User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 8:38:46 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. the recoil of a 16" turret is going to make that a very fun ride |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2014 8:48:42 PM EDT
[#2]
I love the old battleships but they are out dated with air power taking over. I would have loved to hear one of those big guns clear it's throat a time or two though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2014 7:01:34 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, 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? yup, a bit hokey but a pretty good movie. and I love the space battle 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2014 1:35:48 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Battleship Cove was a fun place as a kid. http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h46000/h46430.jpg and lol at the thread  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Battleship Cove was a fun place as a kid. http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h46000/h46430.jpg and lol at the thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2014 2:14:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love the old battleships but they are out dated with air power taking over. I would have loved to hear one of those big guns clear it's throat a time or two though. Also, there's the future to think of. What happens when high energy weapons become more prevalent? What good will air power be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2014 2:59:27 PM EDT
[#6]
dport    |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2014 4:21:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
dport
dport is my new ARFHero.
He deserves a Nobel Prize in Trolling. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2014 7:07:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
dport
What happened to dport? Did he get command of an LCS or something equally horrible??? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2014 7:09:36 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What happened to dport? Did he get command of an LCS or something equally horrible??? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
dport
What happened to dport? Did he get command of an LCS or something equally horrible??? Even worse... He split personalities, between a normally tolerable dport, and an infuriating troll by the name of shoeh8ter. NorCal called him out, and now he has been temporarily banned from this site. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2014 10:36:03 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even worse... He split personalities, between a normally tolerable dport, and an infuriating troll by the name of shoeh8ter. NorCal called him out, and now he has been temporarily banned from this site. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
dport
What happened to dport? Did he get command of an LCS or something equally horrible??? Even worse... He split personalities, between a normally tolerable dport, and an infuriating troll by the name of shoeh8ter. NorCal called him out, and now he has been temporarily banned from this site. His punishment should be that he has to argue in favor of battleships in any thread on the subject.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 12:21:36 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They'd be highly-specialized ships, and we don't do a lot of opposed beach landings these days. This. You could put a lot of VLS cells and big gun turrets on a barge and tow them around for a lot less money and get the same end effect on the bad guys. Although, I will admit that having a lot of mass to assist with 16" gun recoil is helpful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 12:22:15 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We can build more! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Aren't they all stricken from the Navy roster?:( We can build more! Where and with what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 12:29:36 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice models. I see the 5"/38 DP guns have been replaced with 5"/54? They save a lot of personnel space. She certainly looks cleaner. Although you reach a point of diminishing returns by reducing people too far. When I was First LT on the Horne I had 63 non-rates to man First Division. The First Lt on the Paul Foster had a manning level of about 24 non-rates to perform the same duties. While both of us had enough to fill all the GQ stations, he couldn't man the small boats, do the painting, other maintenance etc etc. IIRC the 5"38 needed something like 24 -28 men to operate the gun system. The 5" 54 was down around 10-12. That's fine for shooting, CO's have to keep the ship clean to get promoted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 12:29:45 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're only outdated when people don't have the foresight to understand they can be used for all sorts of things. Even if it's intermittently. Also, there's the future to think of. What happens when high energy weapons become more prevalent? What good will air power be? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I love the old battleships but they are out dated with air power taking over. I would have loved to hear one of those big guns clear it's throat a time or two though. Also, there's the future to think of. What happens when high energy weapons become more prevalent? What good will air power be? What if air power also has high energy weapons? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 12:45:28 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
His punishment should be that he has to argue in favor of battleships in any thread on the subject. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
dport
