Thread: battleships obsolete in WW2?

battleships obsolete in WW2?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    11
    If I can take you all back to 1991 and a little place called Kuwait you will find that the USS Iowa, and others, fired a number of convention Cruise Missiles at various targets all over the middle east. Well...., prehaps not all over the middle east, but you get my point. While it may not have been the `norm` to carry nuke armed cruise missiles, after a quick change of warheads, I think anything would be possible.

  2. #52
    Originally Posted by tc2324
    If I can take you all back to 1991 and a little place called Kuwait you will find that the USS Iowa, and others, fired a number of convention Cruise Missiles at various targets all over the middle east. Well...., prehaps not all over the middle east, but you get my point. While it may not have been the `norm` to carry nuke armed cruise missiles, after a quick change of warheads, I think anything would be possible.
    they make nukes warheads for the tomahawks?? well in that case i guess im wrong

  3. #53

    Smile

    Tomahawks can be fitted with a W80 Nuclear warhead

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,450
    I wish the US Navy would bring back the Iowas and/or make the Montanas! I would join the Navy right now if I could get in one of those.

    Originally Posted by crazyhorse128
    Tomahawks can be fitted with a W80 Nuclear warhead
    they make nukes for everything they can.
    "In three words I can sum up everything I've learned about life: It goes on." ---Robert Frost.
    -=)CSF(=-XGamerms999
    http://www.watchfarscape.com/forums/...ilies/Thud.gif

  5. #55
    The main armament is rockets and not guns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov_class_battlecruiser
    poor poor battlecruiser stripped of her guns it burns damn missiles bring back th 16" guns!!!!:thumbsumbsup:

    I wish the US Navy would bring back the Iowas and/or make the Montanas! I would join the Navy right now if I could get in one of those. im with you there brother i would love to stand on the deck of an iowa class while she fires her guns it would be a dream come true

  6. #56

    Question

    Originally Posted by Captcaboose
    im with you there brother i would love to stand on the deck of an iowa class while she fires her guns it would be a dream come true
    Umm.. I don't think anyones allowed on deck when they fire the 16" guns. unless you mean on the bridge

  7. #57
    i doubt *standing* is the right word when these guns go off!

  8. #58
    i read somewhere about the iowas 16's that they have so much power they take peoples skins off could be the yamatos tho

  9. #59

    Lightbulb why the battleship lost its supremacy

    think about this for a sec... battleships became obsolete when the brits attacked the italian battleship fleet in tanto in 1940 with torpedo bombers, the same for pearl harbor when the ijn hit us on dec 7, but we didnt pay any attention the brits success adn thats why we suffered so badly this just proved how vulnerable any ship was to aerial attacks.
    the thing that made the battleship 2nd to airplanes is wut the ijn did to marry the 2. they took 16in shells from the battleship nagato, took off the shell casings, put fins on them and mounted them to the d3a val divebomber.... ther idea was to use planes to carry the weapons of battleships to the target and then drop the shell rather than letting the bb's get in close to fire them at the target and risk being sunk which saves u ship and improves accuracy. this also proved more effective than firing the shell because when youre bobbin on the water your aim is never the same and the side of a rival bb is gonna be pretty thick whereas the deck isnt and averaged about 3-6inches and could be easily holed by a 2200lb shell dropped from thousands of feet, and if youve ever had your ships magazine in BSM go up or seen the movie pearl harbor its easy to see how quick a ship can be knocked off the battlefield. but when it comes to production an airplane is also a helluva lot cheaper and easier to replace if destroyed than a battleship is. one factory or production plant can spit out a plane made from scratch in a few hours while a shipyard can turnout one battleship... ehhh u mite get lucky making one a year if u ignore safety regs and have the construction crew doing 24/7 slave labor and duble duty

  10. #60

    Obsolete in WW2?

    Originally Posted by chriswpaul16
    would you say the battleship was obsolete in world war 2? if so please write why and if not please write why!....
    It seems to me that it took the whole team to win the war. No conflict has EVER been won by airpower alone. The mission may evolve, but the value of the weapon depends upon the target.

    Battlewagons were brought into every conflict, including the Gulf War, because they can put a LOT of metal on target. There is STILL not much that can survive a nine-gun salvo from an Iowa class battleship. The Iraqis learned the effectiveness of these monsters who were being directed by information from UAVs.

