NS Military Worldbuilding Thread No. 12

[New Visayan Islands]

There are no technical issues except that FOBS isn't very useful.

How is that?

[Cossack Peoples]

I'm considering either a decoy-heavy traditional ICBM or a FOBS-like deployment method-- I chose the latter because my situation in the wacky 'verse of [regiom]whateverthef*ck[/regiom] I am facing off against a nation with highly developed point defense and space-based infrastructure, and the high apogee of a traditional heavy ICBM may not be favorable. What I'm asking is whether the shitty aim of dropping nukes while in LEO could be fixed with modern-day technology (as opposed to Soviet 60's tech), or whether propellants or rockets had advanced to the point that the lower-yield warhead restriction could be lifted if the accuracy cannot be improved.

I'm still not certain whether I want the FOBS to be the primary method of land-based warhead deployment-- I will more likely augment conventional ICBMs with the unconventional approach.

[Gallia-]

There are no technical issues except that FOBS isn't very useful.

How is that?

It's like filling the bomb bays of a B-52 with fuel instead of bombs. Sure, you can fly farther, but does it really matter if you can already hit all targets of interest? No.

I'm considering either a decoy-heavy traditional ICBM

This is the traditional and broadly superior method.

FOBS might have made sense for literally about 5 years between 1965 and 1970. Then it would be pointless, since the United States had gained launch-on-warning capability with the Defense Support Program. So unless you're counting on a gap between MiDAS and DSP, and attacking right then, which the Soviets never did IRL, FOBS is worthless. That's the only time it could ever potentially be useful, and incidentally the only time the technology appeared.

What I'm asking is whether the shitty aim of dropping nukes while in LEO could be fixed with modern-day technology

FOBS was more than accurate for its intended targets and the inherent weaknesses of FOBS can't be fixed with anything resembling modern technology.

I will more likely augment conventional ICBMs with the unconventional approach.

There is no "unconventional approach" to land-based ICBMs.

It's a well understood technology whose weaknesses and strengths have long since been identified. Everything since then has been optimization towards the minimum viable solution, as usual.

The "conventional approach" applied in the XXI would be to have your high surprise, low yield weapon (FOBS) be a SLBM with a high motor burn rate and low burnout altitude, combined with a hyperglider or something. MX/Peacekeeper had a low burnout altitude as well, but it required a fairly large missile for the same range. It was also immune to x-ray pindown due to use of integrated circuits (incidentally so are the newest Minutemen) rather than discrete circuits like the old Minuteman I and II. Trident II achieves similar results in a SLBM, but AFAIK the Russians never actually produced a missile capable of matching what they needed to replace FOBS entirely.

But FOBS in the literal sense is wholly obsolete a technology.

[Cossack Peoples]

I know your reservations against a FOBS system, but I did manage to make a nuke. Any problems with this?

[United Earthlings]

Actually, technically it wouldn't, because this isn't how semantics works.

In actual fact, that's exactly how semantics works. If languages can evolve and words can take on new meanings, I'm sure if I convinced enough people to go die on this hill by beating this dead horse, well that's the beauty of language it's open to interpretation.

Why can't we reengine without reengining?

Anyway your question is essentially unanswerable. Everything would have to be replaced either way with associated changes to the internal layout. I doubt there were any radical advances in electric technology during the 20s, so in addition to superheated boilers and the new turbines to take advantage of them, a turbo-electric upgrade would need more or bigger generators, bigger motors, a completely new electrical system, and probably new propeller shafts and engines (by which of course I mean propellers since words have no meaning).

1. On the advances in electric technology. OK, but did you know do your research to check if that statement is true or false, or did you just decide to pull an Ace Ventura?
2. Answering an essentially unanswerable question. Schrödinger's cat must love you.
3. Sincerely, thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

As to why you'd lengthen the ship I'd forgotten we're dealing with the vaunted naval architects of United Earthlings here.

Kind of weird they were still chugging along at around the same speed after all this with a few notable exceptions. (Obviously something like the Caio Duilio refit isn't possible for a US standard type.)

That's why I was highlighting the notable exceptions since this is the closest approximation to what I was thinking about doing to the late facsimile standard battleships my NS nation built.

