For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread

[wumpus]

12 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Yes, most definitely. CIWS, at least the Phalanx, are already capable of handling 122mm and higher caliber artillery shells- certainly they can handle 356mm battleship shells. One would assume Russian and Chinese systems have similar performance.

Even if it does not detonate, it would be probably be able to disable it anyways by punching holes in critical systems, namely the engines. Just Google “Arleigh Burke class cutaway” (I would post an image here but I am on my phone).

Even without anti-ship missiles, battleships were basically useless in a great power conflict post-1945. Just look at what happened to Yamato, which was attacked by dumb bombs and torpedoes.

I think the USN just kept them around for naval gunfire support in the various proxy wars they expected to fight.

Even in WWII, I'm pretty sure the US Marines were happy to have battleships firing their 16" (and possibly some lesser ones as well) at any beach defenses before storming the beaches.  Not sure if they could get any in place for Normandy, but I'm sure they had them for taking later Japanese islands.  I've heard a retired sailor brag about how during the 1990 Gulf War, Iraq  forces immediately surrender to the Iowa (specifically a targeting drone) to avoid such naval bombardment.

Just because their main use was obsolete, don't discount their use as floating artillery.  But apparently they  weren't enough use to make heavy cruisers (the armament of a battleship with much less armor), which would presumably be what a post-WWII "battleship" would look like.

[kerbiloid]

Even the aliens, while they would be laughing.
 

Spoiler

 

[StrandedonEarth]

Okay, so what’s the apogee of a max-range 16” shell trajectory?

[kerbiloid]

Wiki says, the max distance is 34 km, and the max angle is 45°.

Taking max altitude at 45 is about quarter of distance, probably 8 to 9 km.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, wumpus said:

Even in WWII, I'm pretty sure the US Marines were happy to have battleships firing their 16" (and possibly some lesser ones as well) at any beach defenses before storming the beaches.  Not sure if they could get any in place for Normandy, but I'm sure they had them for taking later Japanese islands.  I've heard a retired sailor brag about how during the 1990 Gulf War, Iraq  forces immediately surrender to the Iowa (specifically a targeting drone) to avoid such naval bombardment.

Just because their main use was obsolete, don't discount their use as floating artillery.  But apparently they  weren't enough use to make heavy cruisers (the armament of a battleship with much less armor), which would presumably be what a post-WWII "battleship" would look like.

Should littoral combat (read: massive amphibious landings against prepared defenses) be required again - there might be a need to bring the big boys back out of mothball, again.  That would be about their only use, given the efficacy of anti-ship missiles these days.  Even then, the ground would need to have been 'prepped' fairly well by air-power to enable the ships to get within range (modern missiles don't need LOS any more than 18" guns, but have considerably more range  Anti ship missiles  Thus, the shore batteries and mobile platforms would have necessarily been reduced, the offensive air capacity of the target eliminated and the Marines facing dug in forces with no ability to destroy the ships supporting them.

I suspect, however, that before such an open-war, 'Top Tier' combatant conflict happens again that all of the satellites will have been destroyed and the world be on the brink of nuclear war.  For another US vs Iraq scenario... maybe.  But a US v China?

My advice would be to buy a place in a very rural area and stock up.

[magnemoe]

16 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Yes, most definitely. CIWS, at least the Phalanx, are already capable of handling 122mm and higher caliber artillery shells- certainly they can handle 356mm battleship shells. One would assume Russian and Chinese systems have similar performance.

Even if it does not detonate, it would be probably be able to disable it anyways by punching holes in critical systems, namely the engines. Just Google “Arleigh Burke class cutaway” (I would post an image here but I am on my phone).

Even without anti-ship missiles, battleships were basically useless in a great power conflict post-1945. Just look at what happened to Yamato, which was attacked by dumb bombs and torpedoes.

I think the USN just kept them around for naval gunfire support in the various proxy wars they expected to fight.

Well Yamato faced an air strike the size of the Pear Harbor strike and better planes. That was against an single capital ship and an smallish escort. 
Yes an carrier would killed more planes, but it was an 4-5 v 1 fight and your one ship was spotted early, the US pulled an group of battleships as an backup plan in case the air strike failed. 

