Most dominating Battleship

[Saint Marcus]

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the USS Yamato yet...

[Khan Singh]

Need Iowas for gunfire support

Well, I sort of like battleships, but I have to disagree. When are we going to need this sort of gunfire support? Are we planning to invade lots of fortified islands any time soon?

If our troops need fire support, airplanes should be able to get the job done---with the additional benefit that planes can attack targets more than 10 miles inland from deep water.

The Iowas were fine ships in their day, but even 60 years ago it would have been hard to justify their upkeep on the basis of gunfire support. Today it's just ridiculous.

As the Iowa explosion demonstrates, battleships were almost as great a danger to themselves as they were to other ships. While the Iowa incident was not actually a disaster, it came perilously close to being one. A magazine explosion was a real possibility. And those are never really enjoyable for people on the vessel.

Despite the navy's assertion that nothing bad could possibly happen while loading cloth bags of 50 year old gunpowder into a gun barrel with a hydraulic ram (what could go wrong? ), the fact is that battleships are inherently dangerous. So are aircraft carriers, of course. But aircraft carriers give us decisive capabilities, instead of mere support capabilities. So it is worth spending our time and money to make them work. And spending lots of money to perfect a redundant fire support platform is not.

Too bad really. You could build a really cool BB with modern technology.

One of the first Ships to have computer

Sure, although that doesn't mean that Yamato was just shooting over iron sights at the general direction of her target. Yamato had a "computer" too, an analog predictor operated from range and speed data from her excellent optical rangefinders. This was definitely not as advanced a system as Iowa's late war radar/computer prediction. It was more like a slide rule compared to Iowa's pocket calculator.

But high-tech or not, slide rules do work. Iowa was built with slide rules. So were the moon rockets. Yamato's prediction of the target point was probably as good as possible given the accuracy of her optical rangefinding.

Which ship is it at Suisun Bay?

The yamato for all its bulk had some serious design flaws. A good deal of all that extra weight was devoted to a torpedo defense system that was a substantial failure. Mosrt torpedo hits on it, even with small or medium warhaeads, would produce floding beyond the final bulkhead. The tureets, for all there mass, were not able to properly deal with the 18" guns, most full charge APC (armor piercing capped) main gun fire produced shock damage in the ship. The gun, for all their APC shell weight and muzzle velocity, were inferior in penetration to the america 16"L50 at ranges above 10,000 yards. The fire control was much inferior to the Iowa, which could be expected to produce 3 to 10 hits for each each one by the Yamato (this in my opinion was the most desisive differnece). The Iowa had superior speed and range, and much superior manuverability (being able to turn in a radius shorter than many cruisers). The Anti Aircraft capability of the Ipwa was much greater than the Yamato

Anti-air: True. Proximity shells ruled. Iowa maybe even had as much AA firepower as the entire IJN.

Torpedo system: True, but Iowa had the same problem, combined with a much smaller reserve of stability. In a gun battle Yamato would have been able to absorb far more underwater damage than Iowa. Iowa's narrow hull might have been in danger of capsizing with only 5 or 6 shell hits on one side.

Fire Control, 3-10 Iowa hits for each Yamato hit: Ridiculous. At what range, under what conditions? Maybe in a dense fog this sort of ratio might be achieved. But the Japanese were aware of their inferiority in radar and would avoid engagements under dramatically unfavorable conditions. Given the danger posed by Japanese destroyer squadrons, the Iowas would not be able to force an encounter.

Shock Damage: Shock damage was a problem for all big gun battleships and Yamatos did have the biggest guns. But there is no reason to think that shock damage would stop the Yamatos from carrying out their battle role. Consider that Rodney experienced so much shock damage that the British decided to go back to 14" guns. But that didn't stop Rodney from destroying Bismark.

One more overall comment: Iowa partisans are so eager to prove that she could beat Yamato that they seem to latch onto every single advantage that Iowa had, assign to those advantages the maximum multiplicative benefit that they could possibly deliver, and then multiply the whole mess of overvalued advantages together to reach whatever value they think they need. By the time they finish their arguments, they would be having you believe that Iowa had ten times the effective firepower of Yamato, vastly superior armor and a better haircut. They seem to imply that the whole idea of a Yamato class battleship being able to take on an Iowa is just ridiculous.

