TL;DR: when you’re not in a shooting match with another superpower, these modern battleship concepts are just more expensive destroyers in circumstances where their extra firepower matters little. They’re doctrinally confused.
mature enough to be super useful currently, meaning it all once more falls to missiles - an armament no different to destroyers.
A larger ship will be cheaper per tonne than a smaller ship, however it’s still more expensive still. With that in mind, it doesn’t suit the US to further concentrate firepower into individual ships when the current destroyers are already some of the most powerful surface combatants afloat. The US needs coverage and firepower, not maximum firepower. If there were a war ongoing (like a major one) and the lower cost-per-mount of a larger ship were needed, large ships would make sense. The US isn’t in such a war, however, so what you’ve ended up with is a costlier destroyer that does little better in the circumstances than its smaller cousins.
@Michiganstatepolicethe2nd Battleships fell out of use because planes could do their job - lobbing massive amounts of ordnance - more reliably.
Additionally, power weapons have made the value of armour… questionable. With precision weapons the thick armour doesn’t even need to be dealt with when there’s plenty of other parts (e.g. radar arrays) are very difficult to protect anyways.
Battleships remained tougher than anything else, but when they couldn’t very well do their job anyways?
That’s why battleships originally fell out of favour.
Nowadays countries need either coverage - necessitating many smaller ships - or reach - necessitating aircraft carriers - with little room for giant surface combatants. Another factor is that, well, look at it this way:
In the past a bigger ship would generally win because it was tougher. A first-rate could clobber a frigate because it could soak up more damage while dishing out even more. With the invention of the first modern battleships it became a question of range: small ships could hurt massive ships with torpedoes, but they had nowhere near the range to do so before the larger ships annihilated them with their gigantic guns (while in the past it was the number of guns more than gun size which distinguished bigger from smaller warships).
Nowadays, it’s largely gone back to the latter since missiles aren’t particularly large or heavy really. However, because of the range of modern surface combatant, battles aren’t (or rather wouldn’t be, for lack of large conflicts) between individual warships but rather entire fleets; a ship doesn’t have to attack the one in front of it, it can send its missile wherever there’s an opening. It’s about networks, not ship-to-ship top trumps. Additionally, one ship getting sunk doesn’t necessarily sink the others, while a single large ship needs to go into damage control mode. There’s more, but that’s the basics.
With that all said, a hegemonic empire like the US finds the most value in a large fleet of powerful - but not too expensive - destroyers which can cover a lot of area while still being more deadly than almost everything else.
Enter the modern day battleships.
There are two weapons which cannot be fitted to smaller ships: large railguns and large lasers. The power requirements can only be met by larger generators, so are directly tied to the design of the shop (like how battleships required massive magazines, barbettes, are recoil-absorbing structures). However, neither are
@LunarEclipseSP @Boeing727200F It's almost Christmas!
Is it okay if I ask for a Christmas present?
My Christmas wish from you two is for better reference images.
Please and thank you.
@LunarEclipseSP @Boeing727200F I've done enough drawing for the year, methinks.
... Ah shit it's December 24th...
Whatever. The fruits of my labour shall be visible upon the 25th!
haha that's what it was!
thebeastwithin4!
I promise I won't distribute it without your consent, but I am 100% writing this down. Shit's too funny not to.
@OverlordPrime At that point, why bother?
It's almost like it's compensating for something...
Or just a distraction from the Black Pages, now that I think about it...
Missed this.
No enchantments? Man, you're weird.
What edition? How old is the world? Do you play with any cheats on?
I've been playing the same Bedrock world on and off for over four years (mostly off). I do, however, play on Easy with Keep Inventory since I don't want that sort of stress. Granted, I could probably bump the difficulty, but Keep Inventory is staying on no matter what.
@Boeing727200F So THAT'S what that is!
I assumed it was just another of your little armadas.
@LunarEclipseSP Why are you Large? It's no longer Tuesday so I need another excuse for you.
@Hooha12 I agree, but mayyyybe try to keep the criticism more directed at the ship itself/popular reactions rather than directly at Mr. Cheeto himself, or else the Mods may smite us.
@Monarchii I envy you.
