Montanas vs Carriers

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2004-02-29 10:11am

Iceberg wrote:At last you understand the folly of battleships.

I already know that battleships can't stand up to carriers. WWII proved that beautifully. But dammit, if your going to have a vs. argument like this, were the obvious tactical advantages of one of side will clearly blow the other away, you need to atleast make it so the opponents are able to shoot at each other! This makes it so you can at least debate the effectiveness of the weapons of involved. Otherwise this is about as pointless as Superman beating up grandma.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2004-02-29 05:26pm

So, basically, you just want to know what the 16" guns would do to the Nimitz.

Arrow · Post by **Arrow** » 2004-02-29 06:19pm

Uraniun235 wrote:So, basically, you just want to know what the 16" guns would do to the Nimitz.

No, the thread stated that the Montana would have a modernization refit, just like the Iowas. So, can the Montana launch enough cruise missiles to damage the Nimitz? How effective will the carrier's fighters be at engaging those missiles? How many cruise missiles can the fighters launch at the Montana, and how much damage can the Montana take? How effective will the phalanx system on both ships be against those missiles? Does the Montana have enough air defence prevent GBU drops? If GBUs are dropped, how many will take to do the ship in?

I'm more interested in this type of vs. thread, not one were one side has such a clear advantage its not even funny. ISD vs. GCS? Yawn. Iowas vs. 18th century navies? Boring. But I guess I'm in the minority on this (a minority of one, most likely); this is also why I rarely get into vs. threads.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-02-29 06:27pm

Well, even if the Montana was in cruise missile range, long-range over-the-horizon targetting is very difficult. Assuming it is loaded out with TASMs (even if they long withdrawn from service), there is no guaruntee that those missiles will even see any targets by the time they arrive.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-02-29 06:31pm

Arrow Mk84 wrote:
No, the thread stated that the Montana would have a modernization refit, just like the Iowas. So, can the Montana launch enough cruise missiles to damage the Nimitz?

If she had some immune third party aircraft to seek out Nimitz for her the carrier would have trouble, if unescorted. However Montana would at best have an SH-60 or two with no hanger to do the hunting, it would have little hope of finding the carrier and be swifty destoryed by the carriers fighters anyway.

How effective will the carrier's fighters be at engaging those missiles?

Moderately, the Tomahawks certainly could be brought down, if the Montana was close enough for Harpoons it would be more difficult given there short flight times. Though given the perfect inteillgence provided by the carriers E-2's, she might well be able to change course and avoid entering the zone the missiles seekers will search. Targeting anti ship missiles over the horizon is very difficult (as yet its never been done in combat) even if you have such things as P-3's and E-2's to help.

How many cruise missiles can the fighters launch at the Montana

As many as the carrier has onboard, that's probably a hundred plus for a late cold war loadout.

and how much damage can the Montana take?

Not much, after a half dozen or so hits she's just going to burn to the waterline, and during that period a great number of Walleyes and bombs will be raining down.

How effective will the phalanx system on both ships be against those missiles? Does the Montana have enough air defence prevent GBU drops? If GBUs are dropped, how many will take to do the ship in?

Phalanx can handle a few targets at a time; the carrier air group will easily saturate the defenses. HARM's and Harpoon damage would soon knock out all of the battleships air defences and electornics and then its simply a very large target.

I'm more interested in this type of vs. thread, not one were one side has such a clear advantage its not even funny.

That describes this scenario exactly

consequences · Post by **consequences** » 2004-02-29 09:13pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Well, lets give the BB a more realistic goal then. Its goal it to Shell Island A, which contains a naval base (which has sophisticated ground based AA defenses), into a flaming wreck. The goal of the carrier is to stop the Montana from achieving this goal.

The carrier and the Montana both have the escort group that usually accompanies a carrier. Can the Carrier stop the Montana's battlegroup from achieving its mission?

With overwhelming ease, adding an objective other then sink the carrier just makes the battleships job far harder. The Carrier group has an overwhelming firepower advantage and an incredible sensor advantage. The battleship group has big useless guns and large amounts of useless armor.

Actually, giving the BB a fixed target gives it a much greater chance than having it try to chase down a Carrier that can out-run it, and detect it hundreds of miles further away than the BB can reciprocate. Not to say that the BB isn't almost certainly doomed anyway, but its the difference between a near hopeless fight, and an absolutely hopeless one.