Hey /tg/ can we talk about battleships? I recently had an idea to run a game with my group based off of War of the Worlds, specifically ripping from Thunder Child but instead of setting it in the turn of the century we decided to set it in 1939 as there are more memorable ships then than in the pre dreadnought era. I am either going to start them off on a battleship or on an older cruiser and have them work their way up to having a battleship.I come to you now humbly /tg/ what would be a good system to run this and while I have a basic outline for the plot, defending a convoy ala Battlestar Galactica, what would be good challenges to throw at my players?
Also have some sexy ship pics
>Ajax, Achilles and Exeter encounter Graf Spee in a running gun battle with a monstrous alien war machine >BRITANNIA TO THE RESCUEopop pls
Also! Have a pdf. These rules might work for you and they might not, but they are VERY realistic. And about as complex as you'll want to fuck with in a tabletop RPG.
>>48587072Literally Exeter is one of the ships I have pegged for the MC's ship to begin with. Dem 8 inch guns man
>>48587099Cheers man. I'll have a gander through it. Have a boat
>>48587115>Literally Exeter is one of the ships I have pegged for the MC's ship to begin with. Dem 8 inch guns manOP, you are a man of wealth and taste. Hold up a sec, I'll try to find this other naval tabletop rules-set; it's a lot simpler and more abstract which might be perfect for resolving combat, depending on how you play things. Having the whole party as crewmembers on the ship sounds like a great idea; their actions can give various rolls (damage control, gunnery, evasive maneuvering) bonuses in combat and such. But for resolving the "rest" of the fleet action (if you pick up escorts, etc,) it'd be faster to have this simpler rules set. It's called... fuck, I can't remember. HEY, ANON, HELP
http://www.navalwargamessociety.org/rulesonline.html>free rulesWell fuck me sideways.
>>48587218>>48587155Thank you . You can share the quirky but lovable Nelson
>>48587252No problem. I'm yelling your thread in IRC because it's a really cool idea and it deserves some attention.
>>48587284You are a scholar and a gentleman. I love my old naval ships. The age of the battleship especially went by far too fast so we never got to see them at their theoretical pinnacle of technology. In my mind they seem like the only thing we had that could theoretically battle any alien invader during that time period
So Exeter and her merry band of escorts gotta protect a convoy bound for, say the US, from tripod walkers and all sorts of the weird shit the Martians can throw at it? Sounds like a good time. If anything I'd like to read the AAR and laugh at the bullshit dice rolls. >in b4 U-boats kill steal like a motherfucker.
>>48587398I might let them have HMS Eagle too, but I am undecided on how effective aircraft will be against tripods
>>48587577I dunno though, I am going to give them a list of ship squadrons and which one they pick decides the campaign
>>48586784Did someone say Battleships (or at least warships)?
>>48587710You take over my man, I have to take off for a bit.If this thread is still going when I come back I'll layout some of the ideas I have for the setting
So are you expanding the Martian arsenal and giving them squids or carriers for their flying machines? Or are they just gonna be VERY tall fighting machines?
When it comes to heroic suicide runs you can't really beat the HMS Li Wo, the most celebrated smallship in British Naval History
>>48588121Actual video here:https://vimeo.com/107454954
>>48588184>https://vimeo.com/107454954Great! I never thought I'd say '[Mars: Bringer of War' wasn't quite the right music for something like this, but I couldn't find the original anywhere.
>>48587739I've just got pictures, not really many thoughts on them or knowledge
Some questions for OP when he gets back:How useless are airplanes because of heat-rays?Can Martian heat-rays intercept shells in flight?Do Martians also get warships or is it just continuously bigger tripods?Question for /k/ommandos:What would be the viability of super-battleship paper designs like the Tillman IV, the H-44, the A-150?
The Martians need buffing, torpedo rams were never very good ships and one still destroyed two tripods. Any real warship would completely outclass the war machines from the book. Even in the original time period the technology existed to defeat them on land too with only a few weeks of preparation.
>>48587577>but I am undecided on how effective aircraft will be against tripodsAces who learn to bomb from an obscured viewpoint (smoke, either Black or lain by friendly ships firing smoke shells, from the Sun, etc) or wings with an Ace to teach them, would probably do well. Anyone else? Well, Skuas and Albacores are pretty flammable...Torpedo bombers, of course, would be effectively worthless. Good luck hitting a leg!
>>48588121>>48588184>Not Jeff Wayne's The War Of The WorldsFor shame, /tg/!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Mfz4rMThEE
>>48587840>So are you expanding the Martian arsenal and giving them squids or carriers for their flying machines? Or are they just gonna be VERY tall fighting machines?That's a good question. The Fighting Machines (tripods) can wade through littoral waters, but for deep ocean do they just use the Flying Machines? Would naval action against the Martians be purely shore bombardment & counterbattery? Would they have developed dedicated naval craft?The Martians arrived via ballistic capsules which all seemed to hit land, so they might not even have oceangoing craft developed (given how arid Mars is) unless they already have a foothold somewhere and have built up an industrial base and spend some effort on radical R&D. Potentially they could have highly advanced technology, but employed poorly due to them lacking centuries of naval tradition and tactics. Particularly if they rely on the Heat Ray as a primary armament against an opponent with over-the-horizon radar guided projectiles. Which might end up in them pursuing bizarre solutions like super pagoda-masts to raise the heat ray and increase its effective line-of-sight horizon.
>>48589301This kind of reminds me of Harry Turtledove's Worldwar series, where the aliens have inter-atmospheric shuttles, starships, gunships and advanced tanks, but since they come from a desert world they have no understanding of naval technology whatsoever. >Which might end up in them pursuing bizarre solutionsI can see them sort of using tech illogically compared to us. They're apparently so advanced they just drink blood for nutrients and use it as a fertilizer for their red weed, but apparently skipped developing the wheel in favor of designing mechs. They understand chemical weapons and flight, but forgot that bacteria existed.
>>48589301Given that Mars has/had no oceans to test things on, I wouldn't see them having dedicated naval craft. Or at least not very good ones. Tough and hard hitting, but not especially well designed.Besides, most of the stuff they want (people) generally live on land anyhow, so they wouldn't have much reason for a naval force.I can see island ports/nations with deep water around them being very useful bases. And then flying machine attacks on said bases.Looks like Pearl Harbor is gonna happen one way or another.
>>48589913on the martian tech,i cant place where i read it but i remember it being described as very biological inspired and no wheels at all, all pistons and muscle like things
>>48590068The book says it is.For being giant three-legged machines, the tripods move incredibly swiftly, less robots and more like fluid living beings. A later edition of the book also had an extra scene Wells added in where, because he hated an illustration in the book where the tripods look like "boilers on stilts", the narrator actually finds the illustration in a newspaper and rails against it for being inaccurate.The digging machines also looked like caterpillars or centipedes IIRC
>>48590130i doubt they even know what a fish is so some kind of airsack on the legs to float for oceanic ops might be a good early prototype to fight
I have a bad imaginiation but I think someone could make something of these.MCM (Mine Counter Measure) - Sonar, MCM - Vehicles, divers.ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) - Sonar, torpedos, mines. Large screenformation is recommended.ASuW (Anti Surface Warfare) - Cannons, missiles, radar. AAW (Anti Air Warfare) - Radar, cannons. Usually conducted over time and not as a single moment.If you put some modern stuff in heres a few.EW (Electronic Warfare) - Detect and intercept enemy transmissions (radar, radio). Divided into:EP (Electronic Protection) - Ways to protect yourself from enemy EW like you stop emitting from radar to escape detection.EA (Electronic Attack) - What it sounds like, attack, missiles or REMS and such.ES (Electronic Support) - Things like non-active stuff, Automatic things, what material the ship is built in (like stealth-ships).COMINT, ELINT, SIGINT, HUMINT, INFINT too.I dont know if anything of this is of use for you OP, I got a little exited (since navy). Anyways let me know if you need any help.
>>48590172Or they just find an unfinished hull, stick in whatever engines they have for their flying machines for propulsion, and then have tripods hunker down on the ship, standing up for when battle happens.
>>48586784>I want to run a game inspired by Thunder ChildPlease tell me you're running online. I *need* this in my life.
OP lives, he dies, he lives again!>>48588892I'm undecided on aircraft atm, I'm thinking because of the time period ill have them used like in Battlestar (which I'm stealing a lot of ideas from) ala Aces do the flying and everyone else does the dying.As for the shells I dont think so but I want to give the Martians energy shields to compensate for how destructive warships were at the time.>>48588977I intend to set the campaign a few years after the invasion, around 1944/45 so we can get all the ships built during the war too like Bismark and ill let Vanguard actually do something. As for the setting im going to have humanity forced to the coast in the beginnings of the war where they only survived because the navies out classed the tripods. Cue years later where the Martians have grown/built ships of their own by imitating ours but much more organic in nature, propulsion systems being like a squids inhale exhale approach, armor being like barnacled skin. So basically ripping off Kancolle a little.>>48592860In meat space unfortunately but when i build up a working copy of what rules im going to use/steal/bullshit my way through ill share it with you guys
>>48593367I might add some existential stuff in too, mist that you can't see a meter a head of you in where strange radio calls are heard, compass dead spots, ghost ships. That sort of thing
>>48588892>What would be the viability of super-battleship paper designs like the Tillman IV, the H-44, the A-150?In what context? In the context of this setting? In the real world? What are we talking, because the answer is entirely dependent on that.
>>48595644If magically aircraft carriers didn't exist and ships still blasted each other on the battleline
>>48595644In the setting I want only the ships that were laid at the start of the invasion down to be completed. Just easier for me to get a hold of the details for completed ships than paper designs.
>>48587252>gunturret facing another gunturretI knew WH40k wasn't the only place I'd seen that.
>>48588977In the original book, the Martians lose a walker to the Thunderchild because they didn't realize what it was. They just assumed all those metal-y floating contraptions were people-conveyors. The moment it takes one out, another one turns around and melts it apart with a heatray. It doesn't get a second.
>>48590604>ASW (Anti Submarine Warfare) - Sonar, torpedos, mines. Large screenformation is recommended.>ASuW (Anti Surface Warfare) - Cannons, missiles, radar.You realize that 'Su' is the first two letters of 'submarine' and 'surface'?I'd go for a contraction less confusing, if you're already going to bastardize it like that. ASfW. Conventional. Whatever.
>>48595899She had her problems, namely firing her number 3 turret blowing out all the windows on the bridge but the Nelson was a good ship for her limitations
>>48596074yeah, but it's all officers up there, so nothing of value was lost.
