| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mon Palae
   |
Posted - 2003.11.25 23:44:00 -
[1]
To continue Sponge Bob's history of the battleship...
Originally they were built to be the rulers of the sea. But, as mentioned, they wer so hideously expensive that countries didn't really want to throw them into combat situations where they had a chance of getting destroyed. The Battle of Jutland was unique. Prior to that the German navy had been bottled up in harbor and not fighting at all. German high-command wanted that to change so with new command they sallied forth. The British had better ships and hoped to put an end to the German navy in one fell-swoop. Unfortunately the British commanders on the scene made some poor decisions (in hindsight) and the Germans won a tactical victory. However, the strategic victory went to the British since the German ships returned to port never to come out again. Probably not a bad decision on the German's part as they got lucky (albeit with good command) and the British navy was still more powerful.
During WWII it slowly became clear that battleships had lost their supremacy edge. There were still battleship admirals around who pish-poshed carriers and submarines despite evidence of their abilities. Eventually battle sorted it out and the battleship was relegated to a support role helping carriers.
Today there are no oore battleships in service. The US used the last of them (in Desert Storm I) and then mothballed them afterwards. They are simply too expensive to operate and in an era of missiles and exceedingly capable hunter-killer subs a battleship just doesn't seem to make sense anymore.
|
Mon Palae
|
Posted - 2003.11.26 00:32:00 -
[2]
That said I have seen cases made for the continued life of the battleship even today.
First, they are incredibly tough customers. The WWII battleship Bismark is a prime example. Due to a lucky circumstance with a torpedo launched from a WWI era plane the Bismark was hobbled allowing Allied forces (mostly if not all British) to catch up to her. In several hours of fighting the Bismark was subdued BUT estimates have it that she took 3-4 torpedoes and 300 direct hits (of which 20-30 were believed to be hits by the BIG 14-16" shells from other battleship's main guns). After all that it is speculated the Germans scuttled her (although at that point it mattered little as the ship was basically dead and the British ordered her sunk...not captured).
In today's world of missiles a battleship would still be largely immune to most anything out there (save perhaps the Granit [aka Shipwreck] missile the USSR developed). The HMS Sheffield was sunk by Exocet missiles, the USS Stark was severly damaged by (IIRC) an Exocet missile. While it would hurt some a battleship would mostly shrug these off and by no mean be anywhere near as damaged as these smaller ships were.
Of what use are battleships then? They were potentially the terror of commerce shipping although subs took that role. They mainly ended up being mobile artillery platforms. Wanted to take a beach? Battleships would be there to soften things up a bit. Apparently getting nailed by a 2,000 lb shell from a battleship is bar none among the worst positions to be in for a defender. In Desert Storm I the US used unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as spotters and for damage assessment. Some Iraqis learned that when a UAV was overhead the 2,000 lb shells were soon to follow. This had the unique result in one case of Iraqi troops trying to surrender to a UAV.
Battelships also gnerally had the best medical facilities of any ship in the field save for a dedicated hospital ship (of which the US currently only has two). They also had the best machine shops. Have a broken part? Fed Ex I don't think delivers to warships in a battlezone. The battleship could manufacture a great deal of what was needed for repair all on its own.
|
Mon Palae
|
Posted - 2003.11.26 00:41:00 -
[3]
So, nice history and all that but what does it mean for EVE?
It should tell the Devs that a battleships is an insane investment. It is hideously expensive to operate. It is vulnerable to light craft with torpedoes or subs (cloaked) ships. It should tell players/corps that have a HUGE investment (more than currently) that these ships need escorts. In the US the cost of a carrier isn't the only consideration. You must consider teh cost of the battlegroup necessary to protect that ship. Since there are no carriers (unless you count drone ships) in EVE the BS fills that role. They should never reasonably be allowed by any corp to wade into below 0.5 space without LOTS of protection unless they are willing to risk a significant investment that is hugely painful to lose. It says that only the very best pilots, not just in skill points but in proven combat ability, be given the ability to captain one.
It also says that they are exceedingly tough nuts to *****. As prime targets they shuld be. If they ever bring in player owned stations it would be the BS that is the only ship to really have a chance of taking a station down.
In short, a battleship should be a special and unique ship and not more common than frigates. They possess incredible firepower and toughness but they are likewise prime targets and horribly expensive to have and maintain. With the big guns comes the big risks. Nothing wrong with opting for 10 cruisers in place of one BS. Frankly...you get more bang for your buck that way.
|
Mon Palae
|
Posted - 2003.11.26 00:51:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Mon Palae on 26/11/2003 00:52:17
Did CCP really gag me on the word cr-ck above? (Replace the '-' with an 'a')
C'mon...aren't they getting a bit overzealous in their censorship?
|
| |
|