O.K....what is a CAPITOL war ship?

[Dingzoom]

I have just been playing the Single mission "Scapa Flow" scenario.
after what seemed like hours and hours I finely spot a large destroyer.

The last two times on this scenario I haven't seen anything so I figured that this was what I was suppose to shoot.
Well, I got him but it wasn't pretty...

My first two torps went right under him just like I intended...however, they didn't explode....so much for magnetic.

I finely got him with my last torp at 350 m by shooting through the periscope. that was kinda wild and frantic....point da boat & shoot...
I think I set it to 21/2 meters & that got him...
I am all shot to pieces, but alive!

so I point the boat for Da fatherland & hit escape...then it tells me my mission was incomplete...
So, Just what constitutes a "Capitol Ship"?

That bugger looked "HUGE" to me through the periscope...

[Kaiser_W]

In SH3, anything bigger than a destroyer.

[JU88]

A C2 is bigger than a destroyer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Any warship bigger than a destroyer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Maj_Solo]

Maybe HMS London is a capitol ship I don't know ... (I am in that mode now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

[Paul_K]

By convention, a capital ship is a battleship, fleet aircraft carrier, or battlecruiser. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Dingzoom]

Oh well, guess I gotta do it again then...that water around Scapa Flow is very shallow..no where to go to get away from destroyers... If you have to sink a capitol ship then I'm sure destroyers will be near by..lol..

I'm sure that that area was mined also & without any maps to give a guy a hint as to where they could be then I guess it is just hit & miss.

[Messervy]

Originally posted by Maj_Solo:
Maybe HMS London is a capitol ship I don't know ... (I am in that mode now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

It was a heavy cruiser - so nope!
USS Washington BB56 perhaps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Kaleun1961]

Capital ships [spelled with an "a" not an "o"] are large and prestigious targets, almost exclusively battleships and aircraft carriers. They represent an enormous investment in money, resources and manpower to build and operate. Sinking one is a real kick in the crotch to the losing country.

[Maj_Solo]

Originally posted by Messervy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Maj_Solo:
Maybe HMS London is a capitol ship I don't know ... (I am in that mode now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

It was a heavy cruiser - so nope!
USS Washington BB56 perhaps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are much more alert than I am .....

[doug.d]

Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
Capital ships [spelled with an "a" not an "o"] are large and prestigious targets, almost exclusively battleships and aircraft carriers. They represent an enormous investment in money, resources and manpower to build and operate. Sinking one is a real kick in the crotch to the losing country.
Agreed, except carriers weren't included, they were exclusively battleships and battlecruisers. Carriers were 'associated' with the term to get them included in the Washington Treaty limitations and it stuck thereafter.

The term originated from the ongoing squabble between the Royal Navy who wanted lots more battleships around the 1900's to stay ahead of Germany/Japan/France etc.'s build ups (while the Wright brothers were still fixing bicycles), and the British Treasury who didn't want to pay for so many. First Sea Lord Fisher's answer was to "invent" the battlecruiser class (this dumb idea based on his brainfart "speed is armour", was forevermore known as Fisher's folly), to get more "Dreadnought" ships with the same amount of money. The heavy influence of "capital" investment and compromise squabbles surrounding the RN's battleship fleet resulted in their being referred to as "capital ships".

HMS Dreadnought herself was heavily influenced by this squabble e.g. the switch to turbines to get the same speed without increasing the size, and therefore cost, of making her bigger to make space for more powerful reciprocating steam engines.

[Funkasoar]

Im not sure if the game represents Scapa Flow accurately but if it does then maybe finding an account of Gunther Prien's attack on the Flow (which obviously inspired this mission) would provide you with some advice on how to carry this one out successfully. As I recall he did it on the surface of the water and skipped into the flow undetected. He sank the Royal Oak while it was moored. I've never tried that mission out so it might not be modelled at all like it really was back in 39. Just an idea from me.

[JU88]

Scapa isnt modelled as well as it could have been, prien entered scapa through the east entrance during high tide, he also had to navigate between the sunken block ships the brits had placed in front of the east enterance,
none of this is modelled in SH3 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

The only reason he got away with it, was that the british were so convinced of Scapas natural defenses, they never even though a Uboat would dare try and sneak in, during priens escape from the flow, the british were too busy scaning the sky for bombers that might have attacked the Royal Oak, to be looking for uboats.
Upon his exit, Priens boat was actually approached by a destroyer which signalled him then turned around and left! as the destroyer crew just assumed it was a British submarine. They must have felt gutted the next day!

