>>7414 >By the time airfields were worth shelling and naval gunfire could achieve that reliably you could just strike it with planes The Airfield comment was in reference to the historical bombardments of Henderson. I've been clear that CVs (and by implication WW2 era fixed wing aircraft) obsoleted CCs. However, you are ignoring the difficulty of pulling off an air strike mission against a well defended airbase that is basically made a laughing stock of by night raids by large bore guns before true Radar-based Aircraft Direction became a thing late war. Hell, the US actually pulled it off against the Japanese more than once too with their Fast BBs. >They were designed originally to deal with Armoured Cruisers, not Heavy Cruisers. They were designed to deal with anything smaller than themselves, the concept was flexible as Jackie Fisher wasn't an idiot. Stop being pedantic. >but that's really just overkill. The mere fact you invoke overkill as a negative shows how little you know about Naval Warfare in the 20th century. Overkill was the only way to be sure of anything, and even that isn't certain - a single small, obsolete US DD (almost) from WW1 took an entire Japanese Battle Fleet over 2 hours to sink. >If you want local superiority you could also just commit more Heavy Cruisers than the opponent since you could afford more if you weren't throwing cash into BCs. The HMS Hood cost the equivalency of $30.2 million USD of 1943, adjusted for inflation. But leaving it at that would be a little disingenuous, so instead of the Hood if you want to try to use the fiasco of the US' Alaska-class for a more contemporary example (since the Hood cost was 'as built', and not 'as would have been modernized'), the Alaska-class cost all of $58 million per unit, complete. The USS Baltimore cost roughly $45 million USD (of 1943), including the gunnery. The USS Des Moines (funded in 1943, so it counts) cost $62 million. Yes, more than the Alaska. You're not getting much more than 4 CAs for every 3 CCs/CBs you cancel. Obviously manpower becomes an issue, but neither the US nor England cared about that at the time, since they had reserves. >It made some sense for the North Atlantic where seas were rougher and fleet battles likely to be far closer (the Mediterranean was calmer but also had close up action) but yes you can see that the RN got savaged any time it sailed capital ships into the pacific without air cover. However that fucked over unsupported BCs too. Again, it's been a clear point that CVs hard-obsoleted CCs. >The problem with that is you then have to resupply and eventually make it back to a friendly port and larger ships are harder to supply + have less available ports Anything Panamax or smaller could harbor at every single medium sized port in the US and England, including holdings. You know, the things they had dotted almost every 100 miles along their shorelines, often closer to 50. Resupplying could be done from any 'small' port via auxiliary assist. Furthermore, both the US and UK already used Underway Replenishment by 1923, so their ships didn't even need to go to port to resupply at all, nor even to bring relief personnel - they could theoretically stay at sea until they needed to return to home port for maintenance. Even the Japanese had figured out how to do all of that by 1935. >When you're blowing up merchant shipping it doesn't matter you've got less guns. Merchant Raiding with Heavy Surface Assets was a near uniquely German thing, Strelok - the UK. US, and Japan all used (or intended to use) CC/CBs to attack military assets virtually exclusively outside of blockades, considering it a complete waste to send anything heavier than a Scout Cruiser after a Merchant. You're trying to force Tirpitzian or Raederian mentality on Fisherian/Mahanian navies. And just to nip off the obvious pro-CL argument, a single 1935 Brooklyn-class CL cost the US $35 million (adj for 1943), with the Clevelands costing even more. You were not magically getting 2 hulls out of 1 CC even with that.

>>7147 >smoothbore to begin with has problems in smaller bores (far less boom) Is it due to higher muzzle velocities in general, or something else? And to take a few steps back: is there a future for naval guns in the 3 inch to 8 inch category? With guided shells it seems like they could effectively replace a lot of AA systems (potentially even CIWS).