    My cruiser fired over 56,000 rounds of 8" and 5" during one six month tour in Viet Nam. I watched the New Jersey's 16" rounds fly across our bow, on their way to support our grunts. It's an awesome sight. Ask any grunt or jarhead who has had to call for naval gunfire support and they will tell you how good it is to know it is available.

    The issue has become more economic than any thing else. We're not building any new battleships because the cost per delivered round is too high. Remember, however, that an aircraft carrier is a HUGE target (ask any submariner) and far less armored than than a battleship. It IS vulnerable and FAR more costly to replace. The carrier is only as safe as its air group and screen force. It always has been.

    I call your attention to the fact that we still have battleships in "mothballs." Obsolete? Not quite yet......

  11. #61

    My cruiser laid down some smack in 67 too

    "My cruiser fired over 56,000 rounds of 8" and 5" during one six month tour in Viet Nam. I watched the New Jersey's 16" rounds fly across our bow, on their way to support our grunts. It's an awesome sight. Ask any grunt or jarhead who has had to call for naval gunfire support and they will tell you how good it is to know it is available."

    Yo, Shagnasty,
    Good to hear from another cruiser sailor. Yamoto and Musashi were not committed to the war effort except as a last ditch resort at what became the battle of Layte Gulf. The Japanese were afraid that their vulnerbility to air attack and loss would be too great a morale blow to the troops. Had they actually engaged at Layte instead of being chased off at the battle off Samar then things would have been dicey for the ground troops defending the southern Phillippeans. My good friend Niel Dethlefs was on the DD 557 Johnston in that incredible David & Goliath Battle.
    My thoughts are that BB's were and maybe still are usefull but only limited to shore bombardment and logistics control of water born supply routes.

  12. #62
    I think people have the wrong idea of "battleships obsolete vs aeroplanez". The problem wasn't that battleships could not defend themselves against air fighters. The USN's battleships, with their extremely modern and advanced AA weapons performed quite well against marauding kamikazes. Few BBs were ever actually sunk by dedicated air attack while underway. The BBs that were had precisely zero air cover and it wasn't like anyone thought they didn't need it. There lies a problem, a battleship is failing to accomplish its role as a dominant naval vessel if it is the one in need of escort.

    The problem is, naval strategy had been built around the idea that the battleship was the premier instrument to control the seas. Aircraft didn't kill the battleship itself, they did its job better. BBs are stupidly expensive, painful to operate in numbers, and agonizing to build. Why build a BB when you can build a carrier? You get everything the BB could do and more. Now you can even attack enemy fleets at harbor thus nullifying the "fleet in being" concept.

    A modern defense of BBs is that they are the only ship in any Navy that can provide effective seaborne artillery. That doesn't mean that a ship couldn't be designed that could do the job better. The demand just hasn't been great enough for it since again, Aircraft usually do the job better and cheaper.

    Battleships are a holdover from the days of sailing tallships and line battles. WW2 saw the transition of naval warfare from maneuver to detection. Relegating BBs to the role of escort. In this role, a battleship does not serve a purpose useful enough to justify its cost.


    The Japanese were afraid that their vulnerbility to air attack and loss would be too great a morale blow to the troops.
    Most Japanese didn't even know the Yamatos existed. Trains passing through Kure had their windows covered and officers were placed aboard to make sure the secrecy policies were enforced. It wasn't until post-war that that anyone even knew they were carrying 18.1 inch guns.

    Had they actually engaged at Layte instead of being chased off at the battle off Samar then things would have been dicey for the ground troops defending the southern Phillippeans.
    Had they engaged at Leyte, Kurita and his entire force would have been annihilated and would have accomplished nothing except shooting up empty transports. Due to the threats posed by American aircraft and submarines it simply wasn't possible to base the Combined Fleet close enough to the Philippines to deal with an invasion and everyone knew it. If Kurita engaged the transports he would simply be cornering himself. Allowing Halsey to box him in and destroy what was left of his force. Kurita had no intention of dieing at that point in the war, and neither did his staff. It's unlikely he would have continued past Sprauge even he only threw up token resistance.