>>48596500On point rebuttal anon. On point. Question for you anons. With the Americas providing most of Britains oil during this time period and the idea that humans lost the land war would it be a good plot point to have my players either finding offshore drilling platforms or raiding ports for their oil?
>>48596610Offshore drilling can be used as an opportunity to set up a hidden base close enough to the main theater of operations for your players to resupply and perform up to medium repairs on their ships, so that's pretty good. Plus points if you get an isolated island chain for that. As for port raiding it'd be cool for it to have larger risks, but larger returns in both oil and the supplies left behind when the land wars were lost. Unless those ports get resupplied from inland, they'd have diminishing returns.
>>48586784Have the Willie D. Porter in their fleet
>>48596852My players are menaces to society to begin with, I am not putting a ship that fucked up as badly as Willy Dee in with them.
>>48596752>Plus points if you get an isolated island chain for that.Britain is surrounded by thousands of unpopulated or minimally populated islands, over a range of sizes. You'd have plenty to choose from.>>48597364NO BULLY
>>48597364>Willie D. Porter"Don't shoot, we're Republicans!"
>>48589394Yeah, my man. Only read the first book but I thoroughly enjoyed it, even though it was a simplistic read.
>>48595973ASuW and ASW are what the US Navy uses for Anti-Surface Warfare and Anti-Submarine Warfare.>>48595832In the context of the setting, which I admittedly know little about, the paper designs of ships like the H44 and Montana would probably, barring the issues with the designs themselves, perform well enough, as they would have the firepower to take out the tripods, while having at least some chance of survival due to their immense size and armoring. At least until the enemy starts coming at them from the air at which point they're as fucked as they were in the real world.
>>48598520Thats how I envisioned it as well. A battleship against a tripod would be decided more on engagement range than anything else as the heat beams, in my head canon at least, lose their destructive power the longer they travel but if they catch a battleship up close they basically turn it into a giant floating oven, cooking the crew and setting off the munitions
>>48598520and as for the setting I wouldn't have brought my idea on here if I didn't want you gentlemen to expand, change, and make it your own so go nuts
Remember the Hood
Does anyone have a remember that thread we had about half a year ago about something very like this?The premise was that the Martians were repelled in the 1890s because they didn't actually use any war machines. Why would they even have such things? They hadn't had a war in thousands of years. They were using re-purposed farming equipment.Shit loads of alien tech gathering dust in the museums of a rebuilding world. We have no idea even of the physical principles most of it works on bar the Black Fog.Earth was not their only target. They set up colonies on some of the moons of Jupiter and Venus.Skip forward to 1920. Aliens send a half hearted actual war fleet from their fledgling but no self- sufficient Venus colony. This time they got inoculated.They start with the nuking of the capital cities of the prosperous nations, most prominent holy cities and then start picking settlements off in order of size from orbit. Earth finds their radio frequency and causes premature detonation of the warheads just as they leave their warships, killing 2 of the 3. Toronto is now the largest surviving city left.Then OPs scenario of a ground war starts.Earth manages to defeat the invaders but everything is wrecked. Earth is united in fear and hate and desperation but it's a unity of broken nations.By this point we have greater scientific understanding on how some of their shit actually works.This time the alien menace waits until it can muster a proper fleet and doesn't try that shit again till the late 80s.
>>48599506Well at leas it's a little more original than the "reverse engineer Martian tech for space wars" plot that Scarlet Traces and some other fiction did
this venerable dreadnought aint bad will probably be stuffed to the brim with captured alien tech as the war progresses
Tripods can be killed by regular field guns, the firepower of an actual warship of any class above corvette would be devastating.And if the Martians stick with heat rays for their hypothetical ships then they have a range disadvantage. >>48599804Reminds me of the Space Dreadnought in GURPS space where B turret has been replaced with a reverse engineered Martian heat ray.
if you extend about 5 years you get mighty mo, with heat rays replacing her 20mm guns, and disintegrators supplementing her main guns
>>48595973I do realize that but my letters to Nato hasn´t changed it :( Jokes aside, as another anon said its how it is, but not only in US navy, almost every Western Country.ASuW = SurfaceASW = Sub
>>48596074>Rodnol and Nelsonol They were a really clever way of maximizing protection within treaty limits.>>48595899There were quite a few ships with "q" and "r" turrets that were behind the superstructure and could only be fired to one side or the other.
>>48598589>>48598670The way I see it the Battleships would have the overall advantage, having sufficient firepower to take out the tripods, and having the range advantage, and being able to engage multiple targets simultaneously, but the tripods would be almost able to guarantee a victory if they get close up.
>>48603067Forgot the image.
>>48586784this is an amazing idea and you should be happy with yourself for having it
>>48588076What about HMS Campbeltown, of the raid on St Nazaire?
Kind of feels battleships are being treated as though they exist in a vacuum in this thread, rather than as a fleet element. There's still plenty of stuff for other classes of warships to do, especially if the Martians get flyers or submersibles. Destroyers would still get to do ASW work and possibly make torpedo runs against surface combatants. Cruisers would still be useful for scouting, AA work, and as flotilla leaders. Could be interesting to see martian shore emplacements like giant lighthouses to extend line of sight for big ass heat rays.
>>48603729Actually, come to think of it, land airstrips being at a premium would actually further the use of one of my favorite bits of naval aviation, seaplanes and seaplane tenders. Would Martians have any sort of Radar equivalent? (It's been so long since I've read War of the Worlds that I can't recall how they fared fighting in the dark, or if it was even a thing).
>>48603926Martians never had radar. Hell, the novel's set in the 1890s, radar wasn't anything anybody could've concieved of.And after their first losses against cannons, the Martians just stuck to throwing Black Smoke everywhere
>>48603926I love me some Battleship-carrier mix ups.>>48604034Would you go for ww1, ww2, or in-between for this kind of game? If we choose ww2 I'd work on beefing up the martians just a bit.
>>48604114in addtion: Assault submarines for retaking captured ports
>>48604114Hell, even some of the stuff that actually existed is pretty fun. Too bad Ise and Hyuuga never actually even received their complement before being sank. >>48604034That's going to make night raids and the like probably feature heavily as it did in real life.
>>48603926>seaplanes and seaplane tenders.For pre-WWI, or even very early WWI, that might work. Seaplanes were quickly superceded once the Aircraft Carrier was developed. Once you remove the floats, that's a lot of dead weight that can now be used for fuel or munitions.>>48604114>>48604274AVIATION BATTLESHIPS ARE BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD.
>>48604274>That's going to make night raids and the like probably feature heavily as it did in real life.That's assuming that the Martians didn't get new tech to keep up with WW2, since the gap between 1940 and 1890 is kind of far.Flying battleships with mounted heat-rays, paradropping fighting machines, new forms of chemical and biological warfare, ultra-digging machines tunneling under the English Channel, bringing new alien slaves like those bear creatures they domesticated, basic radar, etc.
>>48604114>Battlecarriersshit taste famalamjust use regular carriers
>>48604463>seaplanesThey still have some serious flexibility inherent in their desgings, with them an island can have a standing aviation force with out a runway, and stuff like that.>AVIATION BATTLESHIPS ARE BAD AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD.I disagree but I'm more than interested in your reasoning. I assume it's cause that's a lot of tasks and moving bits/people for one ship to have.
>>48604464I think we should keep the Marty's A bit tied down in terms of movement. Atypical/non-conventional methods of movement and fighting, Subsurface leviathans, HUmming airships and plenty of walkers. Spindly and slugish as they come from a world with lower gravity.I also like the idea of the main battles for this war taking place on the high seas, with most land engagements resulting in stalmates or routs.
>>48604528>I disagree but I'm more than interested in your reasoning.A Battleship sails up to your face and pushes your shit in with sheer firepower, while being armoured enough to reach your face.An Aircraft Carrier sends it's planes to kick in your shit from far enough away that you cannot retaliate with gunfire. An Aviation Battleship does not have sufficient aircraft to kick in your shit from a distance. It does not have sufficient armour (due to needing a flight deck and to carry aircraft) to close in, and insufficient armament (due to the flight deck again) to push in your shit if it does get there. Against an aircraft carrier, it'll die far away. Against a battleship, it'll die up close.The Battleship stopped mattering as a warship because the aircraft carried by aircraft carriers had sufficiently powerful weaponry that they could kill any BB before it could get into gun range of a carrier.
>>48604624pics>>48604610Fair enough, But battleships 'Facepunching' range could often be miles away, even over the horizon in some cases.that does bring up an important note, how are aircraft carriers not the hottest shit in this situation? perhaps Marty has Point defense out the wazzo, Or small drone like flyers that can retaliate against near bye planes, leaving the flyers night time attacks or high altitude bombings?
>>48604592>I also like the idea of the main battles for this war taking place on the high seas, with most land engagements resulting in stalmates or routs.The opposite might be better: land battles going overwhelmingly to the Martian's Fighting Machines, but held at bay around the coast by naval gunfire support. Most human civilisation is near the coast, but most agriculture and resources are inland. Leaving trade infrastructure and most human lives intact whilst cutting off most food production puts humanity in a severe crisis situation. Limited food other than fishing, limited supply of metals and coal (though offshore oil and gas, as well as whale oil, are still available) and very little if any material to construct new vessels with. You need a hugely expanded fishing fleet to support the population, but you need an expanded naval fleet to hold the coastlines from the Martians. Giant Pykrete artificial islands might be a viable use to stretch the remaining reserves of wood over constructing straight wooden vessels.
>>48604674Because Marty had flying machines even back in the novel, and heat-rays are gonna be as good as laser for AA defense, especially since people still have to gun each other at visual range.
>>48604674>that does bring up an important note, how are aircraft carriers not the hottest shit in this situation? perhaps Marty has Point defense out the wazzo, Or small drone like flyers that can retaliate against near bye planes, leaving the flyers night time attacks or high altitude bombings?The Heat Ray. Line of sight, almost instantaneous travel time. Unlike AA flak or even missiles, if you can see an aircraft, you can immolate it. Kind of like Muv-Luv's BETA in that regard.
>>48604679oh, I meant that the humans are getting routed in the land engagements, not the Marties. But that is some good thinking! I especially like it because it will help us avoid the 'throw away' continent, Arbitrarily choosing one continent of the world to get curbstomped so the martians have a strong hold and the factions we are focusing still have their home turf. It sucks for the land locked countries, But hey, So be Will the Walkers perfer certain areas of the world? Maybe deserts and Warmer places?