>>7562 >Is it due to higher muzzle velocities in general, or something else? Small to medium bore smoothbore cannon essentially requires Fin Stabilization, which basically means a sabot shell. Sabot shells mean that the effective bore size of the shell is actually quite a bit smaller than it would seem. There is a reason why HE shells are not carried by most tanks anymore despite the continued desire for infantry support guns - the cannon. The US Army actually experimented with an HE shell for the Rh-120 and determined that the result was less satisfactory than the old M4 Sherman's 75mm gun. That's the reason the US Army keeps reviving the 105mm gun in different platforms. Against aerial targets, primarily missiles and drones anymore, an HE burst effect is essentially a must, since otherwise you need to be able to spit out hundreds of shells in 10 or so seconds to have likely hits, which precludes most cannon above 30mm - even 40mm AA uses HE burst. >is there a future for naval guns in the 3 inch to 8 inch category? For 3in/76.2mm guns, they already have a role in AA. See DART; Leonardo insists that the shells have a comparable 'real' performance to the RAM. Technically, even the 5in guns have roles in AA. Studies exist which suggest that a ship armed with a heavy secondary battery of 5in guns using burst shells would effectively be able to shut down entire massed missile barrages FAR more reliable than anti-missile missiles. However, that's a manpower intensive, large ship method that no modern navy wants to do since it's entirely a wartime exercise - too much focus on humanitarian junk in modern navies, and they all forget their primary purpose is to kill the enemy. 6in/155mm is theoretically as 5in, but untapped. 8in you could theoretically fire guided missiles/rockets from as an AA platform; but personally, I'd rather seem them as shore bombardment platforms. So, short answer, yes... IF someone with the money and power is willing to challenge the standing missile-aircraft zeitgeist before lasers kill them.

>>7573 >Small to medium bore smoothbore cannon essentially requires Fin Stabilization, which basically means a sabot shell. One more point to the Russkies then, because they seem to solved this issue. >So, short answer, yes... IF someone with the money and power is willing to challenge the standing missile-aircraft zeitgeist before lasers kill them. So an all gun ship would work beautifully, although not as well as one that also has lasers. Still, between this and scramjet shells I have to wonder what's left for missiles. The obvious answer would be small missile boats that are supposed to punch above their weight, but it sounds like even a fleet of them couldn't carry enough missiles to hurt a modern battleship.

>>7590 >One more point to the Russkies then, because they seem to solved this issue. Valid. Their method still results in a massive decrease in payload in comparison to a full-body shell, even though it's better than a sabot shell (at the cost of muzzle velocity, but that's a negligible cost for HE). Additionally, it doesn't have the added danger of sabots flying everywhere, I'll give them that. >So an all gun ship would work beautifully, although not as well as one that also has lasers. Theoretically. Although at a certain point, your guns are basically firing missiles. >Still, between this and scramjet shells I have to wonder what's left for missiles. Modern equivalent to WW2 Torpedoes. Short range high-hypersonic missiles with massive payloads could destroy sensors, defensive weaponry, or other external equipment. Could. Additionally, Missiles would still be good for when you absolutely had to put the biggest warhead on target that you could barring nukes, or it you want to MIRV an area. >but it sounds like even a fleet of them couldn't carry enough missiles to hurt a modern battleship. It's an issue of cost, really. You could, with today's technology level (although R&D would be required to apply said technology), build an near invulnerable battleship that would shrug off anything short of a castle bomb , the cost of such a thing would bankrupt the navies of essentially every major nation except the US - and even they would take 20+ years to pay for it (assuming the maintenance of the rest of the navy). You reduce the protectiveness of the ship, and you reduce the cost. Etc, etc.

>>7377 >The fast battleship concept the USN went for eventually which the UK also considered and dropped due to BC autism earlier on But wasn't the G3 a fast battleship in all but name? It easily outclassed most battleships of the era in firepower and protection while still being faster than many battlecruisers? Yes, there was the N3, but they only started to design that ship as a battleship equivalent based on the G3. >>7592 >You reduce the protectiveness of the ship, and you reduce the cost. Etc, etc. Could that process lead to a modern battlecruiser? Basically a ship that is not entirely invulnerable, but still carries decent armour to stop smaller threats and enough AA weapons to shrug off a few waves of missiles.

>>7594 >But wasn't the G3 a fast battleship in all but name? Technically, no. Because there is A LOT more to Protection of a warship than just slapping an armor belt to the outside of the hull. The G3s were 'Heavy' Battlecruisers in the vein of the HMS Hood (as built). Armor and Firepower equivalent to the latest in Battleships, but severely lacking in the internal compartmentalization and structural reinforcements required to suitably withstand post-penetration damage. The extremely large boiler-turbines of the '20s required for such speeds did NOT allow for good central compartmentalization. To put it another way, it would have the same threshold to reject shellfire, but shellfire that did get through would do a lot more damage. This was rightfully considered entirely unacceptable to the Royal Navy for their main battle line. Completely acceptable for their aggressive cruiser line, however. >Could that process lead to a modern battlecruiser? 100% yes. I've been an advocate for modern Battlecruisers replacing the Ticos on a 1:4 basis as they age out for going on 30 years. You wouldn't even need super-armor like CNP nor synthetics such as Kevlar Belts, just 6in of common HY-80 steel for armor plating and you'd have near immunity to roughly 80% of all anti-ship missiles in the world beyond systems and topside damage. Furthermore, people - especially shipside personnel who should know better - vastly underestimate the ability of CIWS systems like the Phalanx when massed. I'm just going to say right now, General Dynamics never said that one Phalanx mount per coverage area was ideal. If they thought that, I really want to know why they immediately designed a heavy coverage system (called the Legion) which involved at minimum 3 CIWS units per quadrant. I digress, however. My point being that absolutely, yes, with present and well understood technology, you could have a Battlecruiser that does its actual job. Hell, the Russians were 8/10ths of the way there with the Kirovs as Missile Battlecruisers, just lacking armor.

