ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 22nd June 2019, 06:41 PM   #81
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,689
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
As I said earlier, a few Japanese may have realized it, but they weren't in charge. They had the world's best carrier doctrine, aviators, and aircraft at the end of 1941, but it all went away in six months, in large part thanks to intelligence.



American carriers also had wooden decks at the time. They were easier to repair.
They did tests in 1921 that showed that aircraft could sink battleships. But this was ignored. They should have worked out that if they then improved the aircraft and weapons then battleships were obsolete.

https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/e...-consideration
Quote:
After an attack by aircraft carrying 1,000 lb. bombs, his airmen dropped six 2,000 lb. bombs on the battleship, and in a twenty-minute period, the Ostfriesland was sent to the bottom of the sea.
There were good reasons to build aircraft carriers with wooden decks. They could carry more aircraft. If your main opponent was another aircraft carrier then they would have a limited number of aircraft to use against you. So damage would be limited. However if your opponent was land based aircraft they could send a vast number of aircraft against you. This means you need to be almost unsinkable and armored decks essential, even at the cost of the number of aircraft you can carry.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd June 2019, 07:05 PM   #82
Hammy
Student
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 49
I remember reading years ago that the american ships were fighting fires with foam on there carriers because of the highly flammable aviation fuel. And the Japanese navy was using water to fight fires. And if I remember correctly it was top secret information until after wwii. That in my opinion is one reason why the IJN lost so many carriers to damage from aircraft and torpedo attacks.

Last edited by Hammy; 22nd June 2019 at 07:11 PM.
Hammy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 03:23 AM   #83
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Their initially-envisioned role strikes me as similar to the "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" role or even the sort of WWII destroyers, which generally were smaller and often had a shallower draught than the LCS.

Modern destroyers are quite different.
Modern Destroyers tend to fit the old Cruiser role. General Purpose Frigates became the new Destroyers.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 03:24 AM   #84
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I think you have to at least nominate the Japanese aircraft carriers whose flight decks were made of ... wood. It's very hard to survive a WWII battle in a wooden warship like the Kaga.

The saving grace - and it's a big one - is that the Japanese were the first nation to successfully deploy aircraft carriers in battle. So, for at least a few years, the Kaga was unmatched. It was a terrible warship, but it was first.
US carriers had wooden flight decks.
there are good reasons for using wooden flight decks on carriers built in the 30s.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 03:25 AM   #85
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Yeah, I withdraw my nomination. The Kaga sucked, but it sucked less than any other aircraft carrier for a long, long time.
Even the RN Carriers that had armoured hangers and steel decks?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 03:31 AM   #86
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
They did tests in 1921 that showed that aircraft could sink battleships. But this was ignored. They should have worked out that if they then improved the aircraft and weapons then battleships were obsolete.
Well, they managed to sing an old, stationary ship eventually.
As the actual war demonstrated it was quite hard to actually sink ships with aircraft. Now, you are going to mention the Prince of Wales and Repulse but even then this was still quite exceptional, experience to that point in the Med and Channel had shown that warships with freedom to manoeuvre were hard to sink.
After Dunkirk the Germans had difficulty sinking even slow moving cargo ships off the south coast and in the Channel.

Quote:
There were good reasons to build aircraft carriers with wooden decks. They could carry more aircraft. If your main opponent was another aircraft carrier then they would have a limited number of aircraft to use against you. So damage would be limited. However if your opponent was land based aircraft they could send a vast number of aircraft against you. This means you need to be almost unsinkable and armored decks essential, even at the cost of the number of aircraft you can carry.
It wasn't just to hold more aircraft, it was for ease of repair and the 'give' in a timber deck cushioned the landing force on the aircraft. As aircraft increased in strength and size this became less important.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 03:50 AM   #87
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Even the RN Carriers that had armoured hangers and steel decks?
It's a matter of context and compromise, though.

US and Japanese carriers were designed to have to deal with other carriers on the open sea. They just carried more planes -- especially the US ones -- to deal with the limited number of enemy planes and hopefully sink the enemy carrier before it sinks them. A decision was made, for that specific context, that hauling more planes to a fight is more important than armour.