>>48604691>>48604695Ah, point taken. Could there be room for Zeplins with reflective-material plastered over their hulls as a form of transportation? or would that just be pants on head retarded?
>>48604780If we're going by book accuracy, the heat-ray isn't a laser or a beam, but more like a camera with flash photography that sets everything on fire.In this case, the zeppelin would just heat up and burst into flames.
>>48604780and what about extractive resources? the armies of humanity are very reliant on metal oil and cloth. Unless they are able to hold places like the rocky mountains in NA, The Oil fields of the Middle east or some amount of agriculture humanity will be hurting bad as it's stocks dwindle
>>48604695>like Muv-Luv's BETA in that regardAnd then humanity creates giant robots to beat back the aliens
>>48604780>Could there be room for Zeplins with reflective-material plastered over their hulls as a form of transportation? or would that just be pants on head retarded?It'd probably be about as effective as reflective coatings are against modern directed energy weapons: absolute bugger-all.
>>48604463>>48604484I will never apologize for my taste! I know they're impractical as hell, but that doesn't stop them from being cool for being weird as hell. >>48604528Part of it is too much compromise in each area to be effective, like the others have mentioned. The other part of it is you can't carry out carrier operations while your main battery is firing. >>48604901Fun movie. I felt extremely bad for the poor guys stuck piloting the scouting tripods though.
>>48604837Some of the smaller islands in the pacific like Dutch East Indies ought to be pretty easily controlled. That's some resources, but not enough for all the worlds navies.
>>48604932Sounds like a great plot hook. A test of reflective materials as a defense that goes horribly, horribly wrong. By the same token, we might see ships refitted with some kind of water cooled heat sinks instead of torpedo bulges as a defense against naval grade heat rays.
>>48606900Actually, what effects does a steam explosion have on a warship? I mean, the heat-ray isn't just gonna hit ONLY the ship, but also superheat the water under it.
>>48606939If an instantaneous steam explosion could be caused alongside the ship, that would be a similar effect as a contact (nonpenetrating) HE torpedo hit in the same position would have (along with similar mitigations, like Torpedo Bulges and layered bulkheads).Watercooling for the outer armour plate would definitely be a viable mitigation for the Heat Ray at closer ranges. Newer warships could build it into the armour with dedicated enclosed channels, but retrofitting it to existing ships would be tricky. That itself may make for a nice game mechanic: water can be sprayed internally onto the outer plate to actively cool it, but too high a flow rate (or failures of the battery of souped-up bilge pumps to remove all that water) would flood the ship. And if the pumps failed while under fire, you could end up dealing with an INTERNAL steam explosion, which would be Very Extremely Bad.
If you still want the humans to have a fighting chance without oil, perhaps they salvaged tripod power sources.It's a strange device which produces a steady supply of heat with no apparent source of fuel, and can be used to run a steam turbine indefinitely.
>>48607135Some torpedo bulges already incorporate liquid filled cavities. Those at least might be easier to adapt, and in fact might be necessary because you wouldn't want that steam explosion to be focussed on the inner hull. That was part of the problem with the Pugliese system that the Italians used. Air defense against flyers might be an issue, as heat rays cooking off ammo stowage above deck for things like the 40 and 20mm cannons could be a thing. Same goes for guns on destroyers that only have splinter shields rather than enclosed turrets and deck mounted torpedo launchers.
>>48607257Aircraft carrier sailor here, so basically just rip off nuclear propulsion entirely?
>>48612444sure why not, it'd make enough sense.
>>48612444Maybe but having oil as a limited resource that drives interhuman conflict seems like a good idea. With oil rigs in the black sea being raided or attacked by the Martians. Have them mount weapons to make them like the sea forts of the time.Im trying to be careful though i dont want to turn my setting into watermadmaxworld
>>48612512What prevents Marty from blowing up the oil rigs and refineries with heat-rays in an instant?
>>48612532Disregard for the puny human metal islands then because the rigs are mounted with 12in guns and armored?I like the idea that because they are from mars they don't get whats under the water or they deem it irrelevant
>>48612512The logistics of maintaining sea forts is just ridiculous, it's why the modern navy doesn't use battleships anymore and ships aren't heavily armored. Mobility is more important. You want something more like the harvesters from Dune, and lots and lots of submarines to seriously counter martians.
>>48612532really big water fountains. Like. Fucking niagrafalls-esque amounts of water being blasted from the top of the instilations. the heat rays cant penetrate, and the guarding fleet moves out from it's proteciton if marty comes knocking closer. this would be later on in the war i bet.
>>48612620I'll do some thinking on this but i want my players to deal with resource management. Your mobile refinery is a good idea and i can handwave it away by saying they are just updated sea dredges
>>48613177Oh it wouldn't be hard to do that. Look into the Military Sealift Command and all the stuff they do to get supplies out to ships at sea. It's a LOT of effort to plan an underway replenishment in hostile waters. Make them have to set up supply depots in the southern pacific and shit gets real pretty fast.
>>48612634Giant misting systems made from repurposed firefighting equipment seems like a period-correct means of shielding from the heat rays. Shit tons of water to turn into steam instead of your deck crew.
>>48613213I am thinking a ship design like this for undersea drilling as part of the convoys which will be its own risk as it will take a set period of time to set up and more importantly to take apart so if they get attacked while drilling they cant just sail away
>>48613222THe platforms themselves could be sealed for the most part, Heavy leather and rubber gear needed for any surface work during 'High risk' Periods.I could see a lot of 'Wunderwaffen' Style attempts at creating defensive and offensive things to counter Marty, Whole cities gaining crazy superstructures and what not, hoping that the day they'd be tested would never come.
>>48613362Doesn't even have to be on the platforms exclusively. Fit your cruiser or BB with a bunch of extra pumps hooked up to nozzles around the decks and buy yourself a bit more survival time within visual range.Extension of the water-cooled armor ideas above but with the water on the outside instead
>>48613429Makes closing all the hatches even more important too, or else your crew gets steam boiled
>>48612444That was the idea, but I'd keep it as more of a black box type thing that just produces heat. In practice it would be more like a super Radiothermal generator. At any rate bad things happen when you crack one open.Alternately come up with some sort of 1930s pulp sci-fi explanation of how it works based off of an incorrect/incomplete understanding of nuclear physics.Upgrades for human battleships.>Heavy rocket batteries to defend against flying machines which are too well armored for regular AA fire.>Martian power source. A black box that can power a steam turbine without coal or oil.>Self cooling armor to defend against heat ray attacks.>Retrofitted martian heat ray. Replaces the rocket batteries and makes close range engagements less unfair.A regular battleship can engage Tripods at long range, but will have to worry about running out of fuel, or counterattacks from flying machines. With these upgrades it will start to stand a chance. Make the players earn them.
What if we went full league of extraordinary gentlemen on this shit? How would captain Nemo's Nautilus fit into it? Perhaps he grudgingly allows the English to use his secret docks to refit the Thunderchild.
>>48614231Let's just stick to the central concept of War of the Worlds at sea. If we start going full steam/dieselpunk then we'll have to invent an entirely new setting.
>>48614274I just think Nemo is a cool character and it would be interesting to see him working alongside the British Empire (which he despises) in order to defend the earth.It's also a good explanation as to how exactly you can retrofit a battleship's entire propulsion system during an invasion. You'd need some sort of hidden dock.
>>48614427All well and good, But we've dived into a alt history setting pretty hard already... Maybe having a parralell, or call out to nemo would work.
how are the living conditions for most people?
>>48614856Pavelas, slums, piles of ash. The survivors basically are piled into a 5 to 10 mile area around the coast. So piracy and raiding will be a real threat again
So does anybody have any ideas about Martian xenoforming? Deploying Red Weed to choke the rivers and channels, atmosphere processors to lower the climate, stuff like that.
>>48615207stuff like that would be going on in full on the continental cores, With half of the battle being purging out that shit. I'd say this universe's Red Moss is a little less agressive, If only because that alone would fuck everything cattywompus style. Maybe one of the inland 'missions' for PC's are surgical Smash and Grabs on terraforming plants to stop the progress and steal tech
>>48615207>>48615239Counterterraform with giant algae farms and forestation of any secure land area?
>>48615263Or just straight up scourging and purging everything
>>48615263Flame throwers and toxic chemicals? Go full WW1 on them?
>>48615295>>48615263>>48615306WHy not all of the above? Different Nations-turned-city-states using different tactics and ideas
>>48598788The biggest submarine in the Royal Navy! And that's before she sank.
>>48587115You could also consider something like a Tribal-class Destroyer, with the party having to make daring close range torpedo runs, nighttime raids and other such to cut their teeth before earning command of a more formidable ship when their luck runs out and the Tribal is sunk.
>>48586784AUGH. It just hit me.Mother.Fucking. Surcouf.Surface and pound Marty at range. Flyers getting close, or Tripods trying to get close enough to heat-ray? Crash Dive Fucker.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_SurcoufHell, most subs with a 5 inch deck gun or better would become invaluable for use against Marty.
>>48618475>crash dive>takes two minutes to dive and three minutes to fire once surfacedHardly seems worthwhile.
>>486187142-3 Minutes is no time at all in Naval Warfare anon, even with ayys.
>>48618156>Tribal-classPatrician tier taste, beautiful ships.
>>48620309Tribals are some good looking ships. I think the Regia Marina overall had the most uniformly good looking DD's though (and most other classes of ships as well). Pic related is my desktop.
>>48622393The French know a thing or two about fine asses
>>48618714That's plenty of time m8.
>>48622406And very small cruis... Er, exceptionally large destroyers. Contre Torpilleurs are great.
>>48622851>Er, exceptionally large destroyers.Seems to be the go-to when you need a ship you're not meant to have
>>48622406>Has to present its stern to fire its secondaries
>>48618156>Tribal-class DestroyerExcellent taste, anon. Tribals were great ships.
>>48586906Fusou is like of those overly goofy Mazinger Z robot monsters
>>48618875If you're crash diving you need to do it faster than that, anon. And the entire point of a submarine is to be sneaky: it's hard to take advantage when it takes three minutes to open fire.And the Surcouf rolled like a motherfucker, while all cruiser subs were easy to locate and couldn't turn for shit.
>>48595948The second is caught in the explosion, if I'm remembering right.
>>48625920That's Haida, right? Wish I had the money to just go and see all the museum ships around the world. I've been to a few, but nowhere near as much as I'd like.
>>48628732Haida's the only Tribal-class left in existence. And she's a twenty minute drive from my house!
