New German Battle Ship capable to fire projectiles into space

Discussion in 'Western Europe' started by Sobo, Jan 20, 2020.

  1. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    59,460
    Likes Received:
    40,226
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh well thanks for the education.

    You mean like the Hood being 25 years older than the Prince of Wales with zero decking armor. I'm not talking about "planking".

    A modern battleship like the Bismark dropped a round through a wood deck, hit the ammo and sunk it? Tell me more.

    The Prince of Wales put a beating on Bismark while facing down her and the Prinz Eugen, and stayed in the fight for the duration.

    So much for the mighty Bismark.
     
  2. gnoib

    gnoib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Spee made it back to Norway.
    Battleships at that time were outdated, because of the carriers.
    I might be wrong, but as much as I recall, the meeting of Hood and Bismarck were the last Battleship fight. The Hood had larger guns and a larger reach, but its sighting/aiming system was not as good as the Bismarck's and she was a tad slower and could not maneuver as well as the more modern Bismarck.
     
  3. Enuf Istoomuch

    Enuf Istoomuch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2018
    Messages:
    587
    Likes Received:
    455
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I see no good reason to demean German technology. Both the USA and Germany make things that work very well.

    Defence Expenditure of NATO Countries (2013-2019)
    https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2019_11/20191129_pr-2019-123-en.pdf

    The issue of defense expenditures though is a serious problem, one that has been improving but remains a concern. As of 2019 only 9 of 28 NATO nations are meeting the 2% agreed on funding target. I am reminded of 2015 war games in Germany when Mercedes vans were marked with signs to designate them as armor, and wooden broomsticks painted black were issued in place of rifles and special operations units lacked functioning night vision to equip all units.
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...omsticks-instead-of-guns-during-training.html

    Then there was the 2011 air campaign over Libya, when NATO countries rapidly depleted stocks of bombs and had to ask the USA to supply them. As if that wasn't bad enough, NATO ran short of aircraft to send over Libya.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...tions-in-libya/2011/04/15/AF3O7ElD_story.html

    With so much difficulty in mere war games, or bombing a small enemy like Libya, how would NATO have fared against Russia? Which is NATO's reason for existing, continuing after the Soviet Union as Putin has been rearming and making his threats.

    Yes, NATO countries, Germany among them, are doing better in defense spending. They need to all continue to improve, and to look at the threat to their east. Unless and until the shortfalls of the recent past can be shown to have been corrected, with all needed materials held in good supply, well then the burden upon the USA will continue to be unfairly placed.

    Which means that we Americans will continue to have an argument with our NATO allies.
     
  4. gnoib

    gnoib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again you show very little knowledge.
    The Hood's design of deck armor was constantly changed. The last change happened after a live fire exercise of 15 inch AP, which showed that the already twice revised deck armor was not adequate. 5 inches of a special Krupp designed steal was added.
    Please get the facts right.
    The Hood had a very strong deck armor, including all its lower decks.

    The Prince Wales was a more modern Battleship and had to retreat, because of the accurate fire the German ships put out.
    The Prinz Eugen was not a Battleship, it was a Heavy Cruiser.
    Naturally the Wales, Bismarck, Eugen had a wood planked deck
    To get it right, Bismarck and Eugen faced 2 of the largest and finest Battleships of the UK, sunk the largest Battleship of the UK, the Mighty Hood and forced the other one to retreat and the only serious damage the Bismarck received was a hulled fuel tank.
    Sadly over 2000 British sailors lost their live in that encounter.
    Nothing to cheer about.
    Very sad, I would say.
    Same for the Bismarck, a torpedo of a obsolete plane, destined the death of close to 2000 man and they did not die easy

    Maybe there is a difference in understanding between the US and Euros. The man of the Hood fought gallantly and died doing so. The man of the Bismarck fought gallantly and died doing so. Brave men on both side, we say today and bow our heads.
     
  5. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,679
    Likes Received:
    2,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your mistaken.
    All ICBM are hypersonic, but none of the are what is talked about when we're talking abour hypersonic missiles, especially those that would be of concern to a ship. And ballistic missile aren't all difficult to shoot down with present abm system since their path is easy to calculate and their speed isn't a problem either since they can't steer. What were talking about are the kind of missile like the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon. Those don't go that high.
     
  6. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,679
    Likes Received:
    2,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Hood was a WW1 battle cruiser, not a battleship. It was designed to hunt down armored, protected and commerce raiding cruisers, not take a battleship full on. Due to massive redesigns her deck armor had gaps and she was barely sea worthy. She also was supported by a newly launched, unfinished and untrained ship, the prince of whales who also shouldn't have been there. They both should have disengaged and wait for the Rodney and King George V. Those two were full blown battleship with highly trained crews and made mince meat and fishes snacks with you german sailors.
     
  7. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,679
    Likes Received:
    2,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The spee sank in montevideo. It didn't make it back. He got affraid of light cruisers.
     
  8. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,679
    Likes Received:
    2,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Hood was a battle cruiser not a battleship.
     
