StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Modern ships!! BAH! Saltine Boxes at sea is what they look like I say!

I'll take a battleline of battleships and heavy cruisers dukeing it out any day over modern sea combat. Look at the old photos and film from Jutland, or anything from the fighting off Savo Island in the Pacific....you can almost smell the cordite and hear the guns crash as they loose their main guns. Poetry in combat I say.

Now I realize I'm waxing philosophic here , for the actuall combatants it was hours of sheer terror, but on the table top (Yes,Im one of thes wargamer junkies. Ive re-fought Jutland several times, I have the entire Imperial High Seas Fleet in 1/285th scale miniatures, and even managed to smoke Jellicoes ass once, and got my own head handed to me several times) its awesome

This is my personal favorite Battleship.

http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battles ... /cb1-1.jpg

Actually she isn't technically a battleship, shes the largest freaking cruiser ever built.

Sokar wrote:Now I realize I'm waxing philosophic here , for the actuall combatants it was hours of sheer terror, but on the table top (Yes,Im one of thes wargamer junkies. Ive re-fought Jutland several times, I have the entire Imperial High Seas Fleet in 1/285th scale miniatures, and even managed to smoke Jellicoes ass once, and got my own head handed to me several times) its awesome

::has a squadron of B-52s proceed to nuke the the silly battleships::

My favorite when it comes to weapons, USS Iowa with its 16" guns:



Who WOULDNT like a ship that can make pressure dents that big in water?!

My Favorite surface combatant that was constructed: The Kirov!



Followed closely by Admiral Flota Sovetskogo Soyuza Kuznetsov. An unimpressive carrier, she carries the largest missile battery that has ever put to sea including a dozen SS-N-19. Not quite a dedicated carrier, not quite a cruiser, I doubt any missile salvo a western task group could muster would destroy her. An alpha strike from a Nimitz is another matter, the swarm of skippers and harpoons might prove too much.



A never built favorites is the American strike cruiser of 1975. All the power of a Ticonderoga combine with the near unlimited range and cruising speed of a nuclear reactor and twin automatic eight inch guns. To bad it cost twice as much as a Tico, ensuring it never had much of a chance of being built.

The never completed Soviet Orel Ul'yanovsk is also a favorite. The massive missile battery of the Kuzentsov plus a seventy plane air group. Now if the Russians could just figure out damage control and avoid the thing being put out of action by one landing accident..

kojikun wrote:My favorite when it comes to weapons, USS Iowa with its 16" guns:



Who WOULDNT like a ship that can make pressure dents that big in water?!

My favorite ship can sink it from 200 miles away and not take one shot in return.

didnt the bismark destroy the english flagship (forgot the name) with 1 shot

and didnt the bismark was hit by 7 torpedos without sinking

and didnt the allies need more than 4 ships to bring it down


im just wondering wy u say bad design

Yomin Carr wrote:didnt the bismark destroy the english flagship (forgot the name) with 1 shot

The Bismarck scored a hit on HMS Hood at a weak spot in the armour protection between the funnels. The English ship's destruction is more due to a design defect rather than the power of the German battleship.

and didnt the bismark was hit by 7 torpedos without sinking

The torpedo attacks were not coordinated, occurred in three seperate strikes, and while not sinking the German battlewagon, they inflicted serious and in one case ultimately crippling damage when her rudders were put out of action —which allowed Sir John Tovey's task force to catch up to the wounded battleship and destroy her.

and didn't the allies need more than 4 ships to bring it down

More than half the ships assigned to pursue the Bismarck were undergunned cruisers lacking radar.

im just wondering wy u say bad design

Not bad design as much as obsolecent. The Kriegsmarine's battleships and cruisers were basically updated World War I designs. The Bismarck relied upon a single belt of armour to protect against torpedo attack. Her shafts were very largely exposed, and the twin rudders were very vulnerable to damage. This last factor directly contributed to the battleship's demise.

Sea Skimmer wrote:My favorite ship can sink it from 200 miles away and not take one shot in return.

Kirov?

Patrick Degan wrote:

Yomin Carr wrote:didnt the bismark destroy the english flagship (forgot the name) with 1 shot

The Bismarck scored a hit on HMS Hood at a weak spot in the armour protection between the funnels. The English ship's destruction is more due to a design defect rather than the power of the German battleship.
snip

Err, no, the shot that destroyed Hood was into the after 4inch DP mounts magazine just aft of X 15 turret, which set of the 15 magazine.
The shot on the boat deck was caused by a 8inch shell from the Prinz Eugen and did not contribute to Hoods destruction.
But you are correct that it was a error in the ships design more than anything.

