Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
OutcastSpartan7

If jet fighters and guided missiles had never been invented...

10 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
21 posts
855 battles

Is anyone here educated enough to guess what today's ships would look like if the guided missile was never invented?

 

I'm guessing artillery might still be a major weapon on ships, if so, what calibre would we be using, what would our ships look like?

 

 

Edited by OutcastSpartan7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
447 posts
844 battles

Battleships have been damned to fail since the invention of aircraft carriers, even before the invention of guided weapons and jet engines. What planes lacked in accuracy in those days, they made up with numbers and especially large targets like battleships suffered from air attacks. And they still were more accurate than ship artillery.

So I think it wouldn't have changed much on the downfall of large fighting ships. CVs could do everything better and were even more versatile with greater range and a much greater diversity and power of weapons.

Edited by typhaon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,648 posts
12,126 battles

Regardless of carrier and aircraft development, I think at some point artillery and armor improvements would eventually come to a stall. Nowadays we got uranium shells, sabot projectiles etc, so even if there is no alternative to artillery and torps, at some point you would not want to progress further into protection of large capital ships but instead focus on more smaller ships that are much harder to hit. I guess anything from 120mm to 210mm will suffice if you do it right.

Submarines may not be stuffed with cruise missiles so they are no big threat to countries themselves, but both WWI and WWII have shown their impact on naval warfare in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
730 posts
848 battles

how about torpedo btw?

I think Navy would interested it more than the main gun, like adding it more longer range or even guided torpedo :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAPT]
Players
269 posts
8,894 battles

The Russians have "leaked" they are developing a very long range (10,000 KM), torpedo drone with a large nuclear warhead.. The Idea is to detonate them underwater to produce highly radioactive tidal waves to destroy coastal cities without warning. The idea that nuclear weapons could be used to create radioactive tidal waves is not new, but previous scenarios had the bombs being placed on the sea floor by submarines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-CIA-]
Players
50 posts
8,778 battles

under the waters!

lets rewind a bit to the time of WWI-II, lets just say there are no aircraft and missiles, how then to make use of warships? The efforts were all aimed at making a better armored ship that could kill in one shot, some wanted to explore speed but then again, the risk of that one shot only got higher. I think to put BBs at bay and wary of approaching anywhere near target, countries would have invested in cheap long range torpedoes. Some genius somewhere would develop a passive listening device that could help torpedoes to converge to the sound of a lumbering battleship. A fleet of cruiser sized destroyers would even be able to push away a fleet of Battleships and conventional cruisers by spamming cheap torpedoes. How about a torpedo that left no trail? Now you have a converging torpedo that you can never see except when it explodes.

Imagine a hypothetical battle where a poor country sends a fleet of massive battleships running by simply using the fear of a torpedo! thousand upon thousands of fake torpedoes race the waters making the ships turn tail. they realize these are fake and let them hit their ship harmlessly, but they were lured into a trap where live torpedoes wreaked havoc!

To curb this mega destroyer spam, ships would have to become stealthy, submarines would rise. just for the sake of conversation, lets even say nukes weren't put to better use and we never built a nuclear sub, after the world war we'd probably see whose got the mightiest sub able to stay underwater the longest. along these lines we'd probably try looking what other weapons we could use underwater against subs? Enter the underwater physics, where a specialized weapon that simply manipulated water pressure to crush anything in in front of it. for example, an air cannon simply releases high pressure air that was used in early carrier launch systems, imagine a weapon that would shake the life out of battle ships by water pressure and that too without using expensive rounds or torpedoes.

 

In a way I'd say the naval arena would be different than it is today and perhaps a lot more colorful, but Battleships would eventually had to go to be replaced by something more deadly and accurate. Today we have Carriers, and who is foolish enough to say that CVs will never be overthrown?  I might take another world war or another Pearl Harbor like situation, but I think Carriers are not the end of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,648 posts
12,126 battles

Yup, submarines surely rule the depths. But without guided missiles, they severely lack surface capabilities as well as landing gear. You will still need surface vessels to carry your troops, and ballistic artilley or aircraft for mainland bombardment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POMF]
Beta Tester
1,911 posts
3,824 battles

Maybe the idea of submersible aircraft carriers (like the I-400 class) could have been expanded upon to make up for the absence of reliable and precise long range weapons for submarines. It may not have been all too practical considering size limitations etc but the idea was still kind of awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,198 posts
9,514 battles

The Russians have "leaked" they are developing a very long range (10,000 KM), torpedo drone with a large nuclear warhead.. The Idea is to detonate them underwater to produce highly radioactive tidal waves to destroy coastal cities without warning. The idea that nuclear weapons could be used to create radioactive tidal waves is not new, but previous scenarios had the bombs being placed on the sea floor by submarines.

 

Radioactivity can't "destroy" cities. At most you would contaminate the seabed and seafront. But then given the huge amount of water you're diluting that radioactive material in, that's not likely to be too useful either.

 

I guess you could detonate a warhead close enough to make a very small tsunami (not tidal wave, as that's something entirely different), but it wouldn't be one that would "destroy" a city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×