To what degree could the current day EU sustain maritime trade via purpose-built merchant submarines in the event of a USN blockade?

>>7629 Depends on how far are you willing to take that lunatic train. But, alas, the answer is to no degree. Even if europeans decided they would build nuclear unmanned merchant submarines, the americans would just make the ports and port facilities disappear before hunting down the subs themselves.

I'll just leave this here

>>7638 I assume that's some kind of a proving-ground test a manufacturer performs before delivering a carrier?

>>7629 When not paying any attention to the eco-terrorist idiot organizations like PETA, the USN is actually surprisingly good at ASW That requires constant sonar blasting, though, which 'kills the fish' and gets the idiots up in arms, which in turn got Congress on the navy's asses about them 'killing the dolphins', who then forced them to do sonar drills in simulator only. Literally no other notable navy maintains such a dumb rule. The USN's unofficial policy on that issue however is 'well, dolphins are rapists', and they'll light actives anyway. >>7641 Standard Rudder Tests, the Navy does that with all of their ships once every few years. Somewhere out there is navy video of an Iowa drifting and doing doughnuts in Korean war set up, just to say how long they've been doing this.

>>7573 >For 3in/76.2mm guns, they already have a role in AA. See DART; Leonardo insists that the shells have a comparable 'real' performance to the RAM >6in/155mm is theoretically as 5in, but untapped. Would a ship with a nice mixture of 76.2mm and 155mm guns (and a good selection of all kinds of dumb and smart shells) have everything it needs to defend against most aerials and surface threats? Or are the smaller guns unnecessary and it would be better to put some autocannons on it? >>7607 >modern Battlecruisers replacing the Ticos on a 1:4 basis as they age out for going on 30 years What would be the ˝minimal armament˝ required for this job? Especially in terms of big guns. Although I guess the answer is something that can launch a scramjet projectile with a payload that is about equal to what a Tomahawk carries. But how many of them would it need? >6in of common HY-80 steel for armor plating Are the advancements in tank armour useful here, or is it still better to just slap a thick steel plate to the ship? >you could have a Battlecruiser that does its actual job What would be its job in this day and age? Hunting down enemy warships until it comes across something it can't kill? On that note, I assume a modern battleship would be a fast battleship by default. If that is so, then wouldn't the very first battleship division with CNT armour make all these battlecruisers obsolete (at least on paper)?