CIWS would probably work, a bit depending on the ammo type, downside is that you have 9 shells incoming and 9 more less than an minute later, you don't have many close in systems. It get more fun if you also face secondary guns. Solution to battleships or guns on warships in general is to not get in range unless you outgun them. 

Now it was an fun story about the 80's Iowa's once one of them got into visual contact with an US carrier group by accident both groups was under radio and radar silence but ran navigation lights. It was sad they was on the same side in the fleet exercise.

I say armor still has an place in an brown water navy as you will get all sort of artillery  and small missiles from land but you are much harder to hit by larger missiles in an fjord close to land and you are unlikely to do an close blockade on someone with serious weapons anyway. 
 

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_H-21

Was using the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-1820_Cyclone , which was using 

Do I get it right that this helichopper was fueled with gasoline (not kerosene), so can be credibly treated as a realistic craft for Kerbals, using the petrol synthesized from algae by the Fischer-Tropsch process?

(As well as other Wright R-1820 powered crafts)

Helicopters moved to using jet engines shortly after that one. And I would say you broke the helicopter spine if you landed it. 

[DDE]

5 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_H-21

Was using the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_R-1820_Cyclone , which was using 

Do I get it right that this helichopper was fueled with gasoline (not kerosene), so can be credibly treated as a realistic craft for Kerbals, using the petrol synthesized from algae by the Fischer-Tropsch process?

(As well as other Wright R-1820 powered crafts)

There definitely was a period when helicooters used ICEs rather than turbines. It was a pretty short one, though.

Also, Su-25 is said to be rated for flying on diesel... for about 6 hours before needing a full engine overhaul. And that's before discussing German and Soviet experiments with dedicated avdiesels.

Edited December 21, 2021 by DDE

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

Antimatter stars and other oddities from 2021:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sciencenews.org/article/science-discoveries-2021-big-if-true/amp

 

 

Edit: also, this is cool:

Five ways a pulsar duo sheds light on general relativity and more | Science News

 

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[SunlitZelkova]

10 hours ago, wumpus said:

Just because their main use was obsolete, don't discount their use as floating artillery.  But apparently they  weren't enough use to make heavy cruisers (the armament of a battleship with much less armor), which would presumably be what a post-WWII "battleship" would look like.

American heavy cruisers had 8" guns for the most part. Most modern "destroyers" are actually about the size of WWII cruisers.

The problem nowadays though is that floating artillery is a very specific platform. Whether it is worth spending millions for something that can only be used in one situation (compared to multirole aircraft flying from a carrier) is debatable, and IIRC the main reason the "mothball" part of the Iowas is no longer a thing.

The Navy did consider keeping contractors, parts, etc. on standby to reactivate the Iowas again, but ultimately decided not to.

9 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Should littoral combat (read: massive amphibious landings against prepared defenses) be required again - there might be a need to bring the big boys back out of mothball, again.  That would be about their only use, given the efficacy of anti-ship missiles these days.  Even then, the ground would need to have been 'prepped' fairly well by air-power to enable the ships to get within range (modern missiles don't need LOS any more than 18" guns, but have considerably more range  Anti ship missiles  Thus, the shore batteries and mobile platforms would have necessarily been reduced, the offensive air capacity of the target eliminated and the Marines facing dug in forces with no ability to destroy the ships supporting them.

I don't think it is possible. See this quote from Wikipedia-

Quote

The debate over battleships in the modern navy continued until 2006, when the two reinstated battleships were stricken after naval officials submitted a two-part plan that called for the near-term goal of increasing the range of the guns in use on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers with new Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM) ammunition intended to allow a 5-inch projectile fired from these guns to travel an estimated 40 nautical miles (74 km; 46 mi) inland.[113][114] The long-term goal called for the replacement of the two battleships with 32 vessels of the Zumwalt class of guided-missile destroyers. Cost overruns caused the class to be reduced to three ships. These ships are outfitted with an Advanced Gun System (AGS) that was to fire specially developed 6-inch Long Range Land Attack Projectiles for shore bombardment;.[115] LRLAP procurement was cancelled in 2017 and the AGS is unusable. The long-term goal for the Zumwalt class is to have the ships mount railguns[116] or free-electron lasers.[117][N 12]

Reactivating them now would literally be equivalent to restoring an antique, not so much as far as armament goes, but with their propulsion systems.

