Great ship, ammo too expensive to fire
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Reynard said:
the best design in the universe is useless if you can't afford to build enough of that type to be of strategic value. If a ships replacement costs outweigh its tactical and strategic value then they are often very pretty lawn decorations at the naval base. The Bismark Tirpitz and Yamato were so expensive to built they could not be deployed without risking a massive loss of resources, and prestige...so basically they became propaganda ships.At least the Bismark managed to actually sink an enemy vessel.
Some of the irreplacability of a major combatant lies on the civilian leadership. The Kreigsmarine always suffered from a numerical superiority issue with the British, and the government refused to commit them if they might be aubk, but that was for political purposes mainly. They were happy to deploy destroyers and other ynits, but not the larger named ones.
Costs nor missions rarely play a role in the race to min/max designs.
Costs nor missions rarely play a role in the race to min/max designs.
Politics always gets inn the way of military planning it seems...phavoc said:
Unfortunately, in peacetime Budget and politics control the development of military systems. Even if the politics are totally within the various competing design philosophies of the military..sch as "Fighters won't need guns" design scheme that hamstrung the F-4 Phantom until they could be retrofitted with a decent cannon.
during wartime the development of ships is usually ruled by necessity or strategic goals.if you depend on your uber weapons often the enemy can simply outproduce less advanced systems and overrun you. Such as in the case of Kursk. The battle was supposed to kick off much sooner than it did...it was delayed by the deployment of the Tiger. which delayed the operation until the Russians were not only ready to defend the front, but they had deployed a force strong enough to counterassault. Strategic plans were delayed for a new maxed out design..leading to an epic defeat.
as it relates to games. Most designs are NOT set up using any sort of log term rationalization. A design that s to expensive to risk in a single engagement. or can not be produced in large numbers would not be something employed by an interstellar power that had to maintain a widespread frontier, or sustain operations for years. Most Max-tech designs strike me as being built for one-off scenarios not protracted conflicts.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Weapon systems don't exist in a vacuum, and designers tend to need to account what the opposition is likely going to be using.
A pretty good example would be the choices the Germans and the British made in the run up to the Great War, and for the British, upto and following the naval arms limitation treaty.
Hindsight says more Queen Elizabeths rather than Revenges, though they had virtue of being cheaper, and were only expected to be in the frontline for ten years or so, and replaced in twenty; whereas a generation later, fast battleships which had the capacity to be upgraded would have been more appreciated, rather than ones specialized for a general melee in the North Sea.
Battlecruisers are a dead end, but when examined in context at the period they were designed and commissioned, made a lot of sense, in the designs that the British and Germans came up with. The British got it right at the Falklands, but wrong at Jutland; the Germans got a scare at I think at Dogger Bank, which made them draw the necessary lessons when they used them at Jutland. The Hood was rebuilt to take advantage of the war lessons the British paid for at Jutland, but essentially the Hood is an intermediate modern fast battleship, and still waiting for a refurbishment when she met the Bismarck, a ship a generation younger.
The Yamatos were designed to overwhelm any expected class of battleship that the Japanese expected the Americans to have in commission, when the balloon went up.
A pretty good example would be the choices the Germans and the British made in the run up to the Great War, and for the British, upto and following the naval arms limitation treaty.
Hindsight says more Queen Elizabeths rather than Revenges, though they had virtue of being cheaper, and were only expected to be in the frontline for ten years or so, and replaced in twenty; whereas a generation later, fast battleships which had the capacity to be upgraded would have been more appreciated, rather than ones specialized for a general melee in the North Sea.
Battlecruisers are a dead end, but when examined in context at the period they were designed and commissioned, made a lot of sense, in the designs that the British and Germans came up with. The British got it right at the Falklands, but wrong at Jutland; the Germans got a scare at I think at Dogger Bank, which made them draw the necessary lessons when they used them at Jutland. The Hood was rebuilt to take advantage of the war lessons the British paid for at Jutland, but essentially the Hood is an intermediate modern fast battleship, and still waiting for a refurbishment when she met the Bismarck, a ship a generation younger.
