Bruships 180: Naval History Questions Answered...Part II

Probably not; stealth strike aircraft are usually single-seat, and a second crew position imposes a significant space penalty.

The triple mounts were available immediately; commissioning a capable cruiser was preferable to waiting for the desired quadruple tubes.

It could make the war nastier, but American forces could not easily intercept the Russians and might not change the decisive outcome.

Fire control and radar: an early lead in radar-guided gunnery and warning would reshape both surface combat and air defence.

Japan is the strongest candidate for worst; Britain and the United States are the leading candidates for best, depending on the period considered.

Yes in practical terms: the Zumwalt fits much of that description, while labels such as destroyer and cruiser are often political as well as technical.

It could, because improved breech and loading machinery matters more than barrel count alone; a twin with comparable machinery would also improve.

No. They may be armed, but they are supply ships and should not be treated as combat vessels for those roles.

For riverine and shallow-water operations, possibly with greater value to the US Army than to the blue-water navy.

It would help intercept incoming aircraft, but its real advantage would depend on having airborne early warning to direct it.

Not realistically. The boats lacked the structural support for the weight of even small torpedoes and their launch fittings.

The panel identifies the United States as the weakest and Britain as the strongest, while noting that British practice improved markedly during the war.

Yes. The panel expects Britain would have used the larger calibre and produced some very interesting treaty battleships.

Germany would face huge logistics and oil problems, while the Allies might react with panic building and possibly pre-emptive attacks on the fleet in harbour.

The disadvantages dominate: they would complicate heavy turret, rangefinder, and ammunition-feed systems without offering a comparable naval benefit.

A literal turtleback battleship: an armoured shell over the ship with its turrets placed forward.

Yes, but within a predictive solution: the guns fire for the target’s future position while the system times the shot to the ship’s movement.

It invested substantially, but funding, inherited vessels, and a limited threat assessment constrained replacement and sloop construction.

Helicopters are relatively adaptable, but fixed-wing AEW and ASW aircraft need substantially different airframes and operating profiles.

It could have weakened remembered lessons in logistics and amphibious warfare and reduced the Navy's leverage for carrier aviation.

Probably about one aircraft generation later.

K3 would be a very capable, fast 18-inch-gun capital ship, but its machinery layout raises survivability concerns compared with a more dispersed arrangement.

The panel tentatively identifies Invincible among purpose-built capital ships, while noting classification and later gun changes complicate the answer.

G3 and N3 were the best options; the amidships-turret arrangement was largely driven by dockyard and hull-length constraints.

As a modernised status ship with VLS, helicopters, and new machinery; nuclear conversion would be too close to building a new ship.

A small number of frigate-level ships would be useful, backed by broader investment in air defence, equipment, and personnel.

Mark 41, chiefly for its broader general-purpose flexibility and the ecosystem of additional launch options around it.

Yes. The Yamatos affected much of Japan's construction programme because they consumed such exceptional resources.

Expand existing programmes first, fix pay and housing, reinforce fleet support and F-35B numbers, and procure aviation-capable LHDs.

A procurement aside explains how industrial participation, congressional interests, international partners, and cancellation liabilities make ending the F-35 programme far harder than announcing a replacement.

No. Major navies had tested them extensively in exercises and operations and had already developed ideas for carrier strikes on fleets in harbour.

It came from a real early interest in marine biology; he did not initially expect to become emperor.

Not in a practical way. Naval ranges and ballistic requirements made salvo-based ranging a better solution.

It would free US naval designers to build much larger ships and remove important Panama-based compromises from capital-ship design.

Japanese battleships are identified as the likely answer; depth-charge experiments were once much more widespread than modern readers may expect.

Probably near Alaska-class size, around 25,000 to 30,000 tons or more, and not an efficient return for the added guns.

Choices include Dreadnought’s designers, Viking shipwrights, Admiral Henderson, Vasa’s builders, and the designers of Russia’s circular warships, each exposing a different design or institutional puzzle.

They are useful Arctic patrol ships, but Canada would gain more from greater numbers, stronger armament, and a broader defence investment.

No. Both would normally be commanded by full captains; the difference is usually the captain's prior command experience.

Probably as museum ships rather than operational assets; modernising their hulls and conventional steam plants would not be worthwhile.

Accelerate carriers, sloops, ships, industry, and radar while using a stronger conventional deterrent instead of unconditional appeasement.

It would create stability and firing-force problems for little benefit, since the guns could already fire forward at normal ranges.

Britain would likely accelerate larger-gun cruisers; France would face tighter shipyard limits even if it wanted more powerful counter-designs.

It is closer to an airborne early-warning aircraft.

Usually no. Larger shells penetrate more reliably, and an overpenetration can still cause flooding, machinery damage, and external blast effects.

Special-treatment steel helped, but the ships were fighting on despite likely loss and prioritised speed and combat effect over a long-term return home.

A short gunnery lesson explains why a navy might prefer a larger-calibre, shorter gun when it can deliver the desired range and penetration at lower barrel-wearing pressure.

The programme lacked disciplined operational requirements and treated modularity as an excuse for conflicting demands rather than a standardised system.

LCS became overloaded by competing demands, while Zumwalt was judged against unrealistic expectations despite potential as a powerful air-defence destroyer.

There is no firm answer without the complete ship design; a turret proposal alone does not establish a practical or superior warship.

The panel prefers the general idea of a larger 8-inch battery, suggesting nine 8-inch guns could be more useful than six 11-inch guns.

Not reliably. Target motion during the dive makes precise bow or stern aiming difficult, so pilots aim to hit the ship rather than a specific weak section.

Hood would be preserved and stabilized, but she could not remain where she blocked the Thames because the river still carries substantial commercial traffic.

Several designs are chosen, with the Akira class praised for visibly combining heavy armament, fighters, shuttles, and engineering support in a coherent combat design.

A discussion of Hellsing Ultimate separates its fictional HMS Eagle scene from the structural consequences of driving an SR-71 into a carrier at Mach 10.

They are promising all-round ASW ships with useful growth margin, and the Canadian choice of a larger hull is viewed as sensible.

Poland would overwhelm its continental opponents under the fictional premise, but strategic transport and ocean barriers would still constrain how far the force could project power.

The panel offers Warspite, Lexington, Tiger, Warrior, and Victory, favouring ships whose proportions and visible mix of old and new technology give them a distinctive silhouette.

Not very difficult: the panel suggests two Ark Royals immediately and perhaps two carriers a year without straining the system.

After a major refit with gas turbines, VLS, helicopters, and modern sensors, it could serve as a fast and highly visible status ship.

A balanced layout would be preferable: probably two quadruple turrets forward and one aft rather than an all-forward battery.

Only with funding for a full nuclear CATOBAR force; the actual STOVL choice was shaped by affordability, aircraft politics, and a cancelled five-deck plan.

They were planned with a future option in mind, but are not fitted for it; an EMALS conversion would require an extremely expensive rebuild.

No. Ship command is a specialised field, and the captain rank clearly expresses a distinct naval command path.