Sea skua always looked a bit lame to me :/
purely theoretical air combat question
- Thread starter Saytan
- Start date
Sea skua always looked a bit lame to me :/
Sea Skua's are useful against light craft such as Iranian speedboats, they aren't going go through a foot of krupp steel.
A dozen Harpoons may be interesting, its an idea thats been thrown around various forums over the years. Most compelling idea is that you could get a mission kill by taking out the various optics that a Bismark needs to fight. This is what actually happened in 1941, early in the fight. Not Denmark Stright, the one that did her in at the end.
they arn't intended to hit the belt area though. but why exactly is an anti air ship enganged in a ship battle?
shouldn;t this be between the modern anti ship vessals and the bismark.
Because all the modern stuff needs to hang on the outside of the hull in order to see, making 10,000 tonnes of steel largely obsolete.
I don't have the data in front of me, and i can't be bothered to look it up again, but the main belt of a mid 20th century battlewagon was proof against things bigger than a harpoon or larger. Problem is, the main belt isn't everywhere and eventually your little rockets are going to find something thin....which was also the problem in 1941 of course...viz a single torp smashing the steering gear....
Because someone asked
something about an RN destroyer vs the Bismark....Slava class vs Bismark then
the belt also doesn;t protect well agaisnt air attack, which seems to be the most likley form of naval combat now days.
I wonder how the bismark would have stood up to severall laser guided bombs to the deck etc
Dropped from a slow and lumbering biplane too. Which reminds me, I think I'll have another read through of "To War in a Stringbag" when I've finsished my current book.
Slava class vs Bismark then
wouldn;t want to be on the receving end of a full missile salvo from that bugger, almost 16 tons of explosives hitting at mach speedsand thats it it's not 16 350kT nukes
Pretty badly, if they are 2,000lb types, especially if they go through the deck armour and burst inside. This is what happened to the Hood after all.
and thats it it's not 16 350kT nukes
Yep, and the missiles communicate with each other in flight, and one of them pops up and tells the others what it can see. They then decide on what to engage....The Soviets obviously put a lot of thought into how to sink US carriers and they may well have been very good at it.
Interesting thinking about how succesful they may have been...they certainly had all the hardware.
Not sure on how they planned to employ these 400 mile range robot killers, in order to launch them you must know where the target is, and their radars were 30-40 mile ranges at best...
Bloody hell.
Prehaps through air reconnosance for rough targeting, or prehaps through cooperation with submariines etc.
That would be my guess. I wouldn't volunteer to be on the sub that has to transmit its targeting information...giving its own location away.
i'm sure they'd have bouys that can be released and transmit data once the subs got some distance between it and the bouy.
if not, best to wait in the torpedo tube with a life jaket on
Even on just guns you would not want to bet on the spitfire, the jet whenever it gets in to trouble always could simply disengage and re-engage almost at will.
As for the destroyer with modern targetting etc Bismark is toast as long as it stays out past 15 ish miles (pretty easy as much faster with better radar).
However a mistake for the destroyer and a lucky hit with a 15" shell would really spoil there day.
The whole thing is differant with ships as all a warship really does is act as a floating platform for weapons sytems , you put modern weapon systems on the Bismark,Yamomoto or Missouri and you still have a very formidable weapons system capable of decent speed and very long range.
As for the destroyer with modern targetting etc Bismark is toast as long as it stays out past 15 ish miles (pretty easy as much faster with better radar).
However a mistake for the destroyer and a lucky hit with a 15" shell would really spoil there day.
The whole thing is differant with ships as all a warship really does is act as a floating platform for weapons sytems , you put modern weapon systems on the Bismark,Yamomoto or Missouri and you still have a very formidable weapons system capable of decent speed and very long range.
true. I wonder if you ripped off the guns and al lthier related equipment/storage etc just how many vertical cruise missile tubes you could fit into that deck
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 4,652
- Location
- Nottingham
hmmm... I was trying not to, but.. I think that perhaps people should go and watch 'The Final Countdown'.. raises a lot of these points.
For those that do not know USS Missouri was built/laid down in 1940 and actually server with distinction in the gulf war in 1991 51 ! years later.
She did indeed carry a compliment of cruise missiles and nuclear armed would have benn capable of trashing small countrys.
Battleships today have gone but it as much a cost thing as they no longer have a role, Battleships were always incredibly expensive.
She did indeed carry a compliment of cruise missiles and nuclear armed would have benn capable of trashing small countrys.
Battleships today have gone but it as much a cost thing as they no longer have a role, Battleships were always incredibly expensive.