>>48628732Yup, got to visit her a couple months ago. I know how you feel, I've only seen Haida and HMCS Sackville.
If I may drag us back on topic for a second. With the setting being in 1939 how would tanks fair against tripods?
>>48629166Ammo burns, armor melts, and the crew is cooked alive
>>48629166Badly. 39 is before any of the "Good" tanks of WWII came into real numbers.Panzer IV, Sherman, T_34 are all years away from maturity and you'd need mobility and a good gun to survive against tripod's.
>>48629166Poorly at first until wet storage and specialized armor for heat dissipation/insulation and then maybe still poorly.AT guns and ambush tactics probably do ok but any large scale battle is going to heavily favor the invaders.
Maginot line versus tripods?
You know, considering the Martians loved to throw Black Smoke everywhere, everybody would have to wear gas masks to every battle, along with chemical protection systems built into every vehicle.
>>48629316Lots of indirect fire installations and feet thick concrete is probably pretty good heatray defense. Designed with ventilation and chemical weapons in mind too. Lots of deep tunnels that would have to be cleared on foot.Probably holds up pretty well unless of course the martians just go around.
>>48629394>Marty just goes aroundThat'll never happen, rite guise?
>>48629416Of course not those tripods could not make it through the forest.
>>48629215KV-1s were around.And T-34 was only 1 year away.I forget when the Char-2 was made but it can't have been far away, if not already in use by 1939Soviets really led the pack on heavy and medium tanks at the start there, more for the pure fuck of "WE MUST HAVE ALL THE ARMORS COMRADE" than any other reasonThe Germans in operation barbarossa were unpleasantly surprised when they came up against these "behemoth" tanks
>>48628425I'm pretty sure it rams one, destroying it, shoots a second, destroying it, and a third is caught in the blast when the Thunderchild goes up, just as more Ironclads show up, though the fate of the third tripod is never confirmed, but is no longer visible. Or at least that's how I interpreted it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Thunder_Child
>>48630610>>48629215Yep Char-2C was produced in 192145mm armor, 75mm main gun, 4 MGsThe French and Polish tanks were actually superior to german tanks at the start of the war, its just that german tactics caught everyone with their pants down, shitting in a slit trench expecting static warfare a la WW1.
>>48630610>>48630804Note that I said matured, not were around. Not dissing any of the tanks mentioned but for tripod's and heat rays I would expect shoot and scoot to be the name of the game, not slugging matches.KV-1 is slow as is the 2-C. T-34 needed a year or more to work out the shitty viewing and gun problems. So they'd still be not so great against Martians.
So I've started working up a Google doc, because I haven't had much time to look at the rules I want to steal so its pretty barebones at the moment but heres the google doc for you lads anywayhttps://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_E5kXOXDPwS1aHpKeqo_7gGIodTrRtdk9GBN7d5HE4/edit?usp=drive_web
>>48630852sounds like the heat ray would wreck all tanks evenly, if it would get past the 100mm+ KV armor
>>48631220You have it set so anyone can edit right now, just so you know. I'd suggest changing it so anyone can suggest an edit.
>>48631288No problem. I need sleep now, but I'll keep following your progress and making suggestions.
>>48631614True that. Excellent tank.Slow and undergunned at the start of the war but still sturdy as fuck
>>48626697Easy to detect for humans. If Martians don't have radar, it's even less likely they have sonar. And subs are sneaky, three minutes to start firing vs. a battleship or cruiser steaming up over how many hours or days?
>>48631915Subfag here, 180 seconds is still plenty of time for a merchant to signal a convoy escort, which will then begin shelling. Assuming one convoy escort with 3 guns firing every five seconds, with 15 second delay between spotting and firing, that's 99 shells fired from a single escort before a Surcouf even gets to shoot.Now consider that, generally speaking, all you need to do is breach the sub's pressure hull and he's a goner. One hit with a 4" or 5" HE and he's fucking toast. Those are really, really terrible odds.
>>48632084The trick is to drive right through a convoy on the surface so you're in the middle and no one knows what direction the torps are coming from, everything's just exploding all around them, only works at night though. Germans did this in WW2 and it worked pretty well, if you have the balls to chug right into the center of a convoy
>>48587840>>48586784If we talk about awesome svit that could engage martians in naval combat, then please dont forget this beauty. Regatding martian vessels i can imagine tripods only in shallow waters and only flying stuff seems kinda lame for your awesome naval clash. I.'d just come up with a "theyre back" scenario. Like first failed invasion in ww1 and now second in ww2. Maybe they hid in antarctica building a warfleet or somethin. Def give us an AA-report mate.
>>48618475Ah damn you beat me ti it. Still love that idea.
>>48604610>The Battleship stopped mattering as a warship because the aircraft carried by aircraft carriers had sufficiently powerful weaponry that they could kill any BB before it could get into gun range of a carrier.>Battleships stopped mattering after the japenese missed the aircraft carriers at pearl harbor and forced the US navy to use those as capitol ships instead and because the jap quality of vessels and personnel was shit they decided 'it ain't broke d n't fix it'.FTFY
>>48632129Well, yes, if you just play a fleet-type like a submersible destroyer it's goddamn hilarious. I think it was the USS Barb(?) that infiltrated a convoy at night by pretending to be one of the escorts.>>48632144>HMS M2>Submarine Monitor>Converted into aircraft carrier>"This beauty">good
>>48604809No. The Heat Ray shot a beam of invisible light as the protagonist describes it
>>48632207Well, yes. Carriers being better than battleships was proven from a situation of necessity. And no, the one thing Japan got going for it was that sheer skill made up for lack of tech. Just look at the night gunnery during Guadalcanal, or how they knew how to form and coordinate an entire air strike while the US air aviation organization was still lackluster. And it's kind of hard to fix something when the people who actually see the problem keep dying on the frontline.
>>48632223You tell me a submersible destroyer doesnt sound awesome? At least fir sneaky port raids i'd definetly take her to bring something with a lil more firepower
>>48632301>Slowly a humped shape rose out of the pit, and the ghost of a beam of light seemed to flicker out from it.>It was as if some invisible jet impinged upon them and flashed into white flame.>It was sweeping round swiftly and steadily, this flaming death, this invisible, inevitable sword of heat.
>>48632345>Sunk because water entered the hangar>Awesome
>>486323456 torpedo tubes is all you'll ever need :^)
>>48632310Carriers being better than battleshipsI resent that remark.On the subject of IJN skill, this is largely due to their head start compared to the USN, however as the war went on the IJN quickly unraveled,while admittedly the IJN survived as long as it did due to the skill of their crews, however this advantage did not last long. My main gripe about the pacific campaign was how one sided the naval war became.
>>48632492>My main gripe about the pacific campaign was how one sided the naval war became.That's pretty much every war against America.>I resent that remark.pic related
>>48632492>My main gripe about the pacific campaign was how one sided the naval war became.>became>>became>>>became
>>48632541Didn't Japan only produce 90ish planes in 1943?
>>48632511>Deal with itI'm not going to be happy about it.
>>48632620That sounds about right, yes. Their industry was completely fucked even before the claps took over Tinian and started bombing it to rubble. That, plus their doctrine was shit so you'd wind up with things like >>48632492 mentioned, where the Japs completely *ran out of skilled crew/pilots* because they kept them on the front until they died rather than sending them back to train new ones.Guadalcanal, motherfucker. The war was decided at Midway where they lost four carriers to bad luck and shit damcon, and then decided even more at Ironbottom Sound, where they threw all their high-tier pre-war sailors into a goddamn meat grinder. If you've ever heard of Samar, that's what happens when your sailors are half-trained inept chucklefucks; you mistake a CVE for a fleet carrier, a destroyer for a heavy cruiser, and then humiliated by some ballsy tin cans with a death wish.If we consider that Martian Heat Rays will penetrate warship armour as a matter of course, then the solution becomes something like the HMS Furious - a 'large light cruiser' armoured with fucking nothing and armed with an 18" gun. The most time and weight-consuming part of a warship is the armour - 12" of face-hardened steel is hard as fuck to produce in mass quantities. If, instead, you just wrapped a hull around a gun battery and some propulsion, you could shit out tin cans by the dozens. Get the smallest gun that can reliably knock out a tripod, then slap as many of those fuckers on an unarmoured hull as you can.
>>48632492>Carriers being better than battleships>I resent that remark.You are welcome to present a counter argument but you're pissing against 90 years worth of real world examples.>On the subject of IJN skill, this is largely due to their head start compared to the USN, however as the war went on the IJN quickly unraveled,while admittedly the IJN survived as long as it did due to the skill of their crews, however this advantage did not last long. Man that is some sentence structure you got there, said the same meaningless thing three times and everything.>My main gripe about the pacific campaign was how one sided the naval war became.'the war was bad because one side won too hard'
>>48632511idk the japs were pretty good to start with, almost eliminated the entire pacific US fleet in one fell swoop. They also BTFO some US ships while their troops were on the ground nearby, I think in Guadalcanal or some shit.In the end you just can't outproduce a large country like US or Russia
>>48632750>HMS Furious - a 'large light cruiser' armoured with fucking nothing and armed with an 18" gunSo like this?
>>48632750Or like this?
>>48632750>Midway>bad luckThis is where one of your dad's motivational sayings about luck being a byproduct of hard work and good planning, neither of which the IJN brass seemed willing to put in after sometime in April 1942.>If we consider that Martian Heat Rays will penetrate warship armour as a matter of courseGermany had it right: 'If we consider that the Royal Navy's 12" guns and torpedo planes will penetrate warship armor as a matter of course, then I will build U-boats, U-boats, U-boats.'
>>48632828>The HMS Capsize, seen here moments before fulfilling her eponymous purpose.
>>48632841And then the RN specced into ASW and code-breaking.
>>48632828>>48632837Something like that, but less silly. I'd mock up a design in Rule the Waves, but I don't actually have a save past 1910 to fuck around with right now. Say, cruiserweight, around the 5,000T mark, 22-23 knots early-dreadnought era, 27-30-ish past WW1. Main battery 6x16" guns in forward and rear triple turrets. Belt and turret face armour at 2" solid steel from stem to stern for splinter protection only, deck and turret top armour at 1" solid steel likewise. Probably wouldn't even need the splinter protection since lolheatrays. lit. "What's the smallest, cheapest, fastest thing I can build around a 16" battery?"
>>48632889You will have to press-gang crews to serve aboard HMS Magazine Explosion.
>>48632922That's okay, you can just play the "Survival of the Human Race" card.
