tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post4127416722124654993..comments2024-03-29T02:47:44.652-05:00Comments on Future War Stories: FWS Ships of the Line:The Battleship and BattlecruiserWilliamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17218428427067689631noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-83111804541794744222018-07-22T21:30:41.413-05:002018-07-22T21:30:41.413-05:00The role of a cruiser is for versatility, not a &q...The role of a cruiser is for versatility, not a "projection of power". Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12823245576042837595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-45517304064037042482017-07-17T20:13:39.077-05:002017-07-17T20:13:39.077-05:00Some time ago it was suggested that the main probl...Some time ago it was suggested that the main problem with battlecruisers was that they "looked like battleships". For this reason admirals (mainly British) tended to use them as though they were battleships fighting other real battleships.<br /><br />The HMS Hood leading the attack on the Bismarck being the classic (and deadliest) example. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02630128007548837305noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-53509710850618793762016-05-22T20:15:22.650-05:002016-05-22T20:15:22.650-05:00That's an interesting bit of speculation, Anon...That's an interesting bit of speculation, Anonymous (Will), something to ponder about for any near-future setting featuring Naval Railguns. It does beg the question if the Super/Fleet Carriers would be replaced with Light Aircraft Carriers and Escort Aircraft Carriers. <br /><br />Then again, with the rising preference for the Destroyer as a general-purpose blue water naval warship, would there really be a return of the Battleship/Dreadnaught as we culturally remember?<br /><br />As for the blog entry itself, due to this particular Atomic Rockets classification webpage ( http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacewarship.php#id--Ship_Types--Ken_Burnside's_Ship_Types ), I've been indoctrinated towards the opinion that Battleships are basically warships that NEED to be in a fleet formation to protect its shortcommings whereas the Battlecruiser is a more independent cruise version of the Battleship; sacrificing armor and armament in certain places for endurance and speed. <br /><br />Still, Anonymous' analogy of Battleships and Cruisers as Tanks and IFVs does tickle the speculative part of a worldbuilder's creativity.<br /><br />Though the idea of Battleships being moored until times of war almost gives a kind of "strategic deployment" or Trump Card any potential Space/Star Force might consider since it's potentially limited in its tactical deployment compared to the Battlecruiser.Sabersonichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11304850400062201271noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-25706226465180630092015-08-10T00:23:28.966-05:002015-08-10T00:23:28.966-05:00I'd actually contend that the difference betwe...I'd actually contend that the difference between a battleship and a cruiser had more to do with role. The battleship is intended to be the dominant force of the seas, while the cruiser is more built around power projection.<br /><br />More-or-less, the cruiser is designed to function as both independent warship (for raiding/showing the flag purposes), and a fleet combatant. In contrast, the battleship was invariably too expensive to generally show the flag... but they also invariably boasted firepower and durability far in excess of any other ship, barring another battleship.<br /><br />If 10 nations all build cruiser-analogues, and suddenly one of them starts fielding battleship-analogues as well, then battleship-land is gonna own the seas *really* fast.<br /><br />That being said, I think that if battleships resurfaced today (and there's a lot of things that could easily allow for that)... then they would utterly dominate any current fleet on the seas. A "modern" battleship would probably be armed with railguns and use highly sophisticated active defenses.<br /><br />Atomic Rockets has a short bit under kinetics that talks a little about the US Navy's railgun program- or at least the program the USN had. It actually demonstrates the potential for a range in the hundreds of nautical miles, and with the firepower of a conventional TLAM.<br /><br />From a piece of metal that is significantly cheaper, completely inert, and substantially lighter.<br /><br />TLAMs threatened the dominance of carriers, because they were cheaper and could do many of the same things that naval aviation could. A battleship armed with a railgun (or seven) does the same thing, for cheaper. Obviously inland projection isn't as good as a plane, since bullets can only go so far, but it very handily dethrones the carrier.<br /><br />Incidentally, the above comments about carriers dethroning battleships having more to do with the fact that Russia decided to simply skip building buttloads of ships, rings quite a bit more true than the idea that carriers are just automatically superior.