|
Honestly, it's impressive even against a stationary target. Less so, of course, but still very impressive. Iowa's had an easy path until this point, but she just demonstrated why she's the #1 seed.
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
that lightweight shell decision hurt a lot, i wonder if a better 16" gun would work can you model lightweight shells? I forget - I know you can turn on heavy shells
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 18:35
|
|
|
Don't forget, the Iowas were the last battleships to fire their guns in anger, in a sea based artillery (and cruise missiles for more inland targets) role in the first Gulf War. The Missouri was the first to go, followed by the Wisconsin. They both carried a compliment of "small" UAVs that could be launched from the deck (the RQ-2's wingspan was just shy of 17 feet) for sighting purposes. The US decided to shell an island occupied by the Iraqis, first by the Missouri, then the Wisconsin. When the Wisconsin took up station, the occupying forces heard the sound of the RQ-2's prop, and they waved makeshift white flags, because the last time one of those flew by, a slew of 16" shells from the Missouri came down on them, and they wanted nothing to do with those a second time. Those 16"ers are accurate as all hell. There's still some bitterness over the fact that the Iowas are now permanently laid up as museum ships. The usefulness of a battleship as a mainline naval doctrine is long gone, but as a floating artillery platform in support of landings? Well, they're still unmatched. The Texas is famous for her support of the Normandy landings, as well as supporting landing in the Pacific. Also the Wisconsin was the last battleship to fire her guns in anger, fitting as she was the last one to ever be laid down (but not completed, that belongs to the Missouri). Also silly USS Wisconsin fact: her nickname was the Wisky. When she collided with the USS Eaton, they took the completed bow off the hulk of the Kentucky, slapped it on to her front end (in 16 days), and it became the WisKY. iospace fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Feb 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 18:59
|
|
|
iospace posted:Also silly USS Wisconsin fact: her nickname was the Wisky. When she collided with the USS Eaton, they took the completed bow off the hulk of the Kentucky, slapped it on to her front end (in 16 days), and it became the WisKY. The real question is if people call her the Bourbon after that organ transplant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:03
|
|
|
Wow, that was just brutal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
iospace posted:
I'm pretty sure that goes to Vanguard, actually.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:I'm pretty sure that goes to Vanguard, actually. Seems you are correct, but for the sake of being That Guy, the Wisconsin was the last American battleship to be laid down and completed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
That matchup, god drat. 16in superheavy *really* don’t play.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:16
|
|
|
Missouri fact: Missouri is the only battleship that Cher filmed a music video on.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:19
|
|
|
that was certainly a beatdown
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 19:56
|
|
|
Yamato really is the only peer and the fire control advantage on Iowa is gonna be telling imo.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
God DAAAMN that was impressive. EDIT: Sanguinia posted:The real question is if people call her the Bourbon after that organ transplant. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:12
|
|
|
iospace posted:There's still some bitterness over the fact that the Iowas are now permanently laid up as museum ships. The usefulness of a battleship as a mainline naval doctrine is long gone, but as a floating artillery platform in support of landings? Well, they're still unmatched. The Texas is famous for her support of the Normandy landings, as well as supporting landing in the Pacific. this is mostly from really loving dumb people tbh
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:this is mostly from really loving dumb people tbh I think that the ammo and other limitations were also a major factor. Even with modernization, alot of the tech and skills to make ammo doesnt exist anymore, and the stuff they do have is old and dangerous. As is, its a ship thats 80 years old, and so much is going to be old and worn out that we might not be able to fix. Upkeep o nthem would have been a huge issue as things went on. And we made a new generation floating artillery, that never got its gun because it was a piece of poo poo and the navy stopped funding for its ammo so the 3 ships were made that turned into missile ships because the special guns didnt work 
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
The US got so bad at naval gunfire support that we had to resort to this:
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:39
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The US got so bad at naval gunfire support that we had to resort to this: haha
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:43
|
|
|
bewbies posted:The US got so bad at naval gunfire support that we had to resort to this: I mean, look at the Arleigh Burkes
