse than going back to arm launchers, because at least arm launchers are relatively compact. If you need missiles, use VLS. Make the guns as small and as light and as automated as possible to minimize the money and manpower spent keeping them.

Guided rounds and rocket-assisted rounds are w/e, they theoretically have applications (although a 16" gun is excessively large for these applications). But Kouralia's suggestion of firing the ship's missiles from its guns is really bad unless your definition of "realism" is basically FanT (which his is, so that's fine for him).

[Austrasien]

Ships useful life is limited and the older they get, the more expensive it becomes to keep them running. Running a ship wears it out. Sea water is corrosive. Small accidents cause damage to accumulate. Etc. The economics of trying to keep a WWII era submarine in regular service as a training vessel would be terrible.

[Laritaia]

i don't think there is space on a Gato for any of the akulaesq systems

And even besides that the Gato's hull form is hopelessly outdated, to the extent that it's utility for training is extremely limited, beyond teaching new submariners exactly how crappy it was being on a submarine in "ye olden times".

but again due to the redefinition of realism and the forum's stated dislike of my answering questions with a blunt "no" i'm gonna go with "sure, whatever"

Okay, I didn't clarify.

The design is intended to have been manufactured during Anagonia's World War years. It is designed to represent an old submarine design, not intended for war. The design was inspired between an akula and a gato, but that shouldn't mean it couldn't exist in this universe. Should it? Or should I scrap it because of that?

I'm not sure how the thread derailed from what you understand realism as. The entire debate before wasn't about realism, or saying "no", it was about a huge misunderstanding because all I had to do was be blunt and I didn't. I count that as my fault.

your Akula/Gato hybrid abomination is not realistic and your planned use for it is pointless

beyond the impossibility and unrealistic blending of two designs laid down a good 40 years apart, there is literally nothing that such a submarine would be useful for in the 21st century that couldn't be done far cheaper and more effectively using other methods.

but as i said this criticism falls outside the new definition of "realistic"

so my answer is "sure, whatever"

[New Chilokver]

Welcome to the RDT, where we're all just a bunch of mentally old men who get tired after the first round of circlejerking, but keep going because we got fuck-all else to do. :shrug:

Heh.

Okay, so, let's forget the <s>battleship</s> dreadnought ever happened. What about this submarine here, then? Mesh between Gato-class and Akula and intended as a World War II diseal (sp) powered submarine. Is it feasible while looking at this image that this design could be incorporated to a modern navy as a training ship?

Barracuda-class

No.

Anything from a WWII diesel submarine is pretty much inapplicable as far as training current day submariners goes. With SSNs, you might find them staying on for an additional 30 years as Moored Training Ships for nuclear reactor training, but diesel boats generally only last 2-3 years as auxiliary training vessels before retiring.

Then again, if "realism" is what can be physically be done, not logically, then it's certainly possible to maintain a WWII era sub in active service until the modern day for training purposes if so desired. It'd just be self-defeating in purpose.

[Anagonia]

What we mean by "want battleships" is exactly that. "Your nation" is merely an assembly of words on the internet and thoughts in your head (and maybe some writings on paper), like all of the rest of ours. Thus, battleships exist in your nation's canon only because you want them to and it is entirely your choice as to whether to remove them and simply retcon them out or keep them. They continue to exist in spite of contradicting advice because you continue to want them to exist. No one can force you to keep them and their existence is not some immutable fact of life. Yes, they've been around for a while in your canon and all that, but that could be changed with literally a few keystrokes. If George Lucas can change who shot first, you can change your canon.

You had the misfortune of dropping into a subject that perhaps more than any other, these threads generally hate. Because like clockwork they come up every few weeks or months when someone else pops in and wants their battleships because "battleships rule the waves, not the bloody bird farms!" or something similar or they think they've found some way to keep their battleships useful that somehow eluded IRL naval planners the world over. And then they ask for advice and justification and the weary response is almost always "inb4 personal army." No other similar subject I can think of comes up as often, not quad-track tanks, not multiple-gun tanks, not five-different-tank-type armies, etc. That's why that given reaction happened.

Okay so that makes better sense as to what happened. Basically I unintentionally triggered the community all because I wanted to remain canon with my nation, at the same time as being realistic in the terms of not godmodding with design specs? Damn, I'm sorry.

