Challenge: battleship world

You don't need an example though - AA was underestimated (partly because radar wasn't taken into account, partly because flak is not the sort of thing to stand out, and partly because of Guernica). Keep in mind that the B-17 was thought (prewar) to be an excellent anti-ship bomber, and that the standard argument was that the Bomber Will Get Through on land, and that the USN was already treating its carriers as equally important (if not yet more so) as the battleships in the 1930s.

Earlier SAMs mean improvements in engines, in missiles, in guidance systems - the same sort of things that help the attacker out. So it's no longer SAMs v. torpedo-bombers or dive-bombers (or, initially, level bombers with shit accuracy) - it's SAMs v. anti-ship missiles (admittedly first-gen stuff, but the SAMs would be first-generation, too), along with (possibly rocket-assisted) level bombers with glide-bombs.
Which was why when I suggested this I was also planning on delaying aircraft development so that there would not be a carrier aircraft capable of carrying one (think first gen carrier planes here).

As for anti ship missiles, most OTL are designed to hit unarmored ships, save the heavy carrier killers. Battleships will be able to survive a few provided they are not nuclear. Still these would have to hit a ship maneuvering at 25-30 knots, probably throwing out chaff to confuse RADAR. That said missile boats will still be useful but a distant destroyer screen could be of use like against torpedo boats.

Of course this will not do more than prolong the battleship even in the best of cases

In any case my example was for the early 1920's and not spending money developing better carriers or planes
 
I don't see how you've got SAMs but not aircraft that could operate AShMs - at the least, if you've got SAMs, you've got RATO units, so you can reduce the runway length needed to take off.
Alternatively, there's seaplanes - a technology that's likely to be pushed forwards if carrier-based aircraft are pushed back. The US Navy did some interesting things with seaplanes in the '50s in OTL (think of the Martin P5M Marlin and P6M SeaMaster, or even the Convair F2Y Sea Dart), and would probably be doing even more in TTL. A low-flying seaplane could probably hide in surface clutter and launch as it gets in range; if your battleship's emitting radar, then that just makes it easier for the seaplane to pick out the target.

The Fritz-X - the first anti-ship missile used in combat - sunk one battleship (Roma, two hits & a near-miss) and damaged two more (Italia, a hit; Warspite, a hit & a near-miss). Modern anti-ship missiles are designed against unarmored ships because that's the target; against armored ships, you'd see stuff more like a Fritz-X or a Bat in size... which are admittedly easier to intercept with a SAM, since they're closer in size to aircraft, but which stand a good chance of damaging or sinking a battleship. Further, don't forget that you won't always get an optimal intercept (just as your attacker won't always get the lovely conditions the Germans got against the Italians).

Anyways, if you're already operating missiles, then it won't take too long to shift to ship-to-ship missiles over guns (since missiles will steadily outrange the guns as their engines improve, and will be more effective anyways, since they would be guided rather than being stuck on ballistic trajectories), and then you don't have a battleship any more - you have a missile cruiser.
 
I don't see how you've got SAMs but not aircraft that could operate AShMs - at the least, if you've got SAMs, you've got RATO units, so you can reduce the runway length needed to take off.
Alternatively, there's seaplanes - a technology that's likely to be pushed forwards if carrier-based aircraft are pushed back. The US Navy did some interesting things with seaplanes in the '50s in OTL (think of the Martin P5M Marlin and P6M SeaMaster, or even the Convair F2Y Sea Dart), and would probably be doing even more in TTL. A low-flying seaplane could probably hide in surface clutter and launch as it gets in range; if your battleship's emitting radar, then that just makes it easier for the seaplane to pick out the target.

The Fritz-X - the first anti-ship missile used in combat - sunk one battleship (Roma, two hits & a near-miss) and damaged two more (Italia, a hit; Warspite, a hit & a near-miss). Modern anti-ship missiles are designed against unarmored ships because that's the target; against armored ships, you'd see stuff more like a Fritz-X or a Bat in size... which are admittedly easier to intercept with a SAM, since they're closer in size to aircraft, but which stand a good chance of damaging or sinking a battleship. Further, don't forget that you won't always get an optimal intercept (just as your attacker won't always get the lovely conditions the Germans got against the Italians).

