Found this by accident on You Tube HMS Repulse

[Nytewyng]

Enjoy

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

(Post save for later viewing.)

[xHeavy]

Those waves would scatter those shells quite a bit. I don't see those barrels doing much rising and falling with the firing plot.

The announcer hams it up too much for the Glory of the British. That thing with modern weapons today can be cut like a knife in butter. Which was one of the reasons we retired the Iowas in our time.

[Cruxdei]

1 minute ago, xHeavy said:

Those waves would scatter those shells quite a bit. I don't see those barrels doing much rising and falling with the firing plot.

The announcer hams it up too much for the Glory of the British. That thing with modern weapons today can be cut like a knife in butter. Which was one of the reasons we retired the Iowas in our time.

its more of a propaganda video.

if iowas can be cut like knife in butter with current weapons,imagine repulse,a much older ship.

it blows my mind that i still see people debating about bringin the battlewagons back to the field,even if the navy had infinite money to literally tear apart the stern of the iowas so new engines can be placed,modernize her  electrical wiring,replace her outdated tech,repair the front turret(forgot the name of the ship) and equip her with AEGIS and missiles for self defense so they can finally relieve an "nostalgia" of sailing a giant "hit me" target.

what if one of them sink?the usual answer that such beings that want the battlewagons would give is "we would nuke them",like,what the hell?

[Estimated_Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Cruxdei said:

its more of a propaganda video.

if iowas can be cut like knife in butter with current weapons,imagine repulse,a much older ship.

it blows my mind that i still see people debating about bringin the battlewagons back to the field,even if the navy had infinite money to literally tear apart the stern of the iowas so new engines can be placed,modernize her  electrical wiring,replace her outdated tech,repair the front turret(forgot the name of the ship) and equip her with AEGIS and missiles for self defense so they can finally relieve an "nostalgia" of sailing a giant "hit me" target.

what if one of them sink?the usual answer that such beings that want the battlewagons would give is "we would nuke them",like,what the hell?

As much as I love the old ships, about the only reason to bring them back now would be like BSG Galactica in the new series; kind of hard to hack analog systems.

Otherwise, I agree with those whose say it would be better to build a new ‘battleship’ from the keel up; with all modern structure, systems, and weapons, (rail guns?)

[Cruxdei]

1 minute ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

As much as I love the old ships, about the only reason to bring them back now would be like BSG Galactica in the new series; kind of hard to hack analog systems.

Otherwise, I agree with those whose say it would be better to build a new ‘battleship’ from the keel up; with all modern structure, systems, and weapons, (rail guns?)

rail guns require a tremendous amount of energy to work,and they wear off super fast because the barrels cant take such speed and heat,.

the argument of "analog systems" might have some ground to stand but you dont see anyone building analog systems on their ships,you would have to build new ones from the ground up(and analog systems are BIG),and train basically entire divisions about how to use analog systems.

hacking systems wont be easy,this is not skynet(yet) or a world where hackers are literal gods,so for now,there is no reason to put analog equipment on warships as backup.

[Pugilistic]

Amazing that the RN did not make a museum of their last battleship, Vanguard. 

A beautiful ship and a wonderful seaboat, during NATO maneuvers she kept a dry forecastle while the Iowas shipped heavy seas over the bow. 

Some handsome shots but some hard to watch scenes of the intial wrecking. 

 

[mofton]

Sexy ship, shameless plug:

 

[BrushWolf]

1 hour ago, xHeavy said:

Those waves would scatter those shells quite a bit. I don't see those barrels doing much rising and falling with the firing plot.

The announcer hams it up too much for the Glory of the British. That thing with modern weapons today can be cut like a knife in butter. Which was one of the reasons we retired the Iowas in our time.

That is one of the reasons that real world hit rates were so low and not every ship had the ability to keep their guns on target through the heaving and rolling so they would be set and the gunnery officer would time the salvo.

[mofton]

1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

That is one of the reasons that real world hit rates were so low and not every ship had the ability to keep their guns on target through the heaving and rolling so they would be set and the gunnery officer would time the salvo.

I'm pretty sure ships that didn't keep the guns continuously trained had a coil to fire them at a moment when they were at the right elevation.

[BrushWolf]

10 minutes ago, mofton said:

I'm pretty sure ships that didn't keep the guns continuously trained had a coil to fire them at a moment when they were at the right elevation.

By the late 1920's it was the gunnery officer that fired the guns on cruiser and well before that for BB's unless they were in local control.

[mofton]

10 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

By the late 1920's it was the gunnery officer that fired the guns on cruiser and well before that for BB's unless they were in local control.

Sure, there was central control and remote firing from a central director, but once 'fire' was pressed the guns would in some cases wait until they were at the set elevation to fire, so there might be a slight delay.

[BrushWolf]

4 minutes ago, mofton said:

Sure, there was central control and remote firing from a central director, but once 'fire' was pressed the guns would in some cases wait until they were at the set elevation to fire, so there might be a slight delay.

It varied by each country's set up and ability for their guns to stay on target through maneuvers and the sea condition. US ships were the best and the Iowa's could keep them on target in the hardest turns.

[xHeavy]

One option other than a new battlewagon etc in the old tradition would be a Arsenal Ship.

Pack it with any missile in the Nation's Inventory. For example 1000 SM-6's Park it where it will cover large sections of North America against incoming Ballistic Missiles. Or a thousand SM3's for ordinary inbound vampires by the hundreds which would be what is required to destroy a full Carrier Group. Or you can put Hellfires in there on call for the Marines as they go ashore or something else entirely. OR a mix.

Railguns are being deployed, even China has a few and they say it's ready for war. However the ranges exceed 120 miles beyond the curvature of the planet and somehow one must solve the targeting problem using some sort of spherical math or ballistics. The power is the easy part and Ammunition might as well be endless. A whole non explosive magazine with tens of thousand of the rounds.

We are also capable of generating power in massive amounts from the salt water of the ocean itself. Theoratically you could power the eastern Seaboard cities with such plants in the ocean.

Networking is the other breakthrough. They are capable now of establishing a tight connect ship to another ship. You would have to physically get between them to disrupt the beam. And you can broadcast beams all over the battle space to connect to anything and everything such as E3 Sentry AWACs etc.

The Battleship is wonderful. However it must evolve. To meet a different form of combat that in some ways are even more dangerous than ever. For example Murmansk up above North Cape can launch Bastion Missiles that are way beyond mach 7 and will reach a carrier Battle Group off Iceland in about 15 minutes. Barely enough time to go to General Quarters missile and establish shipwide water tight integrity etc.