It doesn't look like something that would be built during WWII. Which is not too surprising once you start incorporating late Cold War elements into it.

A WWII submarine would not be very good as a modern navy training ship. Submarines in particular have fixed lifetimes because over time, the stress from repeated submergence and surfacing cycles wears them out and there's no way around this. And a WWII submarine wouldn't be designed for the sort of equipment used today, so what would the crew be training on? They'd be learning on WWII systems that are totally different from the more modern systems used today. Taiwan has a few old leftover GUPPYs but this isn't for lack of trying, given the political difficulties most nations face in selling them military equipment.

From your viewpoint, and with the mixed designs, should I scrap it or just use it as a placeholder? I'm not sure how it could feasibly be a modern sub as it wasn't intended to be one.

Gun-launched missiles are legitimately a bad idea for a warship. Like, a really bad idea, and an active step backwards in capability. They're worse than going back to arm launchers, because at least arm launchers are relatively compact. If you need missiles, use VLS. Make the guns as small and as light and as automated as possible to minimize the money and manpower spent keeping them.

Guided rounds and rocket-assisted rounds are w/e, they theoretically have applications (although a 16" gun is excessively large for these applications). But Kouralia's suggestion of firing the ship's missiles from its guns is really bad unless your definition of "realism" is basically FanT (which his is, so that's fine for him).

No, no! I am not fantasy tech! Apparently a region of new nations thinks so because I use stats, but that's their issue. I digress, no, I want to be practical in design. If I should stick with conventional ammunition, so be it. The-....er....dreadnoughts have to remain a part of the active fleet. There's just no way around it.

Akula/Gato hybrid abomination is not realistic and your planned use for it in pointless

beyond the impossibility and unrealistic blending of two designs laid down a good 40 years apart, there is literally nothing that such a submarine would be useful for in the 21st century that couldn't be done far cheaper and more effecticly using other methods.

That genuinely made me laugh.

Yeah it is an abomination, isn't it? He's designing a modern one next, so I'll present that one after we've finished hashing this out.

As for the latter half of your statement which I left out, there's a difference between criticism and constructive criticism. Also, where did you comment on my ba-..dreadnought to make you think I addressed you as not capable?

Anything from a WWII diesel submarine is pretty much inapplicable as far as training current day submariners goes. With SSNs, you might find them staying on for an additional 30 years as Moored Training Ships for nuclear reactor training, but diesel boats generally only last 2-3 years as auxiliary training vessels before retiring.

Then again, if "realism" is what can be physically be done, not logically, then it's certainly possible to maintain a WWII era sub in active service until the modern day for training purposes if so desired. It'd just be self-defeating in purpose.

Okay that's three logical points against it. Scrapping it.

edit

I was replying to Laritaia, but we both deleted our posts. So he suggested a conversion, is that feasible? Like from WWII full gato to 1960's cold war?

[Laritaia]

when you pull the usual NS shtick of "hi guys i've blended a WWII design with a turn of the century modern design, what do you think?" there isn't much one can say constructively

beyond "that doesn't work" and "go back and do it again"

i'm sure we could run down all the information and utter spergery to explain to you why modern ships, submarines, planes, tanks, rifles, uniforms, cars, buses, tricycles, and space hoppers are the way they are rather then looking like their 1940s counterparts with some extra bells and flashy lights glued on.

but that would take forever and in my experience people get very un happy when we do.

and ultimately we end up having to do it all over again in about 2-3 weeks tops

[Anagonia]

when you pull the usual NS shtick of "hi guys i've blended a WWII design with a turn of the century modern design, what do you think?" there isn't much one can say constructively

beyond "that doesn't work" and "go back and do it again"

i'm sure we could run down all the information and utter spergery to explain to you why modern ships, submarines, planes, tanks, rifles, uniforms, cars, buses, tricycles, and space hoppers are the way they are rather then looking like their 1940s counterparts with some extra bells and flashy lights glued on.

but that would take forever and in my experience people get very un happy when we do.

and ultimately we end up having to do it all over again in about 2-3 weeks tops

Okay, lol. Point taken.

[The Akasha Colony]

From your viewpoint, and with the mixed designs, should I scrap it or just use it as a placeholder? I'm not sure how it could feasibly be a modern sub as it wasn't intended to be one.