Well, it just ain't so, people. I'm not denying that there is some multiplicative benefit to the Iowa's many advantages. But multipling zero times anything is still zero. And from a strict design standpoint, Iowa has zero power compared to Yamato.

The all-or-nothing theory of Battleship design, the design theory behind both ships, is based on the idea that sufficient armor stops all attacks and insufficient armor stops no attacks. In theory, at least, Iowa has no defense against Yamato. Her armor is not as thick as the penetrative capability of Yamato's shells, so, in theory, all of Yamato's shells will penetrate.

When fighting Yamato, Iowa might as well not even have armor. In fact, that would probably be better. Yamato's long delay shell fuzes had a nasty habit of passing right through unarmored ships and out other side before exploding. Iowa, however, while she does not have enough armor to stop these shells outside her protected areas, has just enough armor to slow them down so that they explode inside the ship.

Yamato is the other side of the coin. She has sufficient armor to stop Iowa's shells outside her vital protected areas. So she has a complete defense against Iowa's attacks. Unless Iowa can hit Yamato with essentially no chance of Yamato hitting back, Yamato should win.

This is just the theory, of course. Actual combat is chaotic. But you can't ignore the basic reality that Yamato's protection was adequate and Iowa's was not. The idea that Iowa could hit Yamato without any chance of being hit just does not comport with actual facts of combat in the Pacific. Iowa's advantages made her a great ship. But even those advantages were probably not enough to overcome the fundamental advantage Yamato had.

[Wraith]

--"I'm surprised nobody has brought up the USS Yamato yet..."

Well, it never really dominated anything. Other ships of the same class were more effective, and were never meant to be primarily combat vessels anyway.

The Defiant Class escorts or (even better) Akira Class heavy cruiser/Carrier (up to 100 fighters on a pass-through arrangement deck, 4 phaser arrays, and 15(!) torpedo launchers) would be a better choice from the timeline-contemporary vessels.

Wraith
"Madness has no purpose, or reason...but it may have a goal."
-- Mr. Spock

[Saint Marcus]

Well, it never really dominated anything.

It was the sistership of the enterprise, and most likely also a federation flag ship.

and were never meant to be primarily combat vessels anyway.

The first batch wasn't, but the second batch certainly was (when the dominion wars started, the unfinished galaxy class ships were finally build and send into combat). The Galaxy class vessels played a crucial role during the battle to retake DS9. Eventhough the Sovereign was bigger and more powerful, to few of those were around to make a real difference against the dominion.

The Defiant Class escorts or (even better) Akira Class heavy cruiser/Carrier (15 torpedo launchers!) would be a better choice from the timeline-contemporary vessels.

The defiant is a fast and relatively powerful ship, but it had trouble beating even an Excelsior class ship (the Lakota). Though the Lakota was heavily upgraded, it still wouldn't qualify as the best federation starship around.

I'd pick the sovereign class above the akira class though.

Semi-official stats:

Class: Akira
Ships: Akira, Rabin, Spector, Thunderchild
Size: 464x316x87m
Decks: 15
Crew: 500
Date: 2363 (judging by the registry numbers)

Class: Sovereign
Ships: Sovereign, Enterprise
Size: 680x240x87m
Decks : 24
Crew: 700
Date: 2372

This makes the Sovereign quite a bit bigger and more modern than the Akira.

More semi-official stats:

Class: Akira
Torpedo tubes: 15 (!)
Phaser type: X
Phaser banks: 4

Class: Sovereign
Torpedo tubes: 8
Phaser type: XII
Phaser banks: 12

So the Akira does have a lot more torpedo tubes, but far fewer and less powerfull phaser banks.

[Wraith]

--"It was the sistership of the enterprise, and most likely also a federation flag ship."

However, if you're going to choose one of the Galaxy class for dominance, the Enterprise herself makes a lot more sense than the Yamato.

--"I'd pick the sovereign class above the akira class though."

