If Sag-C = Baltimore, WWII cruisers as HH analog discussion.

KJakker wrote:I just ran some numbers comparing the main battery of the Baltimore class with that of the Brooklyn and Cleveland classes and came up with the following.

A ship with similar size, speed, and defenses to a CA, that has between 30% and 60% more missile launchers. An ammunition capacity 33% greater per-launcher than a CA’s. Its missiles would have a hair over 86.9% of the range, 73.4% the defense penetration capability, and deliver 38.8% as much energy upon penetration yet are capable of being effectively launched and controlled at a rate of fire 2.57 times that of the CA.

HUH - Missile launchers? on WWII Baltimore, Brooklyn and Cleveland classes?

Also the Brooklyn was ~25% larger than the CL, being 14,000-17,000 tons, with the CLs being 11,000-14,000 tons, with a good portion of that being increased armor.

Theemile wrote:

KJakker wrote:I just ran some numbers comparing the main battery of the Baltimore class with that of the Brooklyn and Cleveland classes and came up with the following.

A ship with similar size, speed, and defenses to a CA, ...

HUH - Missile launchers? on WWII Baltimore, Brooklyn and Cleveland classes?...

No, extrapolation of relative fire-power to a hypothetical "next-step" Honorverse cruiser.

The more I think about this, I am not sure that comparing the Sag-C to the Baltimore or Des Moines class is valid. Because the Sag-C has MDM's while Sollie SD's only have single drive missiles. Because of this, the Sag-C has a range advantage and can actually engage and destroy capital ships.

I think the Baltimore and especially the Des Moines class ships are some of the best heavy cruisers of the all-gun era. They could have taken on ships of a comparable size/class with an excellent chance of success. But there is little to no chance that either class could have taken on a full size battleship of the same era and won. Which is basically what a Sag-C can do with any non-pod laying SD.

Henry Brown wrote:The more I think about this, I am not sure that comparing the Sag-C to the Baltimore or Des Moines class is valid. Because the Sag-C has MDM's while Sollie SD's only have single drive missiles. Because of this, the Sag-C has a range advantage and can actually engage and destroy capital ships.

I think the Baltimore and especially the Des Moines class ships are some of the best heavy cruisers of the all-gun era. They could have taken on ships of a comparable size/class with an excellent chance of success. But there is little to no chance that either class could have taken on a full size battleship of the same era and won. Which is basically what a Sag-C can do with any non-pod laying SD.

To reference an old thread which may have drifted badly: The sollie SDs are so out of date they would not be the equivalent of US/UK/Japanese battleships of 1943 when compared to the Baltimore class CA, they would be the equivalent of the Russian Black Sea Fleet of 1905 that was trashed at Tsushima. I suspect that a Baltimore Class CA would give a good account of itself against those ships.

Castenea wrote:

Henry Brown wrote:The more I think about this, I am not sure that comparing the Sag-C to the Baltimore or Des Moines class is valid. Because the Sag-C has MDM's while Sollie SD's only have single drive missiles. Because of this, the Sag-C has a range advantage and can actually engage and destroy capital ships.

I think the Baltimore and especially the Des Moines class ships are some of the best heavy cruisers of the all-gun era. They could have taken on ships of a comparable size/class with an excellent chance of success. But there is little to no chance that either class could have taken on a full size battleship of the same era and won. Which is basically what a Sag-C can do with any non-pod laying SD.

To reference an old thread which may have drifted badly: The sollie SDs are so out of date they would not be the equivalent of US/UK/Japanese battleships of 1943 when compared to the Baltimore class CA, they would be the equivalent of the Russian Black Sea Fleet of 1905 that was trashed at Tsushima. I suspect that a Baltimore Class CA would give a good account of itself against those ships.

I suspect that a "modern" guided missile cruiser vs a 1930s "Treaty Battleship" would be an accurate comparison of Sag-C vs Scientist-class SLN SDs -- even with Cataphract-bs in the SLN tubes.

Weird Harold wrote:I suspect that a "modern" guided missile cruiser vs a 1930s "Treaty Battleship" would be an accurate comparison of Sag-C vs Scientist-class SLN SDs -- even with Cataphract-bs in the SLN tubes.

I don't think that would end the way you think.

Many inches of steel armor are pretty effective at stopping most modern missile warheads. Fancy ECM and million dollar counter-missiles has somewhat limited ability to do much to 12" point detonating HE rounds using optical directors.

kzt wrote:I don't think that would end the way you think.

Many inches of steel armor are pretty effective at stopping most modern missile warheads. Fancy ECM and million dollar counter-missiles has somewhat limited ability to do much to 12" point detonating HE rounds using optical directors.