It would be better served by having an actual WWII submarine in WWII, and then a more modern submarine as a modern training boat. There's no reason to use something as old as a WWII boat for training, you should have plenty of old submarines built since then that you could use as a training boat now. Something from at least the 1980s or so, that can at least approximate the arrangement and workings of the modern boats the crews will be working on.

The Akula design elements are horribly out of place anyway for a WWII submarine. The large pod on the upper stern plane is a towed array sonar in Akula, but towed arrays were not used in WWII so what would it be doing there? Designs of the time also used dagger tails and twin screws, not a finely sloped stern ending in a single screw. The modern teardrop hull form used in current submarines wasn't a thing in WWII, and its development was a quantum leap in submarine design. Double screws were strongly preferred during WWII due to their greater redundancy and it was only with some reluctance that they were replaced during the Cold War with single-screw designs (which usually have an auxiliary propeller somewhere else anyway to maintain redundancy in the event of failure).

No, no! I am not fantasy tech! Apparently a region of new nations thinks so because I use stats, but that's their issue. I digress, no, I want to be practical in design. If I should stick with conventional ammunition, so be it. The-....er....dreadnoughts have to remain a part of the active fleet. There's just no way around it.

Gun-launched missiles aren't literally FanT but they're a terrible idea even by "modern battleship" standards. VLS for missiles, a few guided shells for the guns.

[Anagonia]

Gun-launched missiles aren't literally FanT but they're a terrible idea even by "modern battleship" standards. VLS for missiles, a few guided shells for the guns.

But what are guided shells exactly? Like, aimed artillery or is there something I'm missing?

[Laritaia]

IIRC the original intention was to have a bunch of posts and useful information about these kinds of subjects linked in the first post of each of these threads that we could direct people to when it came to these sorts of situations.

but curating those is no doubt somewhat on the difficult side due to the somewhat vast range of subjects to cover, so it's laxed a tad in most cases

[The Akasha Colony]

Gun-launched missiles aren't literally FanT but they're a terrible idea even by "modern battleship" standards. VLS for missiles, a few guided shells for the guns.

But what are guided shells exactly? Like, aimed artillery or is there something I'm missing?

There is a guidance mechanism in the nose of the shell that guides it on target.

How it works depends on the guidance mechanism in question and what the shell needs to do, as well as cost.

The cheapest and simplest is just GPS guidance, where the shell is given a set of GPS coordinates to hit and the guidance mechanism guides the round to these coordinates. The big downside is that it is impossible to hit moving targets, but this is probably fine for a big gun. The other downside is that you need to first calculate the target's precise location then radio this back to the gun platform so the gun crew can enter it into their system and upload it to the round before firing. And an advanced opponent with good EW systems may be able to jam satellite navigation signals in the local area, preventing the shell from receiving the GPS signal in the first place. This is like the M892 Excalibur shell used by the US Army.

The other major option for guided shells is laser guidance, where the shell has a laser sensor in the nose that can detect a target once it is targeted by a laser operated by ground troops or spotter aircraft. This allows it to home in on whatever target the troops on the ground select without having to relay the exact position back to the firing platform first. This option is more expensive and requires either a ground force or spotter plane to be within visual range of the target and to keep a laser on that target, which can obviously be rather dangerous. But it could allow the engagement of moving targets (so long as the laser can be kept on target) and can't be jammed like a GPS signal. This is like the M712 Copperhead shell.

[Anagonia]

IIRC the original intention was to have a bunch of posts and useful information about these kinds of subjects linked in the first post of each of these threads that we could direct people to when it came to these sorts of situations.

but curating those is no doubt somewhat on the difficult side due to the somewhat vast range of subjects to cover, so it's laxed a tad in most cases

If you had that I wouldn't need to ask questions. Though, then again, I probably would have asked some about the *coughbigboatswithbiggergunscough*....sorry....something in my throat.

But what are guided shells exactly? Like, aimed artillery or is there something I'm missing?

There is a guidance mechanism in the nose of the shell that guides it on target.

How it works depends on the guidance mechanism in question and what the shell needs to do, as well as cost.

The cheapest and simplest is just GPS guidance, where the shell is given a set of GPS coordinates to hit and the guidance mechanism guides the round to these coordinates. The big downside is that it is impossible to hit moving targets, but this is probably fine for a big gun. The other downside is that you need to first calculate the target's precise location then radio this back to the gun platform so the gun crew can enter it into their system and upload it to the round before firing. And an advanced opponent with good EW systems may be able to jam satellite navigation signals in the local area, preventing the shell from receiving the GPS signal in the first place. This is like the M892 Excalibur shell used by the US Army.