  13. #63

    capthawkeye

    capthawkeye

    you cant be serious can you? your talking as if a carrier can do every a battleship can?????? what about coastal shore bombardment, a battleship can deal a hell of alot more explosive tons than a carrier can on a shoreline, also whats with kuritas forces being cornered and destroyed and (accomplishing nothing except shooting up empty transports) you are aware that the escort carriers there were helping the marines that landed there? and used for bombing japanese strongholds right? and the destroyers for the carrier protection and to bombard the coastline were the marines were pinned down.

    so to the point if u remove all the carriers all the destroyers in the area that were helping the marines landings that means know more support for them as there is know support the marines will have there backs to the sea if the japanese push. so as kuritas force can also bombard the coastline to that means more marines dead.

    so on the big side if kurita destroyed all the carriers and destroyers helping in the landings that means game over for the land forces and game over for america taking back the phillipine islands.

  14. #64

    capt

    and capt they also arent a big floating target wiv no armor like a carrier.

  15. #65
    Originally Posted by chriswpaul16
    capthawkeye

    you cant be serious can you? your talking as if a carrier can do every a battleship can?????? what about coastal shore bombardment,
    Irrelevant. Coastal Shore Bombardment was a luxery provided by the Iowas merely because they happened to be in service. If the USN was that desperate for a coastal artillery platform, they'd design a ship for the role. Coastal artillery support is a completely drab role for a battleship. Especially considering the immense cost of operating a ship who's only purpose is to provide support.

    a battleship can deal a hell of alot more explosive tons than a carrier can on a shoreline,
    So? An aircraft can deal a hell of a lot more ACCURATE explosive tons than a battleship can.

    also whats with kuritas forces being cornered and destroyed and (accomplishing nothing except shooting up empty transports) you are aware that the escort carriers there were helping the marines that landed there?
    This has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. If anything it confirms it. Obviously the escort carriers are going to support invasion forces. What else are they going to do? Sit in the bay and twiddle their thumbs?

    and used for bombing japanese strongholds right? and the destroyers for the carrier protection and to bombard the coastline were the marines were pinned down.
    Again, irrelevant.

    so to the point if u remove all the carriers all the destroyers in the area that were helping the marines landings that means know more support for them as there is know support the marines will have there backs to the sea if the japanese push. so as kuritas force can also bombard the coastline to that means more marines dead.
    The only way shelling is going to work is if the Japanese can follow it up with a massive counter invasion. Obviously that's not going to happen. Uselessly shelling American positions isn't going to change the outcome of the battle in the slightest. If anything it dooms Kurita. Just moving into the landing area would give Halsey enough time to catch up with him. The IJN's elimination would happen in 1944 instead of 1945.

    so on the big side if kurita destroyed all the carriers and destroyers helping in the landings that means game over for the land forces and game over for america taking back the phillipine islands.
    Stop stating your opinion as fact. I don't know why this is so hard for you to take but it's just how it is. Their were no strategically important vessels in the area by the time Kurita arrived and their wouldn't ever be. Most of the transports and their escorts had left days before Kurita was even in the area. The only ships worth attacking are Halsey's carriers and attacking them is just complete suicide. I honestly don't know why you're arguing this. The Combined Fleet had been long broken by the time of the Philippines. Kurita knew it, that's why he turned around after fighting Sprauge's piddly force of destroyers and escort carriers.

    and capt they also arent a big floating target wiv no armor like a carrier.
    So tell me how usefull an Iowa's armor would be against the explosive blast of Exocet missile? The Exocet shoots a straight beam of plasma so long it can clean through Iowa's engine rooms/machine spaces/magazines and still come out the other end. No practical amount of armor can be used to negate or even reduce the effects of any anti ship missile. That's why contemporary Naval Strategy is all about avoiding detection in the first place.

  16. #66

    capt

    capt look at what your saying it cant be a fact and never will i dont know a person on earth who would agree with you, plus by the sound of it your american so case closed there.

    right the missile thing your joking a excot missile wouldnt get through like 14 inch thick armor. go back to the falklands war a british destroy was hit with one and it was deflected off the side plate even them destroyers have no armor! so what does it have of getting through 14 inches of steel and 70 years ago the metal and ships back then was along more stronger and tuffer than it is now.

    but as your on about excot missiles you should also see what happened to hms sheffield from one, taken out the ship so tht wasnt nuclear powered reactor two so what if an excot got through a nimitz class and hit the reactor, al tell ya a big boom.

    and to back up my excot missile on battleships ever heared of bikini atoll? when they tested a nuke against a battleship it was still standing know hull damage or turret it was still like perfect condition but if you look at the carrier well thats a different story lmao. al give u a hint

  17. #67
    Originally Posted by chriswpaul16
    capt look at what your saying it cant be a fact and never will i dont know a person on earth who would agree with you, plus by the sound of it your american so case closed there.
    This is nothing but a character attack. It's relevance is precisely zero and makes you look like a fool.

