Go Back   Star Trek Online > Information and Discussion > Ten Forward
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Continued from here.

The question discussed is if attacks such as those on the USS Cole or the USS Stark would take out a WW2-era battleship for a few months or not.

Quote:
An Iowa Class could have shrugged off a boat loaded with explosives Ships in WW2 had a different design philosophy behind them than modern ships. They were designed, early on, to slug it out with ships of equal tonnage, and missiles were a gleam in the germans eyes when the ships were built.
I don't think so. The armor belt would have taken some of it, but if I am not mistaken, no armor belt went too much below the waterline, for practical reasons: The ship has this nasty requirement to be afloat.

Quote:
I'm sure a boat of explosives, where the explosion is distributed in a sphere, rather than directed like a torpedo, or shell, would be nothing more than a foot note in a battleships battle history.
A torpedo these days does not deliver a directed explosive load to the ship's hull, but explodes below the target ship, producing a giant gas bubble that momentarily lifts up the center of the ship and displaces the water in the middle below it. So at first, the center of the ship is lifted up, and then it falls down more than its fore and aft. The longer the ship, the more likely it will crack from this structural stress, making it unfit to continue its mission. Months at shipyard will be needed.

Quote:
Now the missiles, that depends on where the missile hits the ship. The armor on a battleship isn't uniform. Pretty much all the heavy armor was at the waterline, and the over and around the ammo magazines. A missile to a weak area on the waterline may sink her
That would be a unit kill, which i doubt, but certainly a section or two would be flooded. In any case, a mission kill would have been the result.

And this is, of course, inacceptable for a ship that displaces 40 000 tons or more amd is thus ten times as expensive as a modern frigate. Which is why I say that really big ships are too vulnerable for their cost. (Yes, I am also of the opinion that aircraft carriers are a waste of lives and money in a real war today.)
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
03-22-2012, 02:51 AM
Hypothetical missile hits on a WW2 BB:

Case by case redneck engineered imaginary simulation:

Hit on waterline by wave-rider ASM:
Missile detonates against the thickest armour belt on the BB - possible heavy blast damage to local area and immediate superstructure knocking out FCS, radars. Partial mission kill if its a small-ish subsonic missile like Exocet. You need multiple Exocets or Harpoons to take out something as big as a BB, preferably in an anvil attack from multiple directions or a big continuous salvo to guarantee the kill.

If it's a big missile like a P300 Granit, forget it, the ship is 100% mission killed. Those huge missiles were specifically designed to take down CVNs. 1 will seriously cripple and mission kill, 2 or 3 following will destroy the hull.

Scenario 2 - Top attack
Missile flies a top attack terminal profile, either aeroballistic like the early Cold War Russian "Kickback" (NATO codename) or lofts up and dives into the deck of the target, bypassing the thicker waterline armour while having a chance to destroy crucial sections of the superstructure (My guess is top attack is ideally programmed to hit where the stacks are)

This is a potentially very deadly attack as the missile could destroy large sections of lightly armoured superstructure (significant % chance of mission kill) or if the missile has a SAP warhead or delay fuze, it may even penetrate the BB's deck armour or even into critical machinery spaces before detonating. If it's a giant Russian aeroballistic weapon like Kickback, forget about surviving it.

Scenario 3 - Brute force hypersonic "BrahMos" impact.

I think it's going to be obvious that you either intercept this nasty thing way, way out with a long range SM2ER or SM3 interceptor, because if it happens to achieve a direct hit on -anything-, bye bye. 100% chance mission kill and lord knows what kind of internal damage here.

Scenario 4 - fore or aft hits.
BB armour belt is designed to protect in a broadside engagement against both direct and plunging fire. If you get a missile in from the front or the rear you have serious possibility of heavy damage to the ship. Harpoons and other ASMs can be programmed to fly 'dog leg' attack patterns making it very easy to bracket a target.

My redneck conclusion is - please don't build big ships to survive modern ASM impacts. Focus on detecting and killing the launch platforms first and you have no missiles to worry about.

Also notable that besides Russia and India currently, no other nation can field those deadly supersonic long range ASMs, at least to my knowledge. BrahMos in terms of its high supersonic speed and long range is actually one of the 'ultimate' ASMs today. China is still using subsonic ASMs with less capability than a Harpoon.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
03-22-2012, 03:16 AM
Pretty much.

Now, imagine STO-type shield entering the scene. Suddenly, big ships are the way to go.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
03-22-2012, 03:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
Pretty much.

Now, imagine STO-type shield entering the scene. Suddenly, big ships are the way to go.
Big ship = bigger reactor = more shields.

But the Defiant as I read in an earlier forum discussion had the benefit of stronger shields because the energy was emitted over a smaller spherical area. This makes the idea of (non Trek) Independence War style "local area" shielding very effective if you ever wanted to create a shield that effectively negated any attack against one opponent only.