The Yamatos were designed to overwhelm any expected class of battleship that the Japanese expected the Americans to have in commission, when the balloon went up.
Personally I would vote for a single ARgo class ship. Much better in all ways than the followup Andromedas's. Plus they had the advantage of a better story line. 
Traveller does acknowledge the 2nd line battleship-style classes, which the Revenge / Royal Sovereign class later came to being useful for. I think they also suffered from being built at just the wrong time, with admittedly a few choices that in hindsight weren't the best. Making them able to be fueled by coal or oil seemed like a good idea at the time, but it came at a price. Just like their heavier secondary 6" armament made sense if they were to engage destroyers (which were experiencing a size growth), but didn't make them well suited to AA (which at the time of their design was not an issue). And the idea of making them somewhat rolly-polly to aid in gunnery... well, that didn't turn out too well.
However, while they weren't able to fulfill well their role as first-line battleships, they were well suited to doing everything else a battleship might need to do - escort, shore bombardment, etc. In this role all their limitations were basically eliminated. They could out-range any cruiser or pocket battleship and their armor allowed them to take a heavier punishment than any BC or pocket battleship could ever hope to take. Their lower speeds just meant they would not be able to pursue a faster enemy if they chose to break off. But that wasn't their primary mission so that is not really a deficit in my mind.
The Bismark class was a well designed battleship. Like all the later battleships it was able to take into account all of the experiences of previous classes and incorporate it into the penultimate design. The Vanguard also benefited from hindsight, though the Americans and Japanese built bigger-gunned battleships than the Europeans. BC's, conceptually, aren't a bad idea. Though we never really got to see smaller groups of ships fight. The Germans did prove the efficacy of the idea behind their BC's / pocket battleships. What they suffered from was a lack of overseas bases from which to conduct their raids from. That and the sheer numbers that the Royal Navy could throw against them. It would be interesting to have seen more of a naval war where ship classes were spread thinner and BC's would have been defacto battleships against heavy and light cruisers. The Alaska class built by the US were really remarkable ships, though terribly expensive and never utilized for what their potential might have been. But by there there was really no surface Japanese naval force to go up against.
Traveller does acknowledge the 2nd line battleship-style classes, which the Revenge / Royal Sovereign class later came to being useful for. I think they also suffered from being built at just the wrong time, with admittedly a few choices that in hindsight weren't the best. Making them able to be fueled by coal or oil seemed like a good idea at the time, but it came at a price. Just like their heavier secondary 6" armament made sense if they were to engage destroyers (which were experiencing a size growth), but didn't make them well suited to AA (which at the time of their design was not an issue). And the idea of making them somewhat rolly-polly to aid in gunnery... well, that didn't turn out too well.
However, while they weren't able to fulfill well their role as first-line battleships, they were well suited to doing everything else a battleship might need to do - escort, shore bombardment, etc. In this role all their limitations were basically eliminated. They could out-range any cruiser or pocket battleship and their armor allowed them to take a heavier punishment than any BC or pocket battleship could ever hope to take. Their lower speeds just meant they would not be able to pursue a faster enemy if they chose to break off. But that wasn't their primary mission so that is not really a deficit in my mind.
The Bismark class was a well designed battleship. Like all the later battleships it was able to take into account all of the experiences of previous classes and incorporate it into the penultimate design. The Vanguard also benefited from hindsight, though the Americans and Japanese built bigger-gunned battleships than the Europeans. BC's, conceptually, aren't a bad idea. Though we never really got to see smaller groups of ships fight. The Germans did prove the efficacy of the idea behind their BC's / pocket battleships. What they suffered from was a lack of overseas bases from which to conduct their raids from. That and the sheer numbers that the Royal Navy could throw against them. It would be interesting to have seen more of a naval war where ship classes were spread thinner and BC's would have been defacto battleships against heavy and light cruisers. The Alaska class built by the US were really remarkable ships, though terribly expensive and never utilized for what their potential might have been. But by there there was really no surface Japanese naval force to go up against.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
That's the problem with post Treaty navies, no one had enough capital ships, so cruisers became fillers, and they were artificially limited to ten kay tonnes and eight inchers, and then the British proposed two sub categories, in order to be able to squeeze out more for commerce protection, since I think Jellicoe figured out the Empire needed a hundred plus.