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:
A couple of times, I've had ships turn away from torpedoes and end up colliding with another ship. MANY times I've had ships turn away from collisions (often when they wouldn't have actually collided anyway), and INTO the paths of spotted torpedoes. This game makes me rage quit more often than Dark Souls because of poo poo like that. Also, sometimes if you turn on AI ship control, it will just refuse to turn off. So, if you have your ships broken out and toggle on AI for a bit so they won't just blithely drive into torpedoes, you'll come back to control them and they'll just refuse to follow orders. I've often had to manually set the rudder angle to get them to go in the direction I want. Any hint of a torpedo within several km (not even one that'd hit the ships in question) will make a division go completely wild, massive evasive maneuvers, so while you're controlling the lead ship in the division setting up for a torpedo pass or something, the rest of the division is getting farther and farther back. Is fun game, but definitely needs some polish. Oh, and for whoever it was a few pages back that mentioned you can start the campaign only at 1890: you start as either Britain or Germany in 1890, then after you beat that, you unlock a second "campaign" starting in 1900, with whatever nation you beat the 1890 one with. Beat that, and it goes up to 1910, and so on. I haven't beat any of the campaign with Britain, but I'm up to 1930 with Germany (  ). You have a certain level of tech unlocked at each campaign start and you can unlock more, but I don't think what happens in one campaign carries over to the one after it. If you win a campaign, you get "war reparations" of a sort... you get a certain amount of money where you can grab up to that value in enemy ships.... and I THINK if that amount gets high enough the Germans can get IRELAND. I've never even come close though, and I'm curious if that can be carried forward...
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
Lmfao a howitzer on the deck seems a smarter plan
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:And we made a new generation floating artillery, that never got its gun because it was a piece of poo poo and the navy stopped funding for its ammo so the 3 ships were made that turned into missile ships because the special guns didnt work That's not what went down, and the Zumwalts that got built *do* have the guns installed and they and their ammunition both worked fine. But because because the buy order for the class was chopped from 32 to 3, so the cost for the R&D of the ammunition amortized over just enough rounds for three ships was absurd, and procurement of the ammunition was halted. Which is a dumb way to count; the R&D money's a sunk cost, you don't get it back because you cut procurement, and the marginal cost of the ammunition was entirely in-line with other precision munitions. So the three ships have guns, but we didn't spend money on the shells for those guns and, surprise, the guns can't use any of our existing 5" ammo, either. ERGM had all sorts of problems, but that was for existing guns. Were you thinking of ERGM? (This is not to defend the Zumwalts as an example of wise naval architecture or procurement in general, however.) 16" guns for shore bombardment is pretty ridiculous. The trajectories are too flat and even minor terrain features provide cover, and even the most accurate naval guns ever built aren't all that accurate if you're talking about engaging hard targets on shore, and if they're not hard targets you're better off firing a larger number of smaller shells. If you want to put shellfire on a beach or interdict stuff that's moving around near the shore, the 9 autoloading 8" guns on a Des Moines would probably be a better choice. Plus, in a modern threat environment pulling a capital ship close enough to shore to engage with guns is basically suicide. Yes, it's armored, but it can't defend itself from mines or from submarines or from airplanes and the ships that can do that stuff don't have the armor. Torpedo bulges or not a modern heavyweight torpedo is going to severely gently caress up an Iowa. Against a peer opponent an Iowa's going to either fire off a few Tomahawks and then die noisily, or just die noisily without getting a chance to fire off a few Tomahawks. The US also got really bad at land-based artillery, the land forces are really trying to get that capability back now. Turns out 20 years of Operation Bomb Useless Dirt led to atrophy of some pretty core capabilities. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Feb 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's not what went down, and the Zumwalts that got built *do* have the guns installed and they and their ammunition both worked fine. But because because the buy order for the class was chopped from 32 to 3, so the cost for the R&D of the ammunition amortized over just enough rounds for three ships was absurd, and procurement of the ammunition was halted. Which is a dumb way to count; the R&D money's a sunk cost, you don't get it back because you cut procurement, and the marginal cost of the ammunition was entirely in-line with other precision munitions. The only thing I’d add to this is that the AGS on the Zumwalts is a 6” (155mm) gun. The real failure is that it’s apparently not compatible with NATO standard separate 155mm ammunition, which is the most defenseprocurement.txt thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