What now?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
03-22-2012, 04:14 AM
There's a reason why Cruisers have thin hulls (compared to WW2 standards) and are loaded with a crap ton amount of weapons. They're built for redundancy, and the ability to seal off areas of the ship should a breach below the waterline occur. Battleships were built with shells and torpedos in mind.

now the torpedo thing, the armor belt, and the ships hull geometry at the time would have allowed a lot of absorbsion of the shock you describe. The belt provided rigidity, while the shape of the hull allows it to bend (within tolerance) and still not crack. A ship with uniform thickness hull, with a V or U shaped hull would have a hell of a time weathering such a thing. Battleships (iirc) had a more rounded lower hull, angling together near the deck.

EDIT: btw, I don't claim to be an expert. I know some engineering, and bunch of physics, but the terminology many of you have used is not something I know, lol.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
03-22-2012, 04:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by carmenara
Big ship = bigger reactor = more shields.

But the Defiant as I read in an earlier forum discussion had the benefit of stronger shields because the energy was emitted over a smaller spherical area.
I can only think of the cube-square law here: A ship with twice the sphere diameter will have about 4 times the sphere (and thus shield) surface, but 8 times the sphere volume (and thus reactor power and shield projector mass).

I always thought it that the Defiant was just a regular trek ship, minus all the multi-purpose gear and giant crew acommodations, and with actually weaker shields but more super-duper-armor ("ablative" understood as "regenerates armor using replicator technology", which might allow some stunts undoable with real world armor), and relying, mainly, on not being hit due to maneuverability and ECM.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
03-22-2012, 04:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adondria
There's a reason why Cruisers have thin hulls (compared to WW2 standards) and are loaded with a crap ton amount of weapons.
And that reason is that no sane amount of armor could stop modern weapons anyway, so your only real chance is to hit the other ships first.

(Of course, there is some armor in modern ships, but it is not designed to withstand missiles or torpedos, as that would be a vain attempt.)

Quote:
They're built for redundancy, and the ability to seal off areas of the ship should a breach below the waterline occur. Battleships were built with shells and torpedos in mind.
That sealing off is a very old feature in shipbuilding, as far as I know - it was known and used in WW1 already.

Quote:
now the torpedo thing, the armor belt, and the ships hull geometry at the time would have allowed a lot of absorbsion of the shock you describe. The belt provided rigidity, while the shape of the hull allows it to bend (within tolerance) and still not crack. A ship with uniform thickness hull, with a V or U shaped hull would have a hell of a time weathering such a thing. Battleships (iirc) had a more rounded lower hull, angling together near the deck.
[...]
That is possible, though I doubt it.

In any case, the fate of the I.J.S. Shinano should show quite clearly that armor won't save your ship from torpedos, even if they are of the old-fashioned drect-hit type.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
03-22-2012, 05:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo
In any case, the fate of the I.J.S. Shinano should show quite clearly that armor won't save your ship from torpedos, even if they are of the old-fashioned drect-hit type.

Shinano's weakness was the fact she was still wasn't finished. She was leaving Tokyo harbor to go to her final fitting out at the Kure Shipyards, which had more anti-aircraft protection than the shipyards in Tokyo. Her problem though is that 70-75% of her crew had no experience at sea or in damage control. Plus she had severe design flaws in her hull (probably due to her being converted from a stout Yamato class Battleship, to a Supply Aircraft Carrier). One of these major flaws, was that due to her being lighter than a typical Yamato, her Anti-Torpedo bulge didn't go down far enough. So when Archer-Fish's torpedo's struck, they struck her where she was vulnerable. Add to that, since again she was still technically inderconstruction, alot of her watertight compartments, weren't so water tight. If she had made it to Kure, I would imagine her final fitting out would have fixed alot of this, but we'll never know now.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
03-22-2012, 06:32 AM
-yes-had-the-model-
a-distressed-situation-as-crew-qualities-pool-diminished-
harken-back-to-Trafalgar.

Green-crews-lead-with-less-ten-standard-officers-corps-compound-poor-situations
i-think-in-modern-classical-unclassified-terms

STO-would-relate-well-to-scenarios-involving-the-Soviet-Black-sea-fleet-with-Admiral Kuznetsov carrier
support-jump-jet-carrier-and-the-
battlecruiser Kirov

Setting-out-in-a-eastern-mediterranean-showdown-with-the-USN-6th-Fleet
---------------------
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%282009%29.png
Dear-Cryptic
the-above-maps-showing-fleets-and-areas-of-responsibility
hint-6th-fleet-was-a-VA-now-its-COmmanded-by-A-4-star-full-on-Admiral-Admiral
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
03-22-2012, 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophlogimo

That sealing off is a very old feature in shipbuilding, as far as I know - it was known and used in WW1 already.
Of course it was old practice, but you stay with what works, right?


Quote:
In any case, the fate of the I.J.S. Shinano should show quite clearly that armor won't save your ship from torpedos, even if they are of the old-fashioned drect-hit type.
Well, the Bismark took a few torpedos and was scuttled, rather than being sunk. The only reason it was scuttled was due to a lucky shot to the rudder. Otherwise, it would have been damaged, but wouldn't have been laid up that long, or even have had to go into port at all, from what I remember.
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:51 PM.