RN carriers were designed for operation in the Mediterranean and in coastal areas, where you might be targeted by an actual airfield or two. You CAN'T overwhelm them with more planes of your own, and you can't sink Sicily to save your own carrier. Hence the emphasis was more on protection than number of planes.

Both are compromises, really, and both can be argued as the best choice for the specific context they were supposed to be used.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 04:48 AM   #88
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,689
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Well, they managed to sing an old, stationary ship eventually.
As the actual war demonstrated it was quite hard to actually sink ships with aircraft. Now, you are going to mention the Prince of Wales and Repulse but even then this was still quite exceptional, experience to that point in the Med and Channel had shown that warships with freedom to manoeuvre were hard to sink.
After Dunkirk the Germans had difficulty sinking even slow moving cargo ships off the south coast and in the Channel.



It wasn't just to hold more aircraft, it was for ease of repair and the 'give' in a timber deck cushioned the landing force on the aircraft. As aircraft increased in strength and size this became less important.
The British damaged at least one modern battleship by using an obsolete aircraft. The Americans sank four aircraft carriers at Midway. That was after each side sank or damaged aircraft carriers at Coral Sea. So no, just get modern WW2 aircraft and you can sink ships. Much easier if they do not have aircraft protection.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 07:29 AM   #89
Pope130
Illuminator
 
Pope130's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oregon
Posts: 3,045
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
The British damaged at least one modern battleship by using an obsolete aircraft. The Americans sank four aircraft carriers at Midway. That was after each side sank or damaged aircraft carriers at Coral Sea. So no, just get modern WW2 aircraft and you can sink ships. Much easier if they do not have aircraft protection.
I believe a lot of the seemingly hide-bound decisions made by naval authorities, which resulted in ships that were obsolete by the time they entered service, were due to a lack understanding of how fast the technology would develop. When WW-II started major powers still had some combat bi-planes on inventory, and ended with jets coming on line. Weapons developed in un-anticipated ways as well. With the long design and production time of capitol ships this was a particular problem. A naval planner in 1939 could not be expected to include provision for defense against the guided missiles that the ship he was designing would have to deal with five years later.
Pope130 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 03:39 PM   #90
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
It was appreciated that Battleships weren't the force they once were, the RN for example halted building on the Lions and Vanguard switching large ship construction to Cruisers and Aircraft Carriers.
Essentially the only real target for a Battleship is another Battleship.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 03:58 PM   #91
Mark F
Graduate Poster
 
Mark F's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,725
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
It's a matter of context and compromise, though.

US and Japanese carriers were designed to have to deal with other carriers on the open sea. They just carried more planes -- especially the US ones -- to deal with the limited number of enemy planes and hopefully sink the enemy carrier before it sinks them. A decision was made, for that specific context, that hauling more planes to a fight is more important than armour.

RN carriers were designed for operation in the Mediterranean and in coastal areas, where you might be targeted by an actual airfield or two. You CAN'T overwhelm them with more planes of your own, and you can't sink Sicily to save your own carrier. Hence the emphasis was more on protection than number of planes.

Both are compromises, really, and both can be argued as the best choice for the specific context they were supposed to be used.
The other factor for the British was that pre-radar, intercepting incoming raids with fighters was simply not practical. Thus all aircraft had to be able to be struck in the hangar which had to be protected as fleet guns and armor were the only defense against air attack.
__________________
So I'm going to tell you what the facts are, and the facts are the facts, but then we know the truth. That always overcomes facts.
Mark F is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 07:26 PM   #92
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,144
Originally Posted by Hammy View Post
I remember reading years ago that the american ships were fighting fires with foam on there carriers because of the highly flammable aviation fuel. And the Japanese navy was using water to fight fires. And if I remember correctly it was top secret information until after wwii. That in my opinion is one reason why the IJN lost so many carriers to damage from aircraft and torpedo attacks.
The bigger issue, especially at Midway, was that US Carriers, when expecting an attack, would purge all the fuel lines and fill them with carbon dioxide. The IJN did not. This mean that when fires started they had plenty of fuel lines to feed from and a single bomb hit was much harder to contain.

