Battleship WI

[Clibanarius]

In OTL BB's did pretty good for bombardment and the American ones bristled with AA of 20mm, 40mm and 5-Inch Calibers and performed admirably in an Anti-Aircraft Role. And the later ones were very fast an Iowa's top speed was a good 2-3 knots faster than a modern Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer for example.

So my question is this:

What if BB's are armed with Depth Charges and Torpedo launchers as well and the Hull is the most armored part of the Battleship?

 

[Elfwine]

Weight, weight, weight, weight and more weight.

And probably running into the issue of "where is there room for this?" for depths charges and such.

 

[Cook]

So my question is this:

What if BB's are armed with Depth Charges and Torpedo launchers as well and the Hull is the most armored part of the Battleship?

Why? A Battleship isn’t as manoeuvrable as a destroyer; it isn’t going to be pursuing submarines, that’s what its’ escorting destroyers are for.

The battleships were built to engage other battleships at long range with its’ main guns. Depth charges and torpedoes are short range weapons, using them means giving up the one great advantage those enormous guns had; being able to hit with enormous force while keeping beyond the range of smaller armaments.

 

[Clibanarius]

Why? A Battleship isn’t as manoeuvrable as a destroyer; it isn’t going to be pursuing submarines, that’s what its’ escorting destroyers are for.

I never said anything about chasing Destroyers the purpose of those weapons would be to stave off enemy subs.

The battleships were built to engage other battleships at long range with its’ main guns. Depth charges and torpedoes are short range weapons, using them means giving up the one great advantage those enormous guns had; being able to hit with enormous force while keeping beyond the range of smaller armaments.

But Battleship Duels weren't common and the AA weapons were also short-ranged compared to the Main Guns and the sheer amount of Torpedoes something as big as a BB could carry and fire would make life difficult for attacking submarines.

 

[segerge]

What if BB's are armed with Depth Charges and Torpedo launchers as well and the Hull is the most armored part of the Battleship?

1. Why should battleships be hunting submarines?

2. Why should battleships designed to fight at ranges beyond 15,000 yards be closing to torpedo range (~5,000 yards?)

I don't mean this to be snarky, but there are several valid reasons for warships to be designed for a single mission or several tightly-grouped types of missions.

• Single-mission ships are easier to design
• Single-mission ships are easier to build
• attrition

 

[Cook]

I never said anything about chasing Destroyers the purpose of those weapons would be to stave off enemy subs.

I will spell it out again. A Battleship is not manoeuvrable, it cannot hunt down a submarine and if it has a submarine within range of depth charges and torpedoes, the submarine has the battleship within range of its torpedoes and the battleship is a big, slow turning target.

That is why Battleships had destroyers escorting them; to protect them from submarines.

But Battleship Duels weren't common and the AA weapons were also short-ranged compared to the Main Guns...

Correct, battleship engagements were not common, because by the time of the Second World War the Battleships were being sunk by aircraft long before the got within range of their main guns. The AA guns were a desperate attempt to protect what had become a highly expensive bomb magnet. When they were used in an environment where the enemy had air superiority they were sunk.

 

[Clibanarius]

1. Why should battleships be hunting submarines?

2. Why should battleships designed to fight at ranges beyond 15,000 yards be closing to torpedo range (~5,000 yards?)

I don't mean this to be snarky, but there are several valid reasons for warships to be designed for a single mission or several tightly-grouped types of missions.

I never said anything about closing to torpedo range or hunting subs.

That's not what I meant those weapons would used to stave off enemy subs.

 

[Clibanarius]

I will spell it out again. A Battleship is not manoeuvrable, it cannot hunt down a submarine and if it has a submarine within range of depth charges and torpedoes, the submarine has the battleship within range of its torpedoes and the battleship is a big, slow turning target.

That is why Battleships had destroyers escorting them; to protect them from submarines.



Correct, battleship engagements were not common, because by the time of the Second World War the Battleships were being sunk by aircraft long before the got within range of their main guns. The AA guns were a desperate attempt to protect what had become a highly expensive bomb magnet. When they were used in an environment where the enemy had air superiority they were sunk.

Look, I never said anything about chasing subs, the point of those weapons would to stave off enemy subs. I'd argue that in the US at least the AA guns did an excellent of killing enemy aircraft.

 

[CalBear]

In OTL BB's did pretty good for bombardment and the American ones bristled with AA of 20mm, 40mm and 5-Inch Calibers and performed admirably in an Anti-Aircraft Role. And the later ones were very fast an Iowa's top speed was a good 2-3 knots faster than a modern Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer for example.

So my question is this:

What if BB's are armed with Depth Charges and Torpedo launchers as well and the Hull is the most armored part of the Battleship?

It isn't just speed, it is maneuverability as well when you are talking sub hunting. The Iowas were fast as a thief, but nobody ever mistook them for a sports car.

There is also the matter of cost. U.S. Destroyers in WW II priced out in the $6-9 million dollar range, depending on class. Iowa and her sisters were WAY north of $100,000,000. They were capital ships in every sense of the word.

You don't use a $100 million ship with 2,500 crewmen to do a dangerous job that can be done better by a a couple hundred men in a $7 million hull.

edit: You don't "stave off" submarines. You hunt them and kill them before they kill you. When you are busy doing that, you can't do other really important tasks like blow the poggies out of the enemy or cover the carriers from air attack.

 

[Clibanarius]

It isn't just speed, it is maneuverability as well when you are talking sub hunting. The Iowas were fast as a thief, but nobody ever mistook them for a sports car.