Anyways, if you're already operating missiles, then it won't take too long to shift to ship-to-ship missiles over guns (since missiles will steadily outrange the guns as their engines improve, and will be more effective anyways, since they would be guided rather than being stuck on ballistic trajectories), and then you don't have a battleship any more - you have a missile cruiser.
Well my idea was for Rockets to get a lot more interest by the 20's (use of rocket artillery in conflicts, high placed rocket enthusiasts, fewer airplane enthusiasts etc.) and aircraft a lot less. Frankly I would love to see someone try to use a RATO with a Fairey Swordfish or equivalent generation aircraft, which was in my original plan

Frankly that would be one of the lesser butterflies, my plan involves butterflying both worlds wars and replacing them with several smaller wars each making predictions of technology relative to OTL difficult
 
hmm....this thread has gone totally beyond me.....however, a point is that early SAMs had difficulty targeting low flying targets.....but that could be countered by heavy machineguns slaved to tracking radar
 
hmm....this thread has gone totally beyond me.....however, a point is that early SAMs had difficulty targeting low flying targets.....but that could be countered by heavy machineguns slaved to tracking radar
Auto-cannons would be better for this, much better, Heavy machine guns had issues OTL and where replaced with autocannons for AA duties on ships
 
Incidentally, no Great War would slow up aviation in interesting ways - consider the impact of not building thousands of fighters and scouts, and even several hundred large Gotha and Handley-Page bombers, along with the impact of not training thousands of pilots.

I'm not sure how you'd have SAMs without an appreciable air threat. Rocket-assisted shells might come into play, though; the missile threat may emerge later, perhaps around the same time as the air threat.
 
Incidentally, no Great War would slow up aviation in interesting ways - consider the impact of not building thousands of fighters and scouts, and even several hundred large Gotha and Handley-Page bombers, along with the impact of not training thousands of pilots.

I'm not sure how you'd have SAMs without an appreciable air threat. Rocket-assisted shells might come into play, though; the missile threat may emerge later, perhaps around the same time as the air threat.
Well my idea was always one of those white elephant, boondoggle, pet projects of a major political figure that actually pays off
 
Something that occurred to me last night; only ONE navy has actually carried Fleet carriers forward into the modern era - the USN
Primarily because no one else can afford such an expensive fleet, or sees the need for such impressive force projection. The British plan to launch two fleet carriers, beginning in 2020, but even those will be about 35-40,000 tons shy of the Nimitz class.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
To be fair, Aircraft carriers have not proved themselves in a large war since WW2. Maybe the Soviet Backfire bombers would have massacred the carriers? We will never know for sure.

And nuclear power submarines have exactly one kill. The UK sank an Argentine cruiser, which was a surplus WW2 American Ship.

Navies have to make decisions on fleets with very data from actual combat. Without WW2, and Jutland as the last major Naval battle, it could take many decades for all Navies to decide that BB are obsolete.

Define a "large war".

RN & USN carriers did yeoman's work off Korea. Yankee Station off North Vietnam was a vital part of the U.S. air campaign in Vietnam. Without her baby carriers the UK would never have been able to even contest the Falklands. In the early days of Desert Shield the U.S. carrier force was a subatantial part of the deterrent force that allowed the Coalition to build up sufficient force to destroy the Iraqi Army during Desert Storm.

The above doesn't include the numerous small actions where carrier aircraft provided the only air support to NATO/UN peacekeeping forces.

The fact that there hasn't been a global war since WW II may be one of the best demonstrations of just how effective the heavy carrier is at force projection.
 
Primarily because no one else can afford such an expensive fleet, or sees the need for such impressive force projection. The British plan to launch two fleet carriers, beginning in 2020, but even those will be about 35-40,000 tons shy of the Nimitz class.

All true, though last I saw there was no budget for air wings for those RN carriers. (!?!?)

Which, of course, circles back to my point: we don't need a TL where carriers are actually inferior to battleships, we only need to have one where the people who sign the checks believe/claim/see-benefit-in-considering carriers to be inferior to battleships and/or are simply too expensive.
 
All true, though last I saw there was no budget for air wings for those RN carriers. (!?!?)

I think even the British, that same nation who insisted on putting the 2-Pdr into so many otherwise excellent tanks, will eventually see fit to put airplanes on their carriers. ;)

As for it being only necessary for the check-writers to PERCEIVE BBs as superior, that's true... up to a point. I think the remarkable speed OTL with which aircraft were adapted to naval use, via carriers, just demonstrates their clear utility. People will see it. A timeline can certainly be imagined where BBs last longer, but unless one imagines a world without aircraft it's only a delay. Even if aircraft are delayed in development, they'll catch up, and then the age of aircraft and missiles will push the battle-wagons aside, just as it did.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Define a "large war".

RN & USN carriers did yeoman's work off Korea. Yankee Station off North Vietnam was a vital part of the U.S. air campaign in Vietnam. Without her baby carriers the UK would never have been able to even contest the Falklands. In the early days of Desert Shield the U.S. carrier force was a subatantial part of the deterrent force that allowed the Coalition to build up sufficient force to destroy the Iraqi Army during Desert Storm.