if you’re doing an amphibious assault you need to have naval and air supremacy, at least in the immediate area. so why use a fuk hueg battleship capable of 30 knots when you could just put a bunch of guns on a floating platform and tow it around or something but nobody got promoted to the joint chiefs by overseeing the design of or commanding a big dumb gun barge
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 21:45
|
|
|
Best Bi Geek Squid posted:
BRB joining the Navy
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 21:56
|
|
|
Best Bi Geek Squid posted:if you’re doing an amphibious assault you need to have naval and air supremacy, at least in the immediate area. so why use a fuk hueg battleship capable of 30 knots when you could just put a bunch of guns on a floating platform and tow it around or something That would be nowhere near as accurate as a naval gun with its fire control computers. You can't just stick a piece of land-based artillery on a barge because the land-based artillery does not expect its firing platform to be pitching and rolling all the time. The fire control computers on the Iowas are amazingly accurate technology, they were so reliable that the modernization program left them untouched; there was no need to change them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 21:59
|
|
|
boxen posted:Also, sometimes if you turn on AI ship control, it will just refuse to turn off.  Phanatic posted:That would be nowhere near as accurate as a naval gun with its fire control computers. You can't just stick a piece of land-based artillery on a barge because the land-based artillery does not expect its firing platform to be pitching and rolling all the time. The fire control computers on the Iowas are amazingly accurate technology, they were so reliable that the modernization program left them untouched; there was no need to change them. Sounds interesting, got any sources on FCCs I could read?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 22:28
|
|
|
Pierzak posted:Sounds interesting, got any sources on FCCs I could read? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwf5mAlI7Ug I love this. As a non computer/engineering person, a film on analog computers made to inform teenagers in the 1940s is right in my wheelhouse edit - here's a longer version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1i-dnAH9Y4&t=171s
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
bewbies posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwf5mAlI7Ug "Read" being the operative word here, but I'll give it a look when I have time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That would be nowhere near as accurate as a naval gun with its fire control computers. You can't just stick a piece of land-based artillery on a barge because the land-based artillery does not expect its firing platform to be pitching and rolling all the time. The fire control computers on the Iowas are amazingly accurate technology, they were so reliable that the modernization program left them untouched; there was no need to change them. Oh yeah I meant you could design a floating platform with the guns built into it. Could feed them with radar from other ships or from the barge itself
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 22:41
|
|
|
Honestly you could probably design a destroyer with a triple gun turret firing the NATO 155mm shells and a bunch of VLS tubes in the rear and you not only have solved the logistical issues, but you're pretty much not sacrificing too much to help support landings. The Mk 45 Mod 4 (which what is in use on the later Burkes) though does have a 37km range and uses standardized ammo. The M1299 (self propelled artillery piece) uses standard 155mm shells though and can theoretically hit out to 70-100km so you decide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
Honestly, given the USN's focus on amphibious capabilities I'm surprised there isn't a modern equivalent of the LCS, which basically were just a gun strapped to the smallest boat possible, and are notable for having about the greatest firepower per ton of any ship ever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
boxen posted:Any hint of a torpedo within several km (not even one that'd hit the ships in question) will make a division go completely wild, massive evasive maneuvers, so while you're controlling the lead ship in the division setting up for a torpedo pass or something, the rest of the division is getting farther and farther back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That would be nowhere near as accurate as a naval gun with its fire control computers. You can't just stick a piece of land-based artillery on a barge because the land-based artillery does not expect its firing platform to be pitching and rolling all the time. The fire control computers on the Iowas are amazingly accurate technology, they were so reliable that the modernization program left them untouched; there was no need to change them. I'm pretty sure you could modify a system for land based artillery, as modern tanks are already able to account for pitch and yaw, and thats essentially land based artillery.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