Comparing it to what the Italians did with the Andrea Doria class with a massive rebuilt, since the final length and beam of the rebuilt Andrea Doria is still shorter than what the as built American Colorado class is, I'm not sure a lengthening would be required for what I have in mind, however, since the beam of my NS battleships are going to be increased some to offer better torpedo protection during their potential reconstruction, if a slight lengthening is required, then I'm not opposed to it, just as I said earlier I'm not sure it would be required.

My goal idea is thus. Take something like a facsimile Colorado Class, rebuilt wherein the propulsion system is capable of achieving 25 knots which then matches the speed of the facsimile South Dakota class my nation built in this Alterative reality. During said reconstruction, additional deck armor would be added, improved AA weapons would be fitted as well as the 5in secondary guns with better more advance models (though more then likely not for a one for one basis), a torpedo blister would be fitted, probably a single unitary funnel?, main armament would remain unchanged beside an increase of elevation if not already done during a previous modification.

For the propulsion system, besides superheated boilers, there would be new turbines and new generators. Then the question is, given efficacy advancements during the 1920s into the mid 1930s, would a larger generator be necessary? Is a same size, more efficient generator able to handle the increase power output, which I estimate would be somewhere between 75 and 85,000 shp to achieve the required 25 knots. More powerful electric motors which then leads into the question do you do two very powerful bigger electric motors as that found on the Lexington-class battlecruisers/aircraft carrier or four smaller, but similar in size to what would have been on the unbuilt South Dakota, only a more advanced version by the time the mid 1930s roll around. New AC alternators able to handle the stronger current output. Replacing key components of the electrical system, a complete replacement doesn't seem required to me and Finally, New propellers of course and keeping it as four shafts.

Am I missing anything?

And yes, before you comment I'm aware that such a reconstruction project would be almost if not similar to the construction costs of a newly built battleship. That's not an issue.

An upgraded turbo electric would be better. Shifting to a direct drive geared turbine would require significant rework of the engineering spaces, not only for the physical placement of the equipment (if memory serves, the standards couldn’t even have fit a direct drive arrangement without rearranging the propulsion turbines) but also in the hull’s structural elements and support systems to enable the use of large reduction gear assemblies.

Noted, for what I have in mind, I would prefer to keep a turbo-electric drive system anyway since my nation built quite a few more turbo-electric drive vessels then the US built historically. Which means, I figured that turbo-electric drives are a little more advanced then they were historically since my nation was pushing the technological limits with them as much as possible.

Also, I'm not looking to reconstruct all the standards, just facsimile of the last three standard classes so that would be the New Mexico class (assuming the entire class had actually been built with the turbo-electric system), Tennessee-class and Colorado-class.

[United Earthlings]

FOBS was more than accurate for its intended targets and the inherent weaknesses of FOBS can't be fixed with anything resembling modern technology.

But FOBS in the literal sense is wholly obsolete a technology.

The only inherent weaknesses of a FOBS system is how one nation's nuclear policy is governed. A FOBS system can work, if and only if your nation's policy governing the use of nuclear weapons matches the inherent strengths and weaknesses of a FOBS system.

I made a FOBS system work for my nation, but I also accepted the limitations that came with adapting such a system wherein the stated weaknesses are less than the stated strengths.

[Triplebaconation]

Actually, technically it wouldn't, because this isn't how semantics works.

In actual fact, that's exactly how semantics works. If languages can evolve and words can take on new meanings, I'm sure if I convinced enough people to go die on this hill by beating this dead horse, well that's the beauty of language it's open to interpretation.

Why can't we reengine without reengining?

I believe this is one area that falls under the grammar rules known as semantics.

All those years studying Derrida and Baudrillard wasted when I could have just got United Earthlings to explain my first degree to me.

1. On the advances in electric technology. OK, but did you know do your research to check if that statement is true or false, or did you just decide to pull an Ace Ventura?
2. Answering an essentially unanswerable question. Schrödinger's cat must love you.
3. Sincerely, thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

We'll get to the research later, but I didn't answer an unanswerable question. The answer depends on unknowable factors, complicated by:

Noted, for what I have in mind, I would prefer to keep a turbo-electric drive system anyway since my nation built quite a few more turbo-electric drive vessels then the US built historically. Which means, I figured that turbo-electric drives are a little more advanced then they were historically since my nation was pushing the technological limits with them as much as possible.