The above doesn't include the numerous small actions where carrier aircraft provided the only air support to NATO/UN peacekeeping forces.

The fact that there hasn't been a global war since WW II may be one of the best demonstrations of just how effective the heavy carrier is at force projection.

By large war, i was referring to a war like the WW1, WW2, and Napoleonic Wars. I was specifically referring to a war between the USA and the USSR. I think that it is plausible that the USSR backfire bombers and submarine fleet would defeated the USN carriers in the North Atlantic. I know the USA Navy says they would have won, but there is a big difference between a military claiming and proving it in a war.

On a side note, I have talked to soldiers that were quite happy to have 16" gun support after WW2. A Sailor told me that after the first few days of use in Kuwait, the mere site of a targeting drone would cause Iraqis to flee in terror. They found the site of people running from a small, unarmed drone quite amusing.

I personally give nuclear weapons a bigger role in preventing WW3, and I agree that a strong USN help deter the Soviets.
 
I think even the British, that same nation who insisted on putting the 2-Pdr into so many otherwise excellent tanks, will eventually see fit to put airplanes on their carriers. ;) As for it being only necessary for the check-writers to PERCEIVE BBs as superior, that's true... up to a point. I think the remarkable speed OTL with which aircraft were adapted to naval use, via carriers, just demonstrates their clear utility. People will see it.

I respect the British. I do not respect the British Parliament. Guess who writes the checks? Politicians are capable of incredible levels of illogic and self-deception over and above their general lack of touch with reality.

One would think, for example, that it would be only sane and logical to develop carrier aircraft for an aircraft carrier. The British Parliament has so far, AFAIK, failed to do so. I think this is at least a sufficient level of insanity in naval procurement needed to order BBs instead of clearly superior CVs.

A timeline can certainly be imagined where BBs last longer, but unless one imagines a world without aircraft it's only a delay. Even if aircraft are delayed in development, they'll catch up, and then the age of aircraft and missiles will push the battle-wagons aside, just as it did.

True.

On a side note, I have talked to soldiers that were quite happy to have 16" gun support after WW2. A Sailor told me that after the first few days of use in Kuwait, the mere site of a targeting drone would cause Iraqis to flee in terror. They found the site of people running from a small, unarmed drone quite amusing.

Heck with the stories, I've seen some of the video. Hilarious. :)

Marines are always happy to have NGF. Of course, they're also quite happy to have CAS - and remember that on average one squadron in every USN carrier air wing is a Marine unit. A really happy Marine has both.
 
You're already too late. The Engadine (the first British aircraft carrier) was commssioned in 1914;

I actually had to look this one up, because I had never heard of it. The Engadine was not an aircraft carrier; it was a seaplane tender. It had no flight deck and planes were lifted to and from the water for launch and recovery. That's not an aircraft carrier. Sorry to argue with you; I've agreed with everything else you've said in this thread.
 
I actually had to look this one up, because I had never heard of it. The Engadine was not an aircraft carrier; it was a seaplane tender. It had no flight deck and planes were lifted to and from the water for launch and recovery. That's not an aircraft carrier. Sorry to argue with you; I've agreed with everything else you've said in this thread.

You are correct, of course. Mea culpa. Still, it serves the purpose; it's a floating airbase, able to take those seaplanes wherever they're needed. Naval airpower is already here, in 1914.
 
You are correct, of course. Mea culpa. Still, it serves the purpose; it's a floating airbase, able to take those seaplanes wherever they're needed. Naval airpower is already here, in 1914.

And submarines date to the 18th century.

The development of complex systems (and there are few more complex systems in the world than a fleet carrier) is not guaranteed to happen in 30 years.

Only three nations in history have ever had true operational fleet carriers (US, GB, Japan), plus half a dozen more who've operated lights. At that, the most experienced operator in history is the USN. The second most experienced is the USMC!

I grant, for the nth time, the inevitable superiority of the potential of the aircraft carrier over the potential of the battleship. Potentials are not always realized, and are not always recognized when they are realized, nor are they absolutes once they are realized.

Nor is carrier superiority an absolute: Giuseppe Garibaldi (1985 comm.) wouldn't have been much of a threat to USS Iowa (1943). A typical task force built around GG would have been no threat at all to a typical one built around Iowa. True, that CTF could have done things the SAG couldn't - but the SAG would have been MUCH better at, say, escorting an amphibious group to its target and supporting it once there.
 
Top