User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 6:42:03 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bring back the sailing frigate!!!! http://imgdump1.novarata.net/image.php?di=TDGI Made from hand cut lumber, home grown hemp, black powder made from stale piss, no fuel needed, powered by the wind...ultimate SHTF vehicle. We dont have bring that back. The Navy still has one. USS Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 6:49:29 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, you'll never hear or see that fucker coming in until you are warned you have a torpedo coming straight up your ass.  Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Battleships are very cool but nowadays I'd rather have an aircraft carrier anytime. http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/images/cv1.jpg Let's do this. One on one. Launch a battleship from Hawaii and an aircraft carrier from Washington to face off. No escort or task group. Both fully loaded. Who wins? Or, you have to dislodge, knock-down, neutralize a well entrenched enemy (let's make easy) near a beach. Which one you pick? Or, you need to rescue the population of a region ravaged by a natural disaster. Which one? What a battleship would do better? Well for question one the answer is the submarine. Yep, you'll never hear or see that fucker coming in until you are warned you have a torpedo coming straight up your ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 7:42:45 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What am I looking at here? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
nah.... lets make some of these pipe hitters instead http://i.imgur.com/2nOiiZY.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OAVqVZr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UGswgty.jpg Winner.  if we are going there.... http://2.f.ix.de/imgs/18/9/0/5/9/4/0/iron_sky2.jpg-2d81905fe4bea82c.jpeg What am I looking at here? Why the USS George W bush space battle ship of course! and armed with rail guns even 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 9:03:16 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought WW1 battleships were called "Dreadnaughts"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought WW1 battleships were called "Dreadnaughts"? The dreadnought battleship was the predominant type among the first-class navies of WW1, but not the only type. Texas is the last surviving dreadnought. Mikasa is the last surviving pre-dreadnought battleship and, though she didn't serve in WW1, is an excellent example of the types of ships in second-line service with the European great powers during WW1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 9:42:36 AM EDT
[#5]
Admirals and Generals seems to always want to fight the next war with the last war's outdated tactics and weapons systems.
The BB has had its day. There are more capable platforms available today, at much less cost, with similar lethality. Take the multiple billions of dollars necessary to design, build, supply, and man a new/renewed class of ships and delegate those funds to the people and the platforms already in service. Unless and until Red China or the Russkies start building multiple CVN platforms and advancing their navies into the Atlantic and Pacific to start WWIII lets sheath the naval saber and project power through current methods and manpower. JM2CW from a land locked state thousands of miles from any ocean! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 10:02:16 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
*snip* Did the cargo ships have to lug around many extra tons of armor/armament? 28kts is fairly quick for what it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
*snip* Did the cargo ships have to lug around many extra tons of armor/armament? 28kts is fairly quick for what it is. Keep in mind, 28 knots is the top speed; transit speeds (what the ship would do most of the time when not actually in active combat) for the Montanas would have been in the 15-knot range. That's slow. Painfully so, really. I've been on cargo ships that had transit speeds in the 30-knot range. Yes, they were 20k tons or so lighter than a Montana, but still. Heck, I've been on cargo ships built during WW2 that had transit speeds in the 18-knot range. With a single screw. Most of our current combat fleet has transit speeds in the 20-to-30 knot range as well. Too slow is too slow. Quoted:
Quoted:
snip I'm pretty sure people knew a battleship could be sunk by aircraft by the time of Pearl Harbor. Not that some old, obsolete ships by battleship standards at anchor caught unawares with the rest of the fleet really proved much of anything. Any vessel in that situation was and is inherently vulnerable. Look how fucked up the airfields got and they can't even sink... FWIW you're right about then knowing about planes , the WW2 BB's had "bomb decks" built into them for that. Plus, they expected 2000 lbs shells to hit them from high angles, so you know... that help too. Admiral Benson didn't believe in naval air. He tried to eliminate naval air in 1919 while serving as CNO. Josephus Daniels didn't either. While serving as Secretary of the Navy, he oversaw testing that reported, "The entire experiment pointed to the improbability of a modern battleship being either destroyed or completely put out of action by aerial bombs." You know who wrote that report? Captain William D. Leahy. Who ended up as CNO from 1937 to 1939, overseeing US Navy preparations for WW2. I'm