"Retard" either means slow, or is considered a slur for someone stupid. In the latter case, as good of a word as it is, you probably shouldn't use it.
@TheLoadingGorilla It's a show of power when what the US needs is a show of stability. Naming it after the sitting president, who's already seen widely as self-destructive, is the exact opposite of good for the US's image.
@HuskyDynamics01 I mean, a traditional battleship would be a pretty nonsensical direction. I will be honest, I'm interested to see how it could go, it's just very likely to get turned into a corruption scandal.
The fact it was ever given that name is a terrible sign.
At least Russia hasn't (as far as I'm aware) come out with a Putin-class warship.
@TheLoadingGorilla Thing is, the only case where this type of ship would be effective is full-on, Capital-W Warfare.
Everything else, destroyers would be better. Cover more area.
So unless there's a plan to go out and pick a fight with China, kiiinda pointless.
@Boeing727200F or just give it a flight deck and make it Soviet-style. Missile launchers can go under flight decks.
Aviation handling in useful quantities can’t be done as an afterthought.
I think this is getting first or second place by the fact there’s only been two submissions.
:/
Fuck
Rat
@Ashdenpaw1 Ray :)
TL;DR: when you’re not in a shooting match with another superpower, these modern battleship concepts are just more expensive destroyers in circumstances where their extra firepower matters little. They’re doctrinally confused.
mature enough to be super useful currently, meaning it all once more falls to missiles - an armament no different to destroyers.
A larger ship will be cheaper per tonne than a smaller ship, however it’s still more expensive still. With that in mind, it doesn’t suit the US to further concentrate firepower into individual ships when the current destroyers are already some of the most powerful surface combatants afloat. The US needs coverage and firepower, not maximum firepower. If there were a war ongoing (like a major one) and the lower cost-per-mount of a larger ship were needed, large ships would make sense. The US isn’t in such a war, however, so what you’ve ended up with is a costlier destroyer that does little better in the circumstances than its smaller cousins.
Did any of that make sense? I just woke up so idk
@Michiganstatepolicethe2nd Battleships fell out of use because planes could do their job - lobbing massive amounts of ordnance - more reliably.
Additionally, power weapons have made the value of armour… questionable. With precision weapons the thick armour doesn’t even need to be dealt with when there’s plenty of other parts (e.g. radar arrays) are very difficult to protect anyways.
Battleships remained tougher than anything else, but when they couldn’t very well do their job anyways?
That’s why battleships originally fell out of favour.
Nowadays countries need either coverage - necessitating many smaller ships - or reach - necessitating aircraft carriers - with little room for giant surface combatants. Another factor is that, well, look at it this way:
In the past a bigger ship would generally win because it was tougher. A first-rate could clobber a frigate because it could soak up more damage while dishing out even more. With the invention of the first modern battleships it became a question of range: small ships could hurt massive ships with torpedoes, but they had nowhere near the range to do so before the larger ships annihilated them with their gigantic guns (while in the past it was the number of guns more than gun size which distinguished bigger from smaller warships).
Nowadays, it’s largely gone back to the latter since missiles aren’t particularly large or heavy really. However, because of the range of modern surface combatant, battles aren’t (or rather wouldn’t be, for lack of large conflicts) between individual warships but rather entire fleets; a ship doesn’t have to attack the one in front of it, it can send its missile wherever there’s an opening. It’s about networks, not ship-to-ship top trumps. Additionally, one ship getting sunk doesn’t necessarily sink the others, while a single large ship needs to go into damage control mode. There’s more, but that’s the basics.
With that all said, a hegemonic empire like the US finds the most value in a large fleet of powerful - but not too expensive - destroyers which can cover a lot of area while still being more deadly than almost everything else.
Enter the modern day battleships.
There are two weapons which cannot be fitted to smaller ships: large railguns and large lasers. The power requirements can only be met by larger generators, so are directly tied to the design of the shop (like how battleships required massive magazines, barbettes, are recoil-absorbing structures). However, neither are
@LunarEclipseSP @Boeing727200F It's almost Christmas!
+1Is it okay if I ask for a Christmas present?
My Christmas wish from you two is for better reference images.
Please and thank you.
@LunarEclipseSP @Boeing727200F I've done enough drawing for the year, methinks.
