US Navy not ready to repair major battle damage (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series


elxaime -> US Navy not ready to repair major battle damage (6/3/2021 9:02:23 PM)

I would guess fixing one of the more advanced ships might cost more than it took to build them. Plus any modern great power naval war would likely not last long. It wouldn't be like WW2, where they could refloat the battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor and send them back in after a couple of years.

The report is here:

stww2 -> RE: US Navy not ready to repair major battle damage (6/4/2021 2:04:46 PM)

Perhaps, although I'm not sure how quick I would be to discount the utility of repairs even in a short-ish recalls the rapid turnaround of the Yorktown at Pearl Harbor in time for her to participate in the Battle of Midway, for instance.

maverick3320 -> RE: US Navy not ready to repair major battle damage (6/7/2021 6:59:32 PM)

Probably true, but I would ask which country is ready to repair damaged ships in a great power fight?

Eboreg -> RE: US Navy not ready to repair major battle damage (6/7/2021 8:15:25 PM)

Considering that all of the hypothetical WWIII campaigns in game take place over the course of several months, I think that the timeframe for getting a warship fully repaired and back on the frontline would be incredibly brutal even for WWII. One also has to keep in mind that Yorktown wasn't fully repaired in time for Midway, just repaired enough for basic functionality and its survivability suffered as a result.

Gunner98 -> RE: US Navy not ready to repair major battle damage (6/8/2021 2:25:42 PM)

One thing to consider however is that damage to modern ships doesn't need to be the 'bending metal' type of WW2. A significant shock wave from an airburst along with the accompanying fragment damage could knock out a ship in a modern battle. But that sort of damage - and I'm by no means an expert here - should be relatively easy and quick to repair.

I think the Cole, Stark, Fitzgerald, San Francisco, Samuel B Roberts, and McCain show that when mettle is bent, the capacity for repair still exists but it takes a while

Bonhomme Richard and Helge Ingstad show that it might not be worthwhile

Damage from an ARM type airburst or even the shockwave of a Shipwreck missile near miss (or premature explosion thanks to CIWS) could be devastating but easy to repair. A direct hit by a Shipwreck on a CG or smaller would probably make this an academic discussion.

I just don't think that a straight comparison between WW2 ships and damage and modern ships and weapons is useful.

I am sure the basic premise is true; the ship repair capacity is smaller now than in the past - but the USN for instance had nearly 7000 ships at the end of WW2.

c3k -> RE: US Navy not ready to repair major battle damage (6/9/2021 10:38:49 AM)

I am not versed in naval architecture or construction. (That's a nice way to say that I'm ignorant. ;) )

My impression is that modern naval vessels are thin-skilled eggshells in comparison to their WWII predecessors. Back then, armor mattered. Somewhere along the way, someone thought, "heck, it'll just get nuked, why bother with armor?"

It's cheaper to build and operate a lighter, unarmored, vessel than a thick-skinned one. So, the accountants won.

I would think a heavily armored ship would still be more survivable than a non-armored one, even with modern munitions. The M1 Abrams tank has an armor equivalent of over a meter of steel, in comparison to WWII's tanks having about 4-6 inches. Similarly, modern ships COULD be built with much greater protection than WWII ships.

I am always surprised, in a bad way, at how fragile modern warships are.

Just my thoughts, and I'm happy to be educated where I'm wrong.

thewood1 -> RE: US Navy not ready to repair major battle damage (6/9/2021 12:12:26 PM)

A modern capital warship's defenses today are electronic armor. The added resources in engine size and fuel requirements would make a Tico that is armored like WW2 cruiser almost undeployable. And the armor needed to stop even a 60s era warhead would make a modern warship almost unbuildable. A modern M1A2's armor is not all steel. Its made up of multiple materials that can actually only be built in specific shapes and relatively small slabs. The only thing I could see possibly working is ERA-type armor, but that has its own host of issues.

And a misconception is that modern ships have no armor. Naval architects realized a long time ago that limited armor over key areas that can stop short range cannon projectiles from penetrating is needed. But armor that can stop a 1000 lb warhead traveling at supersonic speeds is an exercise in futility. The best way to stop an SS-N-22 with a 900 lb penetrator warhead is not be detected, not be locked on, distract the missile, shoot the missile down from range, shoot it down before it hits. Even then, the shock of the near-strike or actual strike has a very good chance of a mission kill. There is a lot more energy in a Sunburn ASM than anything hitting an M1, except a 1000 lb. bomb. So the investment is in stopping yourself from being hit.

Everyone wants to take the easy way out by blaming "bean counters". But they are there for a reason. You have to consider the nation's resources and the questions is, can 5 Yamato class ships with modern weapons defeat 15 modern Ticos or DDGs. In fact, you can play that out in CMO if you want to do the work.

thewood1 -> RE: US Navy not ready to repair major battle damage (6/9/2021 12:22:44 PM)

Remember reading this a couple years ago...

Page: [1]

Valid CSS!

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI