Matrix Games Forums

Maybe a late war BB could stand up to a single pop up, through the deck ASM missile attack, without being sunk outright....
 
Most other ships would be in BIG trouble when struck by a modern 500 pound ASM high-explosive blast warhead....

Whats a Sharpie pen ?

Do you have a reference for this, id be interested in learning more about how this pen can affect titanium ??

I have felt for a long time that modern warships are a bunch of eggshells armed with hammers. That is why I joined the Army[:D]

Maybe we should just go back to wooden ships? It's a much more renewable resource. [:'(]

Maybe we should just go back to wooden ships? It's a much more renewable resource.

Plus when they blow up they leave lots of floaty bits to climb up on [:D]

ORIGINAL: Jorm

Whats a Sharpie pen ?

Do you have a reference for this, id be interested in learning more about how this pen can affect titanium ??

Here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharpie_(marker)

Get the book Skunk Works written by Ben Rich........tells all about all the problems they had with titanium.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not the Akula, the Alfa. They never built others with titanium hulls. Even the Soviets weren't moronic enough to make that mistake twice.

Errr.....there was the Mike , T.[8|]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Not the Akula, the Alfa. They never built others with titanium hulls. Even the Soviets weren't moronic enough to make that mistake twice.

The Mike was titanium... supposedly the Russians built
1 Mike, 7 ALfa, 1 PAPA and 4 Sierra with titanium.

Actually six Alfa's. One was completely rebuilt after a "mishap".

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

How would best of WWII ships (DDs, CAs, BBs) fare against current missile anti-ship threat?


Leo "Apollo11"

Very well. I was on Guam when they used a WW2 cleveland class light cruiser as a target. It absorbed a tremendous number of missiles, shells and torpedo's.

Modern USN do have armor. And the carriers have kevlar armor (no I'm not making this up). [:)]

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Modern USN do have armor. And the carriers have kevlar armor (no I'm not making this up). [:)]

It's a 65 mm kevlar plate covering "vital spaces". I wonder if that is Navy speak for "Reactor Compartment"?

Bah......it's a euphemism for "beer locker". [:'(]

ORIGINAL: Iridium
..This all said, I'm still waiting for the next phase of armor vs weapons on naval vessels.[:D]

Here is the answer:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... siles.html

No armour, no real weapons either - I suppose it's a tie.

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Bah......it's a euphemism for "beer locker". [:'(]

Sadly , USN ships are still dry (offically). [:D]

You can fit as much armour as you like, when someone nukes you it won't make a single bit of difference.

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

ORIGINAL: Apollo11


How would best of WWII ships (DDs, CAs, BBs) fare against current missile anti-ship threat?

Very well. I was on Guam when they used a WW2 cleveland class light cruiser as a target. It absorbed a tremendous number of missiles, shells and torpedo's.

Somehow I expected that and that's why I asked... [:)]

So... how come the navies around the world decided to abandon armor altogether and all started to produce the "tincans" (IMHO really really strange thing to do)?

Was it because nuclear weapons make all armor insignificant (but then there are myriad of weapons that still use ordinary warheads)?


Leo "Apollo11"

ORIGINAL: String

You can fit as much armour as you like, when someone nukes you it won't make a single bit of difference.

Depends if it is a direct hit... armored ships (and tanks for that matter) are surprisingly resistant to near misses... some of tests in the 50's showed tanks that were nose on to a blast at down to 100 meters or so away from a tactical nuke were relatively undamaged... i didn't see data on how well the CREWS would fare, but still, it was surprising. [X(]

Well, sheep and pigs tethered on the decks of the Bikini test ships SOMETIMES survived the initial blasts...[:D]

ORIGINAL: String
You can fit as much armour as you like, when someone nukes you it won't make a single bit of difference.

Several heavy ships like the Prinz Eugen or the Nagato were only slightly damaged in US nuclear weapons tests shortly after the war. They withstood aerial bursts close by ~1000-2000m wihtout problems and sufferd minor underwater damage from nearby underwater blasts. The fact that they sunk later was probably due to the fact that they had no crew onboard for damage conrol.
I imagine that much of crew would have survived inside the ship (dont want to think of the guyes at the AAA mounts). The armor would have proteted them from blast, heat and much of the harder radiation. Im not talking about those guyes getting many children in the years to come but the ability to keep the ship afloat.
The warheads used were probably weak but you would expect a nuclear cruise missile or torpedo to be armed with a tactical warhead not a hydrogen bomb.

ORIGINAL: Apollo11
So... how come the navies around the world decided to abandon armor altogether and all started to produce the "tincans"

Heavily armored ships would cause prohibitive costs. They were expensive enough in their days. I think while you would have a hard time sinking Iowa, or a carrier with compareable armor, with anti ship missiles it would be rather easy to get a "soft kill" by damaging it to an extend where it can not fullfill its mission any more.
Then you are stuck with a very expensive, useless ship thats bound for the dockyard for the next year. The decission to build more cheaper ships and to concentrate on not getting hit instead of surviving hits seems logical.

Concerning "soft kills" I wonder why the concept has not been given more attention during the war. As far as I can remember one of the Kongos got shot up pretty badly of Gudalcanal by lighter US Guns. Bridge hit, Admiral killed, targeting gear gone, ship on fire etc. But this did not seem to inspire a change of doctrine back then. I'm not sure but I think this BB was sunk by aircraft later on.

How much armor is simply a matter of Naval Engineering.  Everything on a ship is evaluated in terms of mass and volume.  Volume becuase there is a limited amount within the hull and mass because, you can only put so much in or on before the Flush Deck becomes Flush and gets Flushed.  Armor is heavy.  Every armor plate is that much less mass that can be put on the decks.  Armor also takes some volume as well.