If United Earthlings (about which we know nothing about) is pushing the technological limits of turbo-electrics while the US was fiddling its thumbs (lol) how are we supposed to answer some question when you're just making things up? Cost-effectiveness doesn't depend solely on technical issues.

Maybe "unknowable" isn't the right word. You either know them or make them up as you go along so there doesn't seem to be much point in asking us.

As a side note, do you suppose actual pushing of technological limits in both turbo-electric and pure turbine technology occurred because of a few battleships or continued pressure to produce more and cheaper electricity for the civilian market?

That's why I was highlighting the notable exceptions since this is the closest approximation to what I was thinking about doing to the late facsimile standard battleships my NS nation built.

Comparing it to what the Italians did with the Andrea Doria class with a massive rebuilt, since the final length and beam of the rebuilt Andrea Doria is still shorter than what the as built American Colorado class is, I'm not sure a lengthening would be required for what I have in mind,

Have you looked at pictures of these Italian battleships before and after their reconstruction? You might notice a major difference.

For the propulsion system, besides superheated boilers, there would be new turbines and new generators. Then the question is, given efficacy advancements during the 1920s into the mid 1930s, would a larger generator be necessary? Is a same size, more efficient generator able to handle the increase power output, which I estimate would be somewhere between 75 and 85,000 shp to achieve the required 25 knots. More powerful electric motors which then leads into the question do you do two very powerful bigger electric motors as that found on the Lexington-class battlecruisers/aircraft carrier or four smaller, but similar in size to what would have been on the unbuilt South Dakota, only a more advanced version by the time the mid 1930s roll around. New AC alternators able to handle the stronger current output.

New more efficient generators and new AC alternators able to handle the stronger current output?

The main generators were alternators turned by turbines. They don't handle current output, they create it. (Of course alternators need a small DC generator but this isn't a big concern - the New Mexico's 11 MW alternators had 300 kW exciters.)

The basic electrical components of power generation haven't changed much in 150 years. There have been some small refinements, but certainly nothing allowing for a "same size, more efficient generator" of substantially increased output between the 20s and 30s. Nearly all the major advances in electrical generation have been on the mechanical side.

Replacing key components of the electrical system, a complete replacement doesn't seem required to me

Of course not, just pop in some new alternators to handle the current.

And yes, before you comment I'm aware that such a reconstruction project would be almost if not similar to the construction costs of a newly built battleship. That's not an issue.

Well who knows. But this is where semantics actually comes in - by casting this as a "re-engining" you're persuading yourself this is a relatively simple and feasible procedure.

In reality the US couldn't come up with an adequate newly-designed 25-knot battleship at the tonnage of the Standards until the North Carolina, and this wasn't the result of steady linear improvement but a large leap from superheated 300 psi boilers to superheated 600 psi boilers and the abandonment of turbo-electric drive. This technology was still untested in the mid-1930s so it's doubtful anyone is going to reconstruct a fleet of old battleships around it.

Of course United Earthlings is a "little more advanced" so why are you asking if it's feasible or not? If it's not you'll just get more and more a little more advanced so this is all a pointless endeavor really.

Which means, I figured that turbo-electric drives are a little more advanced then they were historically since my nation was pushing the technological limits with them as much as possible.

So reduction gears are 51% of the tonnage required per horsepower compared to turbo-electric instead of half?

And yes, before you comment I'm aware that such a reconstruction project would be almost if not similar to the construction costs of a newly built battleship. That's not an issue.

If cost isn't an issue why are you worrying about cost-effectiveness lol

In reality even if the work was done for free it would be a terrible decision. In the mid-30s a 25-knot battleship is only marginally more effective than a 21-knotter, a reconstruction is likely compromised in some way to reach that speed, and if money is no issue they still consume a large amount of limited resources like battleship length slipways, design skill, and industrial capacity in general in proportion to the degree of reconstruction.

Of course this is United Earthlings, which seems to constantly be in an arms race designed to produce large forces carefully tailored for foreign intervention just in case in it has to fight a war for the first time in three centuries.

[Gallia-]

I know your reservations against a FOBS system

It's not "my" reservations.

