AH challenge--battleships...
- Thread starter NHBL
- Start date
David S Poepoe
Banned
A change in the Archduke Franz Ferdinand itinerary for 1914. Without a war the development of the aircraft will be slowed to a degree, and so too would be the submarine.
However, the continued expense of just building one dreadnought would eventually force someone, probably Britain, to consider a much more affordable and flexible weapons system - like the aircraft carrier and the submarine.
However, the continued expense of just building one dreadnought would eventually force someone, probably Britain, to consider a much more affordable and flexible weapons system - like the aircraft carrier and the submarine.
NHBL said:
The main issue that caused the United States to abandon the last of it's own battleship fleet is the large crews needed to operate them. Battleships are actually very useful vessels for a lot of roles, if not actually in ship-to-ship combat. So if some sort of automation could be devised that would significantly reduce the crew needed, the battleship could very possibly survive for a long time.
Redbeard
Banned
PoD: radar technology is equally distributed between the USN and the IJN. So in WWII the IJN also have good radar, CAP and proximity fuses, by late WWII even radarguided AAA.
For that resaon it is extremely costly to attack naval targets with airstrikes, and only on rare occasions do airstrikes result in decisive losses to the enemy. The battleship however shows a remarkable resilience to damage and on a number of occasions fast battleship squadrons have succeeded in hunting down enemy forces slowed by airstrikes. The carriers soon have fighters as the main part of their ac complement, and the newer designs have heavy armour and limited ac complement.
By late WWII the attack aircraft in the IJN is almost solely Kamikaze and in the USN much effort is put into guided missiles.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
For that resaon it is extremely costly to attack naval targets with airstrikes, and only on rare occasions do airstrikes result in decisive losses to the enemy. The battleship however shows a remarkable resilience to damage and on a number of occasions fast battleship squadrons have succeeded in hunting down enemy forces slowed by airstrikes. The carriers soon have fighters as the main part of their ac complement, and the newer designs have heavy armour and limited ac complement.
By late WWII the attack aircraft in the IJN is almost solely Kamikaze and in the USN much effort is put into guided missiles.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Redbeard said:
I think the radar idea is good. I had first thought of some ASB changing the laws of physics to make heavier-than-air flight impossible, but that probably would have been off topic
To return to the radar, powerful AA defense equipment would have to be developed as well. I think radar-guided AA guns would require some time for development, however. But what about specialised AA destroyers deployed in large numbers, maybe using not only rapid-fire small caliber guns, but also ammo like that the Germans used on Tirpitz against British bombers (some kind of shrapnel grenades fired from the main guns)? Such weapons in larger numbers, combined with radar, would make strikes by massed bodies of planes rather unlikely - and if the planes must fly with larger distances, they are more vulnerable to fighters...
sikitu said:
The Japanese had a "beehive" incendiary shrapnel shell for the 18" guns of Yamato and Musashi. It didn't work, mainly because of fuse sensitivity; Musashi blew one of her guns at Leyte Gulf with one of those shells. Barrage fire wasn't as effective as aimed fire; that's why the VT shell plus radar-guided guns was so effective. If every nation in WWII has this combination, instead of just the Allies, then carrier strikes become a lot bloodier.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Susano said:
No advantage here. You don't need bigger guns you need better shells. You could have battleships slugging it out with rocket propelled depleted uranium shells.
Of course a cheap torpedo will do just the same from an unseen submarine.
No development of the airplane, period. The Wright brothers fail. I know its out of your timezone, but it could work.
While there are strong economic arguments against this, it is possible the Washington Naval Treaty negotiations of the early 1920's could fail. This would lead to at least the partial, completion of the massive US, Japanese, and British battleship/battlecruiser construction programs. This would have two effects which might have given the battleship-as-capital-ship at least 20 years greater longevity: (1) More, and much bigger and more powerful BB/BCs in the 1940's, and (2) no super large fleet aircraft carriers like Saratoga and Akagi (which were built off cancelled BC hulls). More than likely, with no treaty requirements, the major navies (especially US and Japan) would have remained more conservative and BB oriented, with aircraft carriers being smaller, more experimental, and considered more as scouting adjuncts to the battleline rather than major offensive weapons. Presumably this would have retarded the development of combat-capable carrier planes, or perhaps led to their development as specialized fleet defense planes to counter land-based air power, which presumably would continue to develop. Given the strong interservice rivalries regarding airpower in the US it might even be speculated that the navy might be mandated to relinquish all offensive air capability to the Army air services.
There is also the problem of submarines, but until the development of SSN's I see no reason to assume they would replace BB's as the symbol of naval dominance for big powers.
