Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Well for one a BB would not enter the littorials as they had in the Korean era.
|
Which means their already short ranged guns, would have less range inland. That's a de facto victory, if there ever was one.
Seems as how there is no such thing as a BBG, you're making the rest up by effectively emphasizing what Destroyers and Subs are capable of, and that they're good enough at it to compensate for the BB. That supports the value of DDs and SSNs, not BBs or BBGs. With the same budget and manufacturing base more BBs, means less DDGs and SSNs to do those escort and patrol missions. Hence you just shot yourself in the foot.
As a matter of fact that's exactly how the British Royal Navy got itself into trouble with the U-boats, and required the USN to bail it out in WW1. Which just serves to emphasize what an utterly moronic idea the Battleship was from day 1. Power sitting around collecting dust is irrelevant, and the Battleships never worked as advertised even in scenarios where they could have. As you yourself note wood PT boats could kill anything afloat. A dedicated Artillery ship without the nonsense would have served longer, required less invested resources, and probably have been better in that role.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
Plus if they were to put a BB back to sea one would have to assume that the helo would be carring the newest torp available probably a variant of the Mk 48 torpedo.
|
Since when do helos use 21" torpedoes instead of 12.75" torpedoes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
You could also bet those subs wont escape a DD or DDG in shallow waters nor any helo carring a homing torp.
|
So what? Fighting the USN period is suicide from pure numbers if nothing else. That Diesel boat would have just sent down over five times it tonnage, and won a major propaganda victory in the process. Possibly enough to sway public opinion sufficient to achieve whatever powers goals, with a facillitating media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
The point of a battleship was to be an all weather, heavily armored, stable gun/weapons platform with redundant damage equipment from two times over to in some cases three times over.
|
According to whom? Did the N-Square Law concept just evaporate into thin air? I don't recall that ever being attached to any definition of a Battleship I've ever seen. Although that definition would actually force the DD(X) to be a real Battleship, with its shore bombardment equipment to the Marine Corps specifications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
1) Multiple redundancy to damage.
|
Antiblast technology and compartmentalized PVLS designed to isolate damage if hit instead of the entire magazine being able to go off like certain ships isn't redundancy verse damage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
2) All weather capability and sustainment.
|
The multiband sensor packages, aren't what they're specifically designed to be now?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
3) Sustainability on station to not only herself but her battlegroup as well.
|
Translation: The Battlegroup keeping the Battleship from getting torpedoed.
DD(X) can keep itself from getting torpedoed.
Quote:
|
"The underwater armor includes side protection and a triple bottom, both multi-layered systems designed to absorb the energy from an underwater explosion equivalent to 700 pounds (320 kg) of TNT—the Navy's best guess in the 1930s about Japanese weapons. However, unbeknownst to U.S. Naval Intelligence, the Japanese 610 mm (24 in) "Long Lance" torpedo carried a 490 kg (1,100 lb) warhead."
|
The WW2 Mk 8 21" torpedo carried plenty more then 700lb of explosive. 21" ergo 533mm is basically the minimum for subs, with 650mm which is roughly 25 1/2" torpedoes out there as well and modern torpedoes have modern explosive filler. The Yamato didn't simply take the hit when bracketed by torpedoes at the Battle of Sumar for good reason.