FOBS is just inferior to a normal ICBM. In every single way. It trades two thirds of an ICBMs payload for slightly more off-axis capability. Which means you need three times as many missiles to do the same job. Since missile warning satellites turned out to be a lot easier to do than most people anticipated. Well, not really, the Russians were aware FOBS was a dead end given the United States could just make MiDAS better, but kept at it anyway to keep their jobs because work is work. FOBS is just a bizarre 1960's technology, from a bizarre era that also included growing corn in Kazakhstan, among other absurdities.

It has no real advantages over an SLBMs fired off the New Brunswick coast or something, but the Soviets didn't have many SLBMs in 1960. Neither did America, but America never went ahead with its ideas for massive giga ICBMs, unlike the Soviets, who just adapted R-36 to be a prototype FOBS carrier for all of like 20 minutes.

Just use a maneuvering RV like Pershing, or a hyperglider, on an SLBM, assuming you want to do what FOBS does but actually work.

I know your reservations against a FOBS system, but I did manage to make a nuke. Any problems with this?

It's a baby SS-18 I guess. IDK what else more to say.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

FOBS uses polar satellite orbit.Its orbit is not as low as other ballistic missiles.I wonder if the early warning satellite will find it after it goes into orbit.The r-36 was officially in service in the 1970s, and it could be transformed into a carrier rocket or an anti satellite missile.Fobs was undoubtedly very effective at that time, but the development of missile technology left this idea obsolete.
But I think the development of reusable spacecraft like X-37B may revive the fobs, which is obviously the missile version of orbital bombing.
By the way, it's normal to grow corn in Kazakhstan, but it's ridiculous to grow corn in Siberia

[Gallia-]

ICBMs kind of have to go over the poles to get to where they're aiming at. FOBS is just stupid because SLBMs turned out to be more flexible and that's why FOBS no longer exists. Lol. The USA had the ultimate counter to FOBS in 1970 so it was just...pointless. Khrushchev era inertia of the Brezhnev clique carried it through more or less, not any actual relevance or military significance. A bunch of Brezhnev era projects were pointless pork barrel spending. Like Typhoon and FOBS.

An ICBM by its very nature is an orbital bomber. Futuristic delivery vehicles are moving towards cruise missiles and atmospheric gliders, not orbital craft, since orbit is rapidly becoming inhospitable when the USA can buy a Falcon Heavy or three and put up a cloud of like 200-600 Brilliant Pebbles in all of like six months if it wanted to.

Kazakhstan doesn't grow any corn. It went from growing 60,000,000 tonnes of maize in 1958 to growing 950,000 tonnes of maize in 2018. I'm not a scientist or anything but I think the first number is bigger than the second. Anyway Kazakhstan mostly grows wheat, but I don't know if it grew wheat before Khrushchev went to America to talk to corn farmers or not (nor is it relevant to discussion, corn farming in Siberia or Kazakhstan or whatever is dumb; Ukraine is fine for it though since it actually rains there).

X-37B is potentially a good trolling vehicle for snipping wires on satellites or something. Or launching really tiny satellites in weird orbits, possibly. Or testing the use of ion thrusters on a tiny spaceplane instead of a tiny bus.

[Miku the Based]

I'm gonna grow corn on the banks of Kolyma and it's gonna taste good.

[Dtn]

Corn grows fine in Siberia although you need an early variety and will only get one crop a year.

The corn campaign was slightly different than Virgin Lands but both failed more due to Soviet industrial inefficiency and infighting than climate.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

It seems that the United States does not have enough early warning radars to detect if it flies from Antarctica to the United States.

The X-37B is just a technology demonstrator. It also needs a suborbital aircraft that can put it into orbit.Because of the autonomous orbit transfer capability, the existing missile defense system will not have enough response time under ideal conditions.The X-37B can hold a pickup truck in its warehouse, but it can also hold several nuclear warheads or satellites instead of small satellites

[The Corparation]

It's not 1970 anymore. The US has ways of detecting incoming ICBMs besides land based early warning radars. SBIRS, for example can detect a missile the moment it lifts off and would be able to determine the trajectory of any southwards traveling missile.

