Nimitz carrier in WW11

[SystemParanoia]

Yeah, their doing they're coastal bombardments with this new class of destroyer now



Zumwalt can fire rocket-powered, computer-guided shells that can destroy targets 63 miles (101 km) away
It also has 80 missile launchers

Vs USS Missouri's 24 miles (39 km)

its possible that the deployment of the Zumwalt will mean the Battleship will never be reactivated again

Edit apostrophe!

Edited by SystemParanoia on Friday 26th August 15:53

Edited by SystemParanoia on Friday 26th August 16:06

[Ayahuasca]

Those guns last fired in anger in the 1980's at targets in Lebanon.



A broadside from HMS Victory would probably sink most modern warships.

[DMN]

Well that and the last time they re-activated the battleships without much experience in operating them didn't go as smoothly as planned:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Iowa_(BB-61)#198...

[jmorgan]

SystemParanoia said:

Private Pile said:

Although I don't understand a lot of this thread, I'm enjoying reading it. Why has there been a change from heavily armoured to lightly armoured warships? Is it just a weight issue?

I Assume that its a fuel saving measure, makes the ships faster, and that ships tend not to go broadside with each other any more

Easy to sink with no air cover, expensive etc. see Prince of Wales and Repulse. Play the game differently. Carrier projects the air power instead of shells and a small fleet protects the carrier. The smaller ships are faster, more manoeuvrable and armed differently for a different fight. And you can build more of them.

Think air power was a major factor in the Pacific war. We were worried about Bismarck etc. And aircraft dealt with at least two of them (brought Bismarck to bay). Convoys were protected by destroyers and later on escort aircraft carriers.

At least from my grasp from books read.

[DMN]

jmorgan said:

Think air power was a major factor in the Pacific war. We were worried about Bismarck etc. And aircraft dealt with at least two of them (brought Bismarck to bay). Convoys were protected by destroyers and later on escort aircraft carriers.

At least from my grasp from books read.

Pretty much my take on it too.

Our carriers and the aircraft they carried where designed for the North Atlantic where we would have near total air control. As a result Fleet Air Arm suffered when they first came across the Japanese. By the wars end we had taken on the US way of operations as far as the Pacific war was concerned.

The British Pacific fleet ended the war with 6 fleet carriers, 4 light carriers and 9 escort carriers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Pacific_Flee...

[Simpo Two]

Ayahuasca said:

A broadside from HMS Victory would probably sink most modern warships.

jmorgan said:

Think air power was a major factor in the Pacific war. We were worried about Bismarck etc. And aircraft dealt with at least two of them (brought Bismarck to bay).

The Pacific war was certainly controlled by carriers. But air power didn't sink the Bismarck; almost all of the torpedoes missed but one lucky hit jammed the rudder/s. Bismarck was sunk by the big guns of KGV and Rodney. Even then many of the shells 'bounced off', such was her armour.

[jmorgan]

Simpo Two said:

The Pacific war was certainly controlled by carriers. But air power didn't sink the Bismarck; almost all of the torpedoes missed but one lucky hit jammed the rudder/s. Bismarck was sunk by the big guns of KGV and Rodney. Even then many of the shells 'bounced off', such was her armour.

Aye, I know it was sunk by the big boys but a small aircraft and a bit of luck with ultra got it in range. Big ship tripped by a small bi plane. Without that it was home free.


Edit. Btw. Gratuitous link post, had it kicking around for while.
http://www.bismarck-class.dk/index.html

Armour dimensions in there somewhere

Edited by jmorgan on Friday 26th August 16:52

Edited by jmorgan on Friday 26th August 16:54

[chuntington101]

Knowing that carriers were the real threat, would you bother with battle ships? Why not just go carrier hunting? This would have the biggest impact on the war. Carrier would be a much easier target as well (don't think hey were designed to 'bounce' 18" shells)!

[Ayahuasca]

Why didn't Germany build any carriers?

[jmorgan]

chuntington101 said:

Knowing that carriers were the real threat, would you bother with battle ships? Why not just go carrier hunting? This would have the biggest impact on the war. Carrier would be a much easier target as well (don't think hey were designed to 'bounce' 18" shells)!

Or bombs, various example in the Pacific campaign. Think Japan lost the lot without checking up. No air power to back up up stuff like the Tokyo express etc. War was lost.

[SystemParanoia]

Ayahuasca said:

Why didn't Germany build any carriers?

They didn't get the memo

[jmorgan]

They did, it was never completed. There was also the the WW I treaty that hobbled construction and resulted in pocket battleships etc. H man was no naval person. Land was where it was at and they were resource poor at the start of WWII.

If they had ever launched it, the RN would have made it a priority. It would not have lasted long.

[Ayahuasca]

jmorgan said:

They did, it was never completed. There was also the the WW I treaty that hobbled construction and resulted in pocket battleships etc. H man was no naval person. Land was where it was at and they were resource poor at the start of WWII.

If they had ever launched it, the RN would have made it a priority. It would not have lasted long.

The RN would have had to get close, and the Stuka might have made a half decent torpedo bomber...

[DMN]

Ayahuasca said:

Why didn't Germany build any carriers?

They did, well at least started some. But inter-service rivalry delayed them untill it was far too late:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_car...

[jmorgan]

Ayahuasca said:

The RN would have had to get close, and the Stuka might have made a half decent torpedo bomber...

We had a lot more carriers and torpedoes as well.

They would have had a job operating as they would likely at some point come in range of land based aircraft and we had subs. That much power, I cannot see the uk lettering it get away, same as the other capital ships.

Edit. And they wasted a load in the BOB.

Edited by jmorgan on Friday 26th August 18:09

[Ayahuasca]

jmorgan said:

Ayahuasca said:

The RN would have had to get close, and the Stuka might have made a half decent torpedo bomber...

We had a lot more carriers and torpedoes as well.

They would have had a job operating as they would likely at some point come in range of land based aircraft and we had subs. That much power, I cannot see the uk lettering it get away, same as the other capital ships.

Edit. And they wasted a load in the BOB.

Edited by jmorgan on Friday 26th August 18:09

Maybe this is one area where the Germans did make the right strategic call - building lots of cheap U-boats rather than one expensive carrier. Opposite of the Sherman vs King Tiger situation.

[jmorgan]

That failed as well. Once the methods were in place, it was a very bad career move to be in u boats. The later Electra (sp?) boats were too late.

If they had built more to start with h then maybe.

[kowalski655]

chuntington101 said:

Knowing that carriers were the real threat, would you bother with battle ships? Why not just go carrier hunting? This would have the biggest impact on the war. Carrier would be a much easier target as well (don't think hey were designed to 'bounce' 18" shells)!

Sure I read somewhere that the RN carriers were;they had an armoured deck, so when kamikazes hit a USN carrier,it was fked,with an RN one it was all hands to the brooms
Of course this made them top heavy & so easier to sink by torp

I may be mis-remembering this though

[Flooble]

The USN liaison officer on HMS Indefatigable commented: "When a kamikaze hits a U.S. carrier it means 6 months of repair at Pearl [Harbor]. When a kamikaze hits a Limey carrier it’s just a case of "Sweepers, man your brooms."”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1346476...

[Evanivitch]

maffski said:

I suspect Talksteer was referring to the accuracy to disable the gun directors.

Except that Brimstone isn't designed to auto identify these targets,so you'd have to be close enough to lazer designate. Which is too close.