    As for "no one on the earth would agree with me". You might want to talk to these guys.

    http://www.combinedfleet.com/taops1.htm



    right the missile thing your joking a excot missile wouldnt get through like 14 inch thick armor. go back to the falklands war a british destroy was hit with one and it was deflected off the side plate even them destroyers have no armor! so what does it have of getting through 14 inches of steel and 70 years ago the metal and ships back then was along more stronger and tuffer than it is now.
    Prove these statements or concede them. Also, prove that an attack by several more exocets would fail to sink the British destroyer. Rather than relying on the lower value showing a single failure when plenty of other tests showed the Exocet's capabilities? Prove that other anti ship missiles would fail to sink the British destroyer. I'm waiting for you to give the slightest bit of credibility to any of your claims and you have not. Is it so hard?

    By your own logic in fact, this makes carriers even better than battleships because you don't need armor to fend off a missile right? So why have a battleship with tons of armor that isn't necessary?

    but as your on about excot missiles you should also see what happened to hms sheffield from one, taken out the ship so tht wasnt nuclear powered reactor two so what if an excot got through a nimitz class and hit the reactor, al tell ya a big boom.
    More than likely the reactor would just shut down since it's a barely sustained reaction. The idea that a ship reactor would experience a catastrophic meltdown from a weapon impact is pure Hollywood. Stop using "Pearl Harbor" as a source for naval history. Michael Bay isn't a scholar after all.

    and to back up my excot missile on battleships ever heared of bikini atoll? when they tested a nuke against a battleship it was still standing know hull damage or turret it was still like perfect condition but if you look at the carrier well thats a different story lmao. al give u a hint
    Comparing the damage a battleship can take vs. a carrier is totally useless. Carriers are not supposed to fight enemies directly and it would be counter productive to prepare them in such a manner. Shinano retained much of the interior protection of its sister ships and it could only carry a measly 50 or so planes as a result. Most American carriers could hold over 100. What happened? Musashi and Yamato, the two biggest BBs ever built, both ended up being sunk by aircraft attacks. Attacks that weren't even full strength. (The attack on Musashi was only carried out by some 260 planes from 3 or so carriers over the course of several hours.)

    I'm trying to help you here but my distinct impression is you're just a brat. You read some vague articles on the net,took them out of context and now you're just Mahan the 2nd right? i don thik mahan wud talk liek this u no.

  18. #68
    With the way technology is going a battleship would be a powerful weapon and aircraft would have a very hard time to take it down.

    The artillery would pinpoint accurate up to 40 miles and a lot cheaper than any missle

    A constant UAV CAP can be put up around the battleship for hundreds of miles to detect stealth aircraft then can be tracked by sattilite which would then be shot down by a high energy laser within 20 miles if it manages to fire a missle it can also be shot down by the laser or an autonomous minigun or metalstorm firing system or if a torpedo is launched metalstorm will take out the torpedo or an anti toredo system will be activated and the torpedo will be useless

    and of course you can put missles on battleships to take out long range sea targets and which costs more a bomber with a short range missle or a long range missle

    If they put a nuclear reactor in the Iowa she would still be in service today

    Big goverment projects have always helped during times of economic downfall instead of a big bailout they could have used the money to build a new battleship class thounsands of people would have jobs for many years and at least something would come out of the deal

    In short a modern battleship could rip though a carrier fleet with no problem

    Unless the enemy had an EMP in that case netheir is very good

    and Shagnasty and ancientCAGer it is always nice to have vets on the forum to shed some light on a topic

  19. #69

    capt

    Resolved QuestionShow me another »
    Should the Remaining Iowa class battleships we reactivated-repost?
    (I Accidently clicked something wrong on my last post so i reposted this topic.)

    1. An Iowa class battleship has way to much armor to be pierced by Cruise missile or harpoon.

    2. The modern guns of the Battleship can rip a modern destroyer/cruiser in half, and a CV would be dead in the water after one hit.

    3. True battleships can be targeted by Subs but that is why you usually have battleships screened by a destroyer or with subs, just like with any carrier fleet today.

