SuperBattleShip- ( Leviathan Class )

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by Garry

I would call it a a large steal coffine..... you would spend much more efforts/resources trying to protect this ultimate concentration of firepower and vulnerability than enemy attempting to kill it.....

don't tell us that missile strikes are worthless.... just one shell has killed HSM Hood in 1941... a supersonic Granit missile has far more power than that

Oh, I'm sorry. And a CVN isnt just as vulenerable?

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by gunnut

The Hood was the ultimate conclusion of Jacky Fisher's battlecruiser idea. She was fast and armed to the teeth, but not much armor (compared to a true battleship). When WW2 started she was just about to undergo a refit to boost her deck armor. Unfortunately the start of WW2 delayed the refit. And you know what happened after that.

I believe the IJN Kongo was the same type of ship. A super battlecruiser born of Jacky Fisher's concept. Kongo was upgraded many times to boost her armor and finally was classified as a battleship rather than a battlecruiser. Although I don't believe she could have stood up against a South Dakoda or Iowa.

Also, the battlecruiser was never meant to go toe to toe with a true battleship. That was never the intent. They were supposed to be the screening force, scout, chaser, and all the rest of the good stuff, but never a slugger. RN used the Hood incorrectly, just as they had their battlecruiser squadron in the Battle of Jutland.

A 40,000 ton scout ship? That makes a lot of sense. And what, pray tell, happens when this "chaser" catches up with whatever it's chasing? I understand the battlecruiser concept, but what's the point of building one that big? They called her the "pride of the Royal Navy," and she was just a scout ship? Seems to me that it was a waste of resources. Although I bet she would have made a fine battleship once her armor was upgraded.

[IDonT]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Oh, I'm sorry. And a CVN isnt just as vulenerable?

The difference is that a CVN is worth protecting and finding a manuevering carrier battle group is harder than it seems.

[Dreadnought]

Hood was scheduled to have her refit in which her armor scheme would have been altered and boilers would have been updated as well as her secondary armamment updated however the eve of WWII was already upon them and Hood could not be spared for refit by the time Bizmark made her break for commerce raiding in the Atlantic. Hell the The Prince of Whales was still working up and had yard workers still onboard when they were dispatched to intercept Bizmark and Prince Eugan.

[Ruskiy]

i think that the author of the topic forgot to add underwater system for friendly sub to attach the ship (supply gaining) and opening in its boart for the airplanes to take off and land (opening can be opened if needed, most of teh times it would be closed). Than thet ship would be the Battle-sub supply-aircraft carrier, then you'll not find anything better

[pdf27]

Hood actually had rather a lot of armour, if still less than a true battleship. From the survey done of the wreck and the reconstruction of the fight they've done, it appears that Hood was very unlucky to blow up when it did. IIRC it was something like a small area of vulnerable deck that would no longer have been vulnerable as little as a minute or two later, and hadn't been vulnerable for very long. Had the Bismarck not got the hit it did, Denmark Strait would have been a very different battle - and indeed the Bismarck may have been the one being sunk. As shown by the damage it took from KGV and Rodney, it really wasn't that good a design.

[PubFather]

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

A 40,000 ton scout ship? That makes a lot of sense. And what, pray tell, happens when this "chaser" catches up with whatever it's chasing? I understand the battlecruiser concept, but what's the point of building one that big? They called her the "pride of the Royal Navy," and she was just a scout ship? Seems to me that it was a waste of resources. Although I bet she would have made a fine battleship once her armor was upgraded.

She was the pride of the RN simply because of her size and the publicity that that size engendered. She should have been the forerunner of the post-war RN, the G and H class battleships and cruisers but due to the naval treaties (and bankruptcy) they never happened.

Battlecruiser doctrine (as gunnut said) was the brainchild of Fisher. It's no accident that the driving force behind the RN post-Jutland was Beattie - who just happened to in command of the battlecruiser squadron at Jutland.

With the faster BB's of WWII and oil based fuel, its harder to remember the distinction that was drawn then. Battlecruiser squadrons were also designed to go hunting German commerce raiders: cruisers and battlecruisers. In WWI (when Hood was built) this was a big concern. Corunna and the Falklands seemed to justify their construction to their advocates.

Still, bad luck (and poor application of some WWI lessons) doomed Hood and her crew.

[gunnut]

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

A 40,000 ton scout ship? That makes a lot of sense. And what, pray tell, happens when this "chaser" catches up with whatever it's chasing? I understand the battlecruiser concept, but what's the point of building one that big? They called her the "pride of the Royal Navy," and she was just a scout ship? Seems to me that it was a waste of resources. Although I bet she would have made a fine battleship once her armor was upgraded.

The concept was this single super battlecruiser can chase down wounded battleships after the main engagement and finish them off. Her other purpose was to single handedly defeat a cruiser squadron. She can match the cruisers' speed and outrange them and outgun them.

The finest example of battlecruisers chasing down and killing cruisers was the Battle of Falkland Islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...lkland_Islands

The Royal Navy battlecruisers did exactly what they were designed to do.

Battle of Jutland was an example of bad usage of battlecruisers. Royal Navy lined them up to go toe to toe against German battleships.

It may be a psychological thing, but a battlecruiser's shape and her large caliber guns make people forget about her vulnerable armor and true design purpose.

The funny thing was the American navy never got into the battlecruiser concept. They liked the old ship of the line approach. The old battle wagons were all designed to hit around 20kt. They reasoned if they want to line them up then the entire line runs at the speed of the slowest ship. Why build more speed when you don't need it? More weight can be devoted to weapons and armor.