[doug.d]

Originally posted by JU88:
Upon his exit, Priens boat was actually approached by a destroyer which signalled him then turned around and left! as the destroyer crew just assumed it was a British submarine. They must have felt gutted the next day!
LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif FELT gutted or BEEN gutted? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

[Dominicrigg]

That never happened.

In fact they at first thought it was a problem on the boat, or a bomb dropped from high.

When they realised it was a uboat they began searching the flow. In fact they had to bring the search and rescue crews out of the water where they were diving for survivors while destroyers depth charged what they thought was a Uboat.

Infact he had sailed out before they even started searching on the surface. Prien was never approached by any boats. I typed out the full description in these forums once if someone with skills can work the search. It will still be here somewhere!

P.S yes capitol ships are Battleships. Royal Oak is one of those.

[Acunnon]

Got this from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalship). Great site, sometimes I just brouse around there to look up intresting things.

The capital ships of a navy are its "important" warships; the ones with the heaviest firepower and armor. There is usually no formal criterion for the classification, but it is a useful concept when thinking about strategy, for instance to compare relative naval strengths in a theater of operations without having to get bogged down in the details of tonnage and gun diameters.

In the 20th century, especially in World Wars I and II, typical capital ships would be battleships, battlecruisers, and in WWII, aircraft carriers. All of the above ships were close to 20,000 tons or heavier. Heavy cruisers, despite being important ships, were not considered capital ships. During the Cold War, a Soviet Kirov-class guided missile cruiser had a displacement great enough to rival WWII-era capital ships, perhaps defining a new battlecruiser for that era. In the 21st century, the aircraft carrier is the last remaining capital ship, with firepower defined in decks available and aircraft per deck, rather than in tubes and calibres.

The definition of "capital ship" was formalized in the limitation treaties of the 1920s and 30s; see Washington Naval Treaty, London Naval Treaty, and Second London Naval Treaty.

Before the advent of the all-steel navy in the late 19th century, a capital ship was a warship of the first, second or third rate:

1st Rate: 100 or more guns, typically carried on three or four decks. Four-deckers tended to have problems with the waterline and the lowest deck seldom was able to fire except on the calmest of seas.
2nd Rate: 90-98 guns
3rd Rate: 64 to 80 guns (although 64-gun third-raters were very small and not very numerous in any era).
Frigates were ships of the fourth or fifth rate; a corvette was a ship of the sixth rate.

See also Ship of the line


Check the link out also more there that just what I put here.

[Kaleun1961]

The USN still has 4 Iowa class BB's mothballed, which are still considered capital ships.

[JU88]

Originally posted by Dominicrigg:
That never happened.

In fact they at first thought it was a problem on the boat, or a bomb dropped from high.

When they realised it was a uboat they began searching the flow. In fact they had to bring the search and rescue crews out of the water where they were diving for survivors while destroyers depth charged what they thought was a Uboat.

Infact he had sailed out before they even started searching on the surface. Prien was never approached by any boats. I typed out the full description in these forums once if someone with skills can work the search. It will still be here somewhere!

P.S yes capitol ships are Battleships. Royal Oak is one of those.

Um ok, but in the source I read on Priens attack,
a)the destroyer incident happened: it flashed a signal at priens boat, he chose to ignore it, and destroyer left them alone, at that time they were not activly looking for a Uboat in the flow.

b)It was only proven it was a U-boat attack after they discovered torpeedo shrapnel in the OAKs wreckage a day or two later.

Im not arguing who is right or wrong, but thats just what i read. God knows which source is more accurate.

[HimmelJaeger]

Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
The USN still has 4 Iowa class BB's mothballed, which are still considered capital ships.

I've worked on all 4 of them. USN HM3 King. I was on them during refitting, in the event of injuries. Very cool ships, very creepy at night during roving security watches. I could almost hear the sailors in them rushing to battle stations when passing through the darkened compartments.

[Maj_Solo]

Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
The USN still has 4 Iowa class BB's mothballed, which are still considered capital ships.