>>48632960I'm pretty sure everybody's gonna be mutinying about the floating death traps
>>48632756>You are welcome to present a counter argument but you're pissing against 90 years worth of real world examples.Gladly, after the attack on pearl harbor the pacific fleet was thoroughly crippled, except for the carriers, so the USN had to make a choice and chose to go on the offensive with the carriers as the capitol ship, the japanese made a similar choice under different circumstances, those being their battleships were so dearly prized they refused to risk them. After the battle of midway the IJN lost the means to properly oppose US air superiority, the US realized they could damage the IJN without risking their more expensive ship if they could afford it, and could relegate the BBs to flake and bombardment duty, which they excelled at. These factors along with the contrast of Japanese and US quality and skill gave the current naval doctrine. I do not believe an IJN fleet focused around their carrier would far as well against a US fleet focused around a battleship, however this scenario has not occurred to my knowledge.>Man that is some sentence structure you got there, said the same meaningless thing three times and everything.I am aware, not my best work.>'the war was bad because one side won too hard'Oh I see, you just want to be an asshole.
>>48632993Punishment/penal crews stiffened with some proper naval types and marines? Volunteer or "Volunteer" crews taken from military or civil prison systems and sent out to smash Tripods along the coast, trying to reach a quota that will allow them all to be set free/nicer jail/actual pay/etc.
>>48633061That sounds fun as fuck, actually. Penal crew on a disposable deathtrap of a ship, told that if they bag enough ayylmaos they'll go free.
>>48633002>I do not believe an IJN fleet focused around their carrier would far as well against a US fleet focused around a battleship, however this scenario has not occurred to my knowledge.No, they wouldn't. Jap carriers got 90+ planes per boat. Add that carriers usually don't operate alone, and you got several hundred planes in the air, trained and coordinated to attack all at once. Then you got AA in WW2, where making double digits was considered almost ace-like. Hell, SoDak only downed 36 planes during 4 years of operation, and US BBs are famous for their sheer volume of fire.So Kido Butai strike against a US battleship fleet? The US fleet are goners.
>>48633002Would a battleship focused US fleet fare as well against a carrier focused IJN?Hypothetical: Lexington, Yorktown, Hornet, Enterprise sunk or damaged at Pearl. US rolls up to Midway with Arizona, California, West Virginia, Oklahoma, etc.They'd get their entire shit pushed in. Carriers project more force over a greater distance. Cost for cost, ton for ton, ship for ship they are always a better investment and have been since CV-2 was commissioned, if not before.
>>48633128Nevermind that carriers, as a matter of necessity, need to make over 30kt speed. Even if the carriers fail to sink or significantly damage the battle fleet, they can just doot-doot away and do it again the next day.
>>48633121That bit about SoDak is a bit misleading seeing as she didn't enter the pacific theater until 1943.I can't really defend my position without making up some plausible scenario and even then it's up to math and probability, all I can offer is I do believe US firepower would prevail, however ideally carriers would be used as support to intercept enemy planes and harass enemy ships.>>48633128It would be a hard fight and the end result is not gauranteed, however I don't think it would be that simple as it would at the very least force the IJN battleships to intervene which would prove my point anyway as IJN would rather fight BBs with BBs instead of risking carriers, but that's just a hypothetical. And on the subject of projection, power projection is very important and a powerful tool, but it loses sway when that power can be adequately neutralized at a certain distance.>>48633187True, but this opens up the possibility of closing on the carrier at the onset of battle, forcing the carrier to run or stay, if it runs it will lose a portion of it's compliment, if it stays it risks being destroyed and then the air compliment have nowhere to land.
>>48633571>however ideally carriers would be used as support to intercept enemy planes and harass enemy shipsAh yes, because the US cancelled two Iowas and the four Montanas, then created 24 Essexes and 6 Midways because BB firepower would totally prevail.
>>48633624Whoops, meant 3 Midways.
>>48633624To be fair to the other guy weren't BBs monstrously more expensive than carriers at the time?
>>48633636Sure, but that just factors into the "pound for pound better than battleships" argument.Why create expensive battleships when you can just drown them in planes?
>>48633652Thats a reasonably, logical argument and I fucking hate it. I just wanna see two fleets shoot the fuck out of each other in a situation other than Jutland
>>48633624The carrier method worked, never mind the circumstances.When ships were first being made of metal they made them with rams because the CSS Virginia sank so many union ships by ramming of course this changed after engagements against other metal ships, my point is how doctrine can be shaped by certain circumstances and change when faced by an adequate foe.>>48633652Exactly my point.
Alright, we've already gone off-topic, so let's get back on it.What additions to the Martian arsenal could there be that doesn't make them god mode tentacle sues?
>>48633728Lack of doctrine and no real grasp on military maneuvers as they are use to use walking through and killing everyone so when they meet something that can match them they stall or hesitate
>>48633571>True, but this opens up the possibility of closing on the carrier at the onset of battle, forcing the carrier to run or stay, if it runs it will lose a portion of it's compliment, if it stays it risks being destroyed and then the air compliment have nowhere to land.That really isn't at all how it works. Even if the carriers have to turn around and flee at maximum speed immediately after launching because somehow the BBs flim-flammed'd their way up to 50nmi or so, their planes have plenty of range to fly over to the opposing fleet, fuck them up, and catch back up to the carriers to rearm and repeat. The fundamental problem is that if you are close enough to the carrier that it feels even remotely threatened, it is close enough to you to kill you.>>48633677>doctrine can be shaped by certain circumstancesThe only set of circumstances wherein gun-armed battleships are preferable to aircraft carriers for fleet engagements >>48633728Vacuum airships.
>>48633790And onto a different point. How long should the effective range of the heat rays be?
>>48633879whoops lost my shit thereThe only set of circumstances wherein gun-armed battleships are preferable to aircraft carriers for fleet engagements is one where AA has a high enough success rate to make successful attacks unlikely or aircraft attrition unsustainable. We still aren't quite there yet but maybe lasers are the answer.
>>48633895Fog, ocean spray, sand, dust, and their own Black Smoke should severely inhibit range to provide opportunities for creative counters. Otherwise if they can see something and track it, they can hit it. Insulated and armored targets should require sustained fire to penetrate, there should be some loss in effectiveness over range, and some difficulty in holding the beam steady enough to stay on a target way out on the horizon.
>>48633958>>48633895An American destroyer's 5-incher has a range of 16 kilometers, and an Iowa can hit at 24 kilometers. So somewhere between those two I'm guessing.
>>48634020Although apparently the Iowa's kinda iffy, I'm getting ranges from 23 to 30+ kilometers.
>>48633674>I just wanna see two fleets shoot the fuck out of each other in a situation other than Jutlandget into the Russo-Japanese wars anonBattle of Tsushima Straits
>>48634055I said two fleets not one fleet and physics defying rusted hulks
>>48633879>That really isn't at all how it works.I don't see why not, if the carrier is identified early then it will be a priority target and try to close to fire on it, the carrier will try to avoid this and the planes will try to get a strike on the ships threatening the carrier, that and it's not a gaurantee that the planes will be able to disable the ship. >>48633899But of course, this was recognized during the construction of the Iowas and was shown on the planned Missouri to have an even greater AA outfit. As for lasers, we shall see, likely not anytime soon if they were that potent it would start one hell of an arms race.>>48634020Maybe, heat isn't known for extreme distance. The only thing close to what the martians have is a proposed alternate energy design that reflects solar rays to a fixed panel, it's known for incinerating flocks of birds.
>>48634068The russians are a curious bunch.
>>48634073>if the carrier is identified early then it will be a priority target and try to close to fire on itSure, but considering the number of planes available, the carrier will, barring human or environmental circumstances, always be able to identify the battleship fleet first. Then the BB fleet's position is radioed in, and the carriers hightail it out of there.It's like a team of regular rifleman going out on their own to fight a group of snipers who can call in artillery support. If they spot them, the snipers just hightail it out of there. If the snipers see them first, arty's inbound.
>>48634073>I don't see why notBecause of the speeds and distances involved. The planes are ten times faster than the ships, the ships are literally incapable of leaving them behind.>lasers not anytime soonUnless last year counts as not soon, we've already got one deployed.>heat isn't known for extreme distancepic
>>48634133>picThe sun's a nuclear fireball 1.3 million times bigger than the Earth though
>>48634117Eh, sea planes aren't exactly artillery tier. But the comparison is mostly apt, ignoring codebreakers and other factors.
>>48634157>sea planes aren't exactly artillery tierThey kind of are. That's what planes bring to naval war, a way to drop ship-killing munitions that's hard to stop except with other planes.
>>48634046Navweps says her AP shells will fly almost 39km when fired at a 45 degree angle. Accuracy is probably still good enough to scare the Pentagon at that range, but it'll likely take several volleys to monte carlo your way onto a point target.>>48634157>Eh, sea planes aren't exactly artillery tier. You're right, they are considerably deadlier. Torpedoes can't be fired out of a cannon after all.>>48634154The point is that light, lasers, and thermal radiation don't give a shit about distance unless something gets in the way.
>>48634133>The planes are ten times faster than the shipsI was talking about the carrier. > we've already got one deployed.A test model, I mean a full scale laser CIWS.>the sunThat's not exactly on par with a tripod mounted heat ray.
>>48634176>They kind of areWhat is plunging fire?And they aren't that hard to stop with a well trained AA crew.>You're right, they are considerably deadlier.Those are both lower quality versions of existing munitions.
>>48634227The carrier is faster than the battleships and the planes are an order of magnitude faster than both. Your original claim was that the battleships could chase the carrier and make it abandon its planes. They cannot.
>>48634292Not all carriers are faster than a BB, I can't recall the name but an IJN carrier clocked in at 28 knots and the Iowas come in at 32, not to mention the carrier would deploy it's fighters to intercept the battleship, and say the battleship maintains course towards the carrier long enough it feels the need to retreat those planes have a ways to go to catch up if it, and while it's likely most will make it, baring adverse conditions, while the plans are considerably faster their fuel is much more limited.
>>48634336Sure, but the Iowas were THE fastest BBs in the war. They're the exception, not the rule. Ship speeds are:Battleships:South Dakota-class was 27 knots.North Carolina-class was 28 knots.Carriers:Akagi was 31 knots.Hiryu was 34 knots.Soryu was 34 knots.Zuikaku was 34.5 knots.Unryuu was 32 to 34.Taiho was 33 knots.So yeah, CVs be fast man.
>>48634336The Iowa class are literally called Fast Battleships, and were made specifically to be able to KEEP UP with carriers. The Standard Battleships were completely unable to do so.
