If battleships weren't scrapped for carriers during World War 2 you would have seen some insane ship sizes for battleships towards the end. The planned Super Yamato battleships were suppose to be 70,000 long tons but the also planned American Montana class battleships were slightly bigger at 70,965 long tons. Of course there was also the entirely theoretical German H-44 battleships which would have weighed over 129,000 long tons but those were simply studies to see just how big a battleship could be, while the Super Yamato and Montana classes were going to have their keels laid down in 1942 but canceled shortly after midway.
Also... the suppose-to-be third Yamato-class Shinano was converted to an aircraft carrier with displacement of 65,800 tons (64,800 long tons). Shinano is considered as the largest aircraft carrier built during that time.
I wonder when will Shinano finally have her appearance.
Also... the suppose-to-be third Yamato-class Shinano was converted to an aircraft carrier with displacement of 65,800 tons (64,800 long tons). Shinano is considered as the largest aircraft carrier built during that time.
I wonder when will Shinano finally have her appearance.
Also... the suppose-to-be third Yamato-class Shinano was converted to an aircraft carrier with displacement of 65,800 tons (64,800 long tons). Shinano is considered as the largest aircraft carrier built during that time.
I wonder when will Shinano finally have her appearance.
I doubt that she'd have a higher luck stat than Mutsu though She never launched a single plane
I doubt that she'd have a higher luck stat than Mutsu though She never launched a single plane
Shinano was the largest naval ship that had been sunk by a submarine, no doubt she couldn't even launch a single plane.
In typical WWII naval warfare, aircraft carriers are always vulnerable against subs. But I'm sure most of the modern aircraft carriers today are well armed against submarine attacks.
Doubted that. Isolated from protection of their battle group, modern aircraft carriers would still be vulnerable against the Schroedinger Cat of naval battle (subs, they're everywhere and nowhere)
Doubted that. Isolated from protection of their battle group, modern aircraft carriers would still be vulnerable against the Schroedinger Cat of naval battle (subs, they're everywhere and nowhere)
Random Trivia: All Nimitz-class super-carriers can launch depth charges on their own. That scene from a certain movie back a ways where the Nimitz launched a Nuclear Depth Charge? Could'a happened, the Nimitz is among the only ships confirmed to have carried them.
Random Trivia: All Nimitz-class super-carriers can launch depth charges on their own. That scene from a certain movie back a ways where the Nimitz launched a Nuclear Depth Charge? Could'a happened, the Nimitz is among the only ships confirmed to have carried them.
One of the primary roles of modern aircraft carriers is anti-submarine warfare; naval aircraft can search far and wide for submarines, as well as attack and sink them. This is part of the reason why Japan built those new large helicopter carriers, they're one of the most optimal anti-submarine weapons available.
MADs (Magnetic Anomaly Detectors) have revolutionized ASW operations. They're what's in the "stinger" of ASW planes like the P-3s that fly over my house all the time, and I believe in the boom off the nose of some helicopters. In WWII you had to either see the sub or hear it, either by its own noise or the bounceback of a sonar ping, both of which could be easily muddled by the sounds of a ship's propeller. Nowadays you can drop sonobouys or skim over the surface with a MAD to hunt them out and drop homing torpedoes on them. I certainly don't envy the submarine crews should two modern militaries go to war.
Conjuring images in my head of a big fat Nimitz running down a sub to drop depth charges on it gives me a chuckle, though.
There are helicopters that were commonly used for ASW, several helicopter types named as "Sea Kings" were armed with conventional anti-submarine weapons.
Yes (although, keep in mind that this is 'lobbing' depth charges several nmi away. ASROC... although you didn't hear that from me...), and...
An ASROC is a homing torpedo; that's what I was referring to in my post. I dunno if there's a language or understanding difference, but to me a depth charge is essentially a can of explosives rolled or blown off the deck with a timer or depth meter used to trigger it, thus why it was a funny image-thought for a Nimitz to be using them.
With those modern detection technology, where would subs play their role ? Do they still hunt for ships or just do more infiltration kind of jobs ?
SSBNs will never go anywhere. As long as there are SSBNs, they'll need something to hunt the SSBNs. And that's where the SSKs shines, since they can hunt the beast in its own backyard. (Note: all Los_Angeles-class and Virginia-class American SSNs fill the role of classic SSs [Merchant Raiders], SSAs [Anti-Surface], SSG [Guided Missile Submarine], and SSKs [Hunter-Killer Submarine] at the same time, thus General Purpose Submarine [modern SS]) As long as the SSBNs are under threat, they will make them harder to detect and harder to hit. This means new stealth technologies and deeper diving. Naturally, this means that the SSKs will modernize to keep up with the SSBNs... and simultaneously make it harder for Surface Ships to detect and kill them, putting them back in play for surface strike... Until someone develops something that can kill them then too... ...and the cycle repeats.
