Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

A. T. Mahan

Contributing Members
  • Content Count

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

A. T. Mahan last won the day on October 31

A. T. Mahan had the most liked content!

About A. T. Mahan

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. A. T. Mahan

    The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread

    The German DDs are an absolute mess and were not good seaboats in the best of times
  2. A. T. Mahan

    The Aircraft Carrier Shitstorm Thread

    So, something nobody's mentioned is that Chinese air-launched cruise missile threats are nowhere near as dangerous as those posed by the Soviets -- they've got fewer, slower, shorter-ranged launch platforms with smaller, slower missiles, and the US Navy developed extremely effective methods of countering the threat of land-based air power during the Global War Game series -- they determined that the more aggressively a carrier group is fought, as long as there are two or three mutually supporting CV(N)s present, even in confined waters like those of the Norwegian Sea, the more likely it is to survive -- the number of missile carriers and missiles is comparatively limited and the adversary is unable to produce more in a timely manner, while the USN can fairly quickly replace lost aircraft and aircrews, and the quality of the US Navy's integrated air defense system is second-to-none. Furthermore, the USN has only improved it's air defense capabilities since the late-1980s, with the wider fielding of Aegis-equipped ships and the Mark 41 GMLS. The DDG-51 and ESSM revolutionized the US Navy, and ESSM Block II will further advance the ability of the average naval vessel to kill air threats. Oh, also, if you try to fight a light carrier like a CdG or Kuznetsov or what have you like it's a fleet carrier, you'll get killed. The sortie generation rate, speed, and sustainability of the lighter carriers is disproportionately smaller than the cost savings, to the point of breaking the price-performance curve in the wrong direction (IE they have a relatively very high price for their decidedly lackluster performance).
  3. @N-L-M The Burke hull is absolutely revolutionary -- prior to DDG-51, the US Navy's hulls had only marginal seakeeping improvements from those of the Second World War. The shitty length-beam ratio compared to previous hulls is intentional, because the GTEs can put down enough power to get the desired speeds even with a mediocre length to beam ratio, while the increased beam and lots of flare makes them some of the most seakindly hulls in the Navy. I think that a conventional design (IE not a Zumwalt-derivative) AAW/BMD-focused cruiser would need to be at least around 14-16k tons -- it's a pain in the ass to get the appropriate size AN/SPY-6(V) array into a conventional superstructure without fucking the metacentric height and reducing stability. For something like a Zumwalt derivative, it'd probably be fine to replace the B turret with a 64-tube VLS system and a 22' AN/SPY-6(V), and staple Aegis into it. Unfortunately, it'd probably be a monumental shitshow to integrate Aegis into TSCEI, and I'm still not 100% sold on the seakeeping characteristics of the DDG-1000 hull. I think a conventional design shaped by the requirements of the role of a cruiser, i.e. primarily anti-air/anti-surface warfare focused, built as the escort command of a CSG would be the best way to go, at least until the three DDG-1000s have a good couple of years of service and have demonstrated their seakeeping characteristics. Oh, also, the cost of the actual hull structure and armament mounts is tiny right now compared to mission systems and systems integration that there's no real reason not to keep making ships larger to add capabilities.
  4. A. T. Mahan

