Stuff That Never Made It - but why?

[Sauragnmon]

You haven't got the proof to back up your assertion that the Iowa, AKA the Floating AA Battery, would be sunk under an all out air attack.  As to the claim she could not get close enough, let us not forget that running full steam she puts out 35 Knots, which is more than enough to keep pace with a Carrier, and he's got Radar to pick up the prey at range and keep tracking the carrier down after the Carrier's expended his aircraft Trying to sink the Iowa and failing under the sheer weight of AA fire pounding the everloving hell out of everything flying in the region.  After the Carrier's run out of Planes, the odds are, he's either running hell bent for leather to try and escape, outstripping his escorts in so doing, or trying to shield himself behind the escorts, which are little more than cannon fodder when the Iowa gets to deliver its own payback.

Iowa was Built to do AA, was Armed to the Teeth with AA.  You haven't got any Empirical Evidence to prove that the Iowa couldn't pound the snot out of the airgroup thrown at her and then run down the carrier responsible and do the same thing to her.

[pyro-manic]

I do not believe that an Iowa could fight off an entire carrier air group, close the hundred-plus-mile gap to get to the carrier (even if its location is known), fight through the carrier's escort group, and then sink the carrier. That's just not plausible. As joncarrfarrelly says, no carrier commander would allow it to happen.

A "modern" battleship would be bigger than a supercarrier, cost more, and be much less useful.

[Sauragnmon]

Consider that it took the air groups of what, Two to put down Yamato, and even then it was a bloody fight, let alone Iowa, armed to the teeth with heavy AA firepower, VT-fused DP Secondaries, and the speed to run down the Carrier even as they're attacking?  Few Carriers could go faster than 35 kts, and the escorts would be taxed at that point, none of which would have had the power to put down Iowa - the IJN rarely had the Battleships escorting their Carriers, let us remember, being that they held them in reserve.  You would have had at most 8" armed heavy cruisers, which considering Iowa's Blindfire capacity, would have been horribly outranged and outgunned like you wouldn't believe.  Of course, that's assuming that Iowa isn't alone, and not escorted by an Atlanta or two, and probably some Destroyers to boot.  The USN rarely would send the battlewagons off without escorts of their own.

I don't get where you think a Modern Battleship would be larger than a Supercarrier though, Pyro - to carry modern armaments it would not require a massive ammount of hull space, equally to properly support helicopter operations would not require an immense ammount, or to carry modern ASW/AAW assets similarly.  With modern artillery cannons, they could reach double the range quite likely, and deliver more pain with much more precision.

[pyro-manic]

I'm not talking about armament, but protection. Late battleships were large because of the quantity of armour they had to carry. If you were to build a ship that was protected against, say, modern 15- or 16-inch guns, as well as armour-piercing bombs, modern heavyweight torpedoes and anti-ship missiles, the hull would have to be very large to support all that. You'd need extremely thick armour, a massive hull to provide torpedo protection (quite how you'd defeat a modern keel-breaking torpedo I don't know), and very heavy deck armour. Then on top of that you've got to provide armour and shock protection for all the extremely fragile electronics.  And a ship of such magnitude is inevitably going to be nuclear-powered these days, which adds more issues.

Even with all this, you'd still end up with a ship that's less useful than a carrier. To quote D.K. Brown,

It is often said that the battleship died because it was vulnerable. This is incorrect; it was replaced by the fleet carrier which was much more vulnerable. The battleship died because it was far less capable than the carrier of inflicting damage on the enemy.

Even with these modern "super-guns" you propose, a modern battleship would have a reach of maybe 60 miles. A carrier can hit several targets simultaneously, at many times that range, with much greater accuracy, and at much less risk to itself.

[Hobbes]

Consider that it took the air groups of what, Two to put down Yamato, and even then it was a bloody fight, let alone Iowa, armed to the teeth with heavy AA firepower, VT-fused DP Secondaries, and the speed to run down the Carrier even as they're attacking? 

What sort of air group are we talking about? WW2 carrierborne aircraft didn't exactly carry heavy loads: a Bearcat could carry 2x 450 kg bombs max. Go forward 30 years and your Iowa has to contend with multiple 900 kg bombs per aircraft (Phantoms carried up to 8 tons), another 10 years and they're laserguided. And that's just current technology. If battleships had remained in service, anti-battleship weapons would have been developed: heavier bombs, supersonic ASMs, nuclear-tipped missiles, air-launched torpedoes etc.
There's also the Tomahawks carried by the escorts.
And the carrier group can start the battle when the Iowa is 500 km away. It would take at least 7 hours for the Iowa to close to guns range, enough time for >100 airplane sorties.
Even if the airplane bombs were to bounce off the armor, the Iowa would still lose all of its sensors in short order, reducing it to manual aiming only.