sure by the time he was recalled to service in 1942, his opinions had changed. But when he was CNO, he had spent most of his naval career on big-gun surface combatants, directing gunnery schools and competition, serving on the Fire Control Board, and running BuOrd. Were there proponents of naval aviation? Sure. Admiral Moffett comes to mind. Billy Mitchell, of course (although he wanted all aviation under a single command). And Franklin Roosevelt. But the naval command and planning structure was dominated by Mahan-ite battleship admirals. That's why in 1939 the USN had 15 battleships and 37 cruisers but only 5 carriers. I really like battleships. I think they're neat. But not particularly useful in a modern threat environment. Perhaps something like the old Soviet Kiev-class heavy aviation cruiser would be useful, when paired with modern or future gunnery technologies. Heck, give it a well deck and put it in the gator navy, since it's really the Marines who most need gun support. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 11:03:59 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They'd be highly-specialized ships, and we don't do a lot of opposed beach landings these days. good thing that they did a lot of aircraft screening too. The USS North carolina most of the exhibit is about how they shoot down zeros all over the pacific. Funny thing is that they never really shot the big guns all that much because the were too big for most of the stuff they did. I suppose even in WWII things had passed them by. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 12:05:42 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why the USS George W bush space battle shit of course! and armed with rail guns even  http://youtu.be/Py_IndUbcxc http://youtu.be/xADqBnrVNBUQuote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: nah.... lets make some of these pipe hitters instead http://i.imgur.com/2nOiiZY.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OAVqVZr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UGswgty.jpg Winner. if we are going there.... http://2.f.ix.de/imgs/18/9/0/5/9/4/0/iron_sky2.jpg-2d81905fe4bea82c.jpeg What am I looking at here? Why the USS George W bush space battle shit of course! and armed with rail guns even http://youtu.be/Py_IndUbcxc http://youtu.be/xADqBnrVNBUThat thing looks like a space shuttle with a dildo sticking out of its ass.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 12:54:29 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If an LCS can destroy a BB with an ASM, can it destroy a Carrier? If so does that render carriers obsolete? Is he, and by extension you applying the architecture of smaller less robust ships and how they react to taking damage to capitol ships like Carriers and BB's? As far as likelihood of use, if that is a factor for what ships are worth using, then what is the point of having the majority of our fleet? BB's are no different than any other ship in the fleet in general, save thier method of construction being fundamentally differnt with reguards to where the strength comes from. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They're a little obsolete with the advent of long range anti-ship missiles, armed drones, carriers, and attack subs. ETA- Here's the faliure with that logic. If those things make a battleship obsolete, they make ALL surface warfare ships obsolete. BB's are better protected than MANY current ships that operate near shore such as ARG/ MEU's. When an LCS can destroy a BB with a nice Norwegian NLOS-type ASM, BBs are no longer worth the tradeoff in expense of men and material that could be lost vs. a shitty, undermanned LCS. And lets face it, both the LCS and BB are equally as likely to be used in their intended roles on the modern battlefield 
Is he, and by extension you applying the architecture of smaller less robust ships and how they react to taking damage to capitol ships like Carriers and BB's? As far as likelihood of use, if that is a factor for what ships are worth using, then what is the point of having the majority of our fleet? BB's are no different than any other ship in the fleet in general, save thier method of construction being fundamentally differnt with reguards to where the strength comes from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 12:58:23 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
http://blog.adw.org/wp-content/uploads/battleship_003.jpg http://www.g2mil.com/scramjet.jpg http://beforeitsnews.com/mediadrop/uploads/2013/52/6dc9aa15f6d21d3bdd562b5eb5bae6aae560ab79.jpg http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/05/ef/3c/05ef3c6bce18679db004735fe6702b52.jpg http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/f9/cd/6d/f9cd6dc041fa4e57883cd8d03e55385d.jpg  Trolling Dport are we? ETA, The Iowa classes were obsolete when their keels were laid. Carriers supplanted them as the more effective war ship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 1:01:59 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If we're bringing something back, let's bring back the Des Moines class Heavy Cruisers. Fully Automatic 8" guns. Fuck yeah. Your ideas intrigue me sir and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 1:23:03 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I got to tour the Salem. You don't realize how big some of that equipment is until you're standing next to a massive boiler or steam turbine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Bring back Heavy Cruisers!!!