What happened to dport? Did he get command of an LCS or something equally horrible??? Even worse... He split personalities, between a normally tolerable dport, and an infuriating troll by the name of shoeh8ter. NorCal called him out, and now he has been temporarily banned from this site. His punishment should be that he has to argue in favor of battleships in any thread on the subject. Paging NorCal... Paging NorCal... We have a better punishment. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 12:49:10 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even worse... He split personalities, between a normally tolerable dport, and an infuriating troll by the name of shoeh8ter. NorCal called him out, and now he has been temporarily banned from this site. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
dport
What happened to dport? Did he get command of an LCS or something equally horrible??? Even worse... He split personalities, between a normally tolerable dport, and an infuriating troll by the name of shoeh8ter. NorCal called him out, and now he has been temporarily banned from this site. Seriously? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 12:49:39 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if air power also has high energy weapons? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I love the old battleships but they are out dated with air power taking over. I would have loved to hear one of those big guns clear it's throat a time or two though. Also, there's the future to think of. What happens when high energy weapons become more prevalent? What good will air power be? What if air power also has high energy weapons? Unless it's a flying battlehip it's gonna get smoked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 12:51:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wouldn't matter if they can't take a hit. Unless it's a flying battlehip it's gonna get smoked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love the old battleships but they are out dated with air power taking over. I would have loved to hear one of those big guns clear it's throat a time or two though. Also, there's the future to think of. What happens when high energy weapons become more prevalent? What good will air power be? What if air power also has high energy weapons? Unless it's a flying battlehip it's gonna get smoked. Yup. When it comes to lasers, thermal capacity is the name of the game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 12:52:30 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Take an aircraft carrier and weld a battleship to each side of it.  http://i743.photobucket.com/albums/xx80/TheChaos0/mind-blown-2.gif Baby SDF-1 I like it!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 2:00:14 AM EDT
[#20]
Here's a pic that sort of shows why BB's radically different structure of the hull makes them more survivable/ recoverable.
 Here's the Zumwalt for comparison.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 2:20:27 AM EDT
[#21]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 3:01:50 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 3:37:56 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carriers are threatened by everything on the ocean, and carriers threaten everything on the ocean, because of their ability to bring aircraft--and by extension, airborne ISR--to the playing field. The argument could certainly be made that carriers ARE obsolete, but to do so would be hilarious and untrue. On their own, however, they're rather vulnerable--which is why there are strike groups formed around them, just like with damn near any other capital ship. Forming a strike group to defend a slow, heavy, lumbering ship whose primary purpose is to bring short-range kinetic pain to an enemy is stupid, and if you say "what about cruise missiles"--well, DDs already do that. The LCS is a POS, but it can take out a BB with ASM. BBs are a floating target like CVNs, but unlike CVNs cannot bring airborne assets to the playing field--either to defend itself, or for offensive purposes. BBs take more manpower and maintenance than damn near anything afloat, and the rational cost/benefit analysis just makes them keep losing. The majority of our fleet can do a number of things that BBs cannot, and BBs can do things--surface bombardment--that if we were really insistent on getting a surface vessel close enough to shore/within A2AD range to perform, would be done by any number of vessels less expensive in terms of manpower and material. This is all presuming the BB would even be able to arrive before the USAF bombed the ever living fuck out of everything, because bureaucratic institutions will turf war like never before if the role of either is threatened. If you're talking about "intended purpose" for a number of other vessels, they get used for their intended purposes all the time. Even boomers play a role in deterrence, merely by existing, and many other vessels would certainly play a role in open oceanic conflict that would overlap with BBs....except they're already in service. You're right, BB's are no different.....except for being much more maintenance intensive, archaic, old, more difficult to source parts, staffing, and logistical train to support. Their mere size and prestige instantly relegates them to capital ship status, and thereby a massive floating target.....except that it brings none of the benefits of a CVN, and all that a BB could bring to the table--surface bombardment--could be performed by other vessels if we were dumb enough to bring them that close to shore (within active A2AD range). And if you say "what about if A2AD is destroyed"--well, the area's been bombed, so what's the point of a BB? Sorry, but BBs still lose. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. The LCS is a POS, but it can take out a BB with ASM. BBs are a floating target like CVNs, but unlike CVNs cannot bring airborne assets to the playing field--either to defend itself, or for offensive purposes. BBs take more manpower and maintenance than damn near anything afloat, and the rational cost/benefit analysis just makes them keep losing. The majority of our fleet can do a number of things that BBs cannot, and BBs can do things--surface bombardment--that if we were really insistent on getting a surface vessel close enough to shore/within A2AD range to perform, would be done by any number of vessels less expensive in terms of manpower and material. This is all presuming the BB would even be able to arrive before the USAF bombed the ever living fuck out of everything, because bureaucratic institutions will turf war like never before if the role of either is threatened. If you're talking about "intended purpose" for a number of other vessels, they get used for their intended purposes all the time. Even boomers play a role in deterrence, merely by existing, and many other vessels would certainly play a role in open oceanic conflict that would overlap with BBs....except they're already in service. You're right, BB's are no different.....except for being much more maintenance intensive, archaic, old, more difficult to source parts, staffing, and logistical train to support. Their mere size and prestige instantly relegates them to capital ship status, and thereby a massive floating target.....except that it brings none of the benefits of a CVN, and all that a BB could bring to the table--surface bombardment--could be performed by other vessels if we were dumb enough to bring them that close to shore (within active A2AD range). And if you say "what about if A2AD is destroyed"--well, the area's been bombed, so what's the point of a BB? Sorry, but BBs still lose. That is one of the stupidest assertions I've seen on a monitor. Do you think BBs are defenseless and thin-skinned? Do you think they, or CVNs for that matter, wander around all by their lonesome, without dedicated area defense missile ships, and ASW ships, including SSN's in support? And they ALWAYS WERE capital ships. In our stupidity,we now have DDGs that are for all intents and purposes capital ships. We can't afford to lose a DDG-51, let alone a DDG-1000. About the only ships that are not essential these days are your beloved LCS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 3:41:18 AM EDT
[#24]
Upgrade the USS Texas
 old girl could kill again
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 3:44:48 AM EDT
[#25]
I don't know about refitting the Iowas, but wouldn't a modern battleship be essentially just like the Russian Kirov? I.E. a big, nuclear-powered ship with a ton of missiles and guns.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 6:24:19 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What if we could have 4 Iowa's modernized and operational for the cost of a single Zumwalt? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No. It is not the material costs, it is the personnel costs that would make it impossible. Each BB had approx. 2 LHA/LHDs worth of crews on them and the Navy has been getting rid of ships to save crews |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 6:40:47 AM EDT
[#27]
A great fantasy but not cost effective. Get a bowl of popcorn and watch "Battleship" for your fantasy fix.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 6:45:06 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wouldn't matter if they can't take a hit. Unless it's a flying battlehip it's gonna get smoked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I love the old battleships but they are out dated with air power taking over. I would have loved to hear one of those big guns clear it's throat a time or two though. Also, there's the future to think of. What happens when high energy weapons become more prevalent? What good will air power be? What if air power also has high energy weapons? Unless it's a flying battlehip it's gonna get smoked. By comparison, airplanes have always been lighter and more fragile than battleships. Yet... Ask the Bismarck, Yamato, Tirpitz, Musashi, etc. crews what do they think about those "little fragile airplanes". By the way, the Tirpitz and the Yamato virtually spent the whole war hiding in their ports because their navies knew what would happen the moment they stuck their heads out. The Bismarck and the Musashi showed that. I'm not denying battleships are cool. However, their roles are (very) very limited for the cost they represent. Now that we can launch and land drones from aircraft carriers the leap between them and the battleships got a lot bigger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 6:46:18 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We also need sub carriers.
http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2011/dyatomi/dyatomi_03.jpg And the Hindenburg airship as a super bomber. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 6:49:02 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryThe Olympia is still around it had wwi duty |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:07:48 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: snip By comparison, airplanes have always been lighter and more fragile than battleships. Yet... Ask the Bismarck, Yamato, Tirpitz, Musashi, etc. crews what do they think about those "little fragile airplanes". By the way, the Tirpitz and the Yamato virtually spent the whole war hiding in their ports because their navies knew what would happen the moment they stuck their heads out. The Bismarck and the Musashi showed that. I'm not denying battleships are cool. However, their roles are (very) very limited for the cost they represent. Now that we can launch and land drones from aircraft carriers the leap between them and the battleships got a lot bigger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:13:53 AM EDT
[#32]
As a taxpayer, I can think of about five hundred things I hate that my money funds.