>>7648 >Would a ship with a nice mixture of 76.2mm and 155mm guns... have everything it needs to defend against most aerials and surface threats? Theoretically, yes. Assuming the 155mm has everything that the 127mm/5in guns have at minimum and the developments of land-based 155mm guns. >Or are the smaller guns unnecessary and it would be better to put some autocannons on it? The balance of fire rate and effect benefits the 76.2mm guns in this comparison, while the effect of range benefits the 155mm (assuming AA shells such as HVP or hypothetical large DART). You would want smaller cannon in the 20mm to 57mm range regardless. Of course, present laser weapons (that have at least reached operational testing stage) invalidate part of this. >What would be the ˝minimal armament˝ required for this job? Surprisingly little. A modern late-WW2 design CL would qualify for a Gun-based Battlecruiser anymore. Understanding that Guns themselves are not actually required for Battleship/Battlecruiser status (they are terms defined by roles, not weapons), a NATO aligned CC could simply carry VLS as its primary weapon and get by, so long as it was capable of performing its role of being the aggressor. As I suggested before, if the Kirovs had been designed with heavy armor, they would have been proper Missile Battlecruisers. As they are, they properly are Large Missile Cruisers, modern missile-equivalents to the Alaska-class. >Especially in terms of big guns. Limiting to big guns, you don't actually even need scramjets. Those are the upper bounds of what is nice to have, but they are not actually required. With modern metallurgy, it's possible to create big bore guns that can hold up to chamber pressures multiple times higher than what the old Battleship guns could bear, so you can use some rather 'hot' charges and, with guidance systems, get drastically increased ranges. That was the concept behind the EX-175 charge and, when mated with the HVP, gave demonstrated ranges exceeding 50nm (89km) out of a 5in gun. All of this being said, I would personally pursue naval versions of the US Army's SLRC. Which is, according to (unreliable) scuttlebutt, a roughly 12in cannon. Roughly 6-8 of them per ship, probably in two-gun mounts. It would give the ship a ~1000mi range, which far exceeds the strike range of CV based fighters-bombers. >with a payload that is about equal to what a Tomahawk carries Ironically, to have drastic effect on a battlefield would only require a shell to have as little as a 25lb bursting charge. Essentially deliver an 8in shell 200 miles inland within a usable time frame and the land-based elements would love you. At present, it takes CVs over 2 hours to deliver even that, by which time any worthwhile target would have gotten out of dodge. Obviously, we're talking minimums here. Although the 8in effect is the preferred result according to ground troops >Are the advancements in tank armour useful here, or is it still better to just slap a thick steel plate to the ship? It's far more economical to just slap thicker steel on the hull. You could use composite armor (and in fact, historical battleships such as the Iowa and even Yamato actually did this to some degree - the physics behind composite armor was already well understood, it's not something Chobham came up with), synthetics such as kevlar (the US CVNs do this), or all the way up to CNT-based composites, but if you're talking cost effectiveness, raw homogeneous steel thickness is hard to beat. >What would be its job in this day and age? Hunting down enemy warships until it comes across something it can't kill? Essentially, that and Naval Strike missions, it could (and probably would) end up serving as a glorified bodyguard for assets such as a CV/N these days, though. Literally the job of a Battleship, but details. >On that note, I assume a modern battleship would be a fast battleship by default. If that is so, then wouldn't the very first battleship division with CNT armour make all these battlecruisers obsolete (at least on paper)? On paper, absolutely. The super-tech BB would essentially delete any of these Economy CCs that it comes across. The difference paper and reality is, unlike historical BB to CC to CA/CL/whatever comparisons, there actually could be many of these Economy CCs for every singular super-tech BB, so while the BB is taking care of one (or 6) of the CCs, the rest of the CCs are threatening the BB's homeland. And for even more cold water, there'd be even more SSBNs that would be far harder for the super-tech BB to respond to. Obviously, lasers, but surely you get my point on the eggs and baskets issue.

>>7649 All-in-all, should we imagine these gun-armed battlecruisers as something like an upgunned Des Moines-class, but with all these 21st century toys? >so while the BB is taking care of one (or 6) of the CCs, the rest of the CCs are threatening the BB's homeland Sounds like the BBs would be perfect for a proper land empire with limited coastlines (or at least coastlines that actually matter), because they don't have to worry about their trade, only make sure that no pesky sea power tries to do something stupid like starting an invasion.

>>7650 >All-in-all, should we imagine these gun-armed battlecruisers as something like an upgunned Des Moines-class, but with all these 21st century toys? That or a modernized Alaska-concept, such as pic related. Probably a closer approximation of size. >Sounds like the BBs would be perfect for a proper land empire with limited coastlines Yes and no. If the idea is to prevent the enemy war assets from getting in range of your defensive interests, they would have a problem. Given 1000mi cannon, this suddenly opens up - for example - Germany to being bombarded from France's western coast or the Mediterranean, areas that Germany cannot directly defend or hold constant reconnaissance over without constantly having the risk of a major diplomatic incident. Now, on the other hand, theoretically (again, this is on paper) a major naval power - the US is the easiest example - could throw CVR (Recon Carriers) and Recon Satellites around to maintain near constant reconnaissance over the entire envelope of their own BB's fields of fire (at least, reconnaissance with regular enough sweeps to find an approaching CC and hound it to death or retreat. As few as 5 of these BBs could cover the entirety of the US coast. At least, that is the theory. Back in the real world, Murphy's Laws do not favor the BB, as even if they found the target they'd still have a lot of difficulty hitting the thing at such ranges. To be frank, in all honesty the defending power is effectively fucked here, at some point - barring an act of God - the raid will get through. I would guess this is why the US is only considering bringing the minuscule-payload SLRC into daylight and not something more phenomenal such as the 24-36in scramjet shells, they don't want to fuck themselves raw.