Solving that is literally given as CS and automation student homework and can be done with off the shelves parts. Of course making it reliable and also not pooping out EM radiation broadcasting its position is another story but it's definitely on the doable side.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:That's not what went down, and the Zumwalts that got built *do* have the guns installed and they and their ammunition both worked fine. But because because the buy order for the class was chopped from 32 to 3, so the cost for the R&D of the ammunition amortized over just enough rounds for three ships was absurd, and procurement of the ammunition was halted. Which is a dumb way to count; the R&D money's a sunk cost, you don't get it back because you cut procurement, and the marginal cost of the ammunition was entirely in-line with other precision munitions. My assumption is the boaty part of the Zumwalts is the part of them that is...not great, rather than the guns specifically.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:Honestly, given the USN's focus on amphibious capabilities I'm surprised there isn't a modern equivalent of the LCS, which basically were just a gun strapped to the smallest boat possible, and are notable for having about the greatest firepower per ton of any ship ever.  Can you make one of these things in UA:D?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
UCS Hellmaker posted:I think that the ammo and other limitations were also a major factor. Even with modernization, alot of the tech and skills to make ammo doesnt exist anymore, and the stuff they do have is old and dangerous. As is, its a ship thats 80 years old, and so much is going to be old and worn out that we might not be able to fix. Upkeep o nthem would have been a huge issue as things went on. Rather notably they still have their original powerplants and those things are at the end (if not past) their useful operational life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 01:20
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:My assumption is the boaty part of the Zumwalts is the part of them that is...not great, rather than the guns specifically. It’s just a case where it involved a whole bunch of new technologies, basically promising the moon, and ended up being so compromised to deal with excessive costs that it’s not as good at area air-defense or ASW as the Burkes are. It’s really stealthy, but who cares? Another problem is that one of the things that really can lower costs, having a small crew with a lot of automation, means that if you get hit you don’t have enough people for damage control and continuing to fight. Really the only reason we built as many as we did (again: 3) was to keep shipyard workers employed. We could have just canceled the construction altogether and it wouldn’t have made the navy weaker.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:It’s just a case where it involved a whole bunch of new technologies, basically promising the moon, and ended up being so compromised to deal with excessive costs that it’s not as good at area air-defense or ASW as the Burkes are. It’s really stealthy, but who cares? Another problem is that one of the things that really can lower costs, having a small crew with a lot of automation, means that if you get hit you don’t have enough people for damage control and continuing to fight. Really the only reason we built as many as we did (again: 3) was to keep shipyard workers employed. We could have just canceled the construction altogether and it wouldn’t have made the navy weaker. I know we've talked about how dumb the buy cut was; when did it happen, and who thought this was a good idea?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 01:33
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Rather notably they still have their original powerplants and those things are at the end (if not past) their useful operational life. Sounds like a good time to add some nuclear reactors in
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 01:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I know we've talked about how dumb the buy cut was; when did it happen, and who thought this was a good idea? I don't know that it was a dumb idea. I mean, I don't want to get into the political dimension of how much military spending is a good idea, but from a strictly military standpoint buying 32 destroyers that aren't particularly good at anti-air or anti-sub when you could be spending that money on, say, more Burkes, is not a good idea, even if those 32 destroyers do have really neat guns and cool electrical propulsion systems (that again, weren't as cool as the original plans, since the permanent-magnet motors got replaced with regular old induction motors). Cutting the buy order to just three instead of zero was really dumb, though: if you want to keep shipyards open keep them open building ships you want instead of ships you don't. I mean, the Zumwalts can't even use the same Standard missiles as the rest of the fleet; they need to be modified to work with the Zumwalt's radar. Why does the class exist at all at that point?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2022 01:48
|
|