Battleships, much like the USS Constitution are one of the coolest things this country has ever produced. There are others too, like the SR-71 and the B-17. We ought to have an entire branch of the military devoted to maintaining a fleet of obsolete war machines just to display and parade around to show how fucking great we are. And every now and then, just show the flag every once in a while...how fucking cool would it be (in an area of complete air superiority) to conduct strafing runs in a squadron of P-47s or have a wing of B-17s do a low-flying bombing run on a bunch of assholes who need killing in style? The Brits could kill shit with Vulcan bombers and destroy dams in Lancasters. Go hunt Somali pirates in the USS Constitution...it will be like old times.
I would champion a politician that supported this idea. Even as a libertarian. Because 'Murica, FUCK YEAH. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:14:14 AM EDT
[#33]
Sort of? I'll take 7!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:17:46 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the Hindenburg airship as a super bomber. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: We also need sub carriers. http://www.igorstshirts.com/blog/conceptships/2011/dyatomi/dyatomi_03.jpg And the Hindenburg airship as a super bomber. Done...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:20:02 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is not the material costs, it is the personnel costs that would make it impossible. Each BB had approx. 2 LHA/LHDs worth of crews on them and the Navy has been getting rid of ships to save crews Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No. It is not the material costs, it is the personnel costs that would make it impossible. Each BB had approx. 2 LHA/LHDs worth of crews on them and the Navy has been getting rid of ships to save crews A another round of modernization would further reduce crew size, even if it only brought things up to early 2000's levels of technology and 2 is an American't problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:22:25 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A great fantasy but not cost effective. Get a bowl of popcorn and watch "Battleship" for your fantasy fix. Saying battleships are not worth the cost is one of the most toothless arguments available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:23:01 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You talking about those battleships that had to be killed by attrition? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip By comparison, airplanes have always been lighter and more fragile than battleships. Yet... Ask the Bismarck, Yamato, Tirpitz, Musashi, etc. crews what do they think about those "little fragile airplanes". By the way, the Tirpitz and the Yamato virtually spent the whole war hiding in their ports because their navies knew what would happen the moment they stuck their heads out. The Bismarck and the Musashi showed that. I'm not denying battleships are cool. However, their roles are (very) very limited for the cost they represent. Now that we can launch and land drones from aircraft carriers the leap between them and the battleships got a lot bigger. I don't think there is much attrition when it comes to cruise and anti-ship missiles the Chinese and Ruskies are putting out. Then again, I don't think any ship, carrier or not, can handle that much punishment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:31:47 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think there is much attrition when it comes to cruise and anti-ship missiles the Chinese and Ruskies are putting out. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You talking about those battleships that had to be killed by attrition? I don't think there is much attrition when it comes to cruise and anti-ship missiles the Chinese and Ruskies are putting out. Then again, I don't think any ship, carrier or not, can handle that much punishment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:33:59 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is not the material costs, it is the personnel costs that would make it impossible. Each BB had approx. 2 LHA/LHDs worth of crews on them and the Navy has been getting rid of ships to save crews Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
No. It is not the material costs, it is the personnel costs that would make it impossible. Each BB had approx. 2 LHA/LHDs worth of crews on them and the Navy has been getting rid of ships to save crews On legacy ships, approximately 2/3 of the life cycle cost was personnel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:40:12 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You talking about those battleships that had to be killed by attrition? Pretty sure he's talking about the battleships that almost no effect on WWII beyond the Battle off Samar, where the vaunted Yamato SAG was bested by some old DEs and jeep carriers. Even in that battle, the Yamato SAG was unable to achieve its objective of attacking the amphibious landing forces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:47:55 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pretty sure he's talking about the battleships that almost no effect on WWII beyond the Battle off Samar, where the vaunted Yamato SAG was bested by some old DEs and jeep carriers. Even in that battle, the Yamato SAG was unable to achieve its objective of attacking the amphibious landing forces. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You talking about those battleships that had to be killed by attrition? Pretty sure he's talking about the battleships that almost no effect on WWII beyond the Battle off Samar, where the vaunted Yamato SAG was bested by some old DEs and jeep carriers. Even in that battle, the Yamato SAG was unable to achieve its objective of attacking the amphibious landing forces.