>>7649 >You would want smaller cannon in the 20mm to 57mm range regardless. As part of the AA suite, or more of a backup if some smaller target comes across? Because the South Africans used a 76.2mm cannon based on the Italian one in the Rooikat, and they developed canister shot for it. Something tells me a that a few 3" shotgun blasts would be excellent against smaller boats and whatnot. >That was the concept behind the EX-175 charge and, when mated with the HVP, gave demonstrated ranges exceeding 50nm (89km) out of a 5in gun. >Although the 8in effect is the preferred result according to ground troops Is it possible for a 155mm gun with longer shells and bigger charges to deliver the same performance as a old 8" one? Or would the shell have to be so long that it would require fin stabilization? On that note: is polygonal rifling used in artillery guns, and does it give a meaningful increase either in velocity or barrel life? And what about twist gain rifling? With electrochemical machining it should be quite easy and cheap (once the R&D is done, of course) to make barrels with twist gain polygonal rifling in any reasonable calibre, and it would be even more wonderful if that was an all around upgrade. >>7652 >modernized Alaska-concept What is the story behind that? Wasn't that class an overall waste of effort and resources? Or is it a fine enough design to be the basis of something actually useful? >Germany to being bombarded from France's western coast or the Mediterranean, areas that Germany cannot directly defend or hold constant reconnaissance over without constantly having the risk of a major diplomatic incident. True, but they could still effectively block any enemy force from entering Baltic and the North Sea without even leaving port. Of course it already worked in ww1 when the effective range was a wee bit smaller. But even if they get bombarded, with a similarly capable ship they should be able to fire back. Not to mention that they could use their own cannons to launch spy satellites if international tensions are rising. Lastly, I don't think you could effectively neutralize the whole of Germany with just one such attack (at least not without nuclear payloads), so you'd still have to fight a proper land war. Which is obviously easier with such fire support, but you get my point.

>>7677 >As part of the AA suite, or more of a backup if some smaller target comes across? For a pure gun-based AA system, you would want the smaller AA guns as CIWS type systems. So, the former. Their benefit against small craft such as suicide boats would essentially be an added bonus. >Is it possible for a 155mm gun with longer shells and bigger charges to deliver the same performance as a old 8" one? Or would the shell have to be so long that it would require fin stabilization? Without a guidance system, the shell would be unstable and highly inaccurate. So, essentially the latter. >On that note: is polygonal rifling used in artillery guns, Yes. >and does it give a meaningful increase either in velocity or barrel life? No. Polygonal rifling increases the accuracy of the gun when compared to standard groove rifling via superior shell stabilization, at least in theory. The 155mm AGS, for example, has polygonal rifling - and that's one of multiple stated reasons why it cannot use the US Army's 155mm shells. >And what about twist gain rifling? That also does not affect velocity or barrel life, but it does allow for increase powder charges without damaging the bullet/shell. Increase powder charges will reduce barrel life, however. Like polygonal rifling, gain-twist rifling is meant to better stabilize the shell and therefore increase accuracy. >What is the story behind that? To be clear, since I realize now that the way I worded that was poor, what I meant was a modernized form of one of the Alaska-class' preliminary design concepts. The one pictured, by the by, was for all points and purposes a full fledged Battlecruiser. The Navy Board thought it was overkill for its intended role and scaled back the protective scheme of the ship until it was just an upscaled Heavy Cruiser with massive guns, see pic related. >Or is it a fine enough design to be the basis of something actually useful? Easily yes. The Navy themselves considered the historical Alaska-class to be the prime candidates for missile conversions, more so than any other class. The internal volume of the ship was plentiful enough for even the largest of missiles (both then and now) without having the extreme armoring of a battleship which would have had to been worked around. They actually proposed no less than 3 (although I've seen figures as high as 12) such conversions for the Alaska-class hulls ranging from full conversions to 'aft only' conversions. In the end, however, Congress decided the price tag for these conversions was too great (despite the Navy insisting that alternative conversions were far less economical - and the Navy was right) and ordered the entire class scrapped. >True, but they could still effectively block any enemy force from entering Baltic and the North Sea without even leaving port. Of course it already worked in ww1 when the effective range was a wee bit smaller. But even if they get bombarded, with a similarly capable ship they should be able to fire back. Not to mention that they could use their own cannons to launch spy satellites if international tensions are rising. If these are your desires, why not just build Heavier Coastal Batteries which out-range the ships' gun? With proper shell types, large enough guns theoretically could theoretically have global coverage. Sure, it's a known target, but so is a BB sitting in port. >Lastly, I don't think you could effectively neutralize the whole of Germany with just one such attack Perhaps. With a gun such as the SLRC, which is intended to hit strategic military targets, certainly you are correct. But if you stepped over to the capabilities of massive bore cannon such as 24in or even 36in 'grand cannons', which would be the natural progression of things when such long range artillery is introduced (considering it's extant technology), things start looking a little grimmer for the defender. At that point you're talking gun fired 2000lb GP bombs (except armor penetrating) or easily worse, with gun-fired MOABs and Earthquake Bombs on the extreme end. With only a handful of these CCs (2 or 3) participating in this raid action, leveling all of the defender's major cities in one raid becomes not only a risk, but a distinct possibility (if everything went near perfectly for the attackers, which statistically wouldn't happen). At that point, they may not have neutralized them in one go, but they've made the war too costly to win, given the prospects of a 2nd or even such 3rd (etc) raid before you managed to hunt down all of them. This is where a nuclear-powered, laser-armed variant of this concept becomes such a theoretical terror, since it would turn into a protracted, excruciatingly painful form of Mutually Assured Destruction which could drag on for months. Even a nuclear power would have problems responding to that without SSBNs, mind you. As low altitude launch profiles, the shells would be detected too late to get ICBMs off in response - assuming the attacker had the good sense to go after those first.

