I've been playing this naval simulation that came out a couple days ago, rule the waves 3, and it's really inspired me to do more research into naval history. Let's have a cool thread about naval warfare, doctrine, shipbuilding, and all that sort of cool stuff.
Here's the glorious USS Cassin, DD-43, which fired the first shots of the American Navy in World War 1 against a German U-boat.
This is the German pre-dreadnought battleship Schleswig-Holstein. She was laid in 1905 and fought in both world wars. She fought at the Battle of Jutland, and most notably fired the first shots of WW2.
>And the dreadnoughts dread nothing at all
>A hull of steel and all big guns to serve the fleet
>Unrivalled firepower riding the waves to war
>A devastating blow will send their foes down below
>Fearless armada now bombarding their shore
>Light up the night when cannons roar
>In fear of nothing, they lead the navy into war!
So were B's and BB's just one big elaborate scam? They only had a decisive impact in a couple of battles and feels like they were just built for prestige and because "big ship must be important because big" even though DD's, CL's and other light forces did 90% of the work
>even though DD's, CL's and other light forces did 90% of the work
because everyone runs away from the big ships with the big guns
Battleships could kill something several miles away (increasing over the battleship era to 20+ miles) in an era before aircraft could do the same. Once aircraft could drop a bomb that penetrated 6+" of armor the balance of power swung to carriers. Maybe CIWS will eventually become good enough that the only answer is big thick walled rocket boosted SAP shells, that's the only way surface gunfire returns.
Battleships had their utility, but by the time WW1 rolled around they had grown to such size and cost that they were too big a risk to commit. Still, they were a nigh unstoppable force in combat provided they had proper escort. So no one could afford to not have them, lest they get defeated by those that do.
Thing remained like this until naval aviation made big guns obsolete in the early 40s. After that, they were still used extensively because why not, its not like you're going to need them later.
Before Dreanought, battleships were used extensively and really were worth the cost. The Spanish American War and Russo-Japanese war prove that.
Since nobody fields any big gun battleships anymore is there a reason a BBGN(X) program would actually have more than 2-4 guns? It'd be funny if battleships returned, but as predreadnoughts with VLS
Naval guns will never have the accuracy or range of missiles, if battleship sized hulls do come back it will just be as giant missile trucks carrying a shitload of them but would be extremely vulnerable since a single hit could be catastrophic explosion and also hundreds if not thousands of potential ordnance to fire at a target being lost in a single strike would be a significant hit to firepower and capability. It sounds like a terrible idea
>It sounds like a terrible idea
just because you're poor and don't have enough missiles to put on big ships
honestly converting a supertanker to a missile carrier is a strong weapon, just make sure it can launch them all fast enough before enemies first salvo lands and that its uncrewed and you just threw enough firepower at the enemy to sink their navy twice over
>Naval guns will never have the accuracy or range of missiles
Why not both? Ramjets need something to get them up to speed. Extended range shells from a high velocity gun was the basis of the Army's SLRC program.
The only justification for big hulls in current year is radar and powerplants.
You can fit much better radar on a large hull, wich allows for better offensive and defensive capability. You can see this with those 20,000 ton Japanese missile defense ships.
Large hulls can also fit nuclear reactors, which allow for cruising at high speeds indefinetly and only need to be refueled every few years. They also allow more power for onboard systems including radar and laser weaponry, which would greatly add to survivability against air attack.
I think 15,000-20,000 ton surface combatants will become a common sight in the coming decades, though they likely won't be called battleships, since everyone associates that word with the outdated concept of heavily armored big gun warships.
there's been precisely one class of 20,000 ton nuclear powered guided missile cruisers and everyone decided to call them battlecruisers which I don't hate
The Kirov class were 28,000 tons
We've never seen a ship using a truly modern armor package on the same grade as tanks. I'm sure with the allowances in weight, you could get something that can reliably survive getting hit by contemporary missile designs while laying waste to tin-can destroyers.
Of course, I'm significantly less sure if the same could be done to protect it against modern torpedoes.
>to protect it against modern torpedoes
fire counter-torpedoes at them
It likely also wouldn't be capable enough to justify the operating cost. While it would be stronger than any surface combatant, its going to be much less useful than a similarly sized aircraft carrier.
>its going to be much less useful than a similarly sized aircraft carrier.
does that really matter though because Russians don't even have working radars? prestige counts
If you have not discovered Drachinafel on you tube yet you will enjoy his level of PrepHole autism of naval history for that time period and also has a snazzy brittish accent.
Ironically, amongst alot of naval enthusiast communities (rule the waves included) Drach is seen as an entry-level historian for casuals
I guess that assessment covers the X explained in 5 minutes videos but not the longer ones