Having read “Shattered Sword” you sort of get this vibe that the IJN thought they were too good to get hit in the first place.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 07:39 PM   #93
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,144
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
It's a matter of context and compromise, though.

US and Japanese carriers were designed to have to deal with other carriers on the open sea. They just carried more planes -- especially the US ones -- to deal with the limited number of enemy planes and hopefully sink the enemy carrier before it sinks them. A decision was made, for that specific context, that hauling more planes to a fight is more important than armour.

RN carriers were designed for operation in the Mediterranean and in coastal areas, where you might be targeted by an actual airfield or two. You CAN'T overwhelm them with more planes of your own, and you can't sink Sicily to save your own carrier. Hence the emphasis was more on protection than number of planes.

Both are compromises, really, and both can be argued as the best choice for the specific context they were supposed to be used.
Yup. You can’t really argue for one or being ‘better’ without seeing how they’d be used. Then you have to appreciate how they would work out of their element.

Thus, it was doubtless awesome for the RN to simply sweep the wreckage of a Kamakazi over the side after it splatted on the deck like a hard boiled egg.

But of the other hand, your carrier’s throw weight is just 2/3s of the US carriers and if the deck *does* get damaged its a much bigger deal to repair.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 08:58 PM   #94
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 22,182
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Having read “Shattered Sword” you sort of get this vibe that the IJN thought they were too good to get hit in the first place.
I need to re-read that, if I can find it since we moved. Tully's website is highly recommended, BTW.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2019, 09:34 PM   #95
8enotto
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 919
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
The bigger issue, especially at Midway, was that US Carriers, when expecting an attack, would purge all the fuel lines and fill them with carbon dioxide. The IJN did not. This mean that when fires started they had plenty of fuel lines to feed from and a single bomb hit was much harder to contain.

Having read “Shattered Sword” you sort of get this vibe that the IJN thought they were too good to get hit in the first place.
I watched a documentary where a crewman on one of the support aircraft carriers talked of the shells ripping it to bits but not of massive uncontrolled fires, Leyte gulf if I remember correctly.

Whatever they had in place that fuel was nowhere any big guns could hit it. Much like US aircraft had the rubber bladder in the fuel tank so small arms wouldn't cause a leak, German and Japanese planes just had metal tanks right behind the pilot seat.
A major difference in survival of the machine.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 12:32 AM   #96
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,572
Actually, only the Japanese lacked self-sealing fuel tanks. The Germans had them from the start of the war. They wouldn't have the best version of them until 1942, or at least that's the case for the BF-109E, but then it was a bit of an evolution for allied aircraft too.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 03:54 AM   #97
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
RAF didn't adopt self sealing tanks until very late because they kept rejecting those submitted for test.
Part of the test involved dropping the tank from a height on to concrete. Of course they ruptured and were rejected. They didn't seem to get the protection from leaks after being hit by bullets was the important thing.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 09:49 AM   #98
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
Yup. You can’t really argue for one or being ‘better’ without seeing how they’d be used. Then you have to appreciate how they would work out of their element.

Thus, it was doubtless awesome for the RN to simply sweep the wreckage of a Kamakazi over the side after it splatted on the deck like a hard boiled egg.

But of the other hand, your carrier’s throw weight is just 2/3s of the US carriers and if the deck *does* get damaged its a much bigger deal to repair.
I have read somewhere that the Essex class carriers were so big, and held so many planes, that it was unwieldy to launch them all. Like the first ones in the air might have to wait an hour for the last planes. To me, Illustrious class carriers with USN planes would've been the ultimate combo for the Pacific war. And by and large that's what the Far East fleet had, they just didn't get in theater until pretty near the end of the war.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 10:51 AM   #99
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,946
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
HMS Rodney. Half a battleship.
My great uncle served on that.
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:00 AM   #100
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
I have read somewhere that the Essex class carriers were so big, and held so many planes, that it was unwieldy to launch them all. Like the first ones in the air might have to wait an hour for the last planes. To me, Illustrious class carriers with USN planes would've been the ultimate combo for the Pacific war. And by and large that's what the Far East fleet had, they just didn't get in theater until pretty near the end of the war.
RN were the first to fly Corsairs from carriers.