>>7683 >Without a guidance system, the shell would be unstable and highly inaccurate. So, essentially the latter. So the best way to give the ground forces 8" fire support is to use a 8" gun (or a 21cm one). That, or the SLRC. But that reminds me: is the preference for this calibre comes from a specific war, or more like all the various conflicts from the previous century? >The 155mm AGS, for example, has polygonal rifling - and that's one of multiple stated reasons why it cannot use the US Army's 155mm shells. I'm actually quite interested in this subject. Is there a list or a report about it? >If these are your desires, why not just build Heavier Coastal Batteries which out-range the ships' gun? Well, a battleship is just cooler, but building a modern Vauban fortress with CNT armour and a battery of Babylon guns does sound cool. >At that point you're talking gun fired 2000lb GP bombs (except armor penetrating) or easily worse, with gun-fired MOABs and Earthquake Bombs on the extreme end. It looks like I've underestimated the capabilities of these guns. Maybe instead of Grand Union designs it would be more proper to refer to them as Apocalypse or Armageddon ships.

>>7683 >>7705 Can single large artillery pieces firing 2000lb guided munitions with 1000nmi+ range be fitted to specialized unmanned submarines for spooky pop up attacks?

>>7705 >So the best way to give the ground forces 8" fire support is to use a 8" gun (or a 21cm one). Theoretically you could use a lengthened 155mm shell, but it would have to be a guided, fin stabilized shell. >That, or the SLRC. Probably guided and fin stabilized at those ranges regardless of shell length. >I'm actually quite interested in this subject. Is there a list or a report about it? I don't have any such report or list on hand and don't know of one on the internet off the top of my head. Most of my information on the subject is scuttlebutt and engineering osmosis. I do remember that they attempted to adapt the regular 155mm shells to the AGS, but that was canceled in 2005-2006 due to program-wide cost overruns, but that doesn't really help. NavWeaps seems to confirm this. >It looks like I've underestimated the capabilities of these guns. An 11-caliber 24in bore scramjet shell weighing roughly 5000lbs would carry ~1,060lbs of bursting charge; higher than the ~945lbs of the 2000lb Mk84 GP bomb. Obviously a guided, fin stabilized projectile, but at 1000mi you need that to even hit the country you're aiming at. If you sacrifice range, a ~150-200nmi, 11,000lb 24in HVP carries 1480lb bursting charge (while also possessing the advantage of not carrying a jet engine) and a 30nmi, 17500lb 24" DEP carries 3000lbs of bursting charge. 36in bore guns can have naturally larger charges. All guided shells. >Maybe instead of Grand Union designs it would be more proper to refer to them as Apocalypse or Armageddon ships. I have actually seen a design for one of the 24in cannon affectionately labeled 'God's Finger', and another for a 36in cannon labeled 'God's Fist'. So, it seems the designers would basically agree with you. It's worth pointing out that the main reason why the Grand Union maximum design is called that is standing US law dictates that any Battleship of the US Navy be named after the States, and a certain dumbass decided to start naming submarines after the states instead. 'Grand Union' skirts around that issue by claiming it's a name that is ALL of the states... and allies, and friendly powers, and on and on because that's what Grand Union means, but they're trying to play with unfavorable (and highly stupid) rules. >>7717 >modern submarine cruiser with a single massive bore cannon Technically, I see no real reason why not. You can forget the turret, though, you're never getting that in a pressure hull. What you'd have is a bombard submarine that has to point its nose at the target, but given the ranges involved, this isn't actually any problem. Add VLS drones and you've basically made an actually realistic version of Ace Combat 7's Alicorn.