The other major option for guided shells is laser guidance, where the shell has a laser sensor in the nose that can detect a target once it is targeted by a laser operated by ground troops or spotter aircraft. This allows it to home in on whatever target the troops on the ground select without having to relay the exact position back to the firing platform first. This option is more expensive and requires either a ground force or spotter plane to be within visual range of the target and to keep a laser on that target, which can obviously be rather dangerous. But it could allow the engagement of moving targets (so long as the laser can be kept on target) and can't be jammed like a GPS signal. This is like the M712 Copperhead shell.

THANK YOU! Yes, this can be exactly what it would need! This makes it more feasable as a ground support ship.

Are there any others?

[The Akasha Colony]

THANK YOU! Yes, this can be exactly what it would need! This makes it more feasable as a ground support ship.

Are there any others?

Any other what?

And the development of guided shells has actually reduced the utility of large-caliber guns. With small shells that can now strike with pinpoint accuracy there is less of a need for large shells able to crater a large area.

Okay, so, one last thing before I bunk and drive. I went over via telegram about the submarine, and a retcon is in order. Instead of it being made as it is seen, what if it was a conversion ship similar to the GUPPY program for the Balao-class?

The GUPPY program was not even remotely as involved as this one. The GUPPY program just involved adding more batteries to existing WWII submarines and adding some streamlining panels. Your proposal would require essentially a complete rebuild of the submarine (incredibly expensive and more complicated than just building a new one) but would result in performance that is still more similar to a WWII submarine than a Cold War-era one.

It also doesn't solve the aforementioned issues with hull fatigue, which puts an age limit on the hull anyway. Taiwan's GUPPYs are nowadays essentially restricted from diving unless necessary and are only allowed to operate in shallow waters, while their maximum dive depth is now only a fraction of its original specifications. Taiwan would desperately prefer to get new submarines to replace the GUPPYs, but no one will sell them anything except the United States, and the United States no longer produces diesel-electric submarines.

I honestly admit I have never role played any submarine of a WWII class. So this is entirely new. If I may present, what if Anagonia (or whatever government was in at the time) bought a Gato-class and after whatever war it used it for, converted it to upgrade during the cold-war era.

It's like sticking an AGT-1500 gas turbine engine from an Abrams into a Sherman. At the end of the day, you're still stuck with a Sherman and all of the obsolete components and design features, and the "upgrade" can't even make use of the improvements in engine power anyway. Just buy a new model and sell the old one to a museum or to the scrapyards.

My question then is, if they converted the rear to a straight-shaft powered engine assembly, would that work for an upgrade? Additionally, I believe it mentioned the tow array was a mistake to put on, and so in this situation, is that still correct?

That's not a conversion. It would require you to completely replace the back half of the submarine, but you'd still be stuck with a WWII-era bow that is horrifically un-hydrodynamic for submarine use. There is, again, a reason why the modern teardrop hull was a quantum leap in submarine design and why it has completely replaced the old surface ship-like profiles of preceding classes. You also don't have any room in the bow for a modern sonar array, either the large spherical arrays preferred by the USN or the horseshoe arrays favored elsewhere.

WWII submarines were designed as surface ships that could submerge now and then to attack. But it was realized during the war that the stealth provided by submergence was the submarine's most potent weapon and submarines started being designed for better underwater performance. The first efforts were improvements to the existing designs like the GUPPY conversions, but by the 1950s experiments revealed that the real solution was to completely redesign the hull and optimize it for underwater performance, which meant adopting a smooth, rounded body-of-rotation design, which all submarines have adopted.

[The Soodean Imperium]

If you had that I wouldn't need to ask questions. Though, then again, I probably would have asked some about the *coughbigboatswithbiggergunscough*....sorry....something in my throat.

For what it's worth, this is why I recommended that you look at the last 2-3 discussions involving battleships. Most of the points that we covered in the last few pages are just re-hashed versions of the same points that were raised before.

[Allanea]

The essential problem with humongous guns is thus summed up:

1. In the modern world, humongous guns are not useful for suppressing large areas, because it's generally been agreed upon that intermediate (about 155mm) guns do it faster and better in terms of the ratio of the weight of shell require to suppress a given area.