Read Carrier Pilot by Brian Hanson.

It's his memoir of the Pacific War on RN Carriers.
He is one of the pilots that was sent to the USA to work out how to land a Corsair on a Carrier deck.

One of the classic WW2 memoirs.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:12 AM   #101
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
My great uncle served on that.
Half served on it you mean?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 11:23 AM   #102
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,745
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Half served on it you mean?
Served on half of it, maybe. Or maybe his uncle was only half as great.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th June 2019, 02:04 PM   #103
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 15,675
Interesting article in NY Times in the Atlantic as to current crewing concepts for USA warships in general and for Littoral Combat Ships in particular. Operative goal: "minimal manning." Chilling IMO:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...e-navy/590647/

Last edited by Giordano; 24th June 2019 at 02:05 PM.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 08:24 AM   #104
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by Giordano View Post
Interesting article in NY Times in the Atlantic as to current crewing concepts for USA warships in general and for Littoral Combat Ships in particular. Operative goal: "minimal manning." Chilling IMO:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...e-navy/590647/
We have 9 half a billion dollar ships (each), the Independence class, that aren't even expected to survive against RPG attacks. The R&D and procurement process for the USN (and USAF) has been incredibly arrogant, wasteful, and I'm sure corrupt over the past 20 years or so that some people should be in jail. They've been so enamored with whizbang new tech that they've overlooked the importance of equipment that actually works. Meanwhile, China, Iran, and Russia have developed actual, good, working anti ship tech.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ch-below-23042

Last edited by lobosrul5; 25th June 2019 at 08:25 AM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 10:12 AM   #105
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
Funny man.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 10:37 AM   #106
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by Ian Osborne View Post
My great uncle served on that.
Was he... named Albert. Had a great nephew named Rodney perhaps? (obscure reference that perhaps 1 in a million Americans will get, probably not too obscure UKside)

Last edited by lobosrul5; 25th June 2019 at 10:39 AM.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 12:02 PM   #107
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,745
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
We have 9 half a billion dollar ships (each), the Independence class, that aren't even expected to survive against RPG attacks. The R&D and procurement process for the USN (and USAF) has been incredibly arrogant, wasteful, and I'm sure corrupt over the past 20 years or so that some people should be in jail. They've been so enamored with whizbang new tech that they've overlooked the importance of equipment that actually works. Meanwhile, China, Iran, and Russia have developed actual, good, working anti ship tech.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...ch-below-23042
The LCS was never intended to operate in waters threatened by a near-peer adversary. It doesn't make sense to complain that the ship doesn't have a capability it was never supposed to have.

It does make sense to complain that the US apparently didn't stop to think about wether they actually needed a ridiculously expensive, ridiculously fragile corvette at all, rather than a modern replacement for the OHP class frigates.

I think it would have made more sense to replace the OHP with a similar type - a kind of Burke-lite general purpose ASW/AD picket. And develop a single corvette type with multiple configuration options. A more realistic modular approach. Not the quick-swap dream, but simply realizing cost savings from parts commonality and a single design base. Some get built out as minesweepers, some as special forces tenders, some as supplemental ASW pickets, etc. Each of those roles could be filled by a ship that size, and each of those would fill a capability gap in the USN.

I think the current LCS designs are inferior versions of this concept. Too expensive, not as capable as they could (should) be. But they can work in that role. They'll probably get supplanted by something more sensical in about 10-15 years. Which is probably okay.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 01:06 PM   #108
Ian Osborne
JREF Kid
Tagger
 
Ian Osborne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,946
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Was he... named Albert. Had a great nephew named Rodney perhaps? (obscure reference that perhaps 1 in a million Americans will get, probably not too obscure UKside)
"During the war..."

(Actually his name was Bob Mayne.)
__________________
"Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine

"The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan
Ian Osborne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 01:11 PM   #109
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The LCS was never intended to operate in waters threatened by a near-peer adversary. It doesn't make sense to complain that the ship doesn't have a capability it was never supposed to have.