>>7738 >Theoretically you could use a lengthened 155mm shell, but it would have to be a guided, fin stabilized shell. It's one of those things that I can't help but overthink, and I'm approaching it from the perspective of ground forces. Something like this: >8" gunfire is apparently great >there is (was) a 210mm SPG that has Gerald Bull's name attached to it >the Long Range Strategic Cannon is not for tactical fire support, so giving such an SPG to the ground forces is better >if the SPG keeps up with the front line then it could be close enough to the action (most of the time) to use unguided shells and still hit the mark, because making a cannon that is stupidly accurate within a few dozen kilometres should be possible with modern technology >and for extended ranges it can still use guided shells It's not even a case of bigger bore is better bore, if it was up to me I'd find the longest shell that can be stabilized by rifling and holds the same payload as an old 8" shell, and start developing the cannon around that. I guess that would be in the 170-180mm range or so. >17500lb 24" DEP What does DEP stand for? >So, it seems the designers would basically agree with you. To be perfectly honest I'd take the edgy route and give them names like Antichrist, The Beast, The Whore of Babylon and so on. That obviously wouldn't charm the public anywhere (expect maybe in Scandinavia if they had more metal fans than moslems), but it would certainly put the fear of God into quite many people. Alternatively the names of various angels could work, but that's not as amusing for me. >standing US law dictates that any Battleship of the US Navy be named after the States Could they circumvent this by playing stupid and claiming that these are just very big monitors meant for shore bombardment? >a certain dumbass decided to start naming submarines after the states instead. Was it a president?

>>7798 > if it was up to me I'd find the longest shell that can be stabilized by rifling A shell of around 6-7 calibers length can be stabilized without guidance by polygonal and gain-twist rifling, compared to the typical 3 to 4.5 caliber shells. Beyond this and the shell will usually tumble. That doesn't leave you much wiggle room in terms of shell caliber for unguided shells. You may be able to get a 190mm gun to hold an 8in(203mm)-equivalent charge, but honestly at that point maybe you should just look into making a modern 8in SPG. For divisional artillery, a truck gun (similar to the SLRC) would probably suffice. >What does DEP stand for? Deep Earth Penetrator, essentially a Bunker Buster or Earthquake Bomb equivalent. >Could they circumvent this by playing stupid and claiming that these are just very big monitors meant for shore bombardment? They certainly could, but in effect they'd have an easier time just insisting they're Battlecruisers, since there is no US Law nor true custom on Battlecruiser names. They'd also have solid role arguments, since they could just insist they are designed to counter the Russian Kirovs and that new super-'destroyer' design of theirs. >Was it a president? It was Adm. Hyman Rickover. I call him a dumbass, but he was basically the father of the US Nuclear Navy. He essentially made a political deal with the devil to get the Los Angeles-class SSNs funded, by stroking the egos of select congressmen (by naming the boats after their districts) who were enough to tilt the congressional vote.

What would have happened if the Japs entered the Pacific War with 8 Kongou-class battlecruisers and 2 super-Kongous (basically a battlecruiser as fast as a Kongou, but with 2x4 16 inch guns), instead of the 4 Kongous and 6 battleships (not counting the Yamato) they had? I know it wouldn't win them the war, but it sounds like an interesting change to me.

>>7865 Wait, I completely forgot about the Amagi-class. Scratch the theoretical super-Kongou, they should have a pair of Amagis.

>>7872 Ok fine, be that way cafe. https://i.imgur.com/VtHST8y.png USCG https://i.imgur.com/awVKTLr.png USN

>>7875 Your links seem to be broken.

>>7877 That's could be imgur being the big fucking gay wanting to dick you with scripts. Fuck it here's the sources. https://twitter.com/Naval_Graphics/status/592773303535808514 https://twitter.com/Naval_Graphics/status/599335538324316160

>>7798 >>naming ship guns edgy shit Consider the following: you're in charge of naming the vessels of a moderate sized Navy. Assume a reasonably diverse fleet similar to what a European nation might have if they didn't have Big Daddy US to wipe their asses. How do you name them, Strelok?

>>7910 not that anon I'd draw inspiration from the nation's mythology, those give pretty good names that also show and demand respect, states and people are bland as fuck for names.

>>7911 Naming ships after the motherland and her heroes isn't bland as fuck.

>>7911 I name all of them The Real Slim Shady.