That all changed with the Iowa. Iowa was the ultimate evolution of battlecruiser. She had battleship armor, battleship guns, cruiser speed, and cruiser range. The only weakness was the long and slender bow designed to give her that speed. A large wave can actually snap it off. Of course in this case the large wave is probably big enough to capsize small cruisers.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by gunnut

The concept was this single super battlecruiser can chase down wounded battleships after the main engagement and finish them off. Her other purpose was to single handedly defeat a cruiser squadron. She can match the cruisers' speed and outrange them and outgun them.

The finest example of battlecruisers chasing down and killing cruisers was the Battle of Falkland Islands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...lkland_Islands

The Royal Navy battlecruisers did exactly what they were designed to do.

Battle of Jutland was an example of bad usage of battlecruisers. Royal Navy lined them up to go toe to toe against German battleships.

It may be a psychological thing, but a battlecruiser's shape and her large caliber guns make people forget about her vulnerable armor and true design purpose.

The funny thing was the American navy never got into the battlecruiser concept. They liked the old ship of the line approach. The old battle wagons were all designed to hit around 20kt. They reasoned if they want to line them up then the entire line runs at the speed of the slowest ship. Why build more speed when you don't need it? More weight can be devoted to weapons and armor.

That all changed with the Iowa. Iowa was the ultimate evolution of battlecruiser. She had battleship armor, battleship guns, cruiser speed, and cruiser range. The only weakness was the long and slender bow designed to give her that speed. A large wave can actually snap it off. Of course in this case the large wave is probably big enough to capsize small cruisers.

One very unique feature of the Iowa's was their expansion "drift" joint located aft of midships. This feature allowed the Iowa's to plow through waves at high speeds without the fear of waves beating the keel and bow plating to pieces or frames of the hull being twisted due to torque in the bow section of the ship when at speed. No other battleships/battlecruisers to my knowledge utilized this design in their building process. This is one of several reasons their hulls have lasted so long and have remained so durable throughout their yearly inspections. Considering the Iowas have given approx 48 years of "in commision" service to the USN and are still very much servicable to the USN.

Agreed Gun,
Even the largests ships could be tossed around like toys in a bathtub or even snapped in half if the frequency of the wave encountered matched the length of the ship at hand. Among other reasons this was why the expansion was incorporated into their construction design. A few posiibly even one USN battlecruiser i believe lost their bow this way. Typhoons in the south pacific swamped many destroyers and escorts caught off guard without enough fuel for ballasting and sent them under.

[Dreadnought]

I believe one that lost her bow in a typhoon was the Cruiser Pittsburg (CA72) lost 104' of bow in heavy seas.

[Coridan]

Jutland was also a series of major screw ups by both sides and poor tactics. Mostly due to the fact that communication between ships was poor (they were still stuck with signal flags due to the fact that a dreadnoughts guns' recoil would knock out their wireless communication).

You really can't use Jutland for comparison to modern naval combat.

The US navy needs two battleships in service. One Atlantic and one Pacific to not only assist in shore bombardment, but let's face it, one battleship could cheaply take out any single other nation's entire navy since no one has the armor investment anymore. (Not counting sub fleet involvements).

As far as nukes go, didn't most of the battleships used at bikini atoll SURVIVE the tests? Granted in a nuclear attack the crew would probably be obliterated but unlike a nuclear attack on a carrier (which mind you carries a larger crew than a battleship) we'd probably still have a relatively intact ship and there'd be no loss of billion dollar aircraft to go with it.

[zraver]

The Battle Cruiser was the ultimate extension of the age of sail British Frigate. The problem wasn't the ship class, rather the poor handling by the admirals. Had the British practiced even basic safety precautions with thier ammo at Jutland the results might have been very different.

Whats funny is the big ships would thrive in todays gunless and anti-ship torpedo enviroment. Missiles just don't have the power to punch thier armored belts. The annals of naval combat are full of examples of these big ships taking hit after hit by large caliber guns packing massive warheads and fightign on. Thier armor compartmentalisation and general durability was awesome.

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by Coridan

As far as nukes go, didn't most of the battleships used at bikini atoll SURVIVE the tests?

Well, yes and no.

The Able test was an airburst that the larger ships - especially the battleships - survived quite well. Granted of course that the Able weapon was 1500-2000 feet off target and the radiation was minimal.

The underwater Baker test was a bit more troublesome, especially for USS Arkansas and HIJMS Nagato.

Besides, remaining physically intact - more or less - doesn't always qualify as surviving, particularly when referring to an atomic attack.

Originally Posted by Coridan

Granted in a nuclear attack the crew would probably be obliterated but unlike a nuclear attack on a carrier (which mind you carries a larger crew than a battleship) we'd probably still have a relatively intact ship and there'd be no loss of billion dollar aircraft to go with it.

Factor in the decontamination costs and you might as well deep-six the hulk and be done with it.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by zraver

The Battle Cruiser was the ultimate extension of the age of sail British Frigate. The problem wasn't the ship class, rather the poor handling by the admirals. Had the British practiced even basic safety precautions with thier ammo at Jutland the results might have been very different.

Whats funny is the big ships would thrive in todays gunless and anti-ship torpedo enviroment. Missiles just don't have the power to punch thier armored belts. The annals of naval combat are full of examples of these big ships taking hit after hit by large caliber guns packing massive warheads and fightign on. Thier armor compartmentalisation and general durability was awesome.

While it's true that most modern weapons wouldn't damage the armor of a battleship, they would be able to take out sensors and comms, which reduces the effectiveness of a ship vastly. As for sinking the ship, send in a sub. A few salvos of Mk 48's would smash a battleship's hull nicely. No ship is invulnerable against heavy torpedoes.

[Coridan]

I have very little knowledge when it comes to modern submarines and such and most of my battleship love is aimed at World War I not II but I never understood why they didn't develop a battleship that could launch torpedoes.

Just develop a torpedo launching turret for the bottom of the hull and some sonar buoys.