What would a 1970s nuclear battleship look like?
- Thread starter varyar
- Start date
20" guns firing atomic shells, stern flight deck for a mixed squadron of helicopters and vtol fighters. Roughly 70,000 tonnes.
I am sorry, but I don't think "Lol Nazis are so crazy" memes really constitute a historical basis sufficient for Post 1900. And even if it did, "its a Nazi Ah thing" kinda fails to deliver the necessary details to answer this even partially.
RamscoopRaider
Donor
Assuming Der Fuhrer said they needed one, one would be built. That said the Kreigsmarine would try to get maximum use out of it. Unless Der Fuhrer insisted I don't see 20" guns, 16.5" guns, quite possibly smoothbore for getting absolute maximum range in shore bombardment, as well as probably launching a bigger German equivalent of SAM-N-8 Zeus, I would think a pair of triple turrets forward, unless der Furhrer insisted on more guns, though an all forward arrangement of some sort, 2x3, 3x2, 2x4 is probable unless Der Fuhrer insists. Aft would be a radar array, kept far enoguh away from the main guns to hopefully work, and a SAM installation, can't say what type without knowing more, but that was what there would be, along with a helo hanger. Amidships probably 8-24 cruise missiles of various sorts along with some rapid fire DP guns, 12.8cm or 10.5cm, whatever they use in DD's and some autocannon, not many though as by this point autocannon are ineffective in the AA role. Armor is probably as light as they can get away with, enough to stop cruiser AP shells and SAP bombs, with weight reduction going to an improved TDS. Hull I would guess based off H-42, so 305m long, 42.8m beam, 11.8m draft, 90,000 tons, probably around 280k shp and ~32 knots
Even Nazis are going to ask what it's for. Armor doesn't help much in the era of guided missiles and nukes. A larger ship can cruise more efficiently and so can be built to have a longer range, but that's not a worry for a nuclear powered ship. Big guns work better when fired from a large ship, but improved warheads can allow smaller guns to penetrate armor quite well and there are also other techniques for boosting range (and for really tough targets you'll be using missiles or nukes), so there's no justification for big guns. Having a big flight deck high above the water makes everything easier for a carrier, but for anything not a carrier the size of Kirov is really already too big, and just saying "it's Nazis doing it" doesn't adequately explain why they'd build anything bigger than Kirov. You'd need some alternate tech that made it seem to make sense. It doesn't have to actually make sense; if they've got some giant laser or rail gun design that needs such enormous amounts of power that only a huge ship can power it, they might build the ship to mount that weapon. And I suppose in that case if (as is likely) it turns out not to be worth it as a weapon, they might decide that as long as they have the hull they can just delete the non-functioning superweapon and add more missile launch tubes and make it a massively oversized and overpriced cruiser. But you need some sort of excuse like that, I would say.
Take a Kirov, remove the Cyrillic from everything inside and the red navy ensign, replace with German and a kriegsmarine ensign. Have the Propagandists call it a battleship regardless of what the Admiralty wants to label the design. You might be able to add a couple thousand tons to the displacement by adding bits and bobs here and there, particularly enhancing the AA arsenal for use vs USN carrier wings, but I doubt you could get much above 30k tons, maybe 35k maximum.
Last edited:
Alright, so what the hell is this thing for? Obviously, it's entirely to look cool, but the Kriegsmarine is going to have to come up with some sort of CONOPS for it. Occasional shore bombardment is a given, but it needs to be more than that.
The obvious answer? Antiship by way of nuclear extended-range shells. Probably for use against large amphibious forces, surface action groups, and carrier battle groups if they get really lucky.
The main battery is almost certainly either 42cm/48 or 40.6cm/52, depending on what guns are still left over. 2 or 3 triple, all forward to free up space aft. They would be firing long-range guided 28cm subcaliber rounds with 15 kt warheads. Hanger and flight deck aft for helicopters/autogyro aircraft for scouting and ASW purposes. Air defense would be a mix of light automatic cannon - twin 88s, maybe? - with VT shells and 1 or 3 SAM mounts, depending on whether the placement can be worked out. Either an area system just forward of the helicopter deck, or that plus two Tartar/Volnya-type self-defense systems. All depends on whether the placement of the missiles can satisfy both the EM interference and blast interference problems.
Honestly, for armor I foresee a 1944 Lion-type setup: gonzo thick deck armor and TDS, and enough belt to not get mission-killed by 8" shells.
The obvious answer? Antiship by way of nuclear extended-range shells. Probably for use against large amphibious forces, surface action groups, and carrier battle groups if they get really lucky.
The main battery is almost certainly either 42cm/48 or 40.6cm/52, depending on what guns are still left over. 2 or 3 triple, all forward to free up space aft. They would be firing long-range guided 28cm subcaliber rounds with 15 kt warheads. Hanger and flight deck aft for helicopters/autogyro aircraft for scouting and ASW purposes. Air defense would be a mix of light automatic cannon - twin 88s, maybe? - with VT shells and 1 or 3 SAM mounts, depending on whether the placement can be worked out. Either an area system just forward of the helicopter deck, or that plus two Tartar/Volnya-type self-defense systems. All depends on whether the placement of the missiles can satisfy both the EM interference and blast interference problems.
Honestly, for armor I foresee a 1944 Lion-type setup: gonzo thick deck armor and TDS, and enough belt to not get mission-killed by 8" shells.