Sea Skimmer wrote: My favorite ship can sink it from 200 miles away and not take one shot in return.

*snort*, so? your favorite ship can be polished of, I am sure, with either torpedo's or aircraft.

Admiral Piett wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:My favorite ship can sink it from 200 miles away and not take one shot in return.

Kirov?

Definitely. SS-N-19 SHIPWRECK yessir!

Although I don't know if it should still be Kirov, after all the Russians renamed her the Admiral Ushakov.

As it stands; only the Peter the Great is currently in service. The Russians are quite proud of their ... erm ...nuclear-powered missile battlecruisers (for damn good reason) and aren't scrapping any of the remaining three; last year the CinC of the Russian Navy confirmed that all would be returned to service. The Admiral Nakhimov is the only other ship that had significant service in the 1990s. Ushakov has been in dock since 1990, and I'm not sure how long Admiral Lazarev has been in dock.

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: My favorite ship can sink it from 200 miles away and not take one shot in return.

*snort*, so? your favorite ship can be polished of, I am sure, with either torpedo's or aircraft.

Only with great difficulty mate. On its own, it has the full spectrum of defense against every possible threat. You couldn't ask for a more well-appointed vessel; defense wise.

Stuart Mackey wrote: *snort*, so? your favorite ship can be polished of, I am sure, with either torpedo's or aircraft.

The same can be said for battleships.Only that a Iowa is a sitting duck compared to a Kirov.

Vympel wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote: My favorite ship can sink it from 200 miles away and not take one shot in return.

*snort*, so? your favorite ship can be polished of, I am sure, with either torpedo's or aircraft.

Only with great difficulty mate. On its own, it has the full spectrum of defense against every possible threat. You couldn't ask for a more well-appointed vessel; defense wise.

I am sure that the USN is quite able to dispatch them without undue loss of life, they are not that crash hot that they, and their battle groups can stand up to a USN carrier task force, alltough their ASM abilities are very respectable.

Admiral Piett wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote: *snort*, so? your favorite ship can be polished of, I am sure, with either torpedo's or aircraft.

The same can be said for battleships.Only that a Iowa is a sitting duck compared to a Kirov.

Correct, but only if you take one ship vs another, but is hardly a realistic comparison is it? the Iowa class BB's are WW2 ships designed to meet WW2 threats as such there is only so much you can do with them, in regards to self protection. Which is why they had to be well protected by escorts, not that that in itself is different than WW2 times, but the need for escorts is that much greater now than then.
Therefor to decribe them as sitting ducks is inccorect, they are no more a sitting duck than a Kirov that cannot find a CVBG, when the CVBG can find Kirov.

Why won't the Kirov find a CVBG, exactly?

In any realistic naval combat scenario, it will be working with

the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier (which also has SS-N-19s)
Akula/ Improved Akula/ Akula II SSNs
Oscar II SSGNs (also has SS-N-19s)
Udaloy ASW destroyers
Sovremenny ASuW destroyers
satellite support

add as possible Tu-22M3 BACKFIRE-C and Tu-142 BEAR-F support

Vympel wrote:Why won't the Kirov find a CVBG, exactly?





In any realistic naval combat scenario, it will be working with

the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier (which also has SS-N-19s)
Akula/ Improved Akula/ Akula II SSNs
Oscar II SSGNs (also has SS-N-19s)
Udaloy ASW destroyers
Sovremenny ASuW destroyers
satellite support

add as possible Tu-22M3 BACKFIRE-C and Tu-142 BEAR-F support

As I understand it, the USN had a better recon capability compared to the Soviets {excluding use of Bear recon, and even if you include them},better numbers and better quipment, training. these factors allow the Americans to deny, certainly, tactical and/or operationl racon ability to a certain degree.
If you want a good read on such issues as hiding a task force and OTH missile targeting, visit the Naval Technical Boards at www.warships1.com
two articles there by Andy Pico explain such matters better than I.

And the Sovs only had how many of those carriers during the 80's? 0. Kuznetsov was not in service untill 1995. They had only the small Kiev class carriers to work with and the YAK VTOL aircraft were not of high quality.