    Competition: Tank Design 2239

    @Zyklon @LoooSeR I'm sorry about the bold text -- I think it was an issue of copying directly from google docs and not being super familiar with this forum's text editing stuff. I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks for the input.
  5. *F4Fs *Sortie not sorty Other than that good shit
  6. @Peasant did you copy the reading list?
  7. If you mean Tony DiGiulian's Speed Thrills I and Speed Thrills II, he notes several occasions where members of the Iowa class sustained speeds in excess of 32 knots in deep water, with a theoretical maximum speed (when using the 20% designed overload and producing 254,000shp, some 104,000 horsepower more than a Yamato could hope to make) of 33.5 knots in deep water at full load and with a clean bottom, and like 36 knots light ship. They're fucking fast ships
  8. Show your work on the hydrodynamics calculations you're citing as evidence https://www.amazon.com/Dreadnought-Britain-Germany-Coming-Great/dp/0345375564 https://www.amazon.com/Castles-Steel-Britain-Germany-Winning/dp/0345408780/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0 https://www.amazon.com/Great-War-Sea-Naval-History/dp/1107036909/ref=pd_sim_14_41?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1107036909&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0 https://www.amazon.com/Price-Admiralty-Evolution-Warfare-Trafalgar/dp/0140096507/ref=pd_sim_14_43?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0140096507&pd_rd_r=bde4423e-dc74-11e8-a3d1-552a6c0f9979&pd_rd_w=qqYKt&pd_rd_wg=KcfZp&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=18bb0b78-4200-49b9-ac91-f141d61a1780&pf_rd_r=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=T3FBS6V13RH264FMDYP0 https://www.amazon.com/Influence-History-1660-1783-Classic-Reprint/dp/1440080003/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-1&keywords=Mahan https://www.amazon.com/Interest-America-Power-Present-Future-ebook/dp/B004TRQVWQ/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925517&sr=1-4&keywords=Mahan https://www.amazon.com/Influence-Revolution-1793-1812-Classic-Reprint/dp/B008ZT5YKY/ref=pd_sbs_14_9?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B008ZT5YKY&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6 https://www.amazon.com/Naval-War-1812-Complete-History/dp/0486818977/ref=pd_sbs_14_7?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0486818977&pd_rd_r=4fd2f5be-dc75-11e8-bf93-dbc3134547a0&pd_rd_w=Dgqpw&pd_rd_wg=aZRxD&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=KSFRTJEY4M5R36TCBHD6 https://www.amazon.com/Power-State-Sergei-Georgievich-Gorshkov/dp/0870219618/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-1&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov https://www.amazon.com/Admiral-Gorshkov-Challenged-U-S-Navy/dp/1682473309/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925733&sr=1-6&keywords=Sergei+Gorshkov https://www.amazon.com/Fleet-Flood-Tide-America-1944-1945-ebook/dp/B01BJSJMHI/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-3&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor https://www.amazon.com/Neptunes-Inferno-U-S-Navy-Guadalcanal-ebook/dp/B004C43FXE/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-2&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor https://www.amazon.com/Last-Stand-Tin-Sailors-Extraordinary-ebook/dp/B001L83PM0/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925808&sr=1-1&keywords=last+stand+of+the+tin+can+sailor https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591142474/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i1 https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Unfinished-Personal-History-Controversy-ebook/dp/B01LXCAJJ1/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-2&keywords=Jutland https://www.amazon.com/Skagerrak-Battle-Jutland-Through-German/dp/1783831235/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-8&keywords=Jutland https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Analysis-Fighting-Maritime-Classics/dp/1558217592/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925888&sr=1-10&keywords=Jutland https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Jutland-30th-June-1916-ebook/dp/B00MDYPLKA/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-19&keywords=Jutland https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-Eye-Witness-Account-Great-Battle/dp/B000GL6LGA/ref=sr_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-20&keywords=Jutland https://www.amazon.com/Jutland-German-Perspective-Great-Battle/dp/1860199178/ref=sr_1_22?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925916&sr=1-22&keywords=Jutland https://www.amazon.com/Battleship-Bismarck-Design-Operational-History/dp/1591145694/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540925982&sr=1-5&keywords=Denmark+Strait https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Bismarck-Destroying-Pride-Hitlers-ebook/dp/B009EE9GAI/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-1&keywords=sink+the+bismarck https://www.amazon.com/Sink-Bismarck-Cecil-Scott-Forester/dp/0553105418/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-2&keywords=sink+the+bismarck https://www.amazon.com/Last-Nine-Days-Bismarck-ebook/dp/B0076BSV2K/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926030&sr=1-3&keywords=sink+the+bismarck https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/CloseQuarters/index.html https://www.amazon.com/Military-Strategies-Spruance-Halsey-Philippines-ebook/dp/B01L4O5VRC/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-4&keywords=surigao https://www.amazon.com/Last-Big-Gun-Naval-Battle-Surigao/dp/1889901083/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-2&keywords=surigao https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Surigao-Strait-Twentieth-Century-Battles-ebook/dp/B00866HB20/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1540926125&sr=1-1&keywords=surigao That'd be a good place to start
