is it possible that with the advancement of anti missile defense systems we will see are resurgence in huge calibers? maybe we'll finally get out of the multipurpose 4000t destroyer/frigate with 76mm peashooters and go back to the sea behemoths of yore
My huge caliber dick will resurge when I frick your mother
>muh ships
the future is drones and space based weaponry
I think so. Active armor keeps advancing and drones and missiles don't be able to get enough energy. They are already zapping small penetrators now before they hit hulls of shapes with electric grids so 5 years if this go full speed 10 if slow drones won't be able to do much and missiles will mostly bounce off or tear small holes. Anything going like molten copper or with a chip gets poofed before it hits the steel
I'm gonna be the contrarian saying yes. 16 inch SAP can actually be intercepted, but you need a kinetic kill vehicle like PAC-3 and lol at using those against even guided shells. The potential range of something like an 8" rocket assisted guided sabot fired from a 16" gun is going to be comparable to a missile. When the VLS cells are empty on both sides and you've expended your fancy guided sabots, close to regular base bleed gun range. Networked drones and sensors mean artillery correction is instant and accurate, as seen in Ukraine. Against modern unarmored ships a battleship shell airbursting over the ship would completely shred the topside and render it combat ineffective in one hit.
so basically the future of warfare is regressing back to point blank full broadsides a la napoleonic wars? maybe add knife biting boarders too?
No, "close" range here is still thirty thousand yards plus
>is it possible that with the advancement of anti missile defense systems we will see are resurgence in huge calibers? maybe we'll finally get out of the multipurpose 4000t destroyer/frigate with 76mm peashooters and go back to the sea behemoths of yore
No. Larger projectiles are easier to intercept, not harder.
Which is exactly why battleships are useless too. The armor doesn't prevent the parts that actually matter being instantly rendered ineffective. You can't armor radar, you can't armor your comms receivers, etc. Even light guns leave you crippled and blind once E-war kicks in, so why waste all that mass on armor that just leaves you floating around waiting to die from a bomb?
>You can't armor radar
you can put it on drones
>you can't armor your comms receivers
antennas are light and can be made massively redundant
>armor that just leaves you floating around waiting to die from a bomb?
It's not 1944 anymore, iron bombs dropped from dive bombers are not the threat model and most anitship missiles aren't designed for serious penetration anymore because most ships don't require that.
>It's not 1944 anymore
Indeed. There are guided bombs that would hit ship 100 times out of 100 from 30000ft
And how many guided bombs can you drop with an AEGIS system trying to shoot you down? You're arguing against some strawman ship that has no defenses other than armor.
And you're lying. For eg
>most anitship missiles aren't designed for serious penetration anymore
Which is turbobullshit. What do you think the penetration is on a nuclear warhead? How do you think armor stands up to an ADCAP or nuclear AFDCAP under the keel? Did you know that a shoulder launched anti-armor weapon has enough penetration to defeat battleship armor?
Stop making these fricking gay threads. Guns are not coming back.
>Blow load of 300 VLS cells
>Withdraw to deeper water
>Ally naval ships come in and blow their VLS cells
>Naval supremacy achieved
>Reload VLS cells in victorious peace
Zumwalt was literally the last chance and the turbogay senators who came up with the idea to fund AGS are the same ones who gutted it when it came time to be """fiscally responsible"""
6'' isn't exactly top notch size-wise but by gutting AGS and later railguns, all investment in naval direct attack is basically dead on arrival
The real bummer is SLRC being canceled, that would have been a perfect cross service big gun excuse to build battleships
I can see an arguable role for nuclear powered ships with coil guns. But I don't think the politics will allow it to happen without a massive change in mentality. Too expensive.
i hope she can be bought with coal. she looks awesome but i ain't gonna give wg 150 bucks for a handful of pixels
Kek people are still playing this vatnik kusoge? I fricked off in 2017 when they released Hood with the defensive AA gimmick and shit guns on unrealistically fast turrets, rather than the slow-turning but accurate guns of Warspite and the deck-mounted torpedo tubes that she went down with. Plus all the gimmicky consumables on the new lines in the name of ~~*NATIONAL FLAVOR*~~.
God I love quad turrets, but how would this thing be classified as a CC when it appears quite a bit more substantial than the Richelieu-class BB?
>but how would this thing be classified as a CC when it appears quite a bit more substantial than the Richelieu-class BB?
The ship designer gets a little confused between fast battleship and battlecruiser at speeds around 32 knots
To be autistic, the Iowa-class could do 33kts (technically 35 with a very light load), but they were never considered battlecruisers. I know they weren’t properly armored against their own guns, but the 16”/50 with superheavy shells wasn’t a thing when they were initially designed.
>vatnik kusoge
That thing could always be sent to Azur Lane (chink kusoge) instead lmao
I want it to happen, but I really doubt it will happen
spaghetti coated brown hands wrote this post
time for you to go back and huff literrio class torpedo bulge cope
Why are argentinians so angry all the time?