There is also the matter of cost. U.S. Destroyers in WW II priced out in the $6-9 million dollar range, depending on class. Iowa and her sisters were WAY north of $100,000,000. They were capital ships in every sense of the word.

You don't use a $100 million ship with 2,500 crewmen to do a dangerous job that can be done better by a a couple hundred men in a $7 million hull.

I've said this several times and I'll say it one last time.

I'm not talking about chasing or hunting subs.

 

[segerge]

But Battleship Duels weren't common

In WW2, they were more common than most people think.

and the AA weapons were also short-ranged compared to the Main Guns and the sheer amount of Torpedoes something as big as a BB could carry and fire would make life difficult for attacking submarines.

The juxtaposition of those two thoughts in the same sentence is reminding me of a client I once had...

In the time you could build and outfit an Iowa-class battleship with nothing but torpedo armament, I'm pretty sure you could churn out a fleet of destroyers that could carry just as many torpedoes between them, could saturate a given volume of ocean much more thoroughly, and suffer the loss of multiple units without significant degradation of mission capability.

There's a reason naval ship designers the world over have gone with large numbers of destroyers over a single large torpedo platform.

 

[Clibanarius]

In WW2, they were more common than most people think.



The juxtaposition of those two thoughts in the same sentence is reminding me of a client I once had...

In the time you could build and outfit an Iowa-class battleship with nothing but torpedo armament, I'm pretty sure you could churn out a fleet of destroyers that could carry just as many torpedoes between them, could saturate a given volume of ocean much more thoroughly, and suffer the loss of multiple units without significant degradation of mission capability.

There's a reason naval ship designers the world over have gone with large numbers of destroyers over a single large torpedo platform.

I'm not talking about an all Torpedo armament, where did I say that?

 

[CalBear]

I've said this several times and I'll say it one last time.

I'm not talking about chasing or hunting subs.

In that case, save the space and weight needed for weapons that are only useful if you ARE hunting them and use it for actually useful weapons, fuel, or even plain old reserve buoyancy.

 

[Cook]

Look, I never said anything about chasing subs, the point of those weapons would to stave off enemy subs. I'd argue that in the US at least the AA guns did an excellent of killing enemy aircraft.

No, because American Battleships were never deployed before the American’s were confident that they could maintain air superiority over the fleet. That Japanese aircraft got close enough to attack the Battleships is an indication that not everything goes to plan.

How do you expect a Battleship to stave off submarines? It is not highly manoeuvrable, it is not going to be able to constantly sweep for subs and by the time a sub is within range of torpedoes so is the battleship and the battleship is a bigger target.

Battleships operated with a cordon of destroyers around them to protect them from submarines.

I'm not talking about an all Torpedo armament, where did I say that?

Here:

What if BB's are armed with Depth Charges and Torpedo launchers as well and the Hull is the most armored part of the Battleship?

 

[Clibanarius]

No, because American Battleships were never deployed before the American’s were confident that they could maintain air superiority over the fleet. That Japanese aircraft got close enough to attack the Battleships is an indication that not everything goes to plan.

How do you expect a Battleship to stave off submarines? It is not highly manoeuvrable, it is not going to be able to constantly sweep for subs and by the time a sub is within range of torpedoes so is the battleship and the battleship is a bigger target.

Battleships operated with a cordon of destroyers around them to protect them from submarines.

And the 300+ Aircraft shot down by those Battleships don't count for anything?

Okay, so the BB is in range wouldn't it make sense then to have ASW weapons to kill the sub? Instead of having no way to shoot back? By that line of reasoning the BB's shouldn't have had AA either.

Oh and I never said anything about an all torpedo armament.

 

[segerge]

Look, I never said anything about chasing subs, the point of those weapons would to stave off enemy subs. I'd argue that in the US at least the AA guns did an excellent of killing enemy aircraft.

Then what ARE you proposing battleships do with them?

The only time I know of that a battleship torpedoed an enemy in combat, the Bismarck was dead in the water and unable to fight back when Rodney closed to torpedo range and launched.

Battleship vs battleship at that range is generally suicidal unless the other side has no clue you're there when you start firing (ref. Washington vs Kirishima) or is unable to fire back themselves.

 

[Clibanarius]

Then what ARE you proposing battleships do with them?

The only time I know of that a battleship torpedoed an enemy in combat, the Bismarck was dead in the water and unable to fight back when Rodney closed to torpedo range and launched.

Battleship vs battleship at that range is generally suicidal unless the other side has no clue you're there when you start firing (ref. Washington vs Kirishima) or is unable to fire back themselves.

I'm proposing that they have them as an AS defense.

 

[Cook]

Okay, so the BB is in range wouldn't it make sense then to have ASW weapons to kill the sub?

No. It makes more sense to put as much distance between you and the submarine as you can and task a destroyer to go chase down the submarine with depth charges. A submarine is a steel pipe with forty men and six torpedoes inside; a battleship takes several years to build, costs a fucking fortune and has hundreds of men on board.

 

[Clibanarius]

No. It makes more sense to put as much distance between you and the submarine as you can and task a destroyer to go chase down the submarine with depth charges. A submarine is a steel pipe with forty men and six torpedoes inside; a battleship takes several years to build, costs a fucking fortune and has hundreds of men on board.

So it shouldn't have any sort of defense or way to fight back? And you just that BB's aren't as maneuverable.

 

[segerge]

I'm proposing that they have them as an AS defense.

Did you even read post #11?