I'll have to look into the Sovereign class a bit. The Akira also had the unique fly-through deck for carrier operations, as well as some unique torpedo tube placements (including on either side of the main disk). It'd probably come down to differences in engine power and shields.
Looks like the Sovereign is faster, but the Akira is more maneuverable. Now, if they did an upgrade on the Akira with the new phasers...

Besides, it's got the cooler name

And why the Sovereign class as opposed to the Excalibur class?

Wraith
"Mr. Worf, scan that ship."
"Aye, Captain... 300 DPI?"

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Fortunatly for my universe I didn't say that. You did. The conclusion you attached is all yours. It certainly wasn't what I said.



It was quite effective. However you might keep in mind the North Vietnamese often looked for excuses to leave the talks. Anything they could con us on they would do.

I am aware it was used in Korea. I was simply not sure if had been mothballed after WWII or not.



Fine. Reagan wanted a show. I think the shore bombardment in Viet Nam was what gave them the excuse to spend the money. They had to convince Congress it wasn't just a showpiece.

My point was quite different from the version that seems to have appeared in your head. The money cutbacks meant the needed upgrades would be budget breakers.

The Navy really did try to pin the accident on an alleged and nonexistent homosexual relationship. The fact that it had other causes meant that money had to spent. Now does that make any sense to you this time.

As far as I am concerned they can recommision them again. Just fix it so they won't blow up if the powder is overrammed again. Just making new powder would help a lot.

You seem to missed the real point to my post. The accident was not the point. It was the old powder. It decreased the ships accuracy. I mentioned the rest to show that the powder was old.
The Navy had repacked the bags with extra pellets tossed in on top as was shown in the second accident investigation.

Sorry, misread that first bit. Late at night and all.
Only NJ was bought out of mothballs for Vietnam, then put back in for several years, until the seachange in US military policy of the early 80s.
I'm sure they will fix the powder when they put them back into action; the razor gang isn't running about rabid now.

And to Khan, one did point out that BBs can be used for more than just gunfire support. But there is a gap there that endangers the lives of troops on the shore. It is not just for heavily defended islands, but further inland. The majority of the worlds population dwells near the sea in the littoral zones.
They can fire a lot further than 10 miles, and this is enhanced with extended range munitions.
As I said on the matter of airsupport as a substitute, it is not instantaneous, and represents a much greater risk of expensive equipment and personnel, when compared to a supersonic shell that the enemy have no means of interdicting.
A battleship is not a redundant fire support platform, nor is it a danger to itself and other ships. By the argument ye present, any vessel that carries combustible material, munitions, missiles or fuel is a danger to itself and other ships, and one freak occurence that was the result of corner cutting is not a firm enough basis for the stringent condemnation that ye put forth.
The battleships were fully modernized in the 1980s, and have spent most of their lifespan in inactive service, giving them a much lower effective age. They provide a most decisive warship.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Wraith
The Space Battleship Yamato, of course. What can compare to the Wave Motion Cannon?

Wraith
"They yell the names of the weapons. I wonder if it's got voice recognition?"
-- Mr. Gort ("Martian Successor Nadesico")

Argh! You beat me to it!

[Dis]

cruise missles, nuclear weapons 'nuff said

take a guess which one I voted

[chequita guevara]

WWII tech, Dissident, not modern.

[Dis]

same answer

[Logical Realist]

You know. I use to think about this a lot.....then I turned 8.

[Serb]

Beware, Russians are coming!!!

The largest and the most powerfull battleship of all times....... the flagman of Russian Northern fleet. Here it comes.... Petr Velikiy!!!




VITAL STATISTICS
DISPLACEMENT: 24,300 tons, 28,300 tons (full load)

ARMAMENT: 20 x SS-N-19 Shipwreck (Granit) SSM (range 300 nm); 1 x 2 SS- N- 14 Silex (Rastub) ASW missile (range 30 nm); 12 x SA-N-6 (96 total) Grumble (Fort) SAM (range 60 nm, up to 90,000 feet in altitude); 12 x SA-N-4 (40 total) Gecko (Osa-M) SAM (range 6 nm, up to 80,000 feet); 2 x 1 3.9 inch (100 mm) DP guns (range 4.8 km); 8 x 1 AK-630M gatling gun AA CIWS (range 4-5 km); 2 x 5 533 mm torpedo tubes (20 torpedoes; 1 RBU-6000 (Smerch-2) ASW position (96 rockets); 2 RBU-1000 (Smerch-3) ASW positions (72 rockets); 2 KA-27 PL Helix ASW helicopters; 1 KA-25RT Hormone-B SSM guidance helicopter;

PERFORMANCE: 140,000 shp, 2 nuclear reactors, 2 steam plants, 32 kts (17 kts steam only); 14,000 nm range


Beware of Russian Carrier Killer.

