OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


Revthought -> OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/13/2016 9:48:16 PM)

I read this somewhere on the internet today:

Now, I know this may sound dumb, but hear me out.

What if a group of ships from WW2, across several nations, (KM, RN, USN, IJN), were dropped in at 1/2 a mile from a modern Navy task group, and had to fight it out? Say, 1 Iowa, 1 Yamato, 1 KGV, 1 Bismark, 1 Alaska, 2 Baltimores, 1 Mogamis, 1 Hipper, 2 Town class cruisers and a Pair of DDs from each nation.

Versus 2 Fleet CVs, 3 Missile cruisers and 8 DDGs, and 2 SSNs


For me this is any easy answer--the modern fleet! But not for the reasons most people who were answering this question seemed to think

The half a mile range is key, and assuming day time conditions with a normal sea state, the first 10 minutes will see the WW2 era ships sink or mission kill 60% of the modern warships, while being relatively little damage from Harpoons (I'm assuming an all American modern fleet).

The damage to the modern fleet will only be limited by the time it takes the WW2 ships to load, work a solution, and fire the guns. Command and control might also be a limiting factor.

Depending, at the end of the day you might end up with 90%--maybe all--of the modern surface warships mission killed. Unfortunately for the WW2 ships, they lose on a technicality--the MK48.

Even if the WW2 ships get lucky, and knock every surface ship out of action, they'll still lose to the MK48s fired by subs, which would be nearly impervious to WW2 era ASW, or a combination of torpedoes launched from the subs and destroyers.

Can you tell there isn't much going on at work today?




btd64 -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/13/2016 10:08:45 PM)

Got your feet up on the desk, hu.[>:]....GP




Barb -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 10:20:50 AM)

Modern ships with modern command and control systems can simultaneously engage multiple targets at once - thus I expect every modern ships can fire a complete HELL in just a single salvo disabling most of the "Old" fleet. Fire and Control for older ships is muuuuuuuuuuch slower - acquiring firing solutions even with the use of mechanical computers and with use of "old" radars and plotting will take time. Also the modern fleet would have the edge of precision - Harpoons will hit targets in say 98%, "old" shells in much smaller percentages...

Also if you have modern CVs - did you included their air wings into the calculations?

Anyway, You can't get that massive "old steel" ships to that distance! 1/2 a mile? That is just 900 meters or 6000 ft. Yamato has a length of 263m/862ft !!! Not mentioning it would not be able to depress its guns enough!




Revthought -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 2:20:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Modern ships with modern command and control systems can simultaneously engage multiple targets at once - thus I expect every modern ships can fire a complete HELL in just a single salvo disabling most of the "Old" fleet. Fire and Control for older ships is muuuuuuuuuuch slower - acquiring firing solutions even with the use of mechanical computers and with use of "old" radars and plotting will take time. Also the modern fleet would have the edge of precision - Harpoons will hit targets in say 98%, "old" shells in much smaller percentages...

Also if you have modern CVs - did you included their air wings into the calculations?

Anyway, You can't get that massive "old steel" ships to that distance! 1/2 a mile? That is just 900 meters or 6000 ft. Yamato has a length of 263m/862ft !!! Not mentioning it would not be able to depress its guns enough!


Yes, but the problem is that modern American warships do not really have the firepower to incapacitate heavily armored naval vessels. So while the harpoons could easily take out old destroyers and light cruisers, as they'll be relatively ineffectual against anything with any amount of armor.

That and most of modern destroyers have a pretty limited supply of Harpoons. So they'll shoot off all 8, and when the dust clears, large caliber armor piercing shells will still be landing on their completely unarmored decks.

That's why the key to this whole scenario is range. Half a mile is point blank for naval artillery; however, if the starting range was 40 miles, there'd be nothing to talk about given the presence of nuclear carriers. And the range finding radar and mechanical fire control computers were fast enough that the WW2 ships could start putting shells on target as quickly as they could load the main guns.

And, of course, I am assuming that shooting starts right away in this hypothetical scenario.




Panther Bait -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 5:35:07 PM)

The DDGs and (maybe) the CGs will also have torpedoes that could be brought to bear on the WWII ships. If the modern fleet gets to be multinational as well, the Russians can throw out more than just Harpoons, and Russian SSMs have some serious damage potential.