>>48634199>The point is that light, lasers, and thermal radiation don't give a shit about distance unless something gets in the way.Not entirely true. Lasers and heat both diffuse over distance. Lasers are actually pretty shitty over long range, due to diffraction.
>>48634263>And they aren't that hard to stop with a well trained AA crew.It would not be unusual for a vessel to be attacked by more aircraft in a single run that that vessel had AA emplacements. And actually HITTING an incoming aircraft, especially divebombers, was extremely difficult. More advanced techniques like Skip Bombing made this even more difficult.Prior to the advent of actively guided AA, the advantage was firmly on the side of the aircraft.
>>48634426Inside a planetary atmosphere, absorption losses are going to be an issue long before you need to start worrying about the diffraction limit.
>>48634227>the sunThe principles are the same regardless of scale. Photons don't have range limitations>>48634263>what is plunging fireLike dive bombing but less accurate.>And they aren't that hard to stop with a well trained AA crew.Tell that to the well trained AA crews of about half the ships on this list http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/JANAC-Losses/JANAC-Losses-3.html and the many dozens of German, Italian, and Allied ships sunk by aircraft.A deckload strike package from one carrier could saturate the AA of just about any ship afloat, and the IJN liked to launch their strikes off of at least 4 decks at a time.>>48634336Kaga being fat and slow due to a compromised design has little bearing on the broader generality. A CV of roughly comparable size to a BB and designed to equivalent standards by equivalently competent engineers will always be lighter and faster by virtue of not needing nearly as much armor or armament weight.You are guessing here without actually looking at the numbers and you are wrong. A TBF Avenger for example has a nominal combat radius of 259 miles. They can kill a battleship 100 miles away from their takeoff point and catch up with the carrier fleeing at 30 knots without difficulty.>>48634426Due to things getting in the way. On a clear day from the top of a hill you are hitting the horizon with 95%+ of your energy anyway because the distances involved are relatively short.
>>48634395>>48634406At the very least the Shinano and Ryujo clock in at 28 and 29 knots respectively. And regardless the Iowas were battleships and capable of outrunning certain carriers.And to the anon that said 'standard battleships' were unable to keep up, most older models of vessel are slower than their successors.I will concede under normal conditions it's not likely that a BB will strike a death blow to a carrier, but if it can it will, in most instances a carrier killer will have to do the job, like the Des Moines or the Alaska. >>48634437But of course, and the more AA placements the better your chances, and as I recall a battleship whos name I can't remember layed out such an impressive AA screen other vessels thought she caught fire, as I remember it.>>48634483>Photons don't have range limitationsI didn't know heat was measured in photons>Like dive bombing but less accurate.And more powerful.>Lists japanese vesselsI think this says more about the japanese and their crew skill and AA abilities no?As for that bit about european sailors, atlantic and mediteranian naval warfare was more worried about U-boats and other vessels.>A TBF AvengerSeeing as you gave me a US fighter I assume you mean it to be used against IJN vessels, known for lacking in AA and having poor placement of what they had, not to mention poor qualities and crews which contributed greatly to the list you gave me.
>>48634578>Seeing as you gave me a US fighter I assume you mean it to be used against IJN vessels, known for lacking in AA and having poor placement of what they had, not to mention poor qualities and crews which contributed greatly to the list you gave me.The hell are you talking about? He's using it as a basic example of the range of a carrier craft. Japanese aircraft were infamous for damning survivability in the name of range and maneuvering, so they'd actually be able to hit even farther than that 100 mile radius.
>>48634623And the IJN pilots were well known for using this extra range to bring themselves to the US navy so they could promptly be shot out of the sky.
Thread seems to have pulled away from the original topic of ships vs martians, and turned to US vs Japan naval talk. Can we go back to the rpg setting and martians please.
>>48634660Weren't the Japanese originally from Mars? It explains why I don't get thoses weird animated comics they do.
>>48634660It must be a martian plot for us to turn against each other!
>>48634578>Kaga, Shinano, and RyujoTwo converted battleships and a light carrier are slower than the fastest battleships ever madeActual fleet carriers are faster than battleships of the same vintage.>if it can it willIf your uncle can bear children he's your aunt.>in most instances a carrier killer will have to do the job, like the Des Moines or the Alaska.In most instances the fucking aircraft will sink the BB, CA, BC, DD, whatever fucking surface combatant before the poor bastards even have the carrier on radar. Because the carrier has ten scouts to their two and also has ten times the engagement range.>I didn't know heat was measured in photonsWell now you do. Congratulations.http://web.mit.edu/16.unified/www/FALL/thermodynamics/notes/node133.html>And more powerful.Tell that to the Arizona>Lists japanese vesselsThat was the most immediately available list. Here's a different one. And the Germans and Italians were definitely worried at least as much about planes as they were subs.http://ussjohnpauljones.org/us_navy_ships_lost_in_ww2.htm>Seeing as you gave me a US fighter I assume you mean it to be used against IJN vessels, known for lacking in AA and having poor placement of what they had, not to mention poor qualities and crews which contributed greatly to the list you gave me.No fuckfence. I gave you an example of a fighter to be used against an example of a battleship from an example of a carrier. Who made which doesn't matter. The carrier wins more than enough times out of a hundred regardless.>>48634660Which country is most likely to side with the Martians? Japan, right?
>>48634708Ah yes, I remember when the space battleship Yamato was sunk by multiple starfighter attacks on its way to wipe out the US fleet in orbit of Phobos
>>48634720>Which country is most likely to side with the Martians? Japan, right?They'd get BTFO like England was in the bookThen they collapse because high command is dead and the army falls apart into warlord cliques fighting against each other and the Chinese rather than the Martians
>>48634578>>48634720If you really want a fair matchup, you should consider USN vs. USN.and Essex beats Iowa every time.
>>48634720>Two converted battleships and a light carrier are slower than the fastest battleships ever made'Carriers'>If your uncle can bear children he's your aunt.That's a new one, but I'd like to see the carrier that took a shell from a BBs main gun.>Because the carrier has ten scouts to their two and also has ten times the engagement range.It also has sea planes of various quality and ability assaulting a fleet, you're point? Because if it's that carriers are superior to all other surface vessels, I think you might want to read up on the actual engagements, or maybe argue with one of those 'submarines are the future to naval warfare' types, that'd be amusing.>Well now you do. Congratulations.Right, now look into dispersal.>Tell that to the Arizona. Tell that to the Hood.>Lists US vesselsLet's see, only two BBs, a handful of cruisers, and good Lord the destroyers. However only a few of those cruisers were destroyed by aircraft, and both BBs were at pearl harbor.>Who made which doesn't matter.The Hell it doesn't, A carrier relies on it's aircraft, if you give me a Jap carrier with American planes, it's going to do a lot better than with it's japanese compliment.
>>48634844Now that would be a fight.
>>48623315>light/escort carriers were always primarily useful as ASW assets even well into the Cold War>GHEHAEHRE IT'S A LIGHT CARRIER NOT AN ASW ASSET!
>>48634720>Actual fleet carriers are faster than battleships of the same vintage.He's right about this. Consider that "Fast battleships" tended to clock in around 25-27 knots (27 knots seems to be the most common.) Before that, it was 21 knots (there's a reason the Standard type battleships the US used all made 21 knots; it matched a great many battleships in the world when they were launched, the 1910s/20s.) Now compare to the IJN Kaga, which made 28 knots. Her 28 knot speed was a real impediment for carrier operations; the reason carriers need speed is to get airspeed going over the deck to help launch planes. If that heavily laden attack aircraft is a few knots OVER stall speed, she struggles aloft. If she's a few knots BELOW stall speed, she goes into the drink. It's that simple. This speed issue isn't that big a deal, because battleships were horrific fuel hogs, and moving at flank speed all the time makes it ten times worse. They could cruise (at fuel efficient speeds) as a group fine enough. Of course the higher your flank speed, typically the higher your fuel-efficient cruise speed - but the firepower/protection/speed trade-offs are almost all governed by weight efficiency for battleships and in that era the best balance tended to come out around 27 knots speed, so they just sucked it up and shipped more fuel oil in the tenders. The Iowa class was built to keep up with fleet carriers moving at flank - such as during combat ops when you're launching and recovering - so they could stay right alongside and provide their (hideously heavy) AA armament to help defend the carrier. But the Iowas are a superlative example of the battleship that came in late-war and benefited from exceptional technology, so... yeah.
>>48634849Righto, pal. You need to shut the fuck up. For starters, you've been arguing this entire time, with a straight face, that battleships can somehow contend with carriers. There's only one goddamned way to do this, and that's by surprise. It's no coincidence that the only time major surface combatants fired on aircraft carriers where when Kurita's battleships (who had snuck in close via a successful ruse) stumbled across some escort carriers (considerably slower than fleet carriers and unable to run) at dawn. >Tell that to the Hood.No, the Arizona. Because the bombshell that killed her was actually a 16 inch naval AP shell converted into a bomb, thus neatly demonstrating that carrier-launched bombers can do fucking anything plunging fire can, including deliver the same munitions with more than enough energy to penetrate deck armor and with far, far, far more accurate results. As for MUH AA, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Consider the battle of Midway, where the Japanese - with their famously delicate planes - were only able to get off one full strike, and that strike had to come in piecemeal, in two deckloads worth (30 aircraft each, instead of 60 all at once.) Worse, they had to attack a US task force that had a carrier launching defensive CAP with active radio direction, guided by radar early-warning and with AA that was far superior to anything the Japanese had in both volume of fire, fire control and doctrine of use. Both strikes still managed to get through and damage Yorktown. Despite ALL of that. Even after the advent of the radio proximity fuze, which increased effectiveness of AA fire by a few orders of magnitude, it still took a hundred-odd shots of 5-inch to score one aircraft kill, on average.
>>48635537Here mate, you're gonna need another one of these.