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/REEF_Florida/CA-139_Sea_Witch-02.png I got to tour the Salem. You don't realize how big some of that equipment is until you're standing next to a massive boiler or steam turbine. I think USS Salem is one of the better preserved ships out there. Unfortunately, the museum has been closed since late last year. The pier where she was kept at has some sort of structural problem and the owners (Mass Bay Transit Authority) refused to repair it. They're finally making arrangements to get Salem moved over to pier in east Boston and she'll apparently reopen sometime next year. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 1:39:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is what I want to see as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I wanna see battleships with big ass rail guns and frickin' lasers powered by a nuclear reactor. That sounds really expensive, and we have already maxed out the credit cards. To build that, we are going to have to pinch pennies in other areas, like no more free phones, housing, food, etc., no more financial support for the UN, no more foreign aid, no more spending trillions of dollars to rebuild the foreign infrastructures that we spent trillions to blow up, etc. Everyone OK with that?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 1:54:07 PM EDT
[#14]
Honestly - sometimes I think humor would be more interesting. What if we tried to recreate the Constitution - but simply hide the tech. Make it out of something stronger than steel, put a reactor and rail guns in place of the cannons (keep the sails - for image). Just saying it would be funny if we came in with a 3 mast and then fucked them back to the stone age.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 1:57:37 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know what is happening in this thread. I don't |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 5:08:12 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I know what is happening in this thread. I don't Me neither. I think people are reminiscing about the glory days of the battleship, and pondering whether there is any future need for one. They are ridiculously expensive to maintain and fuel. But whether we need them or not, ya gotta admit those big guns are badass... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 5:10:20 PM EDT
[#17]
No no no no no and a hundred thousand million billion trillion more times no.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 5:13:12 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No no no no no and a hundred thousand million billion trillion more times no. Guess you'd rather the money be spent on buying the Afghans more C-27's? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 5:15:44 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly - sometimes I think humor would be more interesting. What if we tried to recreate the Constitution - but simply hide the tech. Make it out of something stronger than steel, put a reactor and rail guns in place of the cannons (keep the sails - for image). Just saying it would be funny if we came in with a 3 mast and then fucked them back to the stone age. fuckin laser muskets.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 5:26:11 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Admirals and Generals seems to always want to fight the next war with the last war's outdated tactics and weapons systems. You know, people say that... But what about when the next war is just a variation on a theme we've already fought? That line of reasoning falls apart. The BB has had its day. Then it was retired, then brought back and had it's day again, then was retired, then was brought back again, and had it's day, then was retired.... See a pattern? There are more capable platforms available today, at much less cost, with similar lethality. I think by that you mean there are a small handful of more expensive platforms that cost way more with similar lethality. Take the multiple billions of dollars necessary to design, build, supply, and man a new/renewed class of ships and delegate those funds to the people and the platforms already in service. Or, take the money and have four ships that work great for their role, instead of one, maybe two and a bunch of failed cast off designs. Unless and until Red China or the Russkies start building multiple CVN platforms and advancing their navies into the Atlantic and Pacific to start WWIII lets sheath the naval saber and project power through current methods and manpower. You know the way we currently project power is by sailing highly vulnerable ships through a literally shooting gallery right? lets sheath the naval saber and project power through current methods and manpower. Smaller less capable vessels that are over specialized in doing too many things? JM2CW from a land locked state thousands of miles from any ocean! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 5:43:52 PM EDT
[#21]
Rebarrel the Mk7 gun as a smoothbore.