There is also the problem of submarines, but until the development of SSN's I see no reason to assume they would replace BB's as the symbol of naval dominance for big powers.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Mikey said:
The Wright Brothers were not the first, nor only, ones working on the airplane. They really succeeded in the first powered, controlled flight. Also its entirely likely that Gustav Whitehead did succeed, and even Langley may eventually succeed - or even Santo-Dumont. Also, there are zeppelins and other lighter than air ships to keep in mind.
Regarding the failure of the Washington Treaty its entirely likely that the Japanese would not have been able to finish their 8-8 program. While its been demonstrated that the British financially could afford the G3 class battlecruisers, it hasn't been shown that they could domestically afford to build them. However, one can not forget that the Royal Navy already possessed HMS Furious, HMS Eagle, HMS Vindex and HMS Argus (well I may be a little off on a few of them) and had demonstrated the capability of carrier launched attacks.
An early 1940's development of a wire guided short range SAM (something like Sea Cat). Highly effective against low level attack--esp. torpedo bombers but less so against divebombers.
Improvements in TDS.
Slower development of airplanes. I don't think airplanes can be avoided altogether. But a slower path of development with jets not available to the late 1960's. On the other hand a moderately faster development of helicopters for ASW and maybe even Over the Horizon spotting.
Improvements in TDS.
Slower development of airplanes. I don't think airplanes can be avoided altogether. But a slower path of development with jets not available to the late 1960's. On the other hand a moderately faster development of helicopters for ASW and maybe even Over the Horizon spotting.
Flocculencio
Donor
Gamingboy said:
The trouble with this is that like most hybrid jacks-of-all-trades it would probably be less effective than either specialised design would be on it's own. Japanese submarine/carriers anyone?
It might seem more economical to combine the designs but I'm convinced that it would be a false saving.
David S Poepoe
Banned
Gamingboy said:
As mentioned by Flocculencio, this is a terrible hybrid. If there is any damage to the flight deck the planes are worthless. The idea was bantered about during the 1920s and 1930s, tho it was only the Swedes and Japanese that really built these battleship-carriers. An interesting book to look at would be Stephen McLaughlin's Hybrid Warship: The Amalgamation of Big Guns and Aircraft.
One book to mine for ideas would be David Drake's Surface Action, one of the few sci-fi battleship stories about. On a terraformed Venus, now just one large ocean, the various underwater city-states hire naval mercenaries to settle their differences. No aircraft is used because of laser anti-aircraft systems - if I remember right.
Grey Wolf
Donor
How about somewthing twice as long as the current nuclear-powered carriers, on two decks ? With the Nimitz-et-al sized flight deck on top, then a lower deck with twin or triple turrets fore and aft ?
I do think that have you have to have some sort of compromise between the battleship and the aircraft carrier in order to get close to your aim
How would a battleship with a couple of extra decks work also ? These have catapult-launched jets ? Of course the problem is with retrieval... Maybe there are special retrieval ships, maybe they land in the sea, or maybe they get caught in giant nets. Think a naval Battlestar Galactica !
Grey Wolf
I do think that have you have to have some sort of compromise between the battleship and the aircraft carrier in order to get close to your aim
How would a battleship with a couple of extra decks work also ? These have catapult-launched jets ? Of course the problem is with retrieval... Maybe there are special retrieval ships, maybe they land in the sea, or maybe they get caught in giant nets. Think a naval Battlestar Galactica !
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf
Donor
zoomar said:
Actually I wasnt being sarcastic
Does anyone else remember a comic strip type of story that had a powerful navy of another world, the translation of its writing by experts of space adventurers from Earth...maybe Triton in the title ? Not completely sure. It had an influence on me
Grey Wolf
NapoleonXIV
Banned
I've often wondered why we build floating airports rather than design an airplane that can easily take off and land at sea. I mean, it is right there.
Think of an aircraft carrier without the deck. It puts in and picks up its planes from the water. It might have a catapult at one end, or not. It stores its planes belowdecks and handles them through cranes that lift the aircraft to elevators either on the superstructure or in the side. The decks are mainly free for AA weapons and the big guns that most BB lovers are so enamored of. A little better armor below the water, some depth charges on all that freed up deck space and even submarines might think twice.
Yeh, I realize its probably very dangerous and cumbersome to fish a plane and its pilot from the ocean, but improved methods and machinery might make it routine. As I understand it, carrier landings are not a walk in the park even now.
Think of an aircraft carrier without the deck. It puts in and picks up its planes from the water. It might have a catapult at one end, or not. It stores its planes belowdecks and handles them through cranes that lift the aircraft to elevators either on the superstructure or in the side. The decks are mainly free for AA weapons and the big guns that most BB lovers are so enamored of. A little better armor below the water, some depth charges on all that freed up deck space and even submarines might think twice.
Yeh, I realize its probably very dangerous and cumbersome to fish a plane and its pilot from the ocean, but improved methods and machinery might make it routine. As I understand it, carrier landings are not a walk in the park even now.