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:51:13 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Take an aircraft carrier and weld a battleship to each side of it. a battlemaran |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:55:24 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You talking about those battleships that had to be killed by attrition? I don't think there is much attrition when it comes to cruise and anti-ship missiles the Chinese and Ruskies are putting out. Then again, I don't think any ship, carrier or not, can handle that much punishment. Now did I say that specifically? In a modern slugfest if we were to go up against China or Russia, although I am highly doubtful of that, how well would these ships survive against Chinese and Ruskie cruise missiles? It's just something to think about. No ship would survive a cruise missile attack. I don't even think that there's a definition of attrition on the modern battlefield when it comes to naval warfare. I'll paint a picture for you but without fighting the Chinese or Russians. Now lets say some third world dictator gains control of some random Caribbean island and starts to micromanage everything. The Russians and Chinese support his efforts to destabilize the region and so they send him arms, armor, a couple of ships, and some brand spanking new cruise missiles that can wreck havoc on any ship sailing the high seas. We decide to intervene because we don't like how he is planning on invading Panama and taking the canal and decides to cock-block us. We send in a carrier and a battleship along with the invasion force. Said dictator says it's a good time to show how big his dick is and sends 20+ cruise missiles towards the carrier, battleship, and the invasion force. How well would that battleship and carrier fare against an overwhelming number of cruise missiles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 10:57:11 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
a battlemaran Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Take an aircraft carrier and weld a battleship to each side of it. a battlemaran Submarine captains would call that a "buy one get two free". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:14:52 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Then again, I don't think any ship, carrier or not, can handle that much punishment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you saying the , Yamato, Tirpitz, Musashi etc were killed by anti-ship missiles the Chinese and Russians are putting out? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You talking about those battleships that had to be killed by attrition? I don't think there is much attrition when it comes to cruise and anti-ship missiles the Chinese and Ruskies are putting out. Then again, I don't think any ship, carrier or not, can handle that much punishment. Now did I say that specifically? In a modern slugfest if we were to go up against China or Russia, although I am highly doubtful of that, how well would these ships survive against Chinese and Ruskie cruise missiles? It's just something to think about. No ship would survive a cruise missile attack. I don't even think that there's a definition of attrition on the modern battlefield when it comes to naval warfare. I'll paint a picture for you but without fighting the Chinese or Russians. Now lets say some third world dictator gains control of some random Caribbean island and starts to micromanage everything. The Russians and Chinese support his efforts to destabilize the region and so they send him arms, armor, a couple of ships, and some brand spanking new cruise missiles that can wreck havoc on any ship sailing the high seas. We decide to intervene because we don't like how he is planning on invading Panama and taking the canal and decides to cock-block us. We send in a carrier and a battleship along with the invasion force. Said dictator says it's a good time to show how big his dick is and sends 20+ cruise missiles towards the carrier, battleship, and the invasion force. How well would that battleship and carrier fare against an overwhelming number of cruise missiles?  As to your question though, the Battleship and the carrier would handle it better than anything else, and I would venture the battleship to be more more survivable due to being you know... built for it. Now, if you were talking about hypersonic anti-ship missiles, no one wins and ships are obsolete. (until lazors) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:15:39 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Submarine captains would call that a "buy one get two free". Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Take an aircraft carrier and weld a battleship to each side of it. a battlemaran Submarine captains would call that a "buy one get two free". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:20:04 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Applying peoples anti-battleship logic, when was the last ship sunk by a submarine? Submarines are obsolete. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Take an aircraft carrier and weld a battleship to each side of it. a battlemaran Submarine captains would call that a "buy one get two free". More recently than the last ship sunk by a BB |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:35:03 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, exactly how many planes and ships were in the task force against the Yamato Fleet? Some old DE's and Jeep carriers? What's that like 2-3 ships?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You talking about those battleships that had to be killed by attrition? Pretty sure he's talking about the battleships that almost no effect on WWII beyond the Battle off Samar, where the vaunted Yamato SAG was bested by some old DEs and jeep carriers. Even in that battle, the Yamato SAG was unable to achieve its objective of attacking the amphibious landing forces.
