Uncompromising way out of order snippet for Rose

runsforcelery wrote:

phillies wrote:I seem to recall that by the time the Montana was armored to stand up to its own guns, the result was a bit disappointing. Your mileage may vary.

Engage Hobby Horse Mode:

Nope, the final design for the Montana was pretty damned good. The problem was BuOrd's super-heavy shell. Its penetration was very much on a par with other people's 18" shells and, as further developed for the Montana would have been even more destructive. That being the case, BuShips opted for a lighter main battery than she could have had (i.e., stuck with the 16" instead of upgunning) and still needed a 16" belt (as opposed to the Iowa's 12") , but she was still good for 28-30 knots, she had an immune zone against her own guns (with super heavy shells) on the order of 13,000 yards (it was 18,000 yards against anyone else's 16"), she had an anti-torpedo system that worked (unlike the South Dakota, Iowa, and Missouri classes, where the anti-torpedo features had been compromised because of fear of underwater shell hits at extreme range), and was a far better seaboat than the Iowas. With her designed radar suite (and let's not discuss the nuclear 16" shell developed in the 1950s for the Iowa's main battery, shall we?), she could have kicked the posterior of any other ship in the world once she got into gun range. Of course, that was the rub: gun range as opposed to airstrike range.

The real reason they weren't built wasn't that they weren't superb ships; it was that in 1942 (when they were indefinitely delayed) the USN needed carriers worse and carriers could be built much more quickly) and in 1946 (when the Navy wanted to reinstate frozen programs) no one else in the world had battleships except for our friends and close allies the Brits (the 4 surviving KGVs and Vanguard . . . for about three years) and the French (2 Richelieus). Had anyone else had comparable ships, or had there been any prospect of anyone else's acquiring true heavy surface combatants, they would still have been required if only to protect the flight decks.

Of course, nobody but our friends had carriers, either, which is the reason the USN had basically been slated for the junk heap in favor of the Air Force until Korea came along and those pesky North Koreans overran all the friendly airfields on the peninsula, at which point the navy sort of cleared its throat and said, "Ahem. We still have some carriers, you know, despite Louis Johnson, and if no one would mind too terribly, we'd sort of like to explore the possibility of maybe using them to keep our guys inside the Pusan Perimeter from being overrun and massacred. No offense, of course." (That last was just twisting the knife, I fear. )


Disengage Hobby Horse Mode

Your mileage has varied.

The contrary opinion I was considering is found in Norman Friedman's United States Battleships An Illustrated Design history Naval Institute Press 1985, p. 342

"The final version, BB 67-4 of March 1941, was 60,500 tons, 890 feet long, with minor changes, primarily an increase in armored freeboard from 8 to 9 feet.

This design was circulated among commanders afloat, who were surprised that so little could be obtained on so much displacement. Commander battleships of battle force, for example, was disappointed that there was no increase in the number of secondary guns compared with Iowa. He could not understand how, on a reported displacement of 40,500 tons, the designers of the German Bismarck had crowded in a total of 24 secondary guns..."

munroburton wrote:The Rolands dispatched to Saltash had no pods with them.

Supposedly, limpeted pods are only good for a week or so - due to the onboard power being gradually consumed to generate its tractor beam. They use ammo ships to get around this issue a few times.

I would like to argue that the Roland is the one DD class which doesn't need pods. It's got shipboard DDM launchers which have been recently upgraded to fire more powerful payloads and is demonstrably capable of handling multiple Solly BCs with ease. Nothing stops a Roland from launching all of its missiles on delayed activation and throwing maximum stacked salvos, then running for it.

I suspect there would also be limits on continuous operation of the pods tractor. If they're designed for up to a week or two, for tactical use, it doesn't make a lot of sense to add a bigger, more robust, more expensive, tractor emitter capable of running continuously for a couple months.

Jonathan_S wrote:I suspect there would also be limits on continuous operation of the pods tractor. If they're designed for up to a week or two, for tactical use, it doesn't make a lot of sense to add a bigger, more robust, more expensive, tractor emitter capable of running continuously for a couple months.

With the compensator running the ship is in free-fall. You could attach the pods to the hull with velcro.