  9. Which of the eight or however many points I made are you referring to? The one where you claim to have data that I spent a week looking for in the library of one of the three best naval architecture schools in the world that I'm like 95% sure doesn't exist?
  10. @Peasant Do you want me to give you a reading list that would help your understanding of the matter?
  11. Oooh please show your work. I think I still have a copy of NavCAD 2014 lying around, or I could just teach myself how to use ANSYS. I don't care if it's important or not, when you're citing things that are not documented in builder's trials that you're claiming you've seen calculations of, fucking show your work. Also, fuck you if you think CFD was viable before like 1978-1979. You cannot model to any useful degree of accuracy how a ship moves through water without using pretty hefty computers, and it's still not as accurate as well done model testing because there's so much turbulence at the stern and the scale is so large. If there's data on that, it's from builder's trials, acceptance trials, or model test data, and the USN was the only organization in the world with a large enough properly instrumented controlled model basin to do that sort of testing until the '60s or '70s. The David Taylor Model Basin was hands-down one of the most critical pieces of infrastructure, and contributed to the success of the US Navy ship design more than any other single facility. Now, on to your more recent comments: Length to beam ratio matters more than thrust to weight, and the Iowa has better of both because it's not bluff and stubby. They also have a finer prismatic coefficient The 35.2 for six hours was in open ocean in the Pacific, with IIRC reasonably cold water -- ships are faster in colder water because it's marginally denser and you don't melt things quite as quickly. As to why Yamato would run, for the same reason Bismarck would -- because it's asinine to go on a todesritt into the waiting lap of a superior force. Knowing the IJN, though, they'd do it and get shredded because all the Iowa has to do is sorta turn around and lead them on until they run out of gas. The Yamato supposedly had some IR equipment of some sort, but even the best IR night vision equipment of 1945 Japan would be laughably useless compared to a functional and well-designed fire control radar. Honestly, I'm kind-of dissappointed in you. You're failing to mention the issues the Iowas had as a result of their extreme fineness forward, namely being quite wet forward of the B turret in rough seas, or that the bulbous bow wasn't as refined as that on the Yamatos, or the pile of other minor flaws in the design. Oh wait, that'd require you to know what you're talking about, and have some understanding of naval architecture. Overall, 2/10 the German naval architect who put a twin 6" mount on the bow of an already-front-heavy destroyer was better informed than you and he designed a ship that would sink itself in the intended operating environment
  12. The IJN's fleet was capable of 15kts on paper to Rozhestvensky's 14, and the Russians didn't leave formation or course because they were running flat out for Port Arthur. Yes, the IJN was more proficient and better rested than the Russians, both at Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait. That doesn't mean that their better speed and maneuverability were not a major factor in their victory, or that it did not influence every subsequent major battleship design. Generating fire control solutions and maintaining them are not the same thing -- if your fire control computer doesn't work when you're turning because it doesn't have a gyroscope to tell it what vertical is, that's a bit of a problem and will invalidate the firing solution. If I'm in a ship that's faster than my enemy and I am in a disadvantageous position, I will use that speed advantage to put my ship in an advantageous position. It would be immensely stupid to simply sail alongside at the same speed and a set range and let them fire upon you when one could withdraw beyond their range, maintain a good track, and then close when a better situation presents itself. I would want someone who fought their ship in a manner as you suggest tried for dereliction of duty. I would like to see what a 6" gun would do to a battleship at a reasonable combat range. The answer is, of course, nothing of consequence because 6" guns fire maybe a 150lb projectile, versus nearly a thousand pounds for a 12" gun. You cannot have leeway in the loading angle of a battleship gun, because the spanning tray is made of several thousand pounds of brass and if you have it at the wrong angle it won't be properly supported and will break in half, dropping a couple thousand pounds of shell or the better part of a thousand pounds of powder onto the deck. Running away from a duel is a viable tactic, because the Japanese didn't have enough oil and making the Yamato enter a stern chase over several hundred or thousand miles will serve a strategic aim of attriting their oil supplies. Could I have a citation for that losing-speed-in-a-turn that's not World of Warships? Cause I've not seen the trials reports from Yamato -- my understanding is they were destroyed between the completion of the trials and the end of the war.
  13. Just to clarify, this is what I edited my initial post to add: 1. They're inferior to a degree that is only very slightly outside the tolerances for the thickness of battleship armor. It's immaterial. 2. You still have to hit the enemy ship, and the mediocrity of the fire control system on Yamato precludes that. 3. Your statement on speed in a gun duel is categorically and demonstrably false, and has been known to be so since 19-0-fucking-5. The IJN won the battles of Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait because of their fleet's superior speed and maneuverability. 4. The Iowa class' gun mounts reload faster -- see the middle of the second paragraph above for more details. 5. I don't follow your point, the 5"/38 is a fine DP gun. The 5"/54 that replaced it was better, but the /38 is a great gun and it gets the job done. Heavy secondary low angle armament went out of style with Dreadnought. 6. I'm not sure where you get inefficient engines and inferior electronics from the Iowas. Their powerplant was perfectly fine and extremely reliable, and met specifications, and the electronics fit was in every way superior to that of the Yamato class. 7. Battleships do as they're told. 8. The Yamato has inferior firepower due to the slower rate of fire. 9. The Yamato most likely does not win because the Iowa-class would dictate the terms of the engagement, and could simply disengage at will and return in more favorable circumstances, like at night when the Japanese couldn't see or reliably engage at long ranges.
  14. Tsushima Strait was in 1905. I think you're conflating it with Surigao Strait. There's a big fucking difference, as I outlined in an edit to my initial post in this thread. To summarize, the IJN beat the shit out of the Imperial Russian Navy because their ships were a knot faster, slightly more maneuverable, and had a gun armament biased towards heavy guns. The same thing also happened at the Battle of the Yellow Sea the year before. Mechanical accuracy means dick all if you can't point the gun in the right direction because the FCS is primitive and incapable of working when you're turning. Spotter aircraft are going to get killed either by 5"/38 fire if it's close enough to give meaningful corrections, or by fighter cover, or by the Curtis SC Seahawks on the Iowa. Yamato was capable of 27 knots, period. I don't have access to the data anymore (it's probably in the SNAME or RINA journal, or at the DTMB), but I saw some hull testing on the design that they did after the war at the David Taylor Model Basin and it was kinda meh -- it's a pretty efficient hull design with a good bulbous bow, but the Iowa hull form is better suited to high speed, and the powerplant is 62,000hp more powerful than that of the Yamatos. It turns out, when you design a ship that's bluffer, 25,000 tons heavier, and less powerful, it's like five knots slower than a ship with a crazy long L:B and a super fine entry. The Iowas were designed from the get-go to be insanely fast, and they accomplished that handily. Oh, and for the sake of argument, if we assume the Iowas could only sustain 30kts (which, again, is not accurate), they were still 2.5-3 knots faster than the Yamatos, which is double or treble the speed advantage that Togo had over Rozhestvensky at Tsushima.
  15. @Peasant As Tsushima Strait showed, even a handful of knots speed advantage can provide a decisive advantage. The Iowa class might sacrifice some protection, but in exchange they gain between five and seven knots on the Yamatos. This would allow them to dictate the conditions of the engagement, and as seen at Tsushima (And also at Yellow Sea but I digress), a force with even a 1-3 knot advantage could and would dictate the terms of engagement. Additionally, the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun with 16" AP shell Mark 8 is so close in performance to the Japanese 18.1" in armor penetration that the difference is immaterial -- it's within +/- 0.75" either way, which is getting awfully close to the tolerancing for the armor. The mounts for the Mark 7 gun were also significantly faster in elevation, 12 degrees/sec vs 8, increasing the rate of fire by reducing the depression to loading/elevation to firing solution time. The Iowas also depressed the gun to the loading angle during run-out, further improving the rate of fire. Their turrets were also twice as fast in train, 4 degrees/second vs 2 degrees/second for the Yamato. This allows tracking at greater ranges and high speeds, especially during the vessel's own maneuvers. I don't really want to do the math to figure out the maneuvers required to invalidate a fire control solution for the Yamato based on train rate, but it's almost certainly not relevant outside maybe 5,000yd in antiparallel courses, but during heavy maneuvering it would be invaluable. The Iowa class fire control system was fundamentally more advanced than that of the Yamato, and I'm not sure how you arrived at the position that a system requiring manual data transfer and manual tracking of the calculated fire control solution is superior to a system that does not provide those opportunities for human error. Furthermore, the Japanese fire control radars (principally the Type 22 Mod 4) were nowhere near as capable as the Mark 13, nor did the fire control system incorporate a stable vertical, which is a significant problem in a ship that will be expected to maintain a fire control system during maneuver. Having written that before your most recent post, I'll include a TL;DR: 1. They're inferior to a degree that is only very slightly outside the tolerances for the thickness of battleship armor. It's immaterial. 2. You still have to hit the enemy ship, and the mediocrity of the fire control system on Yamato precludes that. 3. Your statement on speed in a gun duel is categorically and demonstrably false, and has been known to be so since 19-0-fucking-5. The IJN won the battles of Yellow Sea and Tsushima Strait because of their fleet's superior speed and maneuverability. 4. The Iowa class' gun mounts reload faster -- see the middle of the second paragraph above for more details. 5. I don't follow your point, the 5"/38 is a fine DP gun. The 5"/54 that replaced it was better, but the /38 is a great gun and it gets the job done. Heavy secondary low angle armament went out of style with Dreadnought. 6. I'm not sure where you get inefficient engines and inferior electronics from the Iowas. Their powerplant was perfectly fine and extremely reliable, and met specifications, and the electronics fit was in every way superior to that of the Yamato class. 7. Battleships do as they're told. 8. The Yamato has inferior firepower due to the slower rate of fire. 9. The Yamato most likely does not win because the Iowa-class would dictate the terms of the engagement, and could simply disengage at will and return in more favorable circumstances, like at night.
×