But, in any case, I am skeptical whether it would be necessary. See below.

5 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Well Yamato faced an air strike the size of the Pear Harbor strike and better planes. That was against an single capital ship and an smallish escort. 
Yes an carrier would killed more planes, but it was an 4-5 v 1 fight and your one ship was spotted early, the US pulled an group of battleships as an backup plan in case the air strike failed.

But if a battleship needs carriers to protect it, one wonders why the carriers aren't using their aircraft to bomb the enemy instead.

Likewise for maintaining battleships for naval gunfire support in the present day. If you need to use aircraft carriers to clear the enemy skies and bomb anti-ship missile batteries, why even use the battleship in the first place? Yes the strike cadence is better, but it seems like very little for so much cost, especially in the face of modern anti-ship missiles and such.

I agree on the brown water navy part by the way.

Some experiments have been performed in which M109s on Army ships (which are a thing) fired their cannon at a point, and hit it. This would be a very cheap substitute for naval gun fire support if the need arises.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

46 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Reactivating them now would literally be equivalent to restoring an antique,

I agree.  We did it in 91.  With little to really show for it, other than the fact that having them is an enormous psychological advantage.

Fact is - Modern Navies know what they can do to other ships with modern toys, and also know 'the other guys' have the same toys... and it makes them nervous.  You can look at the almost absurd requirements for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

Quote

 

Marine Corps specifications were incredibly stringent. In the water, the EFV was to have a top speed of over twenty-five knots, a powerful 30-millimeter main gun in a stabilized turret configuration, and the ability to keep pace with the M1 Abrams main battle tank on land and have a range of over five hundred kilometers. And in addition to a three-man crew, the Corps specified that the EFV has sufficient onboard space for seventeen fully-armed Marines. For comparison, the Navy’s Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, the backbone of the Navy, is just over thirty-one knots.

Like most other amphibious vehicles, the EFV could transition from land to water remarkably quickly. Unlike many other amphibious vehicles, however, the EFV did not simply chug along slowly through the water. Using a large deployable bow flap and two water jets at the vehicle’s rear, the EFV could in theory fly over the water at incredibly high speeds. Despite these promising characteristics, the project was doomed.

 

The Marines wanted a capable, amphibious fighting vehicle that let us use our current force structure.  The Navy wanted it to be over-the-horizon capable.  Why did it have to be OTH?  Because of missile proliferation; while information warfare proliferation has not yet allowed proxy fighters to do OTH anti-ship (yet), they can use the same weapons in LOS mode and cause significant harm.

 

57 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

you need to use aircraft carriers to clear the enemy skies and bomb anti-ship missile batteries, why even use the battleship in the first place?

You need aircraft to dominate the information space more than anything.  For the last several decades the US has enjoyed almost exclusive information domination in the proxy war fight.  RU and CN have learned a lot about our capabilities and have demonstrated some ability to interfere.   Thus far, they've (mostly) kept their cards close to the chest vis their proxy fighters - but that could change.  If so-called 'rogue' nations or factions gain the ability to use satellites to coordinate targeted strikes?  It becomes a whole new ballgame.

Mind you - almost everyone here is thinking along the lines of a WW2 proxy style fight with modern equipment in a Top Tier nation combat scenario... and I'm saying that by the time battleships are needed or useful again, current tech (read: information warfare capability) will have been reduced to almost WW2 levels and civilization as we know it will take a sharp left turn.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, DDE said:

There definitely was a period when helicooters used ICEs rather than turbines. It was a pretty short one, though.

Also, Su-25 is said to be rated for flying on diesel... for about 6 hours before needing a full engine overhaul. And that's before discussing German and Soviet experiments with dedicated avdiesels.

Yes, Yak-24, too (just H-21 looks more Kerbal).