2. In the modern world, humongous guns are not useful for suppressing individual point targets, because modern 155mm guns possess the accuracy to do so, partially through the use of GPS-guided shells like Excalibur, and partly through the of electronic aiming systems that allow firing even regular, dumb shells with extreme accuracy.

3. In the modern world, humongous guns are useful for one thing and one thing only. This is engaging and penetrating targets that are too hardy to be penetrated by the fire of ordinary artillery. By and large, this means extra-hardy bunkers and submarine pens. (This capability has been losing the competition to aviation, but it's feasible to have it happen in some remote circusmtances, especially in NS where there are still idiots who locate their entire population in bunkers).

There are two possible scenarios in which battleships can persists (they're actually similar):

1. A nation has had something like the Iowa, and it is continuing to fuck the cactus, many decades in. As stated, this won't make the Iowa good idea, but it's at least conceivable. You could look aty the stats Iowa had when it was decommissioned, and go from theere.
2. A nation has at some point purchased several battleships, used them in an NS in-universe conflict, and, through the vagaries of warfare, succeeded, so it's continuing to fuck the cactus. This is what has happened in Allanea - my use of battleships was successful (as I was fighting some true incompetents), so my Ministry of War is clinging to them.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

3. In the modern world, humongous guns are useful for one thing and one thing only. This is engaging and penetrating targets that are too hardy to be penetrated by the fire of ordinary artillery. By and large, this means extra-hardy bunkers and submarine pens. (This capability has been losing the competition to aviation, but it's feasible to have it happen in some remote circusmtances, especially in NS where there are still idiots who locate their entire population in bunkers).

Not really, since land forts aren't very much limited by reserve buoyancy and displacement. A gun vs armour race between a ship and a fort will always be won by a fort.

[Allanea]

3. In the modern world, humongous guns are useful for one thing and one thing only. This is engaging and penetrating targets that are too hardy to be penetrated by the fire of ordinary artillery. By and large, this means extra-hardy bunkers and submarine pens. (This capability has been losing the competition to aviation, but it's feasible to have it happen in some remote circusmtances, especially in NS where there are still idiots who locate their entire population in bunkers).

Not really, since land forts aren't very much limited by reserve buoyancy and displacement. A gun vs armour race between a ship and a fort will always be won by a fort.

And yet in reality battleships have successfully shattered a variety of strong fortifications.

Land forts are limited by costs and construction speeds.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Not really, since land forts aren't very much limited by reserve buoyancy and displacement. A gun vs armour race between a ship and a fort will always be won by a fort.

And yet in reality battleships have successfully shattered a variety of strong fortifications.

Such as?

Land forts are limited by costs and construction speeds.

Granted but so are ships and the limits on ships are harder.

[Allanea]

Such as?

Various Atlantic Wall bunkers?

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

3. In the modern world, humongous guns are useful for one thing and one thing only. This is engaging and penetrating targets that are too hardy to be penetrated by the fire of ordinary artillery. By and large, this means extra-hardy bunkers and submarine pens. (This capability has been losing the competition to aviation, but it's feasible to have it happen in some remote circusmtances, especially in NS where there are still idiots who locate their entire population in bunkers).

Not really, since land forts aren't very much limited by reserve buoyancy and displacement. A gun vs armour race between a ship and a fort will always be won by a fort.

There aren't a whole lot of situations where this is applicable outside of Pacific-style island hopping/amphibious invasions, and the Japanese forces could not have hoped to match the fire of navy battleships. Yes, in Iwo Jima, the pre-invasion bombardment was largely unable to hurt the Japanese, but the Japanese certainly were unable to hurt the naval fleet with shore artillery batteries. Again, it's not a common situation - the US could have easily bypassed the island entirely if there wasn't a useable airstrip there, and on land since WWII complex forts have been taken by commando teams, armored attacks, or simply going around.

And as Allanea alluded to, in modern times forts are more and more vulnerable to air attack. Here is the result of the recent Tomahawk strike against hardened Syrian aircraft bunkers, and Tomahawk bunker penetration is child's play compared to modern bunker-busters like the GBU-57 or the KAB-1500. Battleships are similarly big targets for anti-ship missiles. A guided missile cruiser thus can defeat both a battleship or a land fortress.