[Dtn]

why doesnt the us have radars to detect a handful of missiles from 50 years ago lol

[Miku the Based]

why doesnt the us have radars to detect a handful of missiles from 50 years ago lol

Belkan space magic.

[Gallia-]

It seems that the United States does not have enough early warning radars to detect if it flies from Antarctica to the United States.

Yeah no shit. FOBS was only like 10 or 20 missiles built because Yangel needed the money to remodel his dacha I guess.

If the Soviets had deployed FOBS seriously and not as a corrupt pork barrel thing then the USA would have just had a BMEWS built in Puerto Rico or Texas or Florida to watch the southern coast. Simple! Unlike the Soviet economy, the US economy was responsive to threats and addressed them rapidly and fairly quickly. The hard part was finding out what was a threat and what wasn't.

OTOH FOBS was never a threat because even the Soviets didn't think it was useful. Lol.

Sub launched missiles rapidly overtook them in stealth, survivability, and capability. Especially after the deployment of MiDAS and the DSP. But the Soviets didn't have large quantities of ICBMs until the early '70's and SLBMs until the mid-to-late-'70's, so they were sorta just scrambling to put H-bombs in anything that could fly or float.

In a perfect world FOBS would be about as bizarre as the various Nike Zeus PESA radar proposals.

[United Earthlings]

Of course this is United Earthlings, which seems to constantly be in an arms race designed to produce large forces carefully tailored for foreign intervention just in case in it has to fight a war for the first time in three centuries.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

In reality even if the work was done for free it would be a terrible decision. In the mid-30s a 25-knot battleship is only marginally more effective than a 21-knotter, a reconstruction is likely compromised in some way to reach that speed, and if money is no issue they still consume a large amount of limited resources like battleship length slipways, design skill, and industrial capacity in general in proportion to the degree of reconstruction.

All fair points, that stated I believe you would agree that every nation has their own defense priorities and what they regard as value for that defense spending. If I have my make believe nation deem a potential reconstruction of some of its Dreadnoughts to be of worthwhile value and roleplay as accurately as possible the various trade-offs and compromises that were made to undertake such an endeavor, then a terrible decision wouldn't become apparent until later, hindsight only being possible after looking back on past events.

If cost isn't an issue why are you worrying about cost-effectiveness lol

I don't see the problem or contradiction. Why can't both be true at the same time?

Well who knows. But this is where semantics actually comes in - by casting this as a "re-engining" you're persuading yourself this is a relatively simple and feasible procedure.

Simple, no. Feasible hasn't yet been established hence my asking the question here.

In reality the US couldn't come up with an adequate newly-designed 25-knot battleship at the tonnage of the Standards until the North Carolina, and this wasn't the result of steady linear improvement but a large leap from superheated 300 psi boilers to superheated 600 psi boilers and the abandonment of turbo-electric drive. This technology was still untested in the mid-1930s so it's doubtful anyone is going to reconstruct a fleet of old battleships around it.

Of course United Earthlings is a "little more advanced" so why are you asking if it's feasible or not? If it's not you'll just get more and more a little more advanced so this is all a pointless endeavor really.

Given the technological capabilities as I image the Commonwealth would have in 1935, if it's feasible then the Commonwealth would just be one of those crazy nations who attempt to reconstruct a fleet of battleships with a potentially untested technology for better or worse. If proven not feasible then I will of course abandon said course of action and pursue a different direction(s).

New more efficient generators and new AC alternators able to handle the stronger current output?

The main generators were alternators turned by turbines. They don't handle current output, they create it. (Of course alternators need a small DC generator but this isn't a big concern - the New Mexico's 11 MW alternators had 300 kW exciters.)

The basic electrical components of power generation haven't changed much in 150 years. There have been some small refinements, but certainly nothing allowing for a "same size, more efficient generator" of substantially increased output between the 20s and 30s. Nearly all the major advances in electrical generation have been on the mechanical side.

The basic ideas might not have changed (which makes sense), but the technology of the mechanical side sure has, which is what I've been asking. You've implied there were no advances on the mechanical side of the equation all throughout the 1920s and early 1930s. That seems implausible to me. I have yet to see where humans haven't set out to make a machine more efficient in its operation.