I just try to ensure it's true, that not only the tiny Mi-1 was using gasoline, but also heavier machines.

***

Also there was the B-36 jet which was remastered from kerosene to same gasoline with the pistons, so primitive and even heavier jet planes and helicopters can be fueled with petrol.

(The problem with Kerbosene is its credibility: the kerosene is produced from oil, while Fischer-Tropsch gives mostly petrol and diesel, and I don't want Kerbal to need oil rigs, let them use what can grow or be produced from air like the hypergolics.
So, the kerosene and kerolox I want to use as rarely as possible.)

***

A while ago I heard about the diesel Su-25, but didn't pay attention, should reread. Thank you/

[FleshJeb]

3 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Yes the strike cadence is better, but it seems like very little for so much cost, especially in the face of modern anti-ship missiles and such

...

Some experiments have been performed in which M109s on Army ships (which are a thing) fired their cannon at a point, and hit it. This would be a very cheap substitute for naval gun fire support if the need arises.

The question being, "Is the kill cadence better?" A precision airdropped munition is very likely (90%) to hit and kill on the first try.

A brief googling shows that the CEP for Iowa in the 1990s with consistent powder and radar-verified muzzle velocity was 150 yards at 19 miles range. ref: https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/shipshape/rise-and-fall-battleship-and-why-they-wont-be-coming-back/

You could fire that all day and not kill what you need to kill.

Whereas, you can put this through a window at 69 miles, and hit a moving target at 45 miles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-53/B_StormBreaker

Comparable weapon that will also do hardened targets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_Joint_Standoff_Weapon

---

They also did guided rockets off a ship deck: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15410/himars-goes-to-sea-us-marines-now-fire-guided-artillery-rockets-from-ships

[DDE]

5 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Some experiments have been performed in which M109s on Army ships (which are a thing) fired their cannon at a point, and hit it. This would be a very cheap substitute for naval gun fire support if the need arises.

One of my pet ideas has been an artillery gunboat built to fit the physical envelope of an LPD's well deck.

Might have to go with something small like a 105 mm main gun (both of these have 1-2x76 mm; the newer Buyan with a 100 mm is seen in the background for scale).

[ARS]

4 hours ago, DDE said:

One of my pet ideas has been an artillery gunboat built to fit the physical envelope of an LPD's well deck.

Might have to go with something small like a 105 mm main gun (both of these have 1-2x76 mm; the newer Buyan with a 100 mm is seen in the background for scale).

Is that a tank turret mounted on a freakin' boat!?

[SunlitZelkova]

4 hours ago, DDE said:

One of my pet ideas has been an artillery gunboat built to fit the physical envelope of an LPD's well deck.

The Imperial Japanese Army had something to this effect with their landing craft depot ship Shinshu Maru. It could carry four Soukoutei armored gunboats, with the 57mm from the Type 97 Chi-Ha.

It wasn't artillery in the technical sense, but it was maneuverable fire support that would not require risking the entire ship to close range attack.

46 minutes ago, ARS said:

Is that a tank turret mounted on a freakin' boat!?

There was also one with turrets from the T-34-85.

A variant of the one from the top picture (with the T-34-76 turrets) existed, with the back turret replaced by a 132mm Katyusha launcher.

[ARS]

33 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

There was also one with turrets from the T-34-85.

A variant of the one from the top picture (with the T-34-76 turrets) existed, with the back turret replaced by a 132mm Katyusha launcher.

I wonder how the stabilization would deal with the boat swaying on water

[DDE]

1 hour ago, ARS said:

Is that a tank turret mounted on a freakin' boat!?

They can improve anything.

[magnemoe]

15 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

American heavy cruisers had 8" guns for the most part. Most modern "destroyers" are actually about the size of WWII cruisers.

The problem nowadays though is that floating artillery is a very specific platform. Whether it is worth spending millions for something that can only be used in one situation (compared to multirole aircraft flying from a carrier) is debatable, and IIRC the main reason the "mothball" part of the Iowas is no longer a thing.

The Navy did consider keeping contractors, parts, etc. on standby to reactivate the Iowas again, but ultimately decided not to.