Floating artillery to be used to shell thirld world countries. Question: How efficient is todays anti-ship missiles, for example an old harpoon, how many are needed to sink that fat Iowa class BB? If you turn the question around, what does the "sales-people" of the harpoon say the size of the biggest ship the harpoon can sink in one blow?

The idea of the BB must be to be the big bad wolf with the heaviest initial blow and most endurance in a battle and the only thing that remains afloat when the battle is over, possibly saving crew, possibly able to reach port and even get repaired. If they can be easily sunk then it is financial madness to try and operate them.

So what is the US saving them for? Historians are pleased I am sure.

[Acunnon]

Well I know the U.S.S Wisconsin is now a floating museum. She is a real fighting beauty with her nine 16inch guns and the refit of Tomahawk Missle Systems. I have had the plesure of walking the coridors and it is somthing I will never forget. She is kept in prestine condition so as to be ready to go to war if needed. On a side note of intrest the U.S.S. Constitution is the oldest comissioned US warship.

U.S.S. Wisconsin (http://www.battleshipwisconsin.org/)
U.S.S Constitution (http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/)

[The_Silent_O]

On a side note of intrest the U.S.S. Constitution is the oldest comissioned US warship.

U.S.S. Wisconsin (http://www.battleshipwisconsin.org/)
U.S.S Constitution (http://www.ussconstitution.navy.mil/)

You forgot still FLOATS and SAILS unlike the HMS Victory... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif (just a little razz towards our British ally).

I've had the privilage of visiting both ships...the Victory on Trafalgar day...and I took a short nap in the Captain's bunk on the Constitution...

[Kaleun1961]

Originally posted by Maj_Solo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
The USN still has 4 Iowa class BB's mothballed, which are still considered capital ships.

Floating artillery to be used to shell thirld world countries. Question: How efficient is todays anti-ship missiles, for example an old harpoon, how many are needed to sink that fat Iowa class BB? If you turn the question around, what does the "sales-people" of the harpoon say the size of the biggest ship the harpoon can sink in one blow?

The idea of the BB must be to be the big bad wolf with the heaviest initial blow and most endurance in a battle and the only thing that remains afloat when the battle is over, possibly saving crew, possibly able to reach port and even get repaired. If they can be easily sunk then it is financial madness to try and operate them.

So what is the US saving them for? Historians are pleased I am sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those guns pack quite a punch and can send their shells many miles inland, so perhaps they are useful for something. In the first Gulf War, I believe it was a BB that fired the first cruise missiles at Iraq. It's not quite fair to label them as artillery for bombarding Third World countries, since no First World country is stupid enough to make war on the U.S.

Uncle Sam must think they can still have a use in the 21st century and thus is keeping them around. Even if they have no further use, it would be nice to see them survive as museums. Sadly, Western nations scrap everything in sight when a war is over, leaving nothing for future posterity. Example: in WW2 thousands of Lancaster bombers were built, yet only two surive in flying condition. It would be nice to have a moderate amount of heritage aircraft, ships and vehicles as a reminder of the sacrifices of our forefathers. Once a war is over the bean counters go to work and scrap everything for a tiny fraction of original value. So sad.

[The_Silent_O]

Originally posted by Kaleun1961:


Uncle Sam must think they can still have a use in the 21st century and thus is keeping them around. Even if they have no further use, it would be nice to see them survive as museums. Sadly, Western nations scrap everything in sight when a war is over, leaving nothing for future posterity. Example: in WW2 thousands of Lancaster bombers were built, yet only two surive in flying condition. It would be nice to have a moderate amount of heritage aircraft, ships and vehicles as a reminder of the sacrifices of our forefathers. Once a war is over the bean counters go to work and scrap everything for a tiny fraction of original value. So sad.

Come to the USA, there's a vintage ship in every major port...Usually a great musuem inside...

Closest to you is the USS Massachusetts in Fall River, MA

[doug.d]

Interesting article on growing popularity of US naval museums (http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/museum1.htm)
Last I heard, the US navy was trying hard to get the 4 magnificent Iowa's off the books, but the most active opposition came from the Marines. They claim there is no viable and as-effective support for them than those big 16" guns. Missiles and air cover are fine, but when the sh1t hits the fan, they want a battleship backing them up.