And when the compensator fails everyone dies and the tractors get ripped off the hull anyhow, so it doesn't matter.

Jonathan_S wrote:

munroburton wrote:The Rolands dispatched to Saltash had no pods with them.

Supposedly, limpeted pods are only good for a week or so - due to the onboard power being gradually consumed to generate its tractor beam. They use ammo ships to get around this issue a few times.

I would like to argue that the Roland is the one DD class which doesn't need pods. It's got shipboard DDM launchers which have been recently upgraded to fire more powerful payloads and is demonstrably capable of handling multiple Solly BCs with ease. Nothing stops a Roland from launching all of its missiles on delayed activation and throwing maximum stacked salvos, then running for it.

I suspect there would also be limits on continuous operation of the pods tractor. If they're designed for up to a week or two, for tactical use, it doesn't make a lot of sense to add a bigger, more robust, more expensive, tractor emitter capable of running continuously for a couple months.

The problem is not the tractor, other than it is an energy hog. It is the reactor. One if the tradeoffs of the new micro reactor tech is it tends to burn itself up as it works. It also puts off too much radiation for use near humans. So periocally, the reactor requires refurbishment and refueling. The refurbishment requires some small parts easily carried en mass in ships or built in a standard ship's shops, and a refuelling.

David once said the tractor endurance was more than a day, less than a week - A tactical endurance. With no other evidence, I've always split the difference and considered it 3-4 days. Also, in sysdef mode, the standard pod reactor lasts about 1month, which is really just the reactor running at low power levels continuously.

Ships also have the option of carrying the pods the old fashioned way-using ship tractors, which allows nearly unlimited range, assuming periodic breaks for tractor maintenance. However, this would cut a Sag-C to 10-15 pods, instead of 40. A Roland might carry 5 or so pods indefinently, instead of 15.

runsforcelery wrote:

pappilon wrote:To ressurect the flogged dead horse, what about those BF grazers they were thinking about using? one of those swanning around tractored to a drone can punch out a BC. Also my equally long shot: Hearken back to Obligated Service. Claire LeCroix. With the great holes int he Grayson Navy after OB, surely a well known and obviously motivated officer can move up the ranks. Not sure ho it fits with R&H ...

No SL grasers and no LACs. At the crucial moment, she's on her own.

Oh, and no pods, either.

SNIP

"Shall we dance??"

Has she been to Torch & mixed with Jeremy X a bit too much?

isaac_newton wrote:"Shall we dance??"

Has she been to Torch & mixed with Jeremy X a bit too much?

A Torchese exchange officer?

runsforcelery wrote:

phillies wrote:


Engage Hobby Horse Mode:

Nope, the final design for the Montana was pretty damned good. The problem was BuOrd's super-heavy shell. Its penetration was very much on a par with other people's 18" shells and, as further developed for the Montana would have been even more destructive. That being the case, BuShips opted for a lighter main battery than she could have had (i.e., stuck with the 16" instead of upgunning) and still needed a 16" belt (as opposed to the Iowa's 12") , but she was still good for 28-30 knots, she had an immune zone against her own guns (with super heavy shells) on the order of 13,000 yards (it was 18,000 yards against anyone else's 16"), she had an anti-torpedo system that worked (unlike the South Dakota, Iowa, and Missouri classes, where the anti-torpedo features had been compromised because of fear of underwater shell hits at extreme range), and was a far better seaboat than the Iowas. With her designed radar suite (and let's not discuss the nuclear 16" shell developed in the 1950s for the Iowa's main battery, shall we?), she could have kicked the posterior of any other ship in the world once she got into gun range. Of course, that was the rub: gun range as opposed to airstrike range.

The real reason they weren't built wasn't that they weren't superb ships; it was that in 1942 (when they were indefinitely delayed) the USN needed carriers worse and carriers could be built much more quickly) and in 1946 (when the Navy wanted to reinstate frozen programs) no one else in the world had battleships except for our friends and close allies the Brits (the 4 surviving KGVs and Vanguard . . . for about three years) and the French (2 Richelieus). Had anyone else had comparable ships, or had there been any prospect of anyone else's acquiring true heavy surface combatants, they would still have been required if only to protect the flight decks.

