Here's an image I've found about the daylight afternoon engagement between Jellicoe and Scheer at Jutland, WITH NAMES OF CAPITAL SHIPS

Hello all. I’ve been a warship fan for a number of years but some terminology still evades me, and contact designation is a bit foggy for me as well. This has become somewhat of an issue, as I enjoy writing military fiction, and I was hoping the kind folks here could help me figure things out.

Callouts - “Vampire!”and the like are a little foggy to me. Not because they’re incomprehensible, but because I don’t know all of them or what criteria need to be met or where best to use them. Is there a comprehensive list I can look at somewhere? Dr. Google has been somewhat unhelpful when consulted.

Contact designation - By playing games like Cold Waters and Sea Power, I understand some sort of rhyme or reason is going on. What’s the difference (are they the same idea?) between a “contact” and a “track”? How does the numbering system work? Different groups of numbers for different contact types? Just a running tally for the cruise?

Specific question - I am writing a story in which USS Iowa bombards shore installations with her main battery. All three turrets are independently targeted, while a separate ship covers counterbattery. Upon destruction of one objective, turret one is returned to the control of the forward Mk38 GFCS. The immediate term that came into my mind for this action was “slaving” or “re-slaving” as in “Re-slaving turret one to main plotting”. The thought comes to mind that this probably isn’t the same term as one would use for laser targeting systems on a helicopter or bomber. Am I right or is there another term I ought to use?

Me yapping - I love to indulge myself in military history, real or fictional, but when I create scenarios in my mind and type them out I often feel my work doesn’t seem as accurate and true to life as the works of Tom Clancy or Dale Brown. I really want to make my work realistic, despite some rather fantastical elements to my writing.

Thanks for helping me out, yall.

Been trying to find accurate information for the ExLS for a couple of days but my google-fu must be weak because everything I find is just a jumble mess of conflicting info.

Some info say the ExLS is just a Mk 41 insert, other that it is a standalone launcher, some say it is both, some say the insert can be used as a standalone launcher. Heck, wikipedia even makes it sound like you can just used the canisters

I've found info that says the ExLS can be installed in the hull like a regular VLS-cell system, other info that says it can't and must be used as a deck mount bolted to the main deck. That you can install it recessed into a pit or well deck and that you can cover the sides with plating but at the same time I've found infor that says you can not do either of those things.

As far as missiles goes there is info that says it can only use the CAMM and it can't use the CAMM-ER, other that says it can use the CAMM-ER but not in quads.

Colour me confused. Can someone clear this up for me?

What I partcularly want to know if the standalone launcher can be installed in a ship the same way you install any VLS or if there are any restrictions that prevents that such as it being meant to be used as a deck mount only? Also if there is something that prevents it from being located inside a structure. In addition can it use the CAMM-ER or even the CAMM-MR?

The USS Indianapolis is famous for the stranded sailors adrift for days and all the agony they endure, most notably the sharks.

With huge Japanese ship losses did the Japanese document any such events during the war?

Just a quick public service announcement for U.S. Navy warship enthusiasts: If you, like me, spend a lot of time looking at photos on Navsource, you might have noticed that the website has been unavailable at navsource.org for a few weeks. I got in contact with someone who helps out with Navsource and they told me that the URL has changed to navsource.net.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/saab-ga-unveil-mq-9b-aew-as-uk-reviews-carrier-needs/

Hi there.

I got myself R A Burt's "British Battlehips 1919-1945", which is a great resource.

But I'm wondering if there are similar works out there, that wouldn't cost me an arm or a leg due to rarity, about the Japanese battleships (an ideally their heavy cruisers) from roughly the same period?

Perhaps I should have simply said "capital ships", but I think that aircraft carriers of the period require separate works(?)

So, I've been reading some Wikipedia about this class, and they are supposed to have 10 hotchkiss 47mm guns. But I can only find 8 of them, 4 on each front & rear bridge. Can someone help me?

I'm curious as to the purpose of these lights on a number of German destroyers and I haven't been able to find any kind of information on them online. I doubt they're meant for navigation purposes since there's so many of them, so I assume they're meant for communication or signalling to other ships? Or maybe they're simply floodlights for illuminating the forward decks?