In the intial encounter, 6 escort carriers and their air wings (~28 aircraft, flow mainly by new pilots and not equipped with armor piercing ordnance), 3 destroyers, 4 destroyer escorts vs 4 battleships, 6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, 11 destroyers, and ~30 kamikaze aircraft (responsible for sinking one of the escort carriers). |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:36:24 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You talking about those battleships that had to be killed by attrition? I don't think there is much attrition when it comes to cruise and anti-ship missiles the Chinese and Ruskies are putting out. Then again, I don't think any ship, carrier or not, can handle that much punishment. Now did I say that specifically? In a modern slugfest if we were to go up against China or Russia, although I am highly doubtful of that, how well would these ships survive against Chinese and Ruskie cruise missiles? It's just something to think about. No ship would survive a cruise missile attack. I don't even think that there's a definition of attrition on the modern battlefield when it comes to naval warfare. I'll paint a picture for you but without fighting the Chinese or Russians. Now lets say some third world dictator gains control of some random Caribbean island and starts to micromanage everything. The Russians and Chinese support his efforts to destabilize the region and so they send him arms, armor, a couple of ships, and some brand spanking new cruise missiles that can wreck havoc on any ship sailing the high seas. We decide to intervene because we don't like how he is planning on invading Panama and taking the canal and decides to cock-block us. We send in a carrier and a battleship along with the invasion force. Said dictator says it's a good time to show how big his dick is and sends 20+ cruise missiles towards the carrier, battleship, and the invasion force. How well would that battleship and carrier fare against an overwhelming number of cruise missiles? As to your question though, the Battleship and the carrier would handle it better than anything else, and I would venture the battleship to be more more survivable due to being you know... built for it. Now, if you were talking about hypersonic anti-ship missiles, no one wins and ships are obsolete. (until lazors)As to the picture I painted of the dictator having cruise missiles, lets say the missiles are YJ-18s the Chinese gave to him because they like him so much. Hyper-sonic just might be a little out of his budget although he's been lusting for them. I would say that the Battleship and Carrier would be sunk. I don't know of any defenses that can be effective against supersonic anti-ship missiles. Granted there's 24/7 air patrol that warns the ships ahead of time, and there's the Surface-to-Air missiles to intercept them, and then there's the CIWS guns. But the effective way to get past that is to launch as many as possible so that the defense systems cannot get them all. Built for it, I don't know about that. Upgrading old battleships for modern combat would be a nightmare because it wasn't built to survive modern weaponry. Because of that, it deviates from the old mentality of "Build it big, build it to host the biggest guns, and build it to be the toughest sonofabitch on the seas."  I vote that a brand new battleship would have to be constructed, however, the same train of thought that went into building the old BBs should go into the new one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2014 11:38:05 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All of those reactors are enormous and have very low power densities for naval propulsion purposes. Modular?? No thanks. Don't fuck with what Rickover made right the first time. We use multiple 'standard' reactor designs in ships depending on how much power is needed. |
|
|
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.