[Saint Marcus]

However, if you're going to choose one of the Galaxy class for dominance, the Enterprise herself makes a lot more sense than the Yamato.

That's certainly true.

I'll have to look into the Sovereign class a bit.

From First Contact:

Geordi: The (sovereign class) Enterprise-E is the most advanced starship in the fleet

From startrek.com:

On the sovereign class: This class of Federation craft was the most advanced type of starship in 2373.

The Akira also had the unique fly-through deck for carrier operations, as well as some unique torpedo tube placements (including on either side of the main disk). It'd probably come down to differences in engine power and shields.
Looks like the Sovereign is faster, but the Akira is more maneuverable. Now, if they did an upgrade on the Akira with the new phasers...

I re-watched the space battle in First Contact again. In it, the the Thunderchild (akira class) fired photon torpedos, while the Enterprise (sovereign class) fired quantum torpedos.

Top speed of the Akiras is warp 9.8, for up to 12 hours. Top speed of the sovereign hasn't been established yet, though it's likely it's above warp 9.9, since the Sovereigns are also used as explorers. The upgraded Galaxies also had a top speed of 9.9, while the Intrepids could go up to 9.975.

Also, the Akiras are older than the Galaxies (just look at the registry numbers). And when the Galaxies first appeared, they were Starfleet's most powerful and advanced ships. The Sovereign is an improvement over the Galaxy even, so it must be quite a bit more powerful than the Akira.

I expect both classes to have different combat roles as well. The Akira has a lot more torpedos to fire, but fewer phaserbanks. With the Sovereign it's the other way around. Phasers are more powerful and usefull at close ranges, and torpedos are more often used at longer distances. It's likely the Sovereign's would be among the ships leading an attack, and it's up to the Akiras to provide cover fire an attack from the second row. In the battle to retake DS9 you can see the Galaxies (the predicesors of the sovereign) go in along with the more manueverable Mirandas and Excelsiors. The Galaxies would draw fire away from the smaller vessels, and take on the big Galor class destroyers at close range. In First Contact, we also see the Sovereign class Enterprise in a somewhat similar role in protecting the Defiant and drawing the Borg's fire away from the smaller vessel, and engaging the cube at close range as well. It's therefor also likely that the Galaxies, and the Sovereigns, have powerful shields and a strong hull to be able to take the punishment.

It is true that the Akira is more manueverable, though in general it seems like the most manueverable starships (excluding the defiants) are also the weakest. Not sure if this applies to the Akira as well.

In a direct battle between a Sovereign class and an Akira class, the Akira has the upper hand at first. When the distance between the two ships is still fairly big, the Akira can fire torpedo after torpedo on the Sovereign, though tje Sovereign is designed to take the beating and will close in fast. As soon as the Akira comes within phaser-range of the Sovereign it is all over for the Akira. The Sovereigns huge number of XII phaser banks would probably cut right through the Akira's shields. Although we don't know much about the Akira's shields and hull, it's unlikely it's stronger than the Sovereign's (considering the beating those ships can take).

Besides, it's got the cooler name

That's true enough.

And why the Sovereign class as opposed to the Excalibur class?

I'm not really familiar with the Excalibur class...I may be mistaken, but wasn't that a prototype ship, and not one actually in service?

[Case]

*adds Star Trek geeks to my block list*

Serb, you've definetly got a point this time. While this poll is centred on WW2 era ships, there's no doubt that the Kirov class ships were the best battleships built. I'd definetly back a Kirov, with it's heavy defences and long ranged missiles against a modified Iowa

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Logical Realist
You know. I use to think about this a lot.....then I turned 8.

How old were you when you suffered the brain injury?