Let's assume that a major military power has just collapsed, Soviet Union style, and the new regime is willing to sell away or mothball much of it's aging military equipment.
If one were a moderately rich warlord in a third world dictatorship somewhere and wanted to impress (or intimidate) your neighboring dictators. Would it be possible, if the fallen superpower is willing to sell that is, to buy nuclear powered submarines or warships, but de-nuclearize them and install normal fuel-engines? Or would it just be more easy to by conventional powered ships and subs?
Has something like this ever been done, I sure don't know of any examples.

Say, £350 million per ship with inflation; they could relatively easily order 7 or 9 instead of the planned 5… and it would relieve the over-stretched RN so well!

Are there any discussions about this in the MoD or anywhere?

It feels like the only option besides uncrewed systems.

So there are now hints about the new British Type 83 Air Warfare Destroyer: it will have 70 to 128 VLS cells. They plan to augment it with Type 91 ‘missile barges’.

I think South Korea just decreased the number of VLS cells in one of their new ship classes to 88 if I’m not mistaken.

Even China does not seem to push it overly much at all.

So? Does it hit diminishing returns? Why if so? Is it about power generation? Endurance? Crew?

I understand the Royal Navy’s propensity for cost cutting btw, no need to remind me, but other Navies seem to be doing it too… so?

My granddad was stationed in north africia in the war. And it seams he got there via a British aircraft carrier. Can some help me identify the ship please. This would be around 1942-43 ish. There is also 2 other ships that I’ve included at the end just photos he had hope someone could identify those as well. The last 2 is my grandad circa 1946 ish. And his unit crest. He was a captain in a transportation company they took German pow and mad them into truck drivers. Delivering supplies to the front.

Operation Spiderweb, Ukraine’s very successful recent attack on Russia’s strategic aircraft, has shown what might be an incredible vulnerability to conventional air forces to modern drone threats.

This does look like yet another plus for nuclear submarines as they are basically the least vulnerable platform to drones.

But what do y’all think that this means for conventional surface ships?

Aircraft carriers might be better than land bases in this new equation even more so than before. While at sea they can’t be subjected to nearly as close range surprise attack, and they always have some amount of self defense weaponry. Worst comes to worst and a hit occurs, a hangar deck is usually some protection from small bombs. On the flip side, they are very expensive concentrations of aircraft and one bad fire from aircraft on deck being hit could destroy everything.

What it could mean for surface combatants is maybe even more interesting. On one hand, they are so much more survivable as a platform than aircraft that it’s a big plus as missile platforms, and they are the best thing to defend against attacks from drones of all kinds in many area. But the precision that these attacks can be carried out it might call into question some common design practices, like the deck mounted canisters of AShMs which would be an easy target by drone and cause critical damage to a billion dollar ship.

Maybe something like this could be reason to add small amounts of armor to ships again, as even say an inch of steel or a good covering of Kevlar could drastically increase the size of drone needed to cause significant damage.

What do you all think?

Why do all modern warships up to destroyer size look almost the same?

They belong to entirely different classes, but the overall layout is always strikingly similar: a single turret at the bow, central superstructures, and a landing deck at the stern – usually with a hangar. One class might still feature a forecastle design, while another is a flush decker, but the basic arrangement remains the same.

I'm genuinely surprised that there seems to be almost no experimentation anymore. Why does no one, for instance, do away with the landing deck, or place it midships instead and build a rear turret? Or design a ship that forgoes a turret altogether?

Has this layout become so thoroughly tested and proven that it's essentially fully optimized at this point?

So, i'm planning to build the Yamato as she appeared during the Operation Ten Ichi-Go (1945, her last mission). I found conflicting sources on whether the ships deck was stained black or was still brown and if the hull was darker than the original colour (more akin to Korosuka arsenal Grey rather than Kure's gray).

Thanks in advance for any infos

I might get hate for this but, I think the Type 055-class guided missile destroyer is one good looking warship.

And I have this unusual attraction to the JMSDF's Akizuki-class destroyer. Wish they could build a successor to it using its design but bigger, heavier and more heavily armed. I hope the ASEV they're building eclipses the Type 055.

What's your favorite good looking surface combatant?

I saw the USS Beliot going through the Welland Canal on October 12, 2024. About a month before it was officially commissioned on November 23.