The analogies do break down somewhat, because old Battleship armor certainly has more potential to shrug off a missile hit or two from modern guided missiles. At the end of the day though, a modern guided missile cruiser is absolutely able to utterly dictate the battle, should it happen: Its ability to target the battleship and slip away out of reach is just light years beyond what said Battleship could ever hope to do. So, in a way, the comparison of a 1930s BB vs a 2000s CG is apt: While the BB is obviously able to soak up a lot of damage, the CG can basically engage and disengage at will and is capable of inflicting so much attritional damage (i.e. while the CG may not be able to outright sink the BB, it certainly can render it mission ineffective), that in strategic terms, the CG is clearly superior. Sure, if the BB manages to get the CG in gun range, the CG is probably toast; but that requires an enormous degree of planning and more than a few, shall we say, situational modifiers.

(To bring this back to the Honorverse: Remember that one Citizen Captain whose name eludes me at the moment who managed to bring down a RMN Battlecruiser raiding force using Battleships? That's the sort of tactical ability that's required for a 1930s battleship to bring a modern CG into engagement range)

kzt wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:I suspect that a "modern" guided missile cruiser vs a 1930s "Treaty Battleship" would be an accurate comparison of Sag-C vs Scientist-class SLN SDs -- even with Cataphract-bs in the SLN tubes.

I don't think that would end the way you think.

Many inches of steel armor are pretty effective at stopping most modern missile warheads. Fancy ECM and million dollar counter-missiles has somewhat limited ability to do much to 12" point detonating HE rounds using optical directors.

But the converse of this is, the battleship has even less defense against guided missiles. While they might withstand one or two hits, I am less sure if they could keep taking multiple hits from guided missiles. Keep in mind modern missiles often use shaped charges in the warheads, so in some ways they are more dangerous than WWII era heavy naval guns.

But even if they can withstand the hits and keep coming, I don't think the treaty battleships are fast enough to ever get in range of a guided missile cruiser. If memory serves me, the top speed of the North Carolina and South Dakota class ships was somewhere between 26 and 28 knots. Pretty sure all modern missile cruisers can do in excess of 30 knots, so I don't see how the battleships could ever catch up.

The Iowa class battleships could do 33 knots, so there is a chance that they might be able to catch a guided missile cruiser. However, the original post specified treaty battleships. And the Iowas are not treaty battleships.

kzt wrote:

Weird Harold wrote:I suspect that a "modern" guided missile cruiser vs a 1930s "Treaty Battleship" would be an accurate comparison of Sag-C vs Scientist-class SLN SDs -- even with Cataphract-bs in the SLN tubes.

I don't think that would end the way you think.

Many inches of steel armor are pretty effective at stopping most modern missile warheads. Fancy ECM and million dollar counter-missiles has somewhat limited ability to do much to 12" point detonating HE rounds using optical directors.

Many inches of armor in a belt at the waterline don't do much for missiles programmed for a "pop-up" attack against the decks.

You're probably correct that the analogy doesn't fit exactly, but your scenario only matches a Sag-C with pre-Mod-G Mk-16s. With Mk16Gs, a Sag-C has the hitting power of a SLN Capitol missile. (Cataphract-Bs in the tubes reduces a Scientist-class to the hitting power of an SLN cruiser.)

ECM, counter-missiles, and CIWS only come into play if the Treaty BB comes within range. 12" shells that fall ten or twenty miles short are only a "dancing waters" display to a Guided Missile Cruiser.

Theemile wrote:
HUH - Missile launchers? on WWII Baltimore, Brooklyn and Cleveland classes?

Also the Brooklyn was ~25% larger than the CL, being 14,000-17,000 tons, with the CLs being 11,000-14,000 tons, with a good portion of that being increased armor.

While the number of 6" rifles is larger in the case of Brooklyn vs Cleveland the standard displacement of the two classes is very similar, 9,700 tons for Brooklyn vs 10,000 tons for Cleveland.

At 610' x 61'4" the Cleveland measured just a bit larger than Brooklyn at 608' x 61'9".

Both ship's powerplants were rated at 100k HP and the ship's CLAIMED top speed was the USN standard 32.5 knots. I say "claimed" because even today the top speed of any particular ship or ship class is classified.

The Iowa class BB was rated at (you guessed it) 32.5 knots even though it's acknowledged that all four ships exceeded 35 knots in builder's trials and I've heard it said by reputable sources that during her Vietnam commission New Jersey was able to stay with Enterprise (CVAN-65) in a long distance high speed run that saw both ships run their escorts over the horizon. Even during her last underway training cruise just before inactivation Enterprise was still able to muster enough speed to outrun all of her gas turbine powered escorts.

In both cases (Brooklyn and Cleveland) the stats are from NAVSOURCE.