    4. Modern advances in the battleships could be made today at the cost little since ramjet projectiles have already been successfully tested and fired at 100nm.

    5. Arguing the Battleships reactivation cost is useless since reactivation and modernization together costs as much as a modern missile frigate.

    6. Manpower is a joke since it takes 5000+ men to run a CV when a Iowa class Battleship takes 1,921 men at maximum capacity (minimum is 800+)

    7. A battleship can make decisions easier when invading on a beach easier than a destroyer using tomahawk missiles.

    8. Battleships have all weather status and are not affected by any kind of weather including hurricanes.

    9. A Battleships will only take 1-2 million a year to maintain. At the same time an aircraft carrier cost's several Millions to replace missiles and aircraft.

    10. Reactivation and Modernization will only take 1-2 years.

    11. Reactivation costs are $500 million and modernization is $2 billion.

    12. to further Technology of the Battleships would cost an additional million if not less for the projectiles to be but into production.

    13. True no such personnel know or are trained to operate a battleship main gun but can easily be taught.

    14. Some reports have indicated a battleship's main guns could be used as anti aircraft if the time detonation fuses could be computer operated with its target and shoot 10mm sabot shells plus shrapnel when shell explodes.

    15. Some 5" guns on the battleships could be removed to put more Phalanx CIWS on the ship to improve its anti-aircraft/ anti missile capabilies.

    16. No ship or missile in the world is designed to take out the battleship with one shot or with many massed attacks.

    17. Battleship Survivability since they use STS (special treated steel) of belt armor reinforced by large Bulk heads and Barbettes.

    18. True the turrent on the USS Iowa did explode but it only did so little damage to the ship that it can easily be repaired and which was considered in the GAO Reports I read so that turrent has already been included into the math.

    19. True Air Superiority is necessary but when it comes down to shore bombardment, Planes can be intercepted, sometimes ineffective economically and physically, and usually avoided by the enemy until the marines come on up to the shore to attack.

    20. Currently building new battleships would be.....truly expensive depending upon their armaments and capabilities.

    21. Surface ships were built for Naval presence, if we did not want Naval presence we would have built the arsenal ship back then but it can down to the fact that the arsenal ship could be easily struck by one harpoon missile and probably blow up the whole ship because of it's weak armor and heavy armament beyond it's own defensive capabilities to protect exposed weapons whereas the battleship can protect it's magazine and it's missiles with several anti-air/missile weapons and thick enough armor to make sure they don't explode by the bullet.

    22. Iowa class battleships today cannot be compared with the ships of yesterday due to the fact that technology back then against aircraft was completely ineffective in most cases whereas today trying to hit a destroyer with a single harpoon is almost impossible but massed attacks would sink a destroyer after 1-3 hits of harpoons.

    a link for anyone who wants to see and capt heres some proof
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4112630AAJpcTE

    and capt dont get me wrong am not saying battleships are better than carriers in todays modern warfare and ww2 all am saying is battleships werent obsolete

  20. #70
    Originally Posted by chriswpaul16
    a link for anyone who wants to see and capt heres some proof
    http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...4112630AAJpcTE
    thats not proof thats just a forum like this one, there is no evidence on this page to suport either thoery

  21. #71
    Originally Posted by SuperE
    With the way technology is going a battleship would be a powerful weapon and aircraft would have a very hard time to take it down.
    With the way technology is going what you would have isn't a battleship anymore. A battleship uses lots of guns and armor. Proposed future tech calls for lots of stealth, point defense, and possibly magnetic accelerator guns. Said ship would not be a battleship.

    Besides technological development doesn't just suspend for one while the other benefits. Aircraft are going to get a lot more destructive and capable with the way technology is going. They've been reaping the greatest benefits of tech advance since 1903 and that's likely how it's going to stay.

    The artillery would pinpoint accurate up to 40 miles and a lot cheaper than any missle
    This still isn't a reason for a battleship though. If you need a coastal artillery platform so badly, design a ship for the purpose. A 35 knot battleship with the most expensive armor setup in history is totally gratuitous.

    A constant UAV CAP can be put up around the battleship for hundreds of miles to detect stealth aircraft then can be tracked by sattilite which would then be shot down by a high energy laser within 20 miles
    This is no different from modern warfare. Just replace that laser with a Sea-Sparrow missile or other SAM. It doesn't matter what AA capabilities you modify a battleship with today. A battleship is supposed to fight other ships. Yet it cannot fight other ships because even something as small as a frigate has weapons several times the range of its guns.