Lob 500lb APFSDS DU rods with tail mounted guidance package out past 100 miles. Good luck stopping that with missiles, lasers or point defense guns. Also, can you imagine DU bolstered Chobham armor on a battleship? I knew you could. It's like watching a Bald Eagle give King George a star spangled facial. 'Merica. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 5:44:37 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryThis, but make it nuclear powered, fit it with some bigass AEGIS type radars, ditch most of the 5" batteries for CIWS, RAM-SAM, and Sea Sparrow type weapons, and replace the aft gun batteries with a huge-ass VLS launch complex. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 5:46:45 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This, but make it nuclear powered, fit it with some bigass AEGIS type radars, ditch most of the 5" batteries for CIWS, RAM-SAM, and Sea Sparrow type weapons, and replace the aft gun batteries with a huge-ass VLS launch complex. Quote HistoryQuoted:
This, but make it nuclear powered, fit it with some bigass AEGIS type radars, ditch most of the 5" batteries for CIWS, RAM-SAM, and Sea Sparrow type weapons, and replace the aft gun batteries with a huge-ass VLS launch complex. Fuck that. If it's nuke, you don't need the stacks. Put the VLS there. Keep all 12 Mk7A1 guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 6:37:23 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fuck that. If it's nuke, you don't need the stacks. Put the VLS there. Keep all 12 Mk7A1 guns. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This, but make it nuclear powered, fit it with some bigass AEGIS type radars, ditch most of the 5" batteries for CIWS, RAM-SAM, and Sea Sparrow type weapons, and replace the aft gun batteries with a huge-ass VLS launch complex. Fuck that. If it's nuke, you don't need the stacks. Put the VLS there. Keep all 12 Mk7A1 guns. Another thing... what to do with all the weight freed up by not needing thousands and thousands of tons of fuel? Or should some of it be retained for short legged ass pilgrim boats like destroyers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 6:47:24 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oooh good point. Plus one of the few big holes in the citadel can be closed up. Another thing... what to do with all the weight freed up by not needing thousands and thousands of tons of fuel? Or should some of it be retained for short legged ass pilgrim boats like destroyers? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This, but make it nuclear powered, fit it with some bigass AEGIS type radars, ditch most of the 5" batteries for CIWS, RAM-SAM, and Sea Sparrow type weapons, and replace the aft gun batteries with a huge-ass VLS launch complex. Fuck that. If it's nuke, you don't need the stacks. Put the VLS there. Keep all 12 Mk7A1 guns. Another thing... what to do with all the weight freed up by not needing thousands and thousands of tons of fuel? Or should some of it be retained for short legged ass pilgrim boats like destroyers? DU-Chobham Armor on a battleship is going to weigh a lot... That will easily eat all the mass saved by going nuke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 7:07:40 PM EDT
[#26]
Four pages in and nobody posted this yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 7:44:27 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Four pages in and nobody posted this yet? http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Cabn12/space_cruiser_yamato_zpsafe357cd.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 8:03:45 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Baby steps Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Four pages in and nobody posted this yet? http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Cabn12/space_cruiser_yamato_zpsafe357cd.jpg And yet she had (tons) of fighters and bombers in her hull. So, more of an aircraft carrier with big guns that could also fly. 