The reason we covered every flat surface of our battleships with a light AA mount is because aircraft were extremely dangerous and extremely hard to kill - we needed as much lead in the air as possible just to stand a *chance* of survival. AA was always a Hail Mary chance (and would remain so well into the age of guided missiles, even!) your last-ditch defense. Point defense, in essence - even 5-inch. Torpedo bombers you might have a chance against, because torpedo bombers suck ass, but dive bombers? By the time you can hit them, even with 5 or 6 inch fire, they're already pretty close to their pushover point; and once they begin diving no fire control systems of the era had a chance in hell of tracking that, and they'd be through the threatened area of a barrier barrage almost instantly. So it'd all be up to the light AA - the 40mm, to be precise, because that's the only stuff that can reach up and touch them before they pickle their bombs. At that point your only real chance is putting the rudder hard over because your AA won't fucking hack it, as a few US carriers found out at Coral Sea, and Enterprise at Santa Cruz (to name just two.) Fewer things are harder to hit than something approaching at high speed and changing altitude at an extremely high rate (i.e. a dive bomber) especially when your fuzes rely on precise timing to go off when the target is in the kill zone. Even with proximity fuzes, 40mm didn't have the rate of fire necessary to beat off a dive bomber attack alone and 20mm is so small it needs a direct hit anyway to do any significant damage (and it doesn't reach far enough.) All of this is why the 3-inch automatic guns were developed postwar - and those were still considered point-defense!
>>48634849>Because if it's that carriers are superior to all other surface vessels, I think you might want to read up on the actual engagementsActual battleship engagements? An ambush at Surigao strait and Washington #rekt Kirishima at Guadalcanal; both of them one-sided curbstombs courtesy of darkness and radar fire control. The war-deciding massive battles were all carrier engagements. >or maybe argue with one of those 'submarines are the future to naval warfare' typesCarriers have always been the best anti-submarine asset you can ask for, because aircraft can cover a lot of distance very fast, which is important when you're combing the ocean for submarines. In the '40s it was "good luck approaching when the sky is crawling with eyes and we can spot your silhouette through 100 feet of water" and now its goodluckI'mbehind700sonobouys.jpg. We already played this game. It was called the Cold War, and the Soviets lost. Hard. We're playing this game right now in the South China Sea. Guess who's winning? If you want battleships to be super relevant as the primary surface combatant in a WWII setting, you really, really, really need to vastly improve the accuracy and power of point defenses. In fact... you'd need something like a maser. Or a heat-ray. Which can fry WWII fighters as easy as point-and-shoot, but would be in a hell of a pickle trying to melt their way through a 12 inch armored belt on a battlewagon dropping shells on them from several nautical miles away. Lasers have tons of issues shooting through air; thermal blooming and other effects drastically reduce effective range. Masers are even worse because microwaves are absorbed by water very, very well (this is the principle behind the microwave oven) and you're trying to use them in a humid maritime environment. And Martians... have Masers!
Anyway. I already did "Martians in the 40s" as a setting. How I did it was make the Martians scarily advanced in the electromagnetic spectrum, but coupled that with a relative inferiority in chemical engineering (the immediately significant consequence being that their explosives suck.) So as nifty as masers are - well, masers don't scale down very well. So their aircraft aren't any better than human ones, and they don't hit as hard - their bombs aren't as boomy and their gunpowder just isn't as good, leading them to rely mostly on rockets (gyrojet style projectiles for bullets and small, semi-guided rockets that are the rough equivalent of 20mm cannons) because they offer better ballistics than they can get out of normal guns most of the time (especially range and damage-wise.)The net consequence is that air attacks against Martian warships are liable to suffer hideously high casualties from their heavy masers, but aircraft carriers are very effective at defending human warships from Martian air attack. Then there's the gunpower/maser matchup; masers are not good at longer ranges, especially at sea for the reasons outlined above - the very ranges where 1940s battleships were optimized for fighting at. You can't maser down a 16 inch AP shell in flight. They've certainly got the upper hand in sensor jamming radar fire control, but they can't bloody well turn invisible. Big capital-class masers do a number (and quickly, since they always hit) on light superstructure/antennas/rangefinders and such (much like HE splinters would) and since they always hit they do it much faster - but conversely they've got little chance of threatening a warship's vitals, whereas the human warship can easily blow them out of the fucking water if they land a hit.
>>48635891If, considering that 5% to-hit chance per salvo at 30,000 yards are optimal and they might maser up your fire-director fast. Much like ordinary battleship engagements, long range slugfests are often inconclusive and the loser can still limp away, combat ineffective but surviving to fight another day. Also like ordinary battleship engagements, this dynamic changes very rapidly as range closes; under 10,000 yards it's a hell of a lot easier for the human ship to hit and for the Martian masers to burn through armor very fast, and then it becomes "sudden death." Emphasis on sudden. Anyway OP, maybe that can give you some ideas. There's no reason the Martians have to use their Heat Rays as main battery weapons (assuming you give them big-ass warships, that is.) It might well be that the tripod-scaled ones are the biggest ones they bother using, switching to cannons for larger stuff (they did use a gigantic cannon as a mass-driver to reach Earth, after all!) Small masers would still make their point-defense AA extremely lethal to 1940s era aircraft - at the very least that'd reduce the primacy of dive-bombers a bit and give you a reason to use torpedo bombers instead (since torpedoes offer a standoff advantage.) That standoff advantage comes at the cost of accuracy, so airpower can be significant without being overwhelmingly powerful. Any way you go, it'd make battleships a lot more useful for engaging Martians, since they'd manage it without incurring serious attrition to an air wing full of expensive planes and very expensive pilots.
>>48635948OP here. Thanks for that planefag, I hadn't considered giving the Martians weapons besides their heat ray and a much less sudden evaporate-y starwars esk laser weapon for their "modernized" weapons. Ill run this through my group tomorrow and start sussing out how I am actually going to put the mechanics into play
>>48639020No problem. Also remember that weather conditions affect flight operations severely, too. Winter in the North Sea or the Bearing Sea, or monsoon season in the Pacific can both make aircraft very, very hard to work with. Extra mist in the air fucks with masers and the extra pitching/rolling makes battleships less accurate (though every smaller ship is even more inaccurate.) Basically, find out what kind of fighting your players like and/or want, and no matter what dynamics they want, you can find a technology balance for the setting that enforces the dynamics you desire. Be sure to tell us how it went so we can help you out with whatever you come up with!
>>48640242>Basically, find out what kind of fighting your players like and/or wantThis is the most key advice, really. Suss out what dynamic they actually find interesting in a naval fight. Some people like the feel of close-up broadside knifefights out of the age of sail, some people like the gravity and grace of proper long-range gunnery, some people actually enjoy the missile world of modern combat. The martians can be tweaked however you need them to be to suit those goals.
>>48635537Oh, I made him mad enough to tripfag.>No, the Arizona.Just a few sentences earlier you said the only way a BB could take out a carrier was from surprise, care to draw a few similarities? It only helps my case that the only US battleships lost during the war were at pearl harbor. >As for MUH AAOh look a technologically inferior force runs into trouble when it tries to attack one more advanced and of a better quality of itself.>YorktownA carrier, and of course it's going to take an extreme amount of flake to down a plane, it's the same concept as duck hunting. >The reason we covered every flat surface of our battleships with a light AA mount is because aircraft were extremely dangerous and extremely hard to kill No shit, and oh look the enterprise, another carrier.>The war-deciding massive battles were all carrier engagements. Of course they were, the admiralty wouldn't allow anything less.>"good luck approaching when the sky is crawling with eyes and we can spot your silhouette through 100 feet of water"Ok, you can see them, but can't touch them, nice, better hope the DDs get them first, and as I recall many US carriers were sunk by IJN submarines.>you really, really, really need to vastly improve the accuracy and power of point defenses.I agree to a point, however the PD available has been proven to be effective enough, so obviously we already took a step in the right direction.
>>48632828>>48632837I am fully erect.
>>48641807>It only helps my case that the only US battleships lost during the war were at pearl harbor.Let's put it this way: how many carriers were sunk by battleships during WWI: NONE. Not a single one.How many carriers were sunk by naval gunfire during WWII: One. The USS Gambier Bay at Samar, an escort carrier caught undefended (3 DDs and 4DEs) and whose aircraft were outfitted for air-to-ground work. Up against a fleet of 4 battleships, though the Gambier Bay was sunk by fire from a heavy cruiser.
>>48642963Yes, and? I know how things went and what the end result is, I'm saying the end result could have been much different had certain factors changed.
>>48643073>I know how things went and what the end result is, I'm saying the end result could have been much different had certain factors changed.In which case, you'd be wrong. NOBODY, regardless of battleship, regardless of carrier, regardless of circumstance, regardless of nation, regardless of crew, managed to send a BB against a carrier and prevail. Eveain in the best possible circumstance, with a massively overwhelming force of BBs against a handful of the smallest carriers fielded, of the three carriers sunk two were taken down by aircraft.
>>48643477Exactly, it hasn't happened because nobody tried.
>>48643615Both vessels are more than capable of killing on another.The carrier can kill things without exposing itself to harm, whereas the battleship will be relying on its armor.The carrier has organic scouting capabilities that can spot a battleship steaming to fuck her ass at distances far, far beyond the range of the battleship to retaliate.The only way for a battleship to punk a carrier is for the balance of air attack and air defense to shift, and this is ignoring the new missile meta of everything.
>>48643615>Exactly, it hasn't happened because nobody tried.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midwayhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanalhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leyte_GulfTried. Failed.
>>48643615I am 150% certain that your statement is not correct. People didn't look at carriers, fail to at least *consider* using BBs against them, and then just said "fuck it".
>Cool thread about battleships vs tripods.>Devolves into BaBies complaining about carriers and trying to justify their use in modern war.Give it a rest already. I get it, Battleships are cool and it's a shame they aren't useful anymore. But don't shit up a thread about a hypothetical scenario where they would be useful.
>>48643686In theory that's true, in practice what we have is tainted by a myriad of factors, we'll never really know which one is better unless there's a drastic change in the future. Also I discounted missiles because my whole point is if things were different during the pacific war our naval philosophy would be drastically different. >>48643835Midway was a carrier battle. Also no BBs were sunk.Guadalcanal Hiei an Kirishima were crippled by a navy vessel then bombed by aircraft, and sunk by a battleship respectively, this battle has more to say about carriers as a support to battleships than sending battleships against a carrier.Leyte gulf was so painfully one sided it wouldn't have ended any other way, it is notable that battleships also engaged each other here however the IJN was so hopelessly outclassed it almost doesn't matter.>>48643918They did, and then pearl harbor happened, and then midway happened, and then the US admiralty decided to just role with a carrier focused campaign and the IJN decided they didn't want to risk their precious moral pieces.>>48644076I am doing nothing of the sort, I'm simply arguing that the pacific campaign could have been very different under certain circumstances and that would have change naval philosophy today.
>>48644120You sound like China fag from /k/. When everyone else in the thread says you're wrong, perhaps consider the fact that you're wrong.
>>48644147Why should I do that when I'm arguing my point rather effectively.