A simple question: Are the efficiency gains on the mechanical side of a TE drive enough to permit a gain of additional power output thereby increasing speed? If the answer is no, then I have a problem and the idea isn't feasible. If the answer is maybe, then I need to figure out what sort of compromises would need to be made to make it feasible and determine if said compromises are worth it. If the answer is yes, then I can move beyond the technical aspects.

Have you looked at pictures of these Italian battleships before and after their reconstruction? You might notice a major difference.

I've noticed a few differences. Is there anything specific you would like to point out?

As a side note, do you suppose actual pushing of technological limits in both turbo-electric and pure turbine technology occurred because of a few battleships or continued pressure to produce more and cheaper electricity for the civilian market?

Can it not be both?

If United Earthlings (about which we know nothing about) is pushing the technological limits of turbo-electrics while the US was fiddling its thumbs (lol) how are we supposed to answer some question when you're just making things up? Cost-effectiveness doesn't depend solely on technical issues.

Maybe "unknowable" isn't the right word. You either know them or make them up as you go along so there doesn't seem to be much point in asking us.

A. The United States doesn't exist in my nation's reality. All NS nations are made up nations, therefore everything from start to finish about them is just things everyone made up.
B. I'm aware that cost-effectiveness isn't determine entirely by technical issues.
C. Since all of NS history is just people making things up, a better question would be if made up/created things including this thread are such a major deal breaker for you, why are you even bothering to post on a fictional nation message board of all things?

We'll get to the research later, but I didn't answer an unanswerable question. The answer depends on unknowable factors, complicated by:

Don't forget about the research, it's one of the reasons why I asked the original question to begin with. An answer can have unknowable factors in it, which usually leads to more questions. A vague answer is still an answer.

All those years studying Derrida and Baudrillard wasted when I could have just got United Earthlings to explain my first degree to me.

And in closing: Your Fallacies of witticism continue to bring me much joy.

[United Earthlings]

In the time between my last post, I've been doing some additional research to better determine what's feasible and what's not, here's what I have so far.

After reconsidering what Arkandros said, I've started leaning more towards that an refit TE drive system is probably not the best way to go and converting the vessels to a geared turbine system is probably the better course of action.

For starters, the New Mexico herself had her TE drive replaced with geared turbines, so right off the bat converting a TE system into a geared system is doable.

Second, taking into account if my nation had built a facsimile of the Mahan class destroyers, this would give my nation some experience building double reduction geared turbines, so the technology wouldn't be completely untested by the time I plan to start the refit modifications for a few of my nations Dreadnoughts.

Third, the New Orleans class cruisers applying the same principle as above, were also built with reduction geared turbines, though I was unable to verify whether they were single or double. My gut tells me they were probably single though. As such, IC this would probably encourage my nation to build a few heavy cruisers with said newer double reduction gears system to further gain experience with said technology before attempting the refit of my Dreadnoughts.

From a technical standpoint, how does this look?

[Gallia-]

If everything in NS is made up, why are you asking about whether it is feasible in this thread? Lol.

[Dtn]

Of course this is United Earthlings, which seems to constantly be in an arms race designed to produce large forces carefully tailored for foreign intervention just in case in it has to fight a war for the first time in three centuries.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Nations usually make defense decisions based on their circumstances, not trite and misinterpreted aphorisms.

All fair points, that stated I believe you would agree that every nation has their own defense priorities and what they regard as value for that defense spending. If I have my make believe nation deem a potential reconstruction of some of its Dreadnoughts to be of worthwhile value and roleplay as accurately as possible the various trade-offs and compromises that were made to undertake such an endeavor, then a terrible decision wouldn't become apparent until later, hindsight only being possible after looking back on past events.

A. The United States doesn't exist in my nation's reality. All NS nations are made up nations, therefore everything from start to finish about them is just things everyone made up.
B. I'm aware that cost-effectiveness isn't determine entirely by technical issues.
C. Since all of NS history is just people making things up, a better question would be if made up/created things including this thread are such a major deal breaker for you, why are you even bothering to post on a fictional nation message board of all things?

You roleplay as much as I do lol.

Your battleships (which are of course facsimiles of US types) could be powered by high-density unicorn farts for all I care. This might actually be interesting.