It does make sense to complain that the US apparently didn't stop to think about wether they actually needed a ridiculously expensive, ridiculously fragile corvette at all, rather than a modern replacement for the OHP class frigates.

I think it would have made more sense to replace the OHP with a similar type - a kind of Burke-lite general purpose ASW/AD picket. And develop a single corvette type with multiple configuration options. A more realistic modular approach. Not the quick-swap dream, but simply realizing cost savings from parts commonality and a single design base. Some get built out as minesweepers, some as special forces tenders, some as supplemental ASW pickets, etc. Each of those roles could be filled by a ship that size, and each of those would fill a capability gap in the USN.

I think the current LCS designs are inferior versions of this concept. Too expensive, not as capable as they could (should) be. But they can work in that role. They'll probably get supplanted by something more sensical in about 10-15 years. Which is probably okay.
I have similar ideas about how the RN should be designing Frigates. What they need is a modern 'Leander' or even a modern 'Type 12' (for those old enough to rememeber) for the majority of the work they do.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 01:22 PM   #110
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 20,635
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
It was appreciated that Battleships weren't the force they once were, the RN for example halted building on the Lions and Vanguard switching large ship construction to Cruisers and Aircraft Carriers.
Essentially the only real target for a Battleship is another Battleship.
They were useful as floating artillery batteries, but so were cruisers.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 02:17 PM   #111
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
As I say, apart from other fighting battleships they have no real role.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 03:02 PM   #112
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,745
Originally Posted by catsmate View Post
They were useful as floating artillery batteries, but so were cruisers.
The thing is, with modern near-peer adversaries, much of the fighting during an amphibious operation is going to be happening from over the horizon. If you need to bring a battleship into range for shore bombardment, you're probably doing something very wrong. Most likely, you shouldn't have embarked on this particular operation in the first place.

And with non near-peers, that much artillery is overkill. A battleship is wasted against Somali pirate camps, and useless in contesting the South China Sea.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 03:17 PM   #113
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The thing is, with modern near-peer adversaries, much of the fighting during an amphibious operation is going to be happening from over the horizon. If you need to bring a battleship into range for shore bombardment, you're probably doing something very wrong. Most likely, you shouldn't have embarked on this particular operation in the first place.

And with non near-peers, that much artillery is overkill. A battleship is wasted against Somali pirate camps, and useless in contesting the South China Sea.
Battleships were very useful on D-Day and after as they could give artillery support for many miles inland and throw a huge weight of explosives on to a target in a short time.
For example 15" Mk1 guns on RN battleships could throw a 2000lb shell 30 miles.
RN Forward Observers were embedded with the front line troops and could call down fire wherever it was needed.
In addition to the battleships there were 8" cruisers could throw a 250lb shell 17 miles and 6" Cruisers a 115lb shell 14 miles.
Even a Destroyer could throw 50lb shell 10,000 yards and were useful for 'direct fire' against coastal targets.

For weight of fire, HMS Warspite for exampe anchored off Sword Beach and on June 6 fired over 300 shells in 48 hours and was on constant call up until the 9th June when it was withdrawn for resupply.

Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 25th June 2019 at 03:33 PM.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 03:20 PM   #114
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,745
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Battleships were very useful on D-Day and after as they could give artillery support for many miles inland and throw a huge weight of explosives on to a target in a short time.
For example 15" Mk1 guns on RN battleships could throw a 2000lb shell 30 miles.
Agreed. For contemporary near-peer adversaries, battleships were a huge asset to amphibious and over-the-beach operations.

But for modern near-peer adversaries, the value just isn't there, I think.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 03:31 PM   #115
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
A full list of the fire support ships off Normandy.

Omaha Bombardment Group
Battleships
USS Arkansas (BB 33). Wyoming class, commissioned 1912.
USS Texas (BB 35). New York class, commissioned 1914.

Cruisers
HMS Bellona. Bellona-class light cruiser, commissioned 1943.
HMS Glasgow. Southampton class, commissioned 1937.
FFL Georges Leygues (French). La Glossonairre–class light cruiser, commissioned 1937.
FFL Montcalm (French). La Glossonaire–class light cruiser, commissioned 1937.