If we assume that both sides have some degree of foreknowledge of the event (or why else are Japanese, US/RN, and the Germans going to be fighting together), I suspect this engagement is something more like the Battle off Samar with the modern fleet being Taffy 3 and the WWII fleet being the IJN. Oh, and then throw in the SSN on top of that (Mk 48 - 1/2 mile at 55 kn is not a lot of time and the firing solutions will be pretty simple as well). Harpoons might not sink a WWII BB, but they can mission-kill/distract the top-sides pretty well.

Not to say that the modern ships don't get plastered, but I bet they get their licks in.

Mike




pontiouspilot -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 5:51:35 PM)

After watching the HMS Sheffield burn down in the Falklands I have often wondered whether modern missiles had any armour piercing characteristics such that they may be of dubious value against real old fashioned armour. Does anybody have an answer?




Lecivius -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 6:00:30 PM)

I am going on the assumption everyone knows they are about to get 'dropped' into this. Depending on the cruisers and SSN's, this action lasts all of 10 minutes before the historical fleet is a reef.




anarchyintheuk -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 6:35:47 PM)

Sort of depends on how quickly turrets rotate vs. how quickly CIC prioritizes targets and designates weapons systems. Who gets the first shot.

BTW, doesn't the booster on the harpoon fire it farther than 1/2 mile?




BBfanboy -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 7:16:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

After watching the HMS Sheffield burn down in the Falklands I have often wondered whether modern missiles had any armour piercing characteristics such that they may be of dubious value against real old fashioned armour. Does anybody have an answer?


I saw a video on YouTube that showed a Harpoon test on a derelict DD target ship. The Harpoon did the pop-up before diving on the ship and then went right through it and exploded basically at the keel. The ship was basically blown in half. Don't know how many thicknesses of steel it went through but it must have added up to over an inch. I bet CA deck armor would be pierced but not BB deck armor.

BTW, some of the modern ships would have the Tomahawk which I think carries a larger warhead and is nuke-capable. A tac-nuke (say 5 KT) in the middle of those old time warships would flatten their topsides and kill/blind all the crews. A little close for the modern fleet, but half a mile is better than none.




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 7:47:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

After watching the HMS Sheffield burn down in the Falklands I have often wondered whether modern missiles had any armour piercing characteristics such that they may be of dubious value against real old fashioned armour. Does anybody have an answer?

Arliegh Burke class DDG's are made of steel , not aluminum. After the Falklands, The Stark and The Samuel B Roberts incidents there was a great effort to "harden" US warships, including some armor. BTW , has anyone ever seen a modern 127 mm gun shoot? The turrets are not manned, and the autoloader is semi=automatic. Besides being very accurate, they would be able to overwhelm a "traditional warship" rather quickly with a fast, effective smothering fire. Plus they have far more versatile AMMO. And Standard missiles (like those vertical launch "manholes" on the deck contain) have a anti-shipping mode. Imagine even a battleship taking several hundred standards, plus harpoons , plus whatever the CVN's have in the air (or can rapidly launch)......it would be quick.




Lecivius -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 7:55:12 PM)

Assuming we go with a Ticonderoga class cruiser(by no means the best ship to ship platform), 3 cruisers coordinating fire with each with 2 mk 41 vls cells containing each armed with 8 ESSM missiles in conjunction with 2 4 cell Harpoon launchers along with 2 3 cell Mk 48 AS homing torpedoes. The 2 SSN's take out the BB's with ease (Our resident Moose would be able to give details, but it's a No Brainer). The CG cruisers mission kill everything else afloat. They coordinate all fire control all weapons platforms. The DDG's physically kill anything still afloat. The CVN's launch rescue helos.

Ten minutes. No nukes. And that's being generous.




Big B -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 7:59:12 PM)

I agree with the "reef in 10 minutes" prediction,

However, if you took the better WW2 era ships (the larger and more capable), stripped them of their obsolete AAA outfit, and modernized them with modern anti-missle defenses, etc, and some Harpoons themselves... maybe it would a different story...




Alfred -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 8:06:42 PM)

This is just a silly proposal.

None of these ships were built to fight at 1/2 mile.  The combat would never get close to that distance.  The proposal is not even theoretical, it is pure fantasy land.

