Shipbucket

One battleship will sink two or more cruisers.

I too fail to see the point of having a big ship with twice the weapons load of a smaller ship. You need to offer something unique to justify the ship. Something the smaller cruiser can't bring to the battlefield. So in this time frame weapons like the Regulus cruise missile or what about a battery of those 280mm Atomic Annie cannons? That would be cool.

Regulus was always in the "in-universe" design specs, but I got thinking that they might've canceled it due to the amount of space Talos was taking up (these are halfway experimental ships). But I did get thinking to how to fit it in:



Also, this:



Note that Florida came first (and has an older sensors setup). I've just been advised that they'd probably try vertical-loading first then go to horizontal-loading, dunno why I'll ask/let them chime in.

Everyone knows that the battleship (as defined by a large armored ship, with large caliber guns, and the armor to defeat said guns at range) was obsolete the moment that the guided missile was on the scene. The advent of the nuclear weapon was a further nail in the coffin.

What Klag is doing here is a thought experiment. I'd personally consider ditching the forward Talos mount for either an 8" or a 12" triple mount on the early ships.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Yeah, I tend to agree with Timothy, put a couple big guns up front, or perhaps trainable canister launchers for your regulus, as you really don't need 3 talos launchers on that boat.

_________________
In Hoc Signo Vinces

By This Sign You Will Conquer

Here's the final one of the first four. As for guns - it's really hard to advocate "big guns" anymore in the 50s and into the 60s, especially since 1.) what Timothy said and 2.) the Iowas were still around if you really needed any. Mk 71 wasn't introduced until 1975 and it still used WWII-era tubes. Though a large gun is in the works. But for now, they just stuck on whatever was available in the mid-1960s, as seen here:

how many cannons are there on it?

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets

Looks like Three Mk-42s, One Mk-10 GMLS, Two Mk-12 GMLS, and 4-8 Polaris S(hip)LBMs. I could see her getting one or two Mk-11s per side.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

Some additional changes and details made, perhaps the most important is that they new truly share the same hull, instead of having to lengthen it to even more stupid degrees (I had just reached an epiphany when staring at the three different variations long enough)

Anyway, here they are in proper chronological order (except the third ship is still missing)








Anyway, I hope if nothing else this shows the amount of time and thought that goes into a proper AU ship, especially one this size - and I'm still[/i[ far from done!

It is clear that any possible US postwar battleship or large missiles cruisers (since 1943 the U.S. canceled the Montana's and by 1945/1947 they stopped the last 2 Iowa/Alaska under construction) no longer carries any large guns (8" or 12" or 16")

And do not forget that the nuclear cruiser Long Beach, built in 1957/1961, use a hull similar to Salem CA ....

Briefly, the large 230/260 meters hull designs, are, for me, totally unrealistic (financially speaking)

Here are my ideas for designs of battleships/large missiles cruisers designs

1954/1958 period
Hull identical to salem
Conventional propulsion
Superstructure similar to the Salem's or upgraded Boston CA.
Two 127mm Mk 42 forward and 4 others 127 on the sides
8 or 10 twins 76mm on the sides
2 terrier (1 forward, behind the 127, and 1 aft) with their 1954/1958 sensor's
Stern with a early style helipad
= In resume, a conventionnal missile cruisers, +/- similar to the early missiles cruisers (Boston), but on the salem hull (more larger, more capable, with more weapons)

1959/1961 period
Hull identical to Salem/Long Beach
Nuclear propulsion
Superstructure similar to the Long Beach (forgets the too high Albany superstructures...)
Two 127mm Mk 42 forward
4 Twins 76mm on the sided
One Talos launcher aft
One Asroc launcher in the middle
Mk 32 TT
Two Terrier launchers (1 forward, 1 aft)
Two Tartars launchers (one on each side)
= In resume: a Long Beach hull with some Albany weapons disposition


= The reals fact howed that conversions of the cleveland cruisers (185 meters hull) was a failure (ships too cramped, internal volume too cramped for effectively accomodate 100+ missiles).

The 203 meters hull of Baltimore CA were more effective and no doubt that the 218+ meters hulls of the Salem's was even much better (more larger internal volume, able to receive without problems 100+ missiles)

In my opinion, without upgrade of some Baltimore CA during 1950's, the best way was to build 218+ meters hull +/- similar to the Salem's.



1962/1967 Period
Identical or slightly enlarged hull of Leahy/baimnbrige
superstructures of the Leahy/Baimbridge style
One 127mm Mk 42 forward
Two twins 76mm (one on each side)
Two Terriers launchers (1 forward, behinf the 127, one aft)
1 Asroc maunchers forward, behind the tartar
Mk 32
= In resume, a leahy/baimbridge +/- similar design, but with a very very slightly larger hull and better weapons disposition

there is no need to get nit picky in a AU thread in regards to finances.

_________________
Supreme Commander of the Astrofleets