Quod erat demonstrandum... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 8:19:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And yet she had (tons) of fighters and bombers in her hull. So, more of an aircraft carrier with big guns that could also fly. http://freakengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/yamato3.jpg Quod erat demonstrandum... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Four pages in and nobody posted this yet? http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Cabn12/space_cruiser_yamato_zpsafe357cd.jpg And yet she had (tons) of fighters and bombers in her hull. So, more of an aircraft carrier with big guns that could also fly. http://freakengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/yamato3.jpg Quod erat demonstrandum... Battleship threads always bring out short sighted people who can't think holistically. Those types of people are always like "If you have A, then you can't have B" when in fact there is amazingly room in the world for both to operate independently and jointly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 8:48:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which inadvertently brings up a great point. Battleship threads always bring out short sighted people who can't think holistically. Those types of people are always like "If you have A, then you can't have B" when in fact there is amazingly room in the world for both to operate independently and jointly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Four pages in and nobody posted this yet? http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Cabn12/space_cruiser_yamato_zpsafe357cd.jpg And yet she had (tons) of fighters and bombers in her hull. So, more of an aircraft carrier with big guns that could also fly.
http://freakengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/yamato3.jpg Quod erat demonstrandum... Battleship threads always bring out short sighted people who can't think holistically. Those types of people are always like "If you have A, then you can't have B" when in fact there is amazingly room in the world for both to operate independently and jointly. Let's say the battleships are A and aircraft carriers B. It's not a matter of "if you have A you cannot have B". It is a matter of "does it really make sense to have A"? Can A survive without B? And vice versa? How versatile and flexible is A vs. B? How efficient is A vs. B? How often are big guns better than missles? How often are big guns better than airplanes? WW II sealed the fate of the big battleships. To be honest, I think that even in WW I they were already outdated. I agree it was cool seeing what improvements could keep the couple left ones up to speed with the modern warfare requirements. But look at the last times they were used and tell me an aircraft carrier, an Aegis destroyer, a submarine or B1 and B2 bombers did not do the same job better? What can a big battleship do that one of those cannot do better?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 9:01:06 PM EDT
[#31]
Battleships are naval equivalent of the tactical shotgun. They'll do in a pinch, but a CVN, the self loading rifle equivalent, will do many more things much better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 9:04:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Anyone see Space Battleship Yamato? all the self sacrifice in that film really bummed me out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 9:08:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's say the battleships are A and aircraft carriers B. It's not a matter of "if you have A you cannot have B". It is a matter of "does it really make sense to have A"? Can A survive without B? And vice versa? How versatile and flexible is A vs. B? How efficient is A vs. B? How often are big guns better than missles? How often are big guns better than airplanes? WW II sealed the fate of the big battleships. To be honest, I think that even in WW I they were already outdated. I agree it was cool seeing what improvements could keep the couple left ones up to speed with the modern warfare requirements. But look at the last times they were used and tell me an aircraft carrier, an Aegis destroyer, a submarine or B1 and B2 bombers did not do the same job better? What can a big battleship do that one of those cannot do better?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Four pages in and nobody posted this yet? http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y106/Cabn12/space_cruiser_yamato_zpsafe357cd.jpg And yet she had (tons) of fighters and bombers in her hull. So, more of an aircraft carrier with big guns that could also fly.
http://freakengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/yamato3.jpg Quod erat demonstrandum... Battleship threads always bring out short sighted people who can't think holistically. Those types of people are always like "If you have A, then you can't have B" when in fact there is amazingly room in the world for both to operate independently and jointly. Let's say the battleships are A and aircraft carriers B. It's not a matter of "if you have A you cannot have B". It is a matter of "does it really make sense to have A"? Can A survive without B? And vice versa? How versatile and flexible is A vs. B? How efficient is A vs. B? How often are big guns better than missles? How often are big guns better than airplanes? WW II sealed the fate of the big battleships. To be honest, I think that even in WW I they were already outdated. I agree it was cool seeing what improvements could keep the couple left ones up to speed with the modern warfare requirements. But look at the last times they were used and tell me an aircraft carrier, an Aegis destroyer, a submarine or B1 and B2 bombers did not do the same job better? What can a big battleship do that one of those cannot do better?
