And thats why you have other vessels to screen for those objects. A battleship can take a few hits from a torpedo or mines. Mines, torpedoes, and the like are not arguments against battleships because those things are even deadlier to carriers and the other ships which currently exist. That takes away Aircraft and any long range projectiles that aren't railguns or conventional artillery. Vaktathi wrote: I would be very surprised to see the Battleship make a comeback barring some major technological disruption that negates aircraft, drones, mines, torpedoes and long range munitions.Īs mentioned.
If China decides to try and match US naval power, and the battleship/cruiser re-emerge as a result, you'll see the roles revert back to more traditional ones. The reason why battleships or armoured cruisers are no longer utilised is the same reason why regular cruisers and destroyers have been sized up and begun to perform the functions of more traditional fleet combatants namely that nobody bothers building navies anymore and so there's no need to plan for fleet to fleet (or even ship to ship so much) actions. The engines permit it to dictate the best course of action to flee or fight. That's why it's the battle 'cruiser' and not the battle 'ship'. The superior engines are there to ensure that it can escape the battleship, and not have to engage in any fight in which it doesn't have the upper hand. In most fleets, a battleship and battlecruiser retain identical fire control systems as they have identical armament (honking big guns!) If a battleship squares up to a battlecruiser for a 1v1, assuming both fleets are of equivalent technological parity, the battlecruiser will get smashed as it cannot endure the punishment from the battleship, which can in turn soak up the return fire. It doesn't outgun or outfight the battleship. That's why the speed is essential it's designed to be able to flee from any armoured warship of equivalent size and firepower (which is in turn weighed down by the armour and cannot catch it) whilst being able to outgun and match speed with smaller targets. It's for safeguarding smaller ships from being attacked by anything less than a major fleet action, or acting independently (or with other cruisers) to prey upon isolated commerce and smaller warships groups (other cruisers, destroyers, corvettes, etc). The tactical purpose of a lightly armoured cruiser is not generally to stand in the line of battle. I would just call this the evolution of the battleship class rather than calling every battleship post Iowa a battle cruiser. Technically you could call them battle-cruisers because the ships design was focused more on speed rather than heavy armor but in a head to head they would have beat any actual battleship before they even knew what hit them (due to always having the advantage in a battle due to high speed and superior range/fire-control over enemy battleships). It's basically the same argument when it comes to the Iowa Class ships. Better to out-range and outrun and outgun an enemy with firepower of this magnitude.
It's just that no real battleship would be made again - the idea of tanking hits in a ship was lost in WW2 - all ships can be sunk if they get hit.
I guess any modern battleship would be a battle-cruiser based on the definition of a battle-cruiser. The warship classification you're looking for is 'Battlecruiser', that is to say, a warship of equivalent size and armament to a battleship which removes the armour to focus instead on speed and range. It will likely be fast (In the 35knt+ range) and it will typically be escorted by an entire carrier taskforce. More or less it wont have any additional armor compared to our cruisers. It won't be a battleship though technically.
0 kommentar(er)
