Most important battleship traits

[Big K]

hi all WABBERS,

suddenly i needed some info about the most important traits that a battleship must have universally.

i need a something like 1-firepower 2-armor 3- mobility...

are these valid in this row? and/or what can we add more?

this will help me to design my march battleship contest Space Engineers ship


"March to Battle!", March Battleship Contest. - KeenSWH Forum


thanks in advance

kerem

[DonBelt]

Mobility, as in a fast battleship, was a requirement that developed as a result of the need to escort the aircraft carriers in WW2. Would your ship have that need or mission? I think mainly the first 2 attributes- firepower and armor are the most universal qualities of ships designated battleship (unless that designation is given by CNN or some other media outlet) Save the mobility for a spacer cruiser or attack craft of some kind unless your scenario is that it is involved in escorting fast craft or engaging in some kind of fast maneuvering battle. Remember when Battleships developed they were mostly being used in "lines of battle", hence the name.

[Big K]

so you say that an anti-ship role which means big guns against big ships is their essential role?.

what about maneuverability? i mean they have to be maneuverable to a degree i think?... or they say just because we have armor, we can sit&wait enemy fire?

[85 gt kid]

+1 especially with Armor. That was really a BBs defining feature having thick slabs of steel strapped to the side ready to take whatever was almost literally thown at it. Firepower is also a big thing but the old BatlleCruisers did have BB size guns just generally less of them so the Firepower i guess could be how many you have not the size (per se). While Mobility wasn't a factor at all in the early BBs (Pre-1920) it was in the next gens (Iowas, Richielus, Yamatos etc). All went from the slow poking 21/23 knots to 27/28+! I think that would have to be a factor in considering your new BB no matter what.

[85 gt kid]

Well heres something to think about. Before WWII the US had the mindset of armor armor armor! Speed was not in their thinking as if you wanted more speed that meant bigger machinery. Bigger machinery meant more weight, weight that would take away from armor. They changed that with the SoDaks, NCs and Iowas but there was a hitch. They couldnt stand against their own guns (something the Navy had never done on a BB). So when they designed the Montanas they went back to the "more armor" way of thinking. They could stand against their own shell but lost 5 knots over an Iowa.

[DonBelt]

so you say that an anti-ship role which means big guns against big ships is their essential role?.

what about maneuverability? i mean they have to be maneuverable to a degree i think?... or they say just because we have armor, we can sit&wait enemy fire?

Of course they had to move around, but originally and even into WW2 to some degree, these ships would get in a long line and parade past the objective shelling it. The maneuvers were basically limited to getting in line, moving in a line together and presenting the most guns as possible at the target while reducing exposure to enemy fire. Armor and firepower were the thing. When vulnerability to air attack was shown and the need for escorts to keep up with aircraft carriers came about, then Battleships started getting large amounts of AAW weapons and losing armor for speed (as 85 gt kid said ). But having it all started to push you up against the size limits of what would fit thru the Panama Canal. Do you have a scenario or environment in mind for your space battleship? What will its purpose be in your mind and the required scenario? That will dictate somewhat to what priorities you set for it.

[85 gt kid]

But having it all started to push you up against the size limits of what would fit thru the Panama Canal.

Which was a problem with the Montanas. They wouldn't fit through the PC because of their size since they needed the armor and speed (although i still think they need more speed :D).

Basically Big K you can have 2 out of the 3 but not all 3 without having the ship be huge and expensive although that didn't stop some countries.

[Dreadnought]

*Most importantly....By design, a steady gun platform and a well protected one to a degree in order not to impede effeciency.

By design, First ask yourself what would you expect from it within reasonable means. Then add a margin of percentage for the "extremes".

[Stitch]

This is only SLIGHTLY off-topic, but this is the best webpage I've found that discusses the relative merits and weaknesses of world-wide battleship types post-1940; I think you will find it interesting:

Battleship Comparison

[dundonrl]

Well heres something to think about. Before WWII the US had the mindset of armor armor armor! Speed was not in their thinking as if you wanted more speed that meant bigger machinery. Bigger machinery meant more weight, weight that would take away from armor. They changed that with the SoDaks, NCs and Iowas but there was a hitch. They couldnt stand against their own guns (something the Navy had never done on a BB). So when they designed the Montanas they went back to the "more armor" way of thinking. They could stand against their own shell but lost 5 knots over an Iowa.

from what I understand, with the prior 16" AP shells, the SoDaks' and NC's could keep out their own shells. It wasn't till the Navy came out with the super heavyweight 2700 lb 16" AP that it could penetrate the thickest armor out there (including that of the Yamato class BB's) if I'm wrong, I'm sure that someone can correct me.

[85 gt kid]

Well yes and no. The NCs were designed to fire 14" shells originally (quad turrets) but when Japan left the treaty there was an escalatpr clause that upped the tonnage and gun size so they brough the NCs to their 16" guns but the design plans were to far along tp change the armor. SoDaks and Iowas could withstand the old AP shell (2100?) But not the 2700. But simce the mounts were designed to handle the SH they then really couldn't handle their own armarment. I'd type more but gotta open the store.

[Pacfanweb]

Well yes and no. The NCs were designed to fire 14" shells originally (quad turrets) but when Japan left the treaty there was an escalatpr clause that upped the tonnage and gun size so they brough the NCs to their 16" guns but the design plans were to far along tp change the armor. SoDaks and Iowas could withstand the old AP shell (2100?) But not the 2700. But simce the mounts were designed to handle the SH they then really couldn't handle their own armarment. I'd type more but gotta open the store.

Honestly, I don't know what the infatuation was with absolutely having to have armor that could resist your own guns was. If you have a weapon that's more powerful than the guns of just about any feasible enemy you would face, what difference does it make?

Who was NC going to possibly face? Only Japanese ships with the same size or bigger guns were Nagatos and Yamatos. I don't know how Nagato's 16's compared with NC's, but I'm guessing they weren't as powerful, so her armor would probably be at least..."not completely overwhelmed", whereas Nagato isn't going to have much shot vs. the 16"45.

Yamato can get through anyone's armor. But there were only 2 of them. What were the odds that only on NC faced a Yamato? I think 2 NC's would at least mission-kill a Yamato. Certainly might lose an NC in the process.

Bismarck could damage and possibly kill an NC. The Italian 15's could, but there was only Tirpitz left and there was practically no chance of facing the Italian ships.

So I wouldn't really call the NC's "armor deficient" like most do simply because she was up-gunned over her original design. I think a lot of the discussion about "best BB" that starts getting into super-technical stuff really is splitting hairs compared to reality.

I think if you put two Treaty-era BB's against each other, you're going to come out with two battered ships, no matter who "wins".

Even a modern BB vs an older US Standard or a RN Queen Elizabeth, the modern ship will probably win, but it's going to need some serious yard time afterwards.
The newer ships are superior, but not so much so that it's going to be "fire a few salvos, sail off victorious with nary a scratch".

[85 gt kid]

Very true. Like you said if you start breaking everything down really meticulously then yea you can say who wins and who dies BUT as history has shown it's never in ideal conditions. If my memorys right didn't South Dakota take a good beating from 8" guns?

I will say though the Standard BBs didn't have the range that the newer ones did so thats one for the Fast BBs :).

[Gun Grape]

Very true. Like you said if you start breaking everything down really meticulously then yea you can say who wins and who dies BUT as history has shown it's never in ideal conditions. If my memorys right didn't South Dakota take a good beating from 8" guns?

No she didn't.

Thanks to Tracy Whites excellent site for this.

Researcher@Large - BB-57 USS South Dakota Gunfire Damage - Battle of Guadalcanal - Nov 14-15, 1942

[85 gt kid]

I'm on my phone so i just skimmed through it but it looks like a lot of those hits were 8" rounds? Saw a couple 14" too but i guess i'm not completely brain dead like i thought lol.