*sigh* The same lack of foresight that stalled the employment of Aircraft Carriers as the center of gravity for naval power is likewise hampering your perception of the future battleship. Fact: Point defenses and missile countermeasures get better every year. Russia and China are currently pouring money into their development. Between anti-missile missiles, DEWs and advanced point-dense gun/barrage systems, the days of the missile as an effective anti-ship weapon are numbered. If surface combatants are to remain relevant, robust anti-ship weapons must be developed. Fact: A laser is not going to do shit to a 500lb Deleted Uranium rod. Fact: A missile probably isn't going to do much to it either. Fact: A gun? lol. p = m * v bitch. 16" smoothbore Mk7A1 firing APFSDS-GB for the win. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 9:19:22 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Let's say the battleships are A and aircraft carriers B. It's not a matter of "if you have A you cannot have B". It is a matter of "does it really make sense to have A"? Only if you make it make sense. Makes more sense than paying for and not having C. Can A survive without B? And vice versa? Doesn't matter if that's not the issue. How versatile and flexible is A vs. B? Once again, that's not an issue if the point is how well can A or B or A and B accomplish a needed mission. How efficient is A vs. B? Or, you know, mission. How often are big guns better than missles? When they can do the same job, cheaper. How often are big guns better than airplanes? When you don't want to risk jillion dollar specialized aircraft. WW II sealed the fate of the big battleships. Into decades of on again off again service where they were needed to fill a role that other ships couldn't fill. To be honest, I think that even in WW I they were already outdated. Except for the uncanny ability many of them had to resist massive amounts of damage, and take absurd amounts of resources away from other areas. I agree it was cool seeing what improvements could keep the couple left ones up to speed with the modern warfare requirements. If you follow the history of them, they were kept modern over time and kept pace with other boats still in service. But look at the last times they were used and tell me an aircraft carrier, an Aegis destroyer, a submarine or B1 and B2 bombers did not do the same job better? Did any of those ever get enemy troops to straight up surrender? What can a big battleship do that one of those cannot do better? Part in the port of some shit head third world dictator point the big ass gun inland and point a big middle finger with the word "diplomacy" on it. Quote HistoryQuoted: snip Let's say the battleships are A and aircraft carriers B. It's not a matter of "if you have A you cannot have B". It is a matter of "does it really make sense to have A"? Only if you make it make sense. Makes more sense than paying for and not having C. Can A survive without B? And vice versa? Doesn't matter if that's not the issue. How versatile and flexible is A vs. B? Once again, that's not an issue if the point is how well can A or B or A and B accomplish a needed mission. How efficient is A vs. B? Or, you know, mission. How often are big guns better than missles? When they can do the same job, cheaper. How often are big guns better than airplanes? When you don't want to risk jillion dollar specialized aircraft. WW II sealed the fate of the big battleships. Into decades of on again off again service where they were needed to fill a role that other ships couldn't fill. To be honest, I think that even in WW I they were already outdated. Except for the uncanny ability many of them had to resist massive amounts of damage, and take absurd amounts of resources away from other areas. I agree it was cool seeing what improvements could keep the couple left ones up to speed with the modern warfare requirements. If you follow the history of them, they were kept modern over time and kept pace with other boats still in service. But look at the last times they were used and tell me an aircraft carrier, an Aegis destroyer, a submarine or B1 and B2 bombers did not do the same job better? Did any of those ever get enemy troops to straight up surrender? What can a big battleship do that one of those cannot do better? Part in the port of some shit head third world dictator point the big ass gun inland and point a big middle finger with the word "diplomacy" on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2014 9:47:17 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
*sigh* can't wait for "World of Warships" to open up. this |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 6:27:50 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More things change, the more things stay the same. We fought retard Arabs in the beginning of our countries history. We fight retard Arabs now. Time to get back to basics. Big guns, Marines, and mercenaries have proven to be effective. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
snip
Let's say the battleships are A and aircraft carriers B. It's not a matter of "if you have A you cannot have B". It is a matter of "does it really make sense to have A"? Only if you make it make sense. Makes more sense than paying for and not having C. Can A survive without B? And vice versa? Doesn't matter if that's not the issue. How versatile and flexible is A vs. B? Once again, that's not an issue if the point is how well can A or B or A and B accomplish a needed mission. How efficient is A vs. B? Or, you know, mission. How often are big guns better than missles? When they can do the same job, cheaper. How often are big guns better than airplanes? When you don't want to risk jillion dollar specialized aircraft. WW II sealed the fate of the big battleships. Into decades of on again off again service where they were needed to fill a role that other ships couldn't fill. To be honest, I think that even in WW I they were already outdated. Except for the uncanny ability many of them had to resist massive amounts of damage, and take absurd amounts of resources away from other areas. I agree it was cool seeing what improvements could keep the couple left ones up to speed with the modern warfare requirements. If you follow the history of them, they were kept modern over time and kept pace with other boats still in service. But look at the last times they were used and tell me an aircraft carrier, an Aegis destroyer, a submarine or B1 and B2 bombers did not do the same job better? Did any of those ever get enemy troops to straight up surrender? What can a big battleship do that one of those cannot do better? Part in the port of some shit head third world dictator point the big ass gun inland and point a big middle finger with the word "diplomacy" on it.