+2... Ah shit it's December 24th...
Whatever. The fruits of my labour shall be visible upon the 25th!
haha that's what it was!
+1thebeastwithin4!
I promise I won't distribute it without your consent, but I am 100% writing this down. Shit's too funny not to.
Ain't got no gas in it
@Mrcooldude :(
wahoo
+1I mean
ho ho ho
@Monarchii Shit is hard to draw.
No tell pls. Secret.
@Mrcooldude Mmm check again
@OverlordPrime Yeah.
@Mrcooldude Are you sure?
@Monarchii uhuhhhh what
@OverlordPrime At that point, why bother?
It's almost like it's compensating for something...
Or just a distraction from the Black Pages, now that I think about it...
@Mrcooldude Maybe I am your dad
@Monarchii You can never go wrong with Hot Pink.
@Monarchii Incomprehensible, have a nice day.
BTW it is imperative that we convince LunarEclipse to turn into featureless white rectangle.
@Monarchii Pastel pink?
@Monarchii He's culpable for this.
@OverlordPrime Ironic, isn't it?
Ever considered making an updated version of this? I'd image you could do much better nowadays.
+1Slow clap
Fear it, run from it, the desire to worldbuild comes all the same.
@PZLAgencies Something very corny.
+1They forum was deleted, and I wish I'd written it down; I'd promised to tease them about it in the future. Darn.
Missed this.
+2No enchantments? Man, you're weird.
What edition? How old is the world? Do you play with any cheats on?
I've been playing the same Bedrock world on and off for over four years (mostly off). I do, however, play on Easy with Keep Inventory since I don't want that sort of stress. Granted, I could probably bump the difficulty, but Keep Inventory is staying on no matter what.
@LunarEclipseSP Chad Torment Chamber 2000
+1Kamikazes you cutely
+1Cursed relatives...
+1@LunarEclipseSP Idk what else.
+1@Monarchii All the vocabulary, none of the social conventions. Heh.
@LunarEclipseSP US I guess? Boeing sometimes draws stuff down there.
+1Granted, you're not in the alliance so you can't creepily follow them.
I've been too busy to play in days. Fun, but randoms in servers are less fun.
@LunarEclipseSP Hey, don't forget me!
+1But yeah I need a new excuse. I was lazy.
@Monarchii I dunno. Your fashion sense is making that call.
Just Google it I guess. I've never been good at defining styles of any sort.
@Boeing727200F So THAT'S what that is!
+1I assumed it was just another of your little armadas.
@LunarEclipseSP Why are you Large? It's no longer Tuesday so I need another excuse for you.
@Boeing727200F The what?
@Boeing727200F @LunarEclipseSP You are invited to add to the park I'm building east of the trees, so long as you can keep the style consistent.
+1@Hooha12 I agree, but mayyyybe try to keep the criticism more directed at the ship itself/popular reactions rather than directly at Mr. Cheeto himself, or else the Mods may smite us.
@Graingy I'm conflicted.
+1One one hand, battleships cool AF.
On the other hand, everything else.
@Monarchii I envy you.
"Retard" either means slow, or is considered a slur for someone stupid. In the latter case, as good of a word as it is, you probably shouldn't use it.
@Monarchii How what looks? Retro paint?
@Mrcooldude Why do you want to know?
@FartResidue Probably your speakers.
@TheLoadingGorilla It's a show of power when what the US needs is a show of stability. Naming it after the sitting president, who's already seen widely as self-destructive, is the exact opposite of good for the US's image.
+1@HuskyDynamics01 I mean, a traditional battleship would be a pretty nonsensical direction. I will be honest, I'm interested to see how it could go, it's just very likely to get turned into a corruption scandal.
The fact it was ever given that name is a terrible sign.
At least Russia hasn't (as far as I'm aware) come out with a Putin-class warship.
@TheLoadingGorilla Thing is, the only case where this type of ship would be effective is full-on, Capital-W Warfare.
Everything else, destroyers would be better. Cover more area.
So unless there's a plan to go out and pick a fight with China, kiiinda pointless.
@Boeing727200F or just give it a flight deck and make it Soviet-style. Missile launchers can go under flight decks.
Aviation handling in useful quantities can’t be done as an afterthought.