>s it possible that with the advancement of anti missile defense systems we will see are resurgence in huge calibers?
No - missiles are of roughly the same diameter as small capital ship guns (Harpoon is 13.5") and there is nothing preventing them from being tracked and attacked in the same way
If your missile defence is strong enough to ensure you can close to gun range, then you also have a defense system that will stop heavy gun attack
You’re ignoring cost and stockpile amounts.
That a SM-6 might theoretically be able to intercept a 7.62mm infantry round doesn’t make it cost effective to launch them at 7.62mm rounds.
>entire carrier task force is disarmed defending itself against one guy with 15 mags.
A shell is a very cheap thing, while missiles start at like $50,000 each and quickly ramp into the millions.
Iron Dome can take out artillery shells. Doesn’t mean we can make Ukraine win the war by sending them Iron Dome. It would just bleed us dry trying to match tens of thousands of $100 shells with $100,000 interceptors.
>You’re ignoring cost and stockpile amounts.
You're right, lets consider the cost and stock piles of adding a new 16" gun into development
Now the cost of the ammunition - You need to make your choice, Unguided where your hit rate on a manuevering target is roughly 3 percent for a well trained and drilled gun crew while barrel life for the guns in only a few hundred rounds before needing to replace them or developing a 16" guided shell which is by definition going to contain the majority of the complex components of a missile for target acquisition
An unguided shell is a very cheap thing as it is meant to be inherently high volume of fire to compensate for its unguided nature
That means to get the volume of fire needed to make naval gunnery useful it will need to be able to sustain its own missile defense systems for long enough under sustained enemy fire to close the distance to be able to engage, then stay within that engagement range for enough time to leverage volume of fire - during which time its own missile defenses will have been depleted in the act of advancing to contact
No the trend in naval artillery is going towards small diameter rail guns to shoot down hypersonic missiles.. You can't create a large diameter rail gun with a sustainable barrel life.
No, since a ship has a fixed number of missiles it can carry so it can always be swarmed.
Surface combatants are going to become increasingly obsolete with the advent of submersible drones to go along with the airborne threats.
Spending a few billion to put a ship into the teeth of enemy coastal defenses just to try to lob a few shells doesn’t sound like a worthwhile trade. Losing it costs you more than any gain.
Against a near peer you can’t afford to be taking lopsided losses.
>No, since a ship has a fixed number of missiles it can carry so it can always be swarmed.
lasers you fricking moron
Oh and also it's a lot easier and cheaper for a ship to carry a shitload of anti-missiles then each ASM that can reach out long ranges. Even with missiles the ship ones don't need to go very far.
The ship has a massive base cost that makes it worthwhile to overwhelm.
Also, anti missile missiles tend to cost much more than antiship missiles.
Sea skimming, curvature of the earth and mass
>No, since a ship has a fixed number of missiles it can carry so it can always be swarmed.
Ships carry a fixed number of shells. Large diameter shells take up a lot of space and weight. We're only taking a 3:1 or 5:1 ammunition advantage to guns over missiles. The guns also are forced to fire much slower than missiles can be launched both from mechanical reloads and overheated barrels.
>16"
Can I have 20" Yamato?
literally fricking why
No Wargaming, I'm not going back to WoW, stop trying to make me.
you WILL spend your meager salary on lootboxes
you WILL finance the belarusian MoD with your microtransactions
and you WILL be happy
Anti-missile defense does NOT make classic battleship cannons accurate. There is a reason the US went with precision missiles over unguided artillery for it's navy.
Go be an underage moron somewhere else.
Yeah, because they were too lazy to develop high caliber rapid fire long ranged cannons and instead opted for missiles because it was all the rage back then with Werner von Braun and the space program.
we already have 155mm ramjet shells
imagine what they could do with 406mm or more
No. Modern ships are now so full of electronics and manpower so precious that they're glass canons. As such, naval battles are much more about range and precision than firepower, which are things that missiles are extremly good at. Which, incidentaly is exactly why planes have joined subs as the main anti-ship platforms since WW2, relegating ships so air defence, ASW and ocassionaly hitting shore targets with cruise missiles and MAYBE guns in very specific scenarios.
As for anti-missile defences, they can be disrupted by electronic warfare, saturation or even the incompetence or unpreparedness of the ennemy crew (see Moskva).
No. Guided Missiles have much more advantages over a cannon shell. Magnified with bigger calibers.
>Better range (50km vs 300km)
>Better accuracy (CEP less than 1m at all ranges)
>Loitering missiles can change targets
>Non-ballistic trajectories and maneuvering paths
>Launcher system is much much cheaper than a cannon
>VLS can ripple fire much faster than a large cannon can reload
>Big cannons need lots of regular maintenance that is expensive, barrels wear out. This negates the ammo cost advantage of cannon.
Missiles are just better.
Yes.
The future of warfare is battle carriers
I just want a battleship with a nuclear reactor to power a single gigantic railgun along its whole length
And to do what exactly? Bunker busting from the other side of the ocean? Wouldnt work anyway because of earth's curve