Not to mention that 30 years on the carrier will be escorted by SSNs which by themselves are more than a match for a battleship.

[upnorth]

Interesting thread

I'm surprised, unless I missed seeing it, that the MBT-70 hasn't come up here. There was a design with some potential, not just as an MBT, but as the base for a range of derivative vehicles. Ultimately, as I understand it, it was hamstrung because Germany and America disagreed too much on features and construction methods.

Another thing I often wonder about is why Lockheed had so much trouble being successful in the post war civil market when they had been a leader in it in the interwar years. I'm thinking mostly of the L-1011 Tristar and the Jetstar biz jet.

Both designs saw some degree of success, but relatively limited.

From what I've read, the L-1011 was liked by aircrews for good flying and handling characteristics. However, it is often stated that it could not compete in range with the likes of the DC-10. I often wonder why, if it had that popularity with aircrews, that it was not developed to improve range to be properly competitive.

I always thought the Jetstar was about the coolest looking biz jet I ever saw, but I have no idea why it might not have caught on like the Cessna Citation family or Dassault Falcon line.

[JayBee]

I can not say anything about the jetstar.

However as far as the Tristar goes, when Douglas was designing the competing DC-10, right from the start it was designed with the potential for future growth, in that the wing centre section had the capability of having the third undercarriage leg fitted to compensate for any increase in weight.
Lockheed did not do this with the Tristar. Any hopes of the Tristar competing with streched DC-10s would have required a total redesigned of the wing centre section, and the cost in both time and money proved too great for Lockheed, so it never happened and the Tristar lost out.

JimB

[kitnut617]

Go forward 30 years and your Iowa has to contend with multiple 900 kg bombs per aircraft (Phantoms carried up to 8 tons), another 10 years and they're laserguided. And that's just current technology. If battleships had remained in service, anti-battleship weapons would have been developed: heavier bombs, supersonic ASMs, nuclear-tipped missiles, air-launched torpedoes etc.

You actually don't have to go forward that many years at all, BSP-Hypersonics, Ramjets & Missiles states that the RAF's main weapon in the last year of the war against capital ships was the 12,0000lb Tallboy, and after scientists studied captured data about the German TV guided bombs (which they used to good effect at the end of the war) Barnes Wallis tried to adapt the technology to the Tallboy because the main problem with using the Tallboy is it had to be a direct hit to be effective.  It was recognized that the AA defences on the big ships were progressively getting better too so a stand-off bomb was required but it wasn't very successful but mainly because the wings weren't big enough.

I had come up with this bomb for my Eagle GR.7 project (see photo) but this was before I had read about Wallis' efforts in the book. It's a modified Tallboy with GBU-15 wings and seeker.  Bottom photo shows a comparison with other RW bombs, now I think I need to revise the wing sizes considering what I've read in the book.

[monkeyhanger]

This thread has gone through the roof - in a good way! This is what I like about this site. All that stuff I never thought of and all that stuff I never even suspected existed!

Anyway. what about the Henschel 129? A favourite of mine since I saw the Airfix kit with the massive 75mm gun. And what about the Blohm und Voss Bv 141? I have read that the latter aircraft was killed off because of demand for engines for the Focke Wulf 190.

Re engined Hs 129 is obvious, but what about re engining the Bv 141? Ground attack variants or was it too specialised for observation.

[Mossie]

I saw a video on the Bv-141 were Eric Winkle Brown was interviewed about it.  He test flew it post war & wasn't that impressed with it, coming to a similar conclusion to the evaluation team, that it was underpowered compared to the Fw-189.

[Weaver]

On continued development of BBs, another thing is that the concept would have to make it through the 1950s and early 1960s when the presumption was that any war would nuclear hard and early. A BB might be able to fight off a number of 1000lb bomb attacks, but how many Red Beards do you have to toss at it before it's glowing history?

In any case, I think a defence of BBs based on them being an alternative to a carrier is misguided. Towards the end of the war, US BBs formed a useful component of a task force that included carriers and/or amphibious forces. They added a huge weight of fire to the carrier's AA defence, which also had the advantage of not being compromised by the awkward layout of a carrier, and they diverted attention from the carrier, soaking up attacks that they were better able to withstand. They also provided essential and economical fire support for amphibious landings that couldn't be shot down or grounded by bad weather.

You could therefore argue that instead of being scrapped as a class, they should merely have been downgraded form a "starring role" to a "supporting role" in integrated task groups. How long the concept would have survived into the missile age is another matter. Delicate electronics and savage recoil/muzzle blast are not easy bedfellows, and modern weapons/systems have a lower density than gun-era ones, which means that the ship is space-limited rather than weight limited. Armouring a big ship full of electronics and missiles is much heavier than armouring one with relatively compact gun magazines.