  9. gnoib

    gnoib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please the broomsticks, fake news. Germany was supplying the Kurds out of their inventory, during that time. Guns, ammo, anti tank missiles and so on and is still doing so.
    Libya was not a NATO mission, only 4 countries of NATO participated
    What is the US right's problem with Russia.
    Russia has no other interest with the EU/Europe than making money, big time money with its energy products. Without that money, they can kiss their ars good buy.
    Tell me who is Germanies enemy ? against which it has to defend, or Europe.
    Don't say Russia, because it needs Europe to survive, money.
    The US needs NATO and Europe as a geopolitical bridge head.
    Nothing more. It leaves Europe it is a insulated Island.
     
  10. gnoib

    gnoib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I got that one wrong.
     
  11. gnoib

    gnoib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Hood was the largest Battleship the UK ever built. Not a battle cruiser
     
  12. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,679
    Likes Received:
    2,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2020
  13. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,679
    Likes Received:
    2,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The largest UK battleship was the HMS Vanguard. It was launched just after WW2.
     
  14. gnoib

    gnoib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    She was a heavy cruiser had spent a rather successful cruise in the Pacific and the Atlantik. The battle at Montevideo was against 1 heavy cruiser and 2 light. She disabled the heavy, 1 light and had the other light disengaged, took 70 hits, while doing so.
    The biggest problems were, short of ammo, nearly depleted, the purification plant for fuel and water damaged and 2 carrier groups waiting and searching for her in the Atlantic.
    A no brainer to scuttle her. You have all the damage done you could, save your men.
     
  15. gnoib

    gnoib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Hood was a 1920 design. By British standards a Heavy Battle Cruiser, the largest ship of the British Navy.
    The designation is apon the nation which builds the ship.
    Bismarck and Hood had the same armor and guns, from top to button. Even the same approximately tonnage.
    The Brits called it a Heavy Battlecruiser, the Germans a Battleship.
    The Hood, was at that time the most powerful and largest ship the UK had. It made its accompanying ship, a battleship look like a frigate.
    The pride of the British Navy, The Mighty Hood
     
  16. gnoib

    gnoib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you say after WWII ?
     
  17. gnoib

    gnoib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have to get your facts right.
    Hypersonics speeds are not possible at low lower levels, its a matter of physics, air density.
    1. the amount of energy needed at low elevation to go past mach 2 is just insane. No reach
    2. The density of air at low elevation, would melt anything we know. Not possible.
    Neither do we have the jet or the materials for low altitude, cruise missile type, Hypersonic weapons.

    Yes you got that right. Any ballistic missile, reaching space has to go at one point hypersonic. Its physics not phantasy.
    But they can not be hypersonic, once they reach the denser parts of atmosphere.
    They would just burn up.
    Nothing below 10 k can go Hypersonic, with todays technology.
    Even todays space capsules can not handle hypersonic speeds at 10k, 30.000 feet or so.
    2 or 3 Mach at the best, the lower you get the less, or you get fried. A ballistic warhead would come down with around 3k max, probably less.

    Those are high altitude weapons, around 100.000 feet or so, not cruise missiles.
     
    Poohbear likes this.
  18. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    4,406
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you know anything about Israel's long range missile defense?
     
  19. gnoib

    gnoib Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    no, nothing.
    But long range would be rather difficult from the ground.
    Space, possible. Take them out at the apace, if you are straight above them. Other wise no chance. And even that is beyond our technology.
    Coming in is possible, short range. But beyond, physics, reaction time and todays technology, forget about it.
    They are propelled by them same stuff, have to adhere to the same aerodynamics, a G is a G. Its all about Newton.
    Short is fast, but long you need lots of fuel, which is slow.
     
  20. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    4,406
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Interesting, and I don't doubt what you say.
    The Iron Dome is interesting - particularly for the Americans as it's battle tested.
    But this Arrow System I haven't looked into.
    The Iron Curtain system for tanks is one of my favorites - can't get my head
    around how this system "deflagrates" the incoming missile, RPG etc..
    I wonder if we will eventually see a true laser cannon for knocking out missiles
    actually cheaper than the missiles themselves. Maybe long term a laser can
    cannon through the atmosphere, creating a vacuum tube that something like
    maybe a charged particle beam or something can traverse to bring down
    ICBM's?
    Israel announced a new laser cannon last week, but there's not much detail.
     
  21. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,473
    Likes Received:
    341
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    This only shows that the next frontier for arms race is the outer space, I believe in German ingenuity Karl Benz invented the first car and the concept of nuclear energy came from Albert Einstein
     
    Sobo likes this.
  22. Poohbear

    Poohbear Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2018
    Messages:
    4,406
    Likes Received:
    1,043
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One thing that might happen is this idea of "kinetic energy" missiles, more or less "dropped"
    from orbit. With the new tech of renewable rockets America could put thousands of these
    into orbit. You wouldn't need "air space" permission to use them as was required to take
    out the ISIS leader recently.
     
    Thehumankind likes this.
  23. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,679
    Likes Received:
    2,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was built durong ww2.
     
  24. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,679
    Likes Received:
    2,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The hood was started during ww1. It launched
    The hood was laid down in 1916 and launch in 1918. It never was the largest or the more powerfull. It was a battle cruiser not a battleship.

    Stop digging.
     
  25. Badaboom

    Badaboom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2018
    Messages:
    4,679
    Likes Received:
    2,484
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're saying nonsense. You're out of your.intellectual comfort zone.
     

Share This Page