<br /><br />-WillAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-33805685622470416602014-04-21T03:16:24.667-05:002014-04-21T03:16:24.667-05:00The British First Sea Lord laid down the role of t...The British First Sea Lord laid down the role of the battlecruiser for us as well: Pursuit of enemy warships, protection of commerce ships, close support for the battle fleet, and heavy sea-recon.<br /><a href="http://www.fastfifa14.com/" rel="nofollow">fastfifa14.com</a><br><br /><a href="http://www.fastfifa14.com/" rel="nofollow">View More</a><br>FastFifa14http://www.fastfifa14.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-18694105220031268022014-01-21T22:49:57.923-06:002014-01-21T22:49:57.923-06:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-83834863170191107772013-07-09T11:13:22.183-05:002013-07-09T11:13:22.183-05:00(Incidentally "line of battle ship" is j...(Incidentally "line of battle ship" is just another way to express the older term "ship of the line").Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-21919817425067640392013-07-09T11:09:16.120-05:002013-07-09T11:09:16.120-05:00I think it's best to consider the battleship a...I think it's best to consider the battleship as a seaborne tank while destroyers and cruisers are closer to IFVs. Obviously if nobody's building tanks but you, they're going to be of fairly limited usefulness.<br /><br />As far as I'm aware the term is actually just a shortening of "line of battle ship" and the key difference between a battleship and a cruiser was that cruisers didn't have either firepower or armour to exchange salvos as part of the line of battle used in classic naval strategy.<br /><br />I imagine that, had battleships continued to develop, their large size would make them the first ships to carry early cruise missiles which required launch ramps, possibly with recon planes which could use modern optics to steer the missiles during the final stage of their approach. The Iowa refits were pretty crappy for missile capacity simply because they had to stick missiles on top of a ship that was never designed for them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-26255430867082854822013-07-09T07:26:48.097-05:002013-07-09T07:26:48.097-05:00Nice comments, and you have given me somethings to...Nice comments, and you have given me somethings to research. I think the idea of lost technology being one of the reasons behind the lack of large gun technology, and the loss of powder stores. Thanks for reading and commenting!<br />Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17218428427067689631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-78566368799119461492013-07-08T15:35:52.097-05:002013-07-08T15:35:52.097-05:00Also, Jutland didn't really tell anyone much a...Also, Jutland didn't really tell anyone much about the battleships, it was more about battlecruiser theory and C&C. Only one battleship was sunk (Germany's Pommem) and she was an obsolete pre-Dreadnought anyway. What was mostly learned was information about who's ideas were right (mostly Germany's) that the Washington Treaty then stopped anyone putting into practice for 20 years, such that even new ships laid down for WW2 were doing things everyone had forgotten were mistakes. Bismarck's unarmoured steering gear and poorly protected rudder being a prime example of this silliness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-726484495782035142.post-74795940624279771932013-07-08T14:25:04.176-05:002013-07-08T14:25:04.176-05:00To be honest, the real reason the battleship was o...To be honest, the real reason the battleship was obsolete was because the Soviet Union had very little interest in fighting America on the high seas, not so much because of anything involving carriers. Every engagement held to show the superiority of carriers over battleships in WW2 was under circumstances where *any* ship would have been sunk, but the purposes of a battleship is to sink other ships and the Soviets weren't interested in building any ships for the US fleet to have to sink (still haven't forgiven the Navy for Tsushima over in Russia, I think).<br /><br />The US' theory in the Cold War was 'hulls in the water,' chancing that the Soviets couldn't nuke hundreds of ships built cheaply and with paper-thin armour (multi-thousand ton ships have less effective protection than tanks, in some cases). If there *had* been focus on BB design instead you'd have seen a much higher attendant focus on CIWS and would probably have modern battleships with Aegis systems, rocket-assisted shells and THEL knocking around by now, as well as their own compliment of missiles. A near-future BB could even carry VLS cells loaded with drone interceptors, though obviously this would need a fictional world where there's some risk of a clash between blue-water navies in a timeframe of less than fifty years.<br /><br />IIRC, they tested a modern Harpoon against an Iowa and it bounced off. The other big problem is lost technology; we simply don't have the facilities to manufacture the gun barrels and giant armour plates that a battleship requires. Indeed, one part of why the Iowas were finally decommissioned was stored ammo was found to be unstable and they'd have to build a whole new production line making charge bags.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com