Destroyers
USS Baldwin (DD 624). Livermore class, commissioned 1943. • USS Carmick (DD 493). Livermore class, commissioned 1942.
USS Doyle (DD 494). Livermore class, commissioned 1942.
USS Emmons (DD 457/DMS 22). Ellyson class, commissioned 1941/44, sunk off Okinawa 1945.
USS Frankford (DD 497). Livermore class, commissioned 1943.
USS Harding (DD 625/DMS 28). Ellyson class, commissioned 1943/44.
USS McCook (DD 496). Livermore class, commissioned 1943.
USS Satterlee (DD 626). Livermore class, commissioned 1943.
USS Thompson (DD 627). Livermore class, commissioned 1943.
Destroyer Escorts
HMS Melbreak. Hunt class, commissioned 1942.
HMS Talybont. Hunt class, commissioned 1943.
HMS Tanatside. Hunt class, commissioned 1942.

Utah Bombardment Group

Battleship
USS Nevada (BB 36). Nevada class, commissioned 1916.

Cruisers
HMS Black Prince. Bellona-class light cruiser, commissioned 1943.
HMS Enterprise. E-class light cruiser, commissioned 1926.
HMS Hawkins. Hawkins class, commissioned 1919.
USS Quincy (CA 71). Baltimore class, commissioned 1943.
USS Tuscaloosa (CA 37). Astoria class, commissioned 1934.
Monitor
HMS Erebus. Erebus class, commissioned 1916.

Destroyers
USS Butler (DD 636/DMS 29). Ellyson class, commissioned 1942.
USS Corry (DD 463). Gleaves class, commissioned 1942, sunk 6 June.
USS Fitch (DD 462/DMS 25). Ellyson class, commissioned 1942/44.
USS Forrest (DD 461/DMS 24). Ellyson class, commissioned 1942/44.
USS Gerhardi (DD 637/DMS 30). Ellyson class, commissioned 1942/44.
USS Herndon (DD 638). Livermore class, commissioned 1943.
USS Hobson (DD 464/DMS 26). Ellyson class, commissioned 1942/44.
USS Shubrick (DD 639). Livermore class, commissioned 1943.


Destroyer Escorts
USS Bates (DE 68/APD 47). Buckley class, commissioned 1943.
USS Rich (DE 695). Buckley class, commissioned 1943, sunk 8 June.

Sloop
HNMS Soemba (Dutch). Flores class, commissioned 1926.

Gold Bombardment Group

Light Cruisers
HMS Argonaut. Dido class, commissioned 1942.
HMS Ajax. Leander class, commissioned 1935.
HMS Emerald. Emerald class, commissioned 1926.
HMS Orion. Leander class, commissioned 1934.

Destroyers
HMS Cattistock. Hunt class, commissioned 1940.
HMS Cottesmore. Hunt class, commissioned 1940.
HMS Grenville. G class, commissioned 1943.
HMS Jervis. J class, commissioned 1939.
ORP Krakowiak (Polish). Hunt class, commissioned 1941.
HMS Pytchley. Hunt class, commissioned 1940.
HMS Ulster. U class, commissioned 1943.
HMS Ulysses. U class, commissioned 1943.
HMS Undaunted. U class, commissioned 1944.
HMS Undine. U class, commissioned 1943.
HMS Urania. U class, commissioned 1944.
HMS Urchin. U class, commissioned 1943.
HMS Ursa. U class, commissioned 1944.

Sloop
HNMS Flores (Dutch). Flores class, commissioned 1926.

Bombardment and gunfire support ships in the British and Canadian sectors were:

Juno Bombardment Group

Cruisers
HMS Belfast. Edinburgh class, commissioned 1938.
HMS Diadem. Bellona class light cruiser, commissioned 1944.

Destroyers
HMCS Algonquin. V class, commissioned 1943.
HMS Bleasdale. Hunt class, commissioned 1942.
FFL La Combattante (French). Hunt class, commissioned 1942, lost in 1945.
HMS Faulknor. F class, commissioned 1935.
HMS Fury. F class, commissioned 1934. Sunk 21 June 1944.
HNoMS Glaisdale (Norwegian). Hunt class, commissioned 1942.
HMS Kempenfelt. W class, commissioned 1943.
HMCS Sioux. V class, commissioned 1944.
HMS Stevenstone. Hunt class, commissioned 1943.