Why not add a third fleet to the fantasy.  One comprised of Spanish galleons, Dutch flytes, Athenian triremes and start the combat at boarding range.  You would be surprised at how effective the Spanish tercios would be at wielding their swords and pikes when thy get below decks.

Pit English longbowmen at 50 yards from a modern infantry force and see the many casualties suffered by the infantry.

Alfred




Lecivius -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 8:25:28 PM)

Or my personal favorite...



[image]local://upfiles/26061/CE47BF0CA191463BA0E966F609C6F580.jpg[/image]




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 8:25:55 PM)

Obviously someone has watched "Battleship" too many times. [:D]




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 8:26:59 PM)

Maybe they should read this series http://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Choice-Axis-Time-Trilogy/dp/0345457137/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1460662031&sr=8-4&keywords=john+birmingham
or this story http://www.amazon.com/1942-Novel-Robert-Conroy/dp/0345506073/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460662085&sr=8-1&keywords=1942+conroy




bomccarthy -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 8:52:29 PM)

Vern: Do you think Mighty Mouse could beat up Superman?
Teddy: What are you, cracked?
Vern: Why not? I saw the other day. He was carrying five elephants in one hand!
Teddy: Boy, you don't know nothing! Mighty Mouse is a cartoon. Superman's a real guy. There's no way a cartoon could beat up a real guy.
Vern: Yeah, maybe you're right. It'd be a good fight, though.




Big B -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 9:36:07 PM)

Now we're talking! Klingon D-7 Battlecruiser!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Or my personal favorite...



[image]local://upfiles/26061/CE47BF0CA191463BA0E966F609C6F580.jpg[/image]



Which must bring on this question...
If each universe could do what they are portrayed to do... who wins the sci-fi battle:
Star Trek (TOS), or Star Wars???

...I know some of you must have opinions on this! [:D]




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 9:53:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


quote:

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

After watching the HMS Sheffield burn down in the Falklands I have often wondered whether modern missiles had any armour piercing characteristics such that they may be of dubious value against real old fashioned armour. Does anybody have an answer?

Arliegh Burke class DDG's are made of steel , not aluminum. After the Falklands, The Stark and The Samuel B Roberts incidents there was a great effort to "harden" US warships, including some armor. BTW , has anyone ever seen a modern 127 mm gun shoot? The turrets are not manned, and the autoloader is semi=automatic. Besides being very accurate, they would be able to overwhelm a "traditional warship" rather quickly with a fast, effective smothering fire. Plus they have far more versatile AMMO. And Standard missiles (like those vertical launch "manholes" on the deck contain) have a anti-shipping mode. Imagine even a battleship taking several hundred standards, plus harpoons , plus whatever the CVN's have in the air (or can rapidly launch)......it would be quick.


The OP's scenario is incomplete. A lot depends on assumptions.

Do the parties blink in already at battlestations? If not the old guys are toast right there. Modern ships can be fought by the watch section. BBs need turret crews to arrive. SSNs operate with warshots in the tubes. The full load could be snap-shot by the OOD or duty FCman in a (classified) number of seconds. At 1/2 a mile you don't need a solution. Terminal homing works right away. Snap-shot procedures are enough.

Do they have steam up? If they do the modern steam ships can run away a lot faster. Better props, better shaft bearings, better hull designs. The GT ships with variable-pitch props can go from stopped to flank in a very, very short time. They could present a stern aspect, run away while the BBs are trying to get to battlestations, and fire at the same time. You can open a range quickly at 40 kts.

Standard missiles yes, but also CIWS in surface mode. Every antenna showing on every old-timer is gone in seconds. At range I'm pretty sure CIWS could shoot down a 16in shell. But wouldn't have to because . . . 40kts, stern aspect, no FC radar on BBs.

I used to do a similar time-waster on this question--how fast could one 688 SSN sink every single ship Japan owned? The limiting factor would be trips back to wherever to re-load. One fish, one kill. Passive sonar that can hear the enemy at hundreds of miles. No ASW at all. Six months?