To what extent can one expect automation to reduce warship crew sizes in the next half century?

>>7924 Depends on if the world sees major naval combat again in that period. Technically speaking, we've already hit the floor of what even automation can allow a reduction of crew compliment to fall to, since some things cannot safely be automated at all - namely the engineers who have to maintain the automation. However, people are stupid, especially in peace. As long as the protracted peace continues, you'll continue to see rampant stupidity in peacetime designs. It's quite possible you'll see dumbasses pushing for unmanned destroyers within the next 15 years - unless the obvious happens and the US collapses into a civil war or balkanizes before then. This is ignoring the fact that we're seeing ships with crews far, far below the damage control thresholds on crew sizes. Almost all surface ships today are undermanned when it comes to damage control.

>>7865 Likely, 1942 would have been a fair bit harder for the US/UK/CMW in the island hopping campaign as the Japanese could have more freely pushed forward their capital ships due to fuel economy, but by mid-1943 there would have been no effective difference as the US had succeeded in a massive uptick of their oil production and could send forward their own Battleships and the deluge of Essex-class had begun.

>>7942 >This is ignoring the fact that we're seeing ships with crews far, far below the damage control thresholds on crew sizes. Almost all surface ships today are undermanned when it comes to damage control. M-modern USN crews have a qualitatively better damage control training regimen than late WW2 IJN crews, right?

>>8022 Yes, thankfully. The IJN couldn't even bother to ass themselves to type up Damage Control checklists and flowcharts. At least the USN still has those and every ship is supposed to have several dozen of these books at the Damage Control stations. Supposed to. Keep in mind, it's not just the US suffering from undermanned ships - literally every 'major' navy including Russia and China suffer from it.

>>8040 Would posting marines (not the crayeater type) trained in damage control solve this issue? Not that boarding actions are frequent nowadays, but having a lot of people who can both patch up the ship and guard it while in port sound like a reasonable ˝excuse˝ to increase the crew.

>>8040 I can understand why the Burgerland navy packed with niggers and even the Yellow Menace navy filled with lolyellowniggers, but why the Viking Navy of the Russian Motherland Anon? Surely they have plenty of capable men ready to drink vodka and man the stations?

>>8040 What do you suppose is the main reason for that? Less people joining navies out of fear of butt pirates?

>>8046 Not with marine downsizing, no. Marine forces are having harder times filling boots than Navies are crackerjacks. >>8048 Russia is a land empire, Strelok. Their navy is of tertiary concern after land and air forces; they simply don't have the budget nor the cultural willpower to support a major navy in the present day. >>8050 It's simply too much peace, not enough war, and too much peace, peace out of governments. Not saying they should get involved in every conflict they can find, but rather they forget why militaries even exist.

>>8052 While the Navy isn't posting additional Marines onboard Navy ships these days, they have added emphasis on Marines learning Basic and Advanced ship's DC.

>>8057 Because Marines are always aboard their own dedicated ships (LPH, LHA, etc). The contest to using marines to fill the gap was that there aren't enough Marines to do the job, not that they couldn't do Damage Control.

>>8060 My wording was a bit vague, but I didn't mean seconding USMC members to US Navy ships specifically, more like having old school anti-boarding parties who in this day and age could do double duty as damage control parties. Of course they'd inevitably turn into general purpose handymen, but calling them marines would be good for propaganda purposes. Of course in the case of the US specifically this wouldn't work, but then the whole issue of the duplication of services with two land armies and two air forces is a different issue.

In one of the previous threads there was some talk about those ships with 24 inch guns, and that the variant with 4x4 guns was only slightly wider than the 6x3 version, while being significantly shorter. But that leads to the question: what about a ship with 6 quadruple turrets?

>>8061 There would really be no point to general purpose "handymen" on a ship. DC parties are already comprised of anyone onboard the ship and members of the ship's DC department, who you can think of as DC specialist and maintainers of the ship's DC systems. It's already a shared task. Having people on board who are generally skilled would just be a drain on the multitude jobs that need specialist. And, as someone else already mentioned, that solution is really just adding more people, which every branch is struggling to do.

>>8060 I was just suggesting that Marines haven't been doing the job, not that they couldn't. Putting Marines into play will positively augment the number of people who are able to do DC, although I'm not sure it will be a suitable solution.

>>8063 Obviously larger and longer than the 6x3. But at that point, you're already talking about a ship that's permanently at sea, so I don't really see what difference increasing a ~2,600ft long ship to be a ~3500ft long ship would make

>>8106 >a ship that is about 1km long Fantastic.