Sword Bombardment Group

Battleships
HMS Ramilles. Royal Sovereign class, commissioned 1917.
HMS Warspite. Queen Elizabeth class, commissioned 1916.
U.S. Navy battleship Nevada bombarding the invasion beaches: Martin K.A. Morgan.


Cruisers
HMS Arethusa. Arethusa class light cruiser, commissioned 1935.
HMS Danae. D-class light cruiser, commissioned 1918.
OPD Dragon (Polish). Dragon-class light cruiser, commissioned 1917, torpedoed 8 June.
HMS Frobisher. Hawkins class, commissioned 1924.
HMS Mauritius. Fiji-class light cruiser, commissioned 1941.

Destroyers
HMS Eglington. Hunt class, commissioned 1940.
HMS Kelvin. K class, commissioned 1939.
HMS Middleton. Hunt class, commissioned 1942.
HMS Saumarez. S class, commissioned 1943.
HMS Scorpion. S class, commissioned 1943.
HMS Scourge. S class, commissioned 1943.
HMS Serapis. S class, commissioned 1943.
ORP Slazak (Polish). Hunt class, commissioned 1942.
HNoMS Stord (Norwegian). S class, commissioned 1943.
HNoMS Svenner (Norwegian). S class, commissioned 1944, lost 6 June.
HMS Swift. S class, commissioned 1943.
HMS Verulam. V class, commissioned 1943.
HMS Virago. V class, commissioned 1943.

Monitor
HMS Roberts. Roberts class, commissioned 1941.

https://www.historyonthenet.com/naval-artillery
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 03:34 PM   #116
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 21,563
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Agreed. For contemporary near-peer adversaries, battleships were a huge asset to amphibious and over-the-beach operations.

But for modern near-peer adversaries, the value just isn't there, I think.
Modern aircraft and an aircraft carrier can deliver similar weights of ordnance to longer ranges.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 03:42 PM   #117
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,745
Sometimes it amuses me to think of it in terms of torpedo boats and torpedo boat destroyers. In this paradigm, naval aircraft are basically fast attack boats that can literally fly. The carrier is just a big attack boat tender. Everything else is a destroyer.

---

Except for submarines. Attack submarines are just another kind of fast attack boat.

Missile subs are the new battleships. Really, that's what happened to the battleship. It went stealthy, increased its range, and increased its weight of metal until it was throwing something else entirely.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 03:59 PM   #118
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 22,182
Battleships were also useful in providing anti-aircraft fire to protect carriers in the Pacific. 16 or 20 5/38's, depending on the ship, and loads of 40's and 20's. They also provided a big attractive target to Kamikaze pilots; one both less valuable and less vulnerable than carriers.
Then again, an Atlanta-Class cruiser had nearly as many 5/38's and could fire more of them in the same direction.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 04:07 PM   #119
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 36,745
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Battleships were also useful in providing anti-aircraft fire to protect carriers in the Pacific. 16 or 20 5/38's, depending on the ship, and loads of 40's and 20's. They also provided a big attractive target to Kamikaze pilots; one both less valuable and less vulnerable than carriers.
Then again, an Atlanta-Class cruiser had nearly as many 5/38's and could fire more of them in the same direction.
An evolution that culminated in the guided missile cruiser, which replaces its superfluous big guns with surface to air missiles.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th June 2019, 05:37 PM   #120
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,761
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Modern aircraft and an aircraft carrier can deliver similar weights of ordnance to longer ranges.
Yeah... and I know someone mentioned it upthread, but the Zumwaut (DDG-1000). Lets spend billions on a ship thats main role is going to be shore bombardment. Because aerial bombing hasn't been proven to be effective... oh wait yeah it has.

And the gun is unusable.

https://news.usni.org/2018/01/11/no-...oring-industry

So it was just an extremely expensive new VLS missile launcher platform???
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.