 |
|
yavoon
|
|
trip thats just inaccurate. one when's the last war we had against a highly technological power? when's the last time one of our ships got sunk? this includes things that aren't carriers. it simply doesn't happen very often.
even if a nation had some limited anti ship ability it might be in the form of air to sea missiles. which of course we will supress any possibility u could get a plane up in the air neway.
its very common for the US to use simplistic effective things to get jobs done. a great example is the b-52. very old, very easy to shoot down. yet we still use it, and its still extremely effective.
and for jack, well I"m not responding to him. cuz he's just unintelligent.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yavoon
trip thats just inaccurate. one when's the last war we had against a highly technological power? when's the last time one of our ships got sunk? this includes things that aren't carriers. it simply doesn't happen very often.
even if a nation had some limited anti ship ability it might be in the form of air to sea missiles. which of course we will supress any possibility u could get a plane up in the air neway.
its very common for the US to use simplistic effective things to get jobs done. a great example is the b-52. very old, very easy to shoot down. yet we still use it, and its still extremely effective.
and for jack, well I"m not responding to him. cuz he's just unintelligent. |
Thanks for insulting me.
And for some facts, the battleships that were used in the first Gulf War where only there to make Iraq think they would make a invasion by sea, which they did not. They also launched curise missles at several targets, but again this can be done by small ships just as good. If Battleships were usefull, they would still have the things around.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Yavoon, all heavy bombers are easy to shoot down, that is why the etheir get fighter escorts, or air defenses are taken out before they send them in. They also have a great deal of ECMs to protect them selfs from SAMs.
Last edited by Jack_www on 21-03-2003 at 23:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
yes jack now use that same logic w/ the battleship.
and az, intelligence is not determined by spelling. If u think so, then that truly is depressing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Well I am sure that you could protect a batteship, just as Carriers are protected. Also they got 18 inch armor that will protect it very well. But building a task force around a battleship? I think that would be a waste of money, men and ships.
Also in World War II, battleships really became escorts for Carriers, instead of the major offensive part of a navy.
Battleship where usefull in their day, when most nations who had a good navy had huge battleships, and they fought each other, but with Airplanes and such.
Now other ships can do all that a battleship can do, making their cost unjustified.
The only real way for battleships to come back if is other navies decide to build them. But that is unlikely to occur, when they dont even want to spend the money on Carriers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
not that u build a battlegroup aorund a battleship. its that you use it in situations where an enemies anti ship capabilities are suppressed. which is really not that hard considering the enemies we've faced recently.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
Also their are not much places a battleships can be used for supporting ground troops. Sure you could use the bombard shores before a landing, but this can be done with smaller ships and Carriers.
Also US strategy is to move as fast as they can deep inland, not fight for a little beach head as they did in World War II. Thus when your forces are 100 miles inland, a battleship wont be able to reach that far.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
in iraq we are moving in fast on a nation that has but on finger on the sea in order to conquer it. we still fight lots of standoff battles, lots of defensive wars. it may not be a good way to fight a war but its wut we do.
to characterize the current campaign in iraq as how "we now use our military" is silly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jack_www
|
|
if they did have sea forces their, carrier based planes and subs would most likely do most of the fighting.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
yes battleships are floating artillery. a very cheap way to deliver a very strong punch up to 20 miles inland and what is actually very accurate. they can loiter and fire on demand. no need to scramble aircraft or launch 1.4 million dollar tamahawks.
and yes battleships would not be shooting at other ships. but certainly u could load other things on battleships if u want. anti ship missiles perhaps.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
also I think its important that while I think america should still have/use battleships. I am not purely talking about their usefulness to america, with its 12 carrier battlegroups.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
raghar
|
|
I wish somewhere else.
Oct 2002
time: 05:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yavoon
yes battleships are floating artillery. a very cheap way to deliver a very strong punch up to 20 miles inland and . |
a 130mm AK-130 multipurpose twin-barrel gun supplied by the Ametist Design Bureau, Izumrud JSC and the Tula Engineering Plant. The main components of the artillery system are a computer-based control system with a multi-band radar, television and optical target sighting, and a gun mount with a turret-mounted Kondensor optical sighting unit. The gun can be operated under fully automatic remote control interfaced to the radar control system, under autonomous control from the sighting unit or can be laid manually. Range is over 22km and maximum rate of fire is 35 rounds/min.
With higher caliber and rocked propeled projectile... it could be really much more.
Batleships with 2 nuclear reactors and electrothermal system or pure electromagnetic system could have much higher range.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
a lot of ur battleship maintenance cost is related to the fact that we have abandoned the battlesihp and the infrastructure to keep it running. to where when it breaks down we simply dont know where to get parts from.
if we hadn't have done that battleships as very heavy floating artillery aren't prohibitive in any way.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-03-2003 19:53
|