[Acunnon]

Marines like the ships their navy brothers have big and loud. It does not get much bigger and louder than an American Battleship. Besides Marine assets can not excede a certin percentige of the navies assets so it in their intrests for the navy to be big http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

If I pissed off any Marines with my little joking tough this squid is not taking any **** from a jarhead http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

[Ratek]

It makes sense the Marines like BBs.

What else can put as much destruction onto a beach with similar accuracy and not leave any moments where there is no destruction?
A carrier? Hardly viable and easily detectable.

Simply said the BBs can saturate an area much easier and cheaper than an entire bomberwing from a carrier. And they don't need to refuel and rearm like the planes.

I have seen a schematic of an accuracytest of the Iowa. It was impressive. At 40km it hit a target the size of the Pentagon with 80% of all shells, at 30 km it was more than 90% (and we are talking about a lot of shells). Most of te shells also hit the big open area inside the Pentagon (effectively bulleye in the test).

It was most impressive.

One shouldn't forget the capacity to carry SSMs either. The sheer size of the Iowas effectively make them armouryships (a shiptype that is meant to blast the enemy apart with lots of missiles).

Personal opinion on the matter? I don't know what it costs to keep these ships, and eventhough the guns hit hard, fast, accurately and continously they don't hit much inland. Rsnge is an issue.

[Maj_Solo]

Well, I don't have any fixed position in this debate, I just remeber they used to run up and down the Korea coast shelling and shelling and having resupply ships come up and give them more shells so they could continue shelling and shelling. Floating artillery. Also, there is a big risk long range antiship missiles could select that fat BB as target if they cant find a specific target. In the old days you would love to have someting like Conan the barbarian or Terminator Cyberdyne systems model 101, but since everyone else use sniper rifles these days the game is different. But for shore bombardment I think there is nothing better. Floating artillery.

[Acunnon]

The mighty Mo did the same thing durring Vietnam assisting marines inland. An anti ship missle is less of a threat to any modern ship in the US navy thanks to the Phalanx deffense system. That little can of kick *** can nail an incomming missle at a range of up to 1 mile firing 50 20mm depleated uraniam rounds a second. That is a lot of lead on target.

[Kaleun1961]

The last I read about them the peacetime operating cost per day was one million dollars. Multiply that by four BB's over one year and the cost to keep those four BB's active is well over one billion dollars. If they are on war operations the cost goes up dramatically. That is a lot of money for four ships which is why they get mothballed. But since they are such good artillery platforms, they are kept for future use.

[Ratek]

Originally posted by Kaleun1961:
The last I read about them the peacetime operating cost per day was one million dollars. Multiply that by four BB's over one year and the cost to keep those four BB's active is well over one billion dollars. If they are on war operations the cost goes up dramatically. That is a lot of money for four ships which is why they get mothballed. But since they are such good artillery platforms, they are kept for future use.
Hmm... a lot of money, but it that a lot compared to other ships we could expect to fill the role if they were withdrawn from service? Something like 10 Ticonderogas would be my guess along with two carriers.

Anyway wouldn't it be more costeffective to purpose build a few shore bombarders? Something like a smaller ships with around 4-6 big NEW guns that would be more rapid and more accurate. Such ships could possibly be crewed by much smaller numbers and would likely use less fuel too (if they even used ful in the common sense).

[Kaleun1961]

A lot of the things I have read here seem to make sense. However, at the end of the day, the U.S. Navy is making the decision, and since they have decided to keep these ships around, there must be, to them, a logical reason. That, or they are fools. Either way, I am in no position to second guess their judgement.

[WilhelmSchulz]

My deffenishon of a Capital ship is: A large ship of strtegic or milatary importance.

In the 21st century, the aircraft carrier is the last remaining capital ship, with firepower defined in decks available and aircraft per deck, rather than in tubes and calibres.

Well if you think about it the SSBN could be considered a Capital ship, because it fits the defanition.

Bit OT but notice that all U.S Capital ships have names of states or presadents.(dont corect my spelling) ex. Ohio class submarine, LosAngalis class submarine or if you get tecnacal a 688I.

[kptltU-1312]

my nautical dictionary tells me that:

a CAPITAL SHIP is "the most powerful contemporary type of ship".

so i guess it implies major fleet units or pivotal ships in a fleet.

cheers from U-1312. out.