I don't think it is possible. See this quote from Wikipedia-

Reactivating them now would literally be equivalent to restoring an antique, not so much as far as armament goes, but with their propulsion systems.

But, in any case, I am skeptical whether it would be necessary. See below.

But if a battleship needs carriers to protect it, one wonders why the carriers aren't using their aircraft to bomb the enemy instead.

Likewise for maintaining battleships for naval gunfire support in the present day. If you need to use aircraft carriers to clear the enemy skies and bomb anti-ship missile batteries, why even use the battleship in the first place? Yes the strike cadence is better, but it seems like very little for so much cost, especially in the face of modern anti-ship missiles and such.

I agree on the brown water navy part by the way.

Some experiments have been performed in which M109s on Army ships (which are a thing) fired their cannon at a point, and hit it. This would be a very cheap substitute for naval gun fire support if the need arises.

Think you misunderstood me, an aircraft carrier in the place of Yamato would be just as doomed as it faced multiple carriers and the US knew there you was but you did not know the US positions. 
And the Iowas would need an serious rebuild if they wanted to keep them because the engines was worn out. They also required an large crew simply because they was old and build in an time with an conscript navy and having more people onboard an large ship was useful but then you have to pay salaries they become very expensive to run. 

And you would not use large warships in places the enemy has air control, this includes carriers. An task group should have enough anti air to deal with potshots and air raids.

4 hours ago, ARS said:

I wonder how the stabilization would deal with the boat swaying on water

Driving off road is probably harder to stabilize. Back during WW 2 naval guns was stabilized tank guns was not. For the large guns the who I think also includes the 5" the guns firing computer simply waited for the roll to bring the gun over the aim point and firing, one benefit is that waves are much more predictable. 

[SunlitZelkova]

11 hours ago, ARS said:

I wonder how the stabilization would deal with the boat swaying on water

Well, a quick Google in English didn't really yield anything.

Looking at the ship, it doesn't appear to have centralized fire control, so the turrets worked exactly as they did on the T-34. Thus, it is unlikely they were stabilized.

Waves are more predictable than say, the "bouncing" of a tank gun while driving, and therefore through training it may have been possible to counteract the effects. If the water was calm enough though, perhaps the interference might have been negligible.

[ARS]

So... I've noticed that on early version of steam locomotives, the chimney is tall and big (like the classic funnel-shape chimney) compared with the actual boiler. But then as the steam locomotive gets bigger, the boiler seems gets huge while the chimney gets smaller. Is there a reason for this? Because in theory: bigger boiler = more steam= more exhaust

[DDE]

1 hour ago, ARS said:

So... I've noticed that on early version of steam locomotives, the chimney is tall and big (like the classic funnel-shape chimney) compared with the actual boiler. But then as the steam locomotive gets bigger, the boiler seems gets huge while the chimney gets smaller. Is there a reason for this? Because in theory: bigger boiler = more steam= more exhaust

Random first thought? The locomotive can only get this tall before the existing bridges become a problem.

[Jacke]

1 hour ago, ARS said:

So... I've noticed that on early version of steam locomotives, the chimney is tall and big (like the classic funnel-shape chimney) compared with the actual boiler. But then as the steam locomotive gets bigger, the boiler seems gets huge while the chimney gets smaller. Is there a reason for this? Because in theory: bigger boiler = more steam= more exhaust

Most of your questions should be answered by reading this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_locomotive#Boiler

Extrapolating from that, the height of the smoke stack seems to have been influenced by later changes like using exhaust steam to to aid in venting out the smoke stack.  @DDE comment about needing to clear under bridges is also important.

[ARS]

28 minutes ago, DDE said:

Random first thought? The locomotive can only get this tall before the existing bridges become a problem.

Ah I see, thanks

[kerbiloid]

A random thought #2.

The chimney height stays same, just the locomotives got bigger compared to it.

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, DDE said:

Random first thought? The locomotive can only get this tall before the existing bridges become a problem.

Think this is the main reason, looking at ships it looks like number of funnels went down while the height stayed the same. Its ways to get around an small funnel like fans or using the air speed to generate draft after all and it was better to have an larger boiler for more power