    What you're talking about is an anti-aircraft ship. In that case, you'd be way better off designing several smaller vessels instead of one big one.

    if it manages to fire a missle it can also be shot down by the laser or an autonomous minigun or metalstorm firing system or if a torpedo is launched metalstorm will take out the torpedo or an anti toredo system will be activated and the torpedo will be useless
    Those systems have not succeded in negating the threat posed by aircraft torpedoes. They're merely countermeasures. Like all countermeasures they can be overwhelmed and frequently are.

    and of course you can put missles on battleships to take out long range sea targets and which costs more a bomber with a short range missle or a long range missle
    Why? If you're using a battleship as a missile carrier, it isn't a battleship anymore. A battleship isn't even a paticularly good missile carrier because it can only be in one place, and has a huge profile. With the cost of building that battleship you could have built several missile cruisers. Their is just no point in bringing back a weapon concept older than Horatio Nelson.

    If they put a nuclear reactor in the Iowa she would still be in service today
    Prove it?

    Big goverment projects have always helped during times of economic downfall instead of a big bailout they could have used the money to build a new battleship class thounsands of people would have jobs for many years and at least something would come out of the deal
    The builders at Norfolk already have enough time and space on their hands. No need to hire more people to do their job.

    Also, your statement requires the implied belief that a battleship is not expensive to operate. This simply isn't true. Battleships are obscenely expensive vessels and give minimal returns. Your thousand people with jobs would have to contend with higher taxes so the government could pay to operate these ships.

    In short a modern battleship could rip though a carrier fleet with no problem
    Says you. What you've written here is a fan fiction.

    Unless the enemy had an EMP in that case netheir is very good
    Most ships, hell, most military vehicles are protected from EMP. EMP is another Hollywood-ism.

    I don't get it. Why are people defending a concept older than the musketeer and human line battle? Bringing back the battleship would be akin to handing Marines muskets again. The only justification is nostalgia, not practicality. A battleship can be used as a coastal artillery platform, but that doesn't mean you couldn't design a heavy gun system for current ships to use.

    A battleship can take lots of damage, but that's all they'll do. Absorb lots and damage and never get anywhere near the enemy fleet. You'll also have to contend with the repair bill and that won't be fun.

    A battleship has accurate and powerful artillery fire. But those guns wear down quickly and need to be replaced and fed with ammunition. This takes away from factory production space needed for missiles and other ship equipment.

  22. #72
    Originally Posted by watty14
    thats not proof thats just a forum like this one, there is no evidence on this page to suport either thoery
    What do you mean either theory? You're just taking a safe middle ground. If a vendor tries to sell someone a computer for $800, and the buyer wants it for $1, your response to the vendor would be to sell it for $400.

    The uselessness of battleships in modern war is akin to handing Marines muskets. Oh but now the muskets can shoot laser beams. So what? The gun still calls for the Marine to stand in an open line in order to be used effectively. It also still calls for him to get well within an enemy's range while being frequently outside of his. Asking "prove that battleships are obsolete" is like asking someone to prove the sky is blue. He made the claim they aren't. He must prove it and he won't.

  23. #73
    mate all im sayin is on that page there is no solid facts to prove that BBs are obselete, or BBs are not obselete, and anyway this gotten out of control, the thread title was battleships obsolete in WW2?
    oh an im not takin the middle ground here im just not interested in getting into a verbal brawl, and i have no clue what your on about with laser powered muskets?? it has nothing to do with anything thats being discussed

  24. #74
    I already wrote on that above. In WW2 battleships served a purpose because battle lines could be used when carriers were not available thanks to BBs still eclipsing the capabilities of other surface vessels.

  25. #75
    Capt

    You seem to think that the carreir doesn't cost much to operate and that missles are dirt cheap and that aircraft can be invisiable to radar

    if you look at cost everything I post would be cheaper than a carreir
    as for the artilery iI was useing the range of a 155mm gun so the battleship would have something a little bigger

    and instead of building 7 seven smaller ships why don't you just build 1 big ship and 6 smaller ships

    as for the EMP I was making a joke

    also would you say the main battle tank is obsolete to it is off of the same basic priciple of the battleship

Page 3 of 5 First First 12345 Last