>>48644120"If everything was different things might be different" is a pointless statement on its own
>>48642963>>48643477Granted, Kurita's largest battleships initially retreated to evade torpedo attack and he subsequently withdrew his forces thinking that he'd met not with Sprague's token force, but a more substantial defensive force. They would have FLATTENED Sprague had they not done so, but then that means they still would have to contend with the fact that the overall plan had fallen apart by that point.Basically Kurita was gunshy, but ultimately correct in that his position was untenable. The result was not due to having an inferior force there, at that time.
>>48644173No you aren't. You've presented no real evidence against anything that has been presented. "If things were different" isn't an argument, it's speculation at best and fantasy for the most part.
>>48644276Feel free to find a hole in the reasoning of my previous posts. Most of what I have to say has been said.
>>48632084We're talking about fighting Martians, subfag. You know, ayys? The ones with the line of sight weapons and black smoke?It's highly advised to read up on a thread before you post.
>>48644276Up until last night I had thought he might be legit, but at this point there's no way. He's just fucking with us at this point. No one can look at the shit he's typing and actually think they're arguing a point well. Just ignore him.
>>48644392I mean, I've seen people who couldn't be convinced they were wrong even when they were before so he might be legit, but he's so stupid/blind about what everyone is saying that it's like talking to a wall.
>>48632756No he's not. The only reason battleships were phased out was because of nukes.Otherwise, they would have just kept large, heavily armored vessels in operation and slapped missiles on them in addition to large guns.You know, basically what they did with the Iowa refits. Still a very useful warship considering that they're not as easy to damage or sink as a carrier, given that there's perhaps one anti-ship missile in the world that'll punch through 12" of belt armor.
>>48633624Pretty sure that was because of economics, anon. That and by the time the last two Iowas were being laid down, there were almost no ships for them to fight.In short, it's a shit argument, and you should feel shit for making it.
>>48644422Not really, since you don't actually have to punch through that armor to mission-kill a ship. It's just more efficient to put more missiles on smaller ships. The Iowa refits were depressingly anemic because all that armor is fucking heavy, and the benefit compared to that cost is reduced as opposed to gunnery.
>>48644422>No he's not. The only reason battleships were phased out was because of nukes.Holy shit please be making fun of the idiot arguing in favor of battleships.
>>48644422>The only reason battleships were phased out was because of nukes.Dude, the Iowas' post-refit armaments were bloody poor compared to other ships, and they're neither as fast or as stealthy as other modern ships.Because that's modern naval warfare; shoot-and-scoot, hide and seek. We make Fletchers out of freaking aluminium for gods' sake, the age of heavy armor and guns on the battleline is over.
>>48644422>No he's not. The only reason battleships were phased out was because of nukes.laughingoperationcrossroads.jpgThe minimal effectiveness of nuclear weapons on fleets is the entire reason the USN still exists as a blue water fighting force.
>>48644780That, and nuclear subs.
>>48644413All I'm saying is if things were different they'd be different, certain elements however are proposing if things were different they'd be the same.
>>48644805That came quite some time later
>>48645008The only 'thing that would be different' that would result in battleships not being obsolete would be if the aircraft carrier had not been invented. There is no magical AA or magical armour that would allow any battleship to stand up to attack from a carrier air wing. There is no magical gun system that would allow a battleship to engage a carrier without also being in range of its air wing.
>>48645143>There is no magical AA or magical armourFrom what I've seen they don't need to be magical, so long as the battleship is technologically on par with the carrier and it's craft and not poorly built it's air defense is more than adequate to repel an airwing, the only problem for the battleship is it probably won't be fast enough or have the range to strike the carrier. And from what I've seen unless it's a surprise attack or supplemented by other elements a carrier doesn't have a hope of downing a BB.
>>48645279>so long as the battleship is technologically on par with the carrier and it's craft and not poorly built it's air defense is more than adequate to repel an airwing"no"
>>48645279>And from what I've seen unless it's a surprise attack or supplemented by other elements a carrier doesn't have a hope of downing a BB."no"
>>48645305>>48645318http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japan/IJN/JANAC-Losses/JANAC-Losses-3.htmlAccording to this, I count five japanese BBs sunk solely by aircraft, as opposed to six sunk with surface vessels and submarines, and I believe the ones sunk by aircraft were poorly constructed, outdated, possessing a poor crew or all three.Your posting of the Yamato is a good example of poor construction with inferior materials, and possibly a poorly trained crew.
>>48645401Yamato was commissioned before the war started. If you're counting her as made with poor construction with inferior materials, so is essentially every other Japanese ship and making your argument invalid.
>>48645478I don't see how, and yes most japanese ships were poorly designed and constructed with inferior materials. Compound that with the USN's quality design and construction as well as the best armor on the seas and I think you can see why the IJN didn't have a hope, even withholding the greater manufacturing and recruitment of US ships and sailors.
>>48645478More that it's unfalsifiable. the only examples in existence one way or the other are excluded by his terms, so it's about as useful an argument as the existence of god.He pre-moved the goalposts, so to speak.
>>48645529So you're talking out your ass, got it. >>48645532Yeah, I suppose so. He still wont shut up.
>>48645532That's a funny way to say I'm not wrong without saying I'm right.>>48645579Why should I? My point still stands, because of the circumstances of the pacific war shaped naval doctrine today, had things gone differently we would have a different concept of naval warfare, this does not imply an inherent superiority or inferiority of carriers or battleships, our current doctrine is simply a product of circumstances, had the IJN been better equipped or destroyed the carriers at pearl harbor I doubt we would have a similar outcome.
>>48645746>That's a funny way to say I'm not wrong without saying I'm right.No, what he's saying is you picked some bullshit that we can't disprove so you can pretend that means you're right.>My point still standsYou never had a point. You've just been spouting unintelligible bullshit that at one point may have had some semblence of an argument to it, but has since devolved into posting objectively false statements and things that are so completely undisprovable that you can just move your goalposts as necessary in order to continue pretending there's any chance that a Battleship would stand be able to exist in any circumstances in a world where planes have been invented.
>>48645746I'm saying your argument is utterly fucking useless because it deals in what-ifs that actively ignore reality. You're only 'right' in the sense that you've defined your argument in a way it can't be challenged. Like the joke about the guy who builds a fence around himself and says he's trapped the rest of the world.You're assuming that doctrine changes would completely change the capabilities of the vessels involved- rather, I would argue that it would just make those doctrines evolve to the same conclusions for different reasons. Having a surviving fleet of old superdreadnoughts wouldn't defang the carriers of the IJN or anything silly like that. The Arizona would sink just as handily in the deep sea from air attack as from a sucker punch.
>>48644494So how exactly is that thing going to find it's targets with no radar systems?The advantage of aircraft is that they can loiter and hunt for targets. Missiles can be designed to do that, but it's not really cost effective to make your targeting system disposable.
>>48645820I mean, ignoring the fact that it's >Popular ScienceReplacing the silly troop-carrying capability of that helo with an observation bird would do the trick handily. Helicopters are fucking amazing to have in a naval context.
>>48645796>>48645798If that's so then why did the USN only lose two battleships? And both at pearl harbor? Never mind they performed admirably as flak screens and shore bombardments, and when they did face an enemy vessel they performed as expected, if you expect them to shell the vessel to the bottom of the sea.
>>48645900Probably because the Japanese always targeted the American carriers because they were a higher threat target.
>>48645862I'd reduce the missiles by no less than half, add more hangar space, and an actual superstructure with proper sensors. Maybe a nuclear reactor, some raillguns, and a laser.
>>48645900>If that's so then why did the USN only lose two battleships? And both at pearl harbor?Because we proceeded to use our carrier fleet an submarine rapists to kick the shit out of the jap carriers? US battleships never sank any carriers either to my knowledge, inferior or not.Yes, they performed admirably against other battleships when given the chance.So, from reality, our examples are: Battleships can kill battleships. Carriers can kill carriers. Carriers can kill battleships.>>48645941So in other words a Burke, Tico, or Zumwalt. Sounds about right to me.
>>48645997And in theory, battleships can kill carriers.
>>48645997More or less!Modern DDs are pretty much just Cruisers who have to sometimes shoulder the indignity of escorting carriers and hunting submarines. Cruiserfags need to stop crying, they already got what they wanted.
>>48645997>US battleships never sank any carriers either to my knowledge, inferior or not.Went and checked this-Akagi: crippled by air, scuttledAkitsu Maru: submarineAmagi: air attackChitose: air attackChiyoda: crippled by air, sunk by cruisersChuyo: submarineHiyo: air attackHiryu: crippled by air, scuttledKaga: crippled by air, scuttledRyujo: air attackShinano: submarineShinyo: submarineShoho: air attackShokaku: submarineSoryu: air attackTaiho: submarineUnryu: sumbarimeUnyo: submarineZuiho: air attackZuikaku: air attack>>48646033Yes, and in theory I could assassinate the president of Russia.
>>48588076HMS Glowworm.british destroyer runs into two german destroyers and fancies its chances, opening fire on them, the germans also fancy the british ships chances and decide to call for help and run towards the cruiser Hipper, the cruiser engages the british destroyer hitting it with 8 inch gunfire, the destroyer makes smoke and attempts to hide in its own smoke and launch a torpedo attack on the cruiser, first attack fails, attempts to hide in smoke again and try again when it emerges from smoke a second time the range s so close the germans secondary guns can hit, knocking out the british main gun, the british turn in towards the cruiser and attempts a second torpedo attack before ramming the cruiser, bow comes off the destroyer cruiser is banged up as well destroyer drifts off out of control and boilers explode as result of damage.germans pick up survivors and Hippers commander recomends Glowworms commander for a VC
>>48646084And supplement that with-Hiei: Crippled by surface vessels, sunk by aircraftKirishima: Crippled by the Washington, capsized and sank.Mutsu: Sank after her magazine exploded at anchor.Musashi: Crippled by aircraft, latter sank.Fuso: Harassed by aircraft, was torpedoed by a destroyer, broke apart and sank.Yamashiro: Sunk by surface craft.Kongo: Sunk by submarine.Yamato: Sunk by aircraft.Hyuga: Sunk by aircraft.Haruna: Sunk by aircraft.Ise: Sunk by aircraft.
>>48586784Wouldn't the aliens flatout lose in a 1939 scenario
>>48646524Nagato: sunk by flooding after the SECOND nuke.
>>48646906Not really, it's still stacked in the martians favor until lolgerms.
>>48647140Nagato would have made a nice museum ship.