Help support TMP


"The Case for a 21st-Century Battleship" Topic


10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board



545 hits since 9 Mar 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP09 Mar 2018 10:40 p.m. PST

"In World War II, the Japanese super-battleships Yamato and Musahi each mounted nine 18.1-inch guns, the largest naval guns ever deployed, but they never sank a single American ship. In a conflict decided by naval aviation, Yamato and Musahi were used mainly as flagships and troop transports. Despite their huge armaments, they were steel dinosaurs from an earlier strategic age.

But how do you sink a steel dinosaur? The answer is: "with difficulty." It took eleven torpedoes and six bombs to sink the Yamato. The Musahi took nineteen torpedoes and seventeen bombs. And at the time they were sunk, both ships were already limping along on patch-up repairs from earlier torpedo strikes. They may have been strategically useless, but the Yamato and Musahi were almost (if not quite) indestructible…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo Striker Supporting Member of TMP10 Mar 2018 6:42 a.m. PST

It should have been titled "Case for better damage control, defensive measures, and armor". As for the USN a2/ad plans, maybe they are making the wrong plans? If they are only going to use full scale warfare as a strategy that leaves a lot of options other than war for the opponent.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP10 Mar 2018 11:19 a.m. PST

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP10 Mar 2018 1:53 p.m. PST

Are they gonna put this weird "laser" hole on the bow of the ship?

Dan

picture

ancientsgamer Supporting Member of TMP10 Mar 2018 5:55 p.m. PST

I loved that show!

Bill needs to program a Like button… lol

Generalstoner49 Supporting Member of TMP10 Mar 2018 8:13 p.m. PST

Look at those shock cannons go on the Yamato!

All kidding aside I read somewhere that a lot of the smaller cruise missiles with their tiny warheads would do little to any damage against an Iowa class battleship. Submarines would be the real threat.

Charlie 12 Inactive Member11 Mar 2018 3:22 a.m. PST

I read somewhere that a lot of the smaller cruise missiles with their tiny warheads would do little to any damage against an Iowa class battleship.

Except leave it blind and deaf. A mission kill is still a kill.

Lion in the Stars12 Mar 2018 11:02 a.m. PST

Anti-radar missiles would ruin an Iowa's day.

Supersonic cruise missiles might be able to get through the armor on an Iowa, but I don't think anything subsonic can.

A modern submarine would end an Iowa. WW2 torpedoes had to strike the side of the ship, and would then make a hole to let water into the people tank. Modern torpedoes have functional magnetic proximity sensors and depth control, so break the keel of a ship.

The problem with going to big guns again is that we've lost the institutional knowledge and industrial capacity to make them. About the biggest gun the US could field on a modern battleship would be an 8" tube.

Personal logo Cacique Caribe Supporting Member of TMP12 Mar 2018 11:54 a.m. PST

Lion: "Supersonic cruise missiles might be able to get through the armor on an Iowa, but I don't think anything subsonic can."

Do you mean simply because of hull penetration issues? Or because of other defenses against slower incoming missiles?

Dan

Lion in the Stars13 Mar 2018 10:42 a.m. PST

Purely hull penetration.

Remember, the *important* spaces on an Iowa have enough armor to bounce a 2700lb armor-piercing shell coming in at about Mach 1.5.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.