Pilsator -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/14/2016 10:22:39 PM)

some Type VIIs for the the historians and the case is settled .




spence -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/15/2016 12:14:53 AM)

One half mile is 1000 yds to the gunners...that's sight down the barrel and fire and hit the target range. If you want to pick the eye out of the enemy captain's head you might apply the targeting computers solutions. Otherwise you just shoot as fast as you can.




wdolson -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/15/2016 3:25:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Now we're talking! Klingon D-7 Battlecruiser!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Or my personal favorite...



[image]local://upfiles/26061/CE47BF0CA191463BA0E966F609C6F580.jpg[/image]



Which must bring on this question...
If each universe could do what they are portrayed to do... who wins the sci-fi battle:
Star Trek (TOS), or Star Wars???

...I know some of you must have opinions on this! [:D]


Let's see the Empire with the dark side of the Force behind it lost to a handful of rebels. The Federation beat the Borg, among others.

Though there are sort of two Star Trek universes, before and after Roddenberry. Gene Roddenberry's ST universe was an optimistic future where there are problems, but Earth pulled its act together and generally gets along with most of its neighbors. Rick Berman is a dystopian who took ST in a different direction that was a lot darker. I think this change is what eroded the fan base and ended the franchise. If they had kept to Roddenberry's original vision, ST might still be going today with a multi-generational fan base like Doctor Who.

The original ST fans were inspired by the optimistic message, but the bulk of fans were Boomers and early Gen Xers. Later Gen Xers and Millennials were not inspired by the later ST and so most ST fans today are older.

George Lucas is a big fan of old movies and Star Wars was written like an old fashioned 40s action movie with better special effects. It's much more classical and is a somewhat simpler universe with black and white good vs evil characters. ST has some good vs evil, but the characters are often more nuanced with most of the "good" characters doing wrong sometimes and the motives of the "evil" characters is usually patriotism or self interest or just alien motives rather than the black and white "evil" you get in many older films. Many ST plots have hinged on uncovering these motives and coming to a mutually acceptable conclusion.

I never liked Star Wars black and white perspective. To me it's artificial and doesn't really make me think. It's just eye candy with some stilted dialog thrown in to hold it together. Many times Star Trek made me think about things and ponder different perspectives. At least the earlier stuff did. It became more black and white when they started introducing bad guys like the Borg who I found very uninteresting. Q was a much more interesting antagonist. His evil mostly came from being too alien to grok beings in the physical universe of the Federation.

I've probably completely derailed this thread...

Bill




BBfanboy -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/15/2016 3:44:38 AM)

It's OK Bill, I grok what you wrote!




Big B -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/15/2016 5:02:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Now we're talking! Klingon D-7 Battlecruiser!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Or my personal favorite...



[image]local://upfiles/26061/CE47BF0CA191463BA0E966F609C6F580.jpg[/image]



Which must bring on this question...
If each universe could do what they are portrayed to do... who wins the sci-fi battle:
Star Trek (TOS), or Star Wars???

...I know some of you must have opinions on this! [:D]



I never liked Star Wars black and white perspective. To me it's artificial and doesn't really make me think. It's just eye candy with some stilted dialog thrown in to hold it together. Many times Star Trek made me think about things and ponder different perspectives. At least the earlier stuff did. It became more black and white when they started introducing bad guys like the Borg who I found very uninteresting. Q was a much more interesting antagonist. His evil mostly came from being too alien to grok beings in the physical universe of the Federation.

I've probably completely derailed this thread...

Bill



We Reach ... Bill


[image]local://upfiles/16855/03063E459CFD4F48BF8E2B787C11D5C9.jpg[/image]




Barb -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/15/2016 10:43:41 AM)

Actually I would say that on the old fleet the 40mm and 20mm cannons would do probably more damage than the big guns at that range! With the insane number of them aboard the old ships they would rake the "modern" fleet with tens of thousands of bullets in no time.
On the other hand even the modern 3in/5in automatic cannon and CIWS can fire hell of a lead in no time too.
And what would be the battle formation of respective fleets? Two line of ships like in the old times? :D

Anyway.. its so unrealistic scenario it is not even a hypothetical but rather "completely out of mind".




btd64 -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/15/2016 1:29:28 PM)

Bill, I'm on the fence and can't get off. The Enterprise NCC-1701x has a tractor beam on me and the force is pulling from the other side.

I always wondered how USS Nimitz would of been able to stay active if she stayed in 1941 in the movie Final Countdown. Of course the book was better.