Kirov-class battlecruiser - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Yep it would look like a Kirov
Rapid fire 'automatic' artillery in the 6" to 8" calibre range and a bucket load of offensive and defensive missiles backed up by CIWS when that matures along with manned 20mm - 57mm DP cannon system - all depending on the Navy
Hmf. 1970s. So lets get creative. 1944 Lion type armour, of course. A single 3 gun turret, but with project HARP 100 calibre guns that fire rocket assisted/base bleed nuclear shells. What would be the range of that? 8 to 16 Polaris launch tubes, if the Italian cruisers had 4 why not in a 70,000t ship? Multiple Mark 26 launchers for Standard missiles, ASROC and SSMs. 8 or more 76mm or 127mm guns. Multiple Phalanx more than a dozen. Aft deck and hangar for a dozen plus ASW helicopters again if the Dorias could operate 9 why not?
Hell it's even useful. Cost effective? Different question.
No Polaris. Those were better fired from submarines and a hypothetical Nazi Germany in the 70s will be submarine-focused anyway.
Base bleed for the guns, rocket propellants of the time don't like that kind of acceleration. But 200 kilometers seems reasonably realistic.
Multiple Mark 26 launchers, like the setup I proposed, runs into the same spacing issues between the guns' blast and EM interference between guidance radars.
I'm inclined to say that you should dispense with the heavy guns altogether. What is the point of the 16in guns anyway in your hypothetical 1970s battleship? If the target is not armoured any standard SSM will do just as well. If its armoured or a carrier you nuke it. Makes more sense to put P-500 or P-700 equivalents on your ship and nothing bigger than an 8in gun like the one developed for Spruance. Of course by the same logic if the enemy is going to nuke you anyway why you are spending a shitload of money on armour? Ok just reinvented a larger Kirov...
EM interference could be an issue but the US could put 4 illuminators in addition to other radars on their ships and the Kirovs also have four fire control radars for their SA-N-6 and SA-N-4. So at a minimum a pair of Mk-26 equivalents is very much doable. Up to 4 possibly maybe, to follow Kirov but if your number of fire control radars is limited anyway, which it will be, the number of launchers is not your likely limitation here...
Because then it's no longer a battleship, just an oversized missile cruiser. A "battleship", IMO, has to bring certain design conceits like "being able to resist its own weapons".
Take note of how both navies place their illuminators. Every American ship with 4 illuminators placed them at the ends of the ship, well separated from each other. The only ships with more, the Albanies and Long Beach, either placed the extra illuminators on the broadside (Albany) or had such a gonzo tall superstructure they could separate two pairs vertically (Long Beach). The Kirovs do both, from appearances.
So if the fore part of the ship is taken up by guns, and blast interference means you can't place the missile launchers too far forward on the broadside, that really limits the options of where you put the missile launchers and their associated guidance radars. Maybe you could place four with careful design tinkering. That'd be tricky, though.
Perhaps a little like the fictional Soviet "K-1000" class guided missile battleships, sans the massive funnel? 
Honestly?
I think your best bet is the US.
OTL, the last Iowa class battleship wasn't formally canceled until 1958, the year the Enterprise nuclear carrier was started, and the A2W reactor built.
Change the end of WWII and/or the immediate post war era, especially if nuclear reactors happen faster, and the Soviets are thought a bigger threat, and you could get those last two Iowa hulls fitted with nuclear power.
Apparently, while #5 was cancelled, her hull wasn't scrapped until 1958, either.
I think your best bet is the US.
OTL, the last Iowa class battleship wasn't formally canceled until 1958, the year the Enterprise nuclear carrier was started, and the A2W reactor built.
Change the end of WWII and/or the immediate post war era, especially if nuclear reactors happen faster, and the Soviets are thought a bigger threat, and you could get those last two Iowa hulls fitted with nuclear power.
Apparently, while #5 was cancelled, her hull wasn't scrapped until 1958, either.
As far as the rationale of this thing goes, as mentioned, because it's cool.
More pertinently, it strikes me as the kind of thing a totalitarian regime like the Third Reich would do, largely to prove that it could, even if the resources would have been more productively spent on a new aircraft carrier or ballistic missile submarine. Heydrich wants it done, so work is (reluctantly) started - and he lives long enough to see it through. The other three planned ships are abandoned the instant Heydrich finally dies, but they keep the big impressive looking thing around because, well, it would be embarrassing to decommission their mighty white elephant. In 2020, it's near the end of the road, but still kept in seaworthy condition so the protagonist of the story can see it and shake her head at German mega-vanity projects.
More pertinently, it strikes me as the kind of thing a totalitarian regime like the Third Reich would do, largely to prove that it could, even if the resources would have been more productively spent on a new aircraft carrier or ballistic missile submarine. Heydrich wants it done, so work is (reluctantly) started - and he lives long enough to see it through. The other three planned ships are abandoned the instant Heydrich finally dies, but they keep the big impressive looking thing around because, well, it would be embarrassing to decommission their mighty white elephant. In 2020, it's near the end of the road, but still kept in seaworthy condition so the protagonist of the story can see it and shake her head at German mega-vanity projects.
- Perhaps a strongman won the power struggles after Hitler's death and reformed the economy, while still keeping the totalitarian state in place. Albert Speer is a cliched choice for a post-Hitler leader who "reforms" Nazi Germany. Personally I think Reinhard Heydrich would be a more likely choice. As in OTL, he'd be ruthless but efficient.
- The Kriegsmarine would be especially relevant in any Cold War situation against the United States and Britain, since both are naval powers. I expect it would be similar to the OTL Soviet Navy, relying primarily on submarines for offensive power, but also building plenty of heavily armed surface combatants as well.
- Once the Americans detonate the first atomic bomb—and especially if they use nukes against Japan, if the Pacific War still occurs in this TL—the Nazis will be hard-pressed to develop their own. To that end, they will engage in some mental gymnastics to justify the use of a "Jewish science" like nuclear physics. Maybe they will claim that Einstein plagiarized his theories from an Aryan physicist. The Nazis were willing to bend their own beliefs for practical necessities (such as by declaring their Japanese allies to be "Honorary Aryans").