You have a point. History is a big circle and things tend to come back. However...beware... "Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 6:36:10 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You have a point. History is a big circle and things tend to come back. However...beware... "Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them." I think you're on to something!!! That's a great idea you've inspired! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 6:53:48 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, since we've lost more carriers to combat than battleships, carriers are a mistake and we should get rid of them and use battleships? I think you're on to something!!! That's a great idea you've inspired! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You have a point. History is a big circle and things tend to come back. However...beware... "Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them."
I think you're on to something!!! That's a great idea you've inspired! Indeed. Since the Jutland the admirals were afraid of committing their battleships. And any battleship that got in a brawl against a carrier is now resting in the bottom of the sea. Furthermore, for some reason, carriers were a preferred target in a battle. I wonder why.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 7:00:56 PM EDT
[#39]
So what we really want is a Ford-class with three 18" turrets forward - do flight ops of the waist cats
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 7:03:23 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No no no no no and a hundred thousand million billion trillion more times no. So that's a maybe?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 7:10:40 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryI'm pretty sure we do not currently have the capability to build anything resembling that. I'm not even sure we could make the capability in a timely manner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 7:14:03 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So what we really want is a Ford-class with three 18" turrets forward - do flight ops of the waist cats |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 7:17:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Wish they were still viable. Love them big guns!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 7:23:27 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wish they were still viable. Love them big guns! Physics hasn't changed, seamanship hasn't changed, smashing assholes with giant rifles hasn't changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 7:52:08 PM EDT
[#45]
The age of the battleship is gone.
But I do love the lines of the Iowa. Pretty much the most beautiful warship ever built. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 8:01:22 PM EDT
[#46]
Only if you also promise to bring back ZEPPELINS!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 8:03:39 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Only if you also promise to bring back ZEPPELINS! http://www.thehistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Graf-Zeppelin-draws-a-crowd.jpg 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 8:14:09 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Take an aircraft carrier and weld a battleship to each side of it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 8:22:31 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why the USS George W bush space battle shit of course! and armed with rail guns even
http://youtu.be/Py_IndUbcxc
http://youtu.be/xADqBnrVNBUQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
nah.... lets make some of these pipe hitters instead http://i.imgur.com/2nOiiZY.jpg http://i.imgur.com/OAVqVZr.jpg http://i.imgur.com/UGswgty.jpg Winner. if we are going there.... http://2.f.ix.de/imgs/18/9/0/5/9/4/0/iron_sky2.jpg-2d81905fe4bea82c.jpeg What am I looking at here? Why the USS George W bush space battle shit of course! and armed with rail guns even
http://youtu.be/Py_IndUbcxc
http://youtu.be/xADqBnrVNBUOk, I watched this movie last night, and I have to say... Space Nazi's, Chicks with big tits, and space battles... What's not to like? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 8:34:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Only if you also promise to bring back ZEPPELINS! http://www.thehistoryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Graf-Zeppelin-draws-a-crowd.jpg  Done. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