[Sauragnmon]

Well additionally, everybody thinks in terms of the traditional solid plate of steel armor, again forgetting modern developments, like Chobham/Composite armor, what a novel concept we have there, especially since most ASM rounds rely primarily on their chemical energy to delivery the damaging punch against the ship, a field that Chobham armor is especially good at dealing with.  Against kinetic force, a spaced gap in there would be rather disruptive as well, equally so against a blast warhead, as a shaped charge, IF it punched through the composite, would lose its energy in the open air of the spaced gap.  Further more, a modern Battleship would have its CIWS integrated from day one, and would likely include RAM/Phalanx and missiles, all of which are capable of engaging, intercepting and destroying Aircraft.  A Battleship can also carry a strike payload, and more than a Cruiser could in principle, doubly so when you start factoring in higher angle of trajectory fire and Ramjet or Scramjet assisted munitions designed to take advantage of high angle of fire to get substantial altitude and come in near-vertical on the target using not only explosive force from the blast charge, but the intense kinetic force of this unforgettable force, what was it called... Gravity?  You say a Carrier can reach out and deliver all sorts of death with its aircraft, conveniently isn't it interesting to notice, that a Carriers Only Redeeming Quality happens to be its Greatest Liability?

You like to say Carrier vs Battleship, the Carrier is 500 miles away and can throw out in excess of a hundred attacks... but you're forgetting the rate of Attrition against Iowa - How many aircraft are in that first strike?  How many of the CAG are Fighters unable to carry an attack payload short of their guns?  How about the weather, is it flat, dead and Clear, which is when the fighters of the time would be at their best, or is the weather anywhere near inclement, where they would be at a disadvantage?  Is it coming on Night, where they would be Horridly disadvantaged?  When's this fight Starting, compared to when does the sun set?  If the Carrier Commander is even remotely conservative, he likely won't throw his WHOLE CAG in that first thrust, will he even throw Half?  Will he throw enough to overwhelm the defenses in that first costly strike when he loses surprise, and maybe score a hit or two, or will he conserve his resources and start running when he's lost a number of his attackers and bombers Trying to attack that floating fortress.

Sure, in the modern era, fighters are all weather, sort of.  I don't think ANY Carrier is launching planes in serious chop and massive swell with cross winds that'll throw a landing plane into the island.  Battleship?  Doesn't give a crap, those guns won't stop firing for rain nor snow nor sleet nor dead of night.  Tack on a Guidance package, and they're now delivering Destructive Death with Massive precision.  Just because there's air support, does the Army drop its Artillery?  Nope.  Why?  Artillery is a whole lot faster on the target, and it can be scaled much easier.  I have yet to see a Carrier that can affect proper Naval Surface Fire Support, and sure as hell no modern Cruiser can do it, the five inch gun for all its reach (not a whole lot really) delivers pathetic punch on the shot, can't really crack a fortified target, and certainly doesn't have a whole lot of effective damage when the shell gets there.  Battleship?  Not a problem, and unlike a Carrier delivering explosives, the Battleship does it with relative impunity, because even if you intercept the shell, you just take out the shell, not the gun firing it or the other 90 rounds behind it, or the other eight guns in that battery of death and pain.

[Weaver]

Then again, most armies have now dropped tube artillery above 155mm, a calibre that cruisers can carry comfortably. I often wondered whether it's feasible to fit MLRS on a "fire support ship" (non-emotive term... )

[elmayerle]

Then again, most armies have now dropped tube artillery above 155mm, a calibre that cruisers can carry comfortably. I often wondered whether it's feasible to fit MLRS on a "fire support ship" (non-emotive term... )

In basic, yes, it's feasible though I suspect there'd be some intense engineering required for the reloading since you have to replace the entire six-pack cell each time.  Still, with proper storage and transport set ups, it wouldn't be an impossible job.  It'd be a most interesting challenge, though, particularly if there were a number of alternate loadouts that could be fired.

[Weaver]

Then again, most armies have now dropped tube artillery above 155mm, a calibre that cruisers can carry comfortably. I often wondered whether it's feasible to fit MLRS on a "fire support ship" (non-emotive term... )

In basic, yes, it's feasible though I suspect there'd be some intense engineering required for the reloading since you have to replace the entire six-pack cell each time.  Still, with proper storage and transport set ups, it wouldn't be an impossible job.  It'd be a most interesting challenge, though, particularly if there were a number of alternate loadouts that could be fired.

What I came up with was a stabilised launcher that sat next to a deckhouse or hull step. One kind of reload sat below the launcher and reloaded vertically, another kind fed up into the deckhouse and reloaded horizontally.