Scenario #2;
How about a modern SAG or Carrier group showing up in 1941 with no way back???

Re-arming would be the biggest problem. Then fuel for smaller ships. Adjustments could be made l imagine....GP




AW1Steve -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/15/2016 1:48:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Bill, I'm on the fence and can't get off. The Enterprise NCC-1701x has a tractor beam on me and the force is pulling from the other side.

I always wondered how USS Nimitz would of been able to stay active if she stayed in 1941 in the movie Final Countdown. Of course the book was better.

Scenario #2;
How about a modern SAG or Carrier group showing up in 1941 with no way back???

Re-arming would be the biggest problem. Then fuel for smaller ships. Adjustments could be made l imagine....GP

Ironically it would be easier to make JP (jet fuel, used by both planes and ships) than some of the advanced AVGAS made in ww2. JP is simply highly refined kerosene. Missiles would be a problem. Spare parts would be a much bigger one. Smart bombs would be replaced with "dumb bombs" , 20mm is 20mm, so no problem there. One big problem would be electronics. Modern warships don't repair their electronics per se, but "pull the black boxes" and send them ashore for repair. USS America could go more into detail on that subject.




Big B -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/15/2016 2:49:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
... Modern warships don't repair their electronics per se, but "pull the black boxes" and send them ashore for repair. USS America could go more into detail on that subject.



That is an understatement.
The repairs of WW2 era electronics, that were performed underway at sea, were I think, impressive.
Read the deck log of the submarine Argonaut, dated Monday January 5th - 1942, while patrolling off the Midway area...(second paragraph below)


[image]local://upfiles/16855/1067F94BFF3149F68DA176649474AF50.jpg[/image]




Revthought -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/15/2016 8:51:10 PM)

Of course the scenario is full of holes! It's completely ridiculous! But, as I stated earlier, the only assumption is shooting starts happening right away.

It's up to your brain to decide how formation, relative speed, etc, effect the outcome. Far more fun that way.

Three assumptions:

1. WW2 Fleet are all "on the same side"
2. Shooting starts right away
3. No ship in more than half a mile away from someone they might be shooting at--still a lot to play with there.




wdolson -> RE: OT: Thought Experiment Modern Warships versus WW2 Era Ships (4/16/2016 12:39:02 AM)

The Final Countdown scenario would be a nightmare to keep the ships and planes operational. The biggest problems would be getting spare electronics and advanced metallurgical parts. Semiconductors were such a huge advance and was way beyond what WW II era electronics plants could do. Dumping that technology into 1941 would have dramatically advanced the tech of the era, especially with a bunch of engineering officers who could explain a lot of the tech to designers stateside. The P-80 would probably have been closer to an F-18 in design, though a lot of its systems would have been a lot more primitive. The US would also have likely been producing transistors by the end of the war. That would have made radios far more reliable. Though digital computing probably wouldn't be possible by 1945, some advances in that direction would be possible. Electronic calculators that were the size of adding machines probably would have been possible by 1945. That would have been a huge boon to engineering.

The carrier probably would have been operational for a while and fuel for the escort would have been well within the capabilities of the era to produce. Same with jet fuel, though as the planes broke down, there would be little way to repair them as the ship's spare started running out. The Nimitz would have probably been operating a large, but conventional USN air group by 1944.

I haven't seen the movie in decades and I never read the book, but I believe they decided to go after the aircraft doing the Pearl Harbor attack rather than the KB. I would have sent my strike planes against the KB and the F-14s after the Pearl Harbor strike. It might result in some losses of strike aircraft from a lucky Zero, but it would likely sink the entire KB and dramatically shorten the war. Instead of 6 vs 3 CVs in the Pacific, the balance would be 0 vs 4 CVs on day 1. And any Japanese aircraft that survive the Pearl Harbor attack would be forced to ditch on return amounting to a 100% loss of aircraft as well as 6 carriers.

I have quite a few WW II era models I was planning on building including quite a few 1/700 scale ships. I ended up with a 1/700 scale Nimitz too. I plan to do it up in Final Countdown scenario if it stayed. Paint the aircraft in USN tri-color, the carrier in WW II camo, and maybe mount some AA tubs around the deck.

Bill




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0546875