Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Why didn't they keep a couple of battleships for force projection?
>>30468054
Because battleships are completely obsolete and don't project force for shit.
>>30468054
They're expensive.
>>30468067
If armor doesn't stand up to weaponry, there is not enough of it being used. A large gun platform that's armored enough to withstand several direct hits, the concept isn't obsolete just because no modernized ones exist. Battleships aren't obsolete any more than a tank is obsolete.
>>30468291
keep dreaming, kid
>>30468054
Because we have inter-continental ballistic missiles for force projection.
>>30468054
Because battleships are expensive as fuck, and carriers do everything they can, and more, better and cheaper.
>>30468291
>any more than a tank is obsolete.
Bad news, comrade...
>>30468291
If a tank is so good, why don't they just make something like a tank, except for for going on water?
>>30468291
Tank never stood up to AT weapons, but that was not the point of the tank.
Meanwhile battleships stopped having a point once they weren't capable of shruggning off hits because the whole point of the battleship was the armor.
>>30468054
because you're a fucking moron and you touch yourself at night.
basically, the navy looked at how effective that armor isn't anymore, and how fucking useless those guns actually are these days, and while they were trying to make up their minds they saw how much of a retarded cunt you were, and how you never listen to anything anyone tells you, and how you circlejerk your disgusting, bent little cock around to m-m-muh railguns and composite armor and they decided 'fuck this little faggot, we'll stop using these things just to wind this little bitch up, and then we'll get drunk and run an admiralty train on his whore of a mother. call the marines'.