Of course, nobody but our friends had carriers, either, which is the reason the USN had basically been slated for the junk heap in favor of the Air Force until Korea came along and those pesky North Koreans overran all the friendly airfields on the peninsula, at which point the navy sort of cleared its throat and said, "Ahem. We still have some carriers, you know, despite Louis Johnson, and if no one would mind too terribly, we'd sort of like to explore the possibility of maybe using them to keep our guys inside the Pusan Perimeter from being overrun and massacred. No offense, of course." (That last was just twisting the knife, I fear. )


Disengage Hobby Horse Mode

Your mileage has varied.

The contrary opinion I was considering is found in Norman Friedman's United States Battleships An Illustrated Design history Naval Institute Press 1985, p. 342

"The final version, BB 67-4 of March 1941, was 60,500 tons, 890 feet long, with minor changes, primarily an increase in armored freeboard from 8 to 9 feet.

This design was circulated among commanders afloat, who were surprised that so little could be obtained on so much displacement. Commander battleships of battle force, for example, was disappointed that there was no increase in the number of secondary guns compared with Iowa. He could not understand how, on a reported displacement of 40,500 tons, the designers of the German Bismarck had crowded in a total of 24 secondary guns..."

Yep. but if you read Firedman's history of earlier classes, one of the points he makes consistently is that the "practical" officers were always astounded by "how little" they could get on a given displacement or how much a "minor" tweak would cost. For example, the Iowa class displaced 10,000 tons more than the South Dakota, yet had essentially the same armament and armor. The only real difference between them was about a 5 knot speed advantage, and the "practical" officers were astounded that a 25% increase in displacement (and a radically different hull form specifically modified for high speed) bought only those 5 knots. And, of course, they'd spent the years since the Washington Treaty hearing about what couldn't be done on the mandated tonnage limits. Because of that, many of them imagined (without really thinking about it) that once the treaty limits no longer applied, obviously they could have everything they wanted on an "unlimited" displacement.

Unfortunately, they were wrong.

The Montanas could have been bigger and nastier than they were, but the emphasis would have been on the "bigger." There is no such thing as the perfect ship design; the Montanas were "only" the best battleship design ever produced in terms of total weight of broadside (#1 all time), lethality of shell (#1 all time), fire control (#1 all time), armored protection (#1-#2 all time), endurance (#1 all time), and speed. And North Carolina or South Dakota would have taken Bismarck apart --- quickly --- in any one-on-one engagement, despite Commander Battle Force's questions at the time. What a Montana would have done to Admiral Raeder's pride and joy boggles the imagination!

Of course, Bismarck's displacement was only about 60% of the Montanas', but Yamato would have been their only true peer competitor, and they would have kicked her butt any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Not only did they have a heavier broadside, they were also a knot faster and had 2.2 times her endurance (plus immeasurably better fire control and sensors), despite displacing (depending on your source) between 1,000 and 5,000 tons less at standard displacement.

Friedman is the gold standard for technical histories of the USN design process, and the recurrent thread throughout most of his work is the inevitable compromise inherent in any design . . . and the unending surprise of the "end users" when the technical experts can't give them everything they want in the same platform. So in that sense, there's never been a "satisfactory" capital ship in the USN!

runsforcelery wrote:At the crucial moment, she's on her own.

Idle, perhaps random, thoughts

Certainly puts Our Miss Owens back into play. Memory fails Who was left behind to guard the hen house when Byng blew the others out of orbit? No mention of how many of what classes departed the system, or why "before the crucial moment." Do I also remember that someone was thoroughly reamed for running to warn everybody that the RHN was insystem leaving no one to warn incoming convoys to bug out?

Sounds like a colossal bluff but knowing that someone will be returning at some point.

runsforcelery wrote:Wait'll you hear Honor talking to Kingsford.
In person.

isaac_newton wrote:

Direwolf18 wrote:...

where is the 'head about to explode' icon when you need it???

Here you go:

Joat42 wrote:[SNIP][quote="isaac_newton
where is the 'head about to explode' icon when you need it???

Here you go:
[/quote]

Cool - thanks, thats just what I needed!!!