A reality thread kind of needs to use reality as a baseline. In reality reconstructing a few Italian battleships made sense given their treaty obligations, lack of industrial and economic capacity, and their expected operating environment and adversaries.

United Earthlings is under no such constraints that we know of, and is much less likely to undertake a similar but larger endeavor for a miniscule gain in "tactical options." They deem it of worthwhile value? Great! That guy from last week's nation apparently deemed 150-ton nuclear-lobbing mobile suicide bunkers worthwhile.

Why are you even bothering posting in the realism thread if it's all authorial fiat justified by wikiquotes?

Simple, no. Feasible hasn't yet been established hence my asking the question here.

The basic ideas might not have changed (which makes sense), but the technology of the mechanical side sure has, which is what I've been asking. You've implied there were no advances on the mechanical side of the equation all throughout the 1920s and early 1930s. That seems implausible to me. I have yet to see where humans haven't set out to make a machine more efficient in its operation.

Of course there were advances but nothing that would allow 250-300% more power in the same space.

For example, USS Tennessee, laid down in 1919, had machinery of 1805 tons and 28,600 horsepower, or 15.8 hp/ton. Comparable US battleship studies of late 1934 had machinery of 2200 tons and 40,000 hp , or 18.2 hp/ton. This is a 15% improvement, with some of that merely from using larger machinery - of course it gets more efficient as the size of the turbines is increased. Particularly germane is a 1934 90,000 hp plant was estimated at 3930 tons, or 22.4 hp/ton. This is better, but where are you going to cram 2000 tons of extra machinery?

In any case technological advance is rarely linear in time or space. There's less room for improvement (figuratively and literally) on a US Standard battleship during the time period than on an Italian or Japanese battleship with low-capacity coal boilers and direct drive turbines laid down just a year or two earlier.

A simple question: Are the efficiency gains on the mechanical side of a TE drive enough to permit a gain of additional power output thereby increasing speed?

Yes, but unlikely more than a knot or two...

Have you looked at pictures of these Italian battleships before and after their reconstruction? You might notice a major difference.

I've noticed a few differences. Is there anything specific you would like to point out?

...unless you remove an entire turret and magazine and replace them with machinery spaces.

High steam in the mid-30s roughly doubled attainable horsepower per ton, but unless your Mahans (again a US clone ) put to sea considerably earlier than reality they're not going to prove anything for a program beginning in 1935. (By the way, the Mahan plant was only 400 psi and 700 degrees, the US didn't standardize on true high steam of 600 psi and 850 degrees until the success of Somers in 1938.)

Volume is trickier - during design work for the North Carolinas there was considerable doubt that a 90,000 hp plant would fit in a purpose-built 702-foot battleship, but I'm not aware any inboard profiles have survived so we can't compare engine rooms.

(And yes, the machinery spaces of a New Orleans class were quite a bit larger than those of the Standard battleships.)

As a side note, do you suppose actual pushing of technological limits in both turbo-electric and pure turbine technology occurred because of a few battleships or continued pressure to produce more and cheaper electricity for the civilian market?

Can it not be both?

Ah yes, battleships, the great technical innovators.

All those years studying Derrida and Baudrillard wasted when I could have just got United Earthlings to explain my first degree to me.

And in closing: Your Fallacies of witticism continue to bring me much joy.

Not half as much as flatulent turns of phrase like "Fallacies of witticism" bring me.

Have you considered the problem with your posts is their semiotics rather than semantics?

[Miku the Based]

How much Mongolian do you need to learn to start a khanate named after yourself in the year of 2021?

[Langenia]

How much Mongolian do you need to learn to start a khanate named after yourself in the year of 2021?

Bout as much as "Hello" and "Say Goodbye."

[The Manticoran Empire]

How might a modern motorized brigade/division equipped with wheeled armored fighting vehicles (i.e. LAV-III/Stryker/BTR) be employed alongside tracked mechanized brigades/divisions and leg infantry brigades/divisions?

[South Americanastan]

How might a modern motorized brigade/division equipped with wheeled armored fighting vehicles (i.e. LAV-III/Stryker/BTR) be employed alongside tracked mechanized brigades/divisions and leg infantry brigades/divisions?

Probably as a spearhead in infantry attacks, or as a second wave backing up armored spearheads