I think what would have been more likly is that the BB's may have been used against smaller soviet surface formations, and shore bombardment,the major work being done with the USN's CVBG's. This assumes that the Soviets would risk their major units in open battle with a numericaly/qualitivly, superior USN, which I am doubtfull they would have.
As with most things, you cannot take things in isolation. No rational person would expect a Iowa to survive very long byitself, but then, they never had to operate alone.

Stuart Mackey wrote:
As with most things, you cannot take things in isolation. No rational person would expect a Iowa to survive very long byitself, but then, they never had to operate alone.

Actually many of the Iowa class fans will spend hours trying to demonstrate to you that Styx missiles will not be able to scrape her paint.

Admiral Piett wrote:

Stuart Mackey wrote:
As with most things, you cannot take things in isolation. No rational person would expect a Iowa to survive very long byitself, but then, they never had to operate alone.

Actually many of the Iowa class fans will spend hours trying to demonstrate to you that Styx missiles will not be able to scrape her paint.

Oh jesus, tell me about it. What such people fail to realise is that in many regards, modern warfare is to the Iowa's, what the Iowa is to a early dreadnoughts like HMS Collosus or HMS Neptune. Maybe not that severe a differnce, but I am sure you get the picture.
Also read my edit to my last post, bit extra there.

I have already readed those articles.Nothing new.However I think that we started with a pretty theoretical one to one comparison.Real combat is obviously an other history.
And yes,I reiterate, many people think that the Iowa will be able to take Styx missiles like if they were cakes.They say "it took a kamikaze without too much damage"(a glancing hit by the way),so it will take missiles without being mission killed/sunk.I do not know what is thicker: their heads or the main turrets face plates.

What are the Iowa advocates actually arguing for, exactly? For fire support, yeah of course they're the best, but as a surface combatant against a missile armed destroyer/cruiser? Lunacy!

kheegan wrote: Did she and her sister ship get to kick any Soviet ass?

KG

The others answered to the question pretty well already...

Like Sea Skimmer said, during the Winter War the Ilmarinen or Väinämöinen saw almost no action at all. I believe one of them was put in Turku (third largest city in the south-western coast) to help in anti-aircraft tasks.

The case with Ilmarinen was fucking big mistake by the Finnish naval command. The whole opearion was only a diversion and they supposedly knew that the operational area was mined. So what do they do? They put the flagship of the Navy as the first ship of the armada. Sounds awfully Trekkyish tactic to me.

One of the reasons why there were so few naval engagements in the Finnish gulf during the war, is that in the 30s Estonians and Finns had extensive military co-operation. This included plans to force the Soviet Baltic Sea fleet to stay hiding near Leningrad, so that it could not disturb any cargo traffic (which was vital for Finland) in the Baltic Sea. How did they achieve this then?

Well, at one point the Finnish Gulf that seperates Estonia and Finland is only 35 kilometers wide. On both sides the Imperial Russia had constructed heavy 305mm cannons to protect St. Petersburg, and now they were in Estonian and Finnish hands. These cannons had a range of 40 kilometers so they could easily seal the entire gulf. Finns and Estonians modernised them and created a common fire control system.

In the event of a war, the submarine fleets of both Navies would have been placed under a Finnish command and tasked with the job to destroy all Soviet ships that would've gotten through the 305mm cannons. Of course, this was never realized because Estonia fell to the Soviets in 1940, but later when the Germans occupied Estonia, they decided to use the plan...


Sorry for going OT


I like Kirov as well. A neat 'little' ship. Ticonderoga-class is also one of my favorites, I just don't know why. I know that Iowa was a better vessel than Yamato, but the Japanese ship has a massive tower design that is always a big plus - it makes the whole thing look so damn powerful.

Vympel wrote:What are the Iowa advocates actually arguing for, exactly? For fire support, yeah of course they're the best, but as a surface combatant against a missile armed destroyer/cruiser? Lunacy!

Fire support is what they say.However the majority of the Iowa advocates clearly want them essentially for psychological reasons.And "they can damage that current ships cannot" intending that their armor can defend them from missiles is usually one of their main arguments.Of course they can take damage,but like for a carrier they would be saved mainly by their size,compartimentalization and damage control features.
Even for fire support they are not exactly the ideal in anyway.

Now that the Iowas have been retired, I`m curious if there have been any plans for a big gunned fire support successor.