OOZ662 said:
An ASROC is a homing torpedo
Not it is not, and it never has been. Not lashing out at you here, just saying.
An ASROC is a delivery vehicle for either a Mark 46 Light Torpedo, a DC2 Depth Charge, or a DN44 Nuclear Depth Bomb.
A depth charge is essentially a bomb set to go off at a certain depth, thus the alternative name 'depth bomb'. If you took a torpedo and set it to explode at a certain spot and not on contact/proximity, it'd technically be a remote depth charge.
The only reason why you don't hear more about Depth Charges on ASROCs is because they're mostly only useful in the Littoral Combat zone, which is now making a comeback as the priority.
An ASROC is a delivery vehicle for either a Mark 46 Light Torpedo
Now I'm starting to think we're working with misaligned semantics. "An ASROC has never been a homing torpedo. It's a delivery vehicle for a homing torpedo."
No, it looks like something that was never used outside of testing. All the images on the wiki page do, though. It is interesting to note that the nuclear ones seem to called "depth bombs" while conventional exploding cans are called "depth charges." Good ol' English having different meanings for synonyms.
Now I'm starting to think we're working with misaligned semantics. "An ASROC has never been a homing torpedo. It's a delivery vehicle for a homing torpedo."
I see where you're going... just a few questions for you. Is a F22 Raptor an Anti-Air missile? Is a Predator Drone a Cruise Missile? Is an AH64 Apache an anti-tank missile? Is a M1 Abrams a HEAT round? Is a M72A3 LAW a 66x508mm Rocket? Is a M16 a 5.56x45mm round?
The answer to all of these is a flat no. Likewise with the ASROC, it's a Guided Missile that commonly has a Mk46 Light Torpedo or MK54 MAKO Light Torpedo as its warhead.
OOZ662 said:
No, it looks like something that was never used outside of testing. All the images on the wiki page do, though.
And? It was still a Depth Charge, albeit air dropped and nuclear. Aside, the Mk101 Lulu was in service from 1958 to 1971. What does not having been used in combat have to do with anything... or, would you prefer the alternative? Nuclear Winter sure would be cold right about now.
OOZ662 said:
It is interesting to note that the nuclear ones seem to called "depth bombs" while conventional exploding cans are called "depth charges." Good ol' English having different meanings for synonyms.
Depth Bomb and Depth Charge are interchangeable among the sailors, officially however they tend to differ based on drop method (Sea vs Air).
At least she died in war, not from crew playing fire inside her body ^^;
It's because of airplanes isn't it. They killed battleships, the concept of it
Nope, she died on the way from one shipyard to another to finish her outfitting, she wasn't even finished. She got hit by a sub, her captain went 'Americantorpslol' (rightfully so btw, just not in this case because they actually worked) and carried on while taking on water. Then she rolled over and sank a few hours later.
Also, heres a nice factoid regarding displacement: each of Yamato's turrets for her 46cm naval rifles weighed in at 2800 tons including traverse gear and ammo feed. She mounted four of those monster turrets. Those things weighed almost twice as much as most of the IJNs destroyers.
Also, heres a nice factoid regarding displacement: each of Yamato's turrets for her 46cm naval rifles weighed in at 2800 tons including traverse gear and ammo feed. She mounted four of those monster turrets. Those things weighed almost twice as much as most of the IJNs destroyers.
Hence my personal favorite Nagamon post: post #1578882
Let's say the bath contains 201,000 tons of water.Yeah.Destroyers are so annoying...I'm faster than you.This is really healing.Such a nice bath.Kitakami-san isn't here, right...Standard displacement:
Yamato 64,000t
Musashi 65,000t
Nagato 39,120t
Mutsu 32,720t
Total 200,840tStandard displacement:
Tenryuu and Tatsuta 3,230t
Abukuma 5,170t
Atago 13,400t (after upgrades)
I-19 3,654t (submerged)
Total 28,684tAhhh, I'm so tired.Standard displacement:
Shimakaze 2,567tStandard displacement:
Kitakami 5,100t
Ooi 6,900t (as a heavy torpedo cruiser)
Fubuki-class 1,680t ( x10 people )
Total 28,800tХорошо
Wonderful.