That made actual battleship encounters, not to mention line of battles, the exception, besides carriers superseding the dreadnought.
And since for a variety of reasons, costs, industrial base, and/or treaty obligations, you couldn't just build and/or scrap the existing battlewagons, they underwent extensive renovations, which with the Revenges, apparently was a pain, and with the Hood, possibly might have ensured it's survival.
Then there's re-using old equipment, though in real life engines do wear out, as do hulls. Though you can bulk up the hulls, by adding more protection. And while not recommended for battleships, transport aircraft can be rebuilt and enlarged.
The Vanguard is a famous case for re-using spare turrets and guns, and the Andrea Dorias had their main guns bored out to accommodate a larger calibre shell, while the Japanese reconstructed the Kongos as fast (intermediate) battleships.
Someone suggested re-using thirteen point fives from the Iron Dukes to construct an early class of four smaller Vanguards, which eventually were coined miniVan(guard)s.
That made actual battleship encounters, not to mention line of battles, the exception, besides carriers superseding the dreadnought.
And since for a variety of reasons, costs, industrial base, and/or treaty obligations, you couldn't just build and/or scrap the existing battlewagons, they underwent extensive renovations, which with the Revenges, apparently was a pain, and with the Hood, possibly might have ensured it's survival.
Then there's re-using old equipment, though in real life engines do wear out, as do hulls. Though you can bulk up the hulls, by adding more protection. And while not recommended for battleships, transport aircraft can be rebuilt and enlarged.
The Vanguard is a famous case for re-using spare turrets and guns, and the Andrea Dorias had their main guns bored out to accommodate a larger calibre shell, while the Japanese reconstructed the Kongos as fast (intermediate) battleships.
Someone suggested re-using thirteen point fives from the Iron Dukes to construct an early class of four smaller Vanguards, which eventually were coined miniVan(guard)s.
alex_greene
Guest
Hence the Imperium's Tigresses.
There was a recent article I read about the ammo issue. The original contract was signed to provide ammo for the projected run of ahips, so the cost per round was supposed to be much lower (article didn't provide a cost). But the cancelling of the other ships due to cost also caused the cost per round to skyrocket.
They are now looking at an alternative round that "only" costs $70k a shot. It's shorter ranged, around 30km, but just about as accurate. They are also exploring other 155mm options.
They are now looking at an alternative round that "only" costs $70k a shot. It's shorter ranged, around 30km, but just about as accurate. They are also exploring other 155mm options.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
They really didn't think it through.
But question is if they'll be replaced with energy weapons and/or railguns, which need a lot of juice, and that the Zumwalts were designed to provide.
But question is if they'll be replaced with energy weapons and/or railguns, which need a lot of juice, and that the Zumwalts were designed to provide.
Condottiere said:
Energy weapons are fantastic for self/fleet defense but they are not over the horizon weapons.for fire support or hitting a target over the horizon, they are overpriced deck furniture for seagulls. However,ya have to ask is a single 155mm round going to have any effect either tactically or strategically when it is limited to areas within range of a ship 50 miles off shore. A deck Mounted MRLS would be more effective and way cheaper.
Condottiere
Emperor Mongoose
Anti access area denial strategy means that unless you're plunking the Taliban, against a near peer competitor you might as well just use missiles.
And since missiles can be expected to be inbound, the primary guns should be optimized for shooting those down.
And since missiles can be expected to be inbound, the primary guns should be optimized for shooting those down.
AndrewW
Emperor Mongoose
xnet445 said:
When she is working properly.
https://news.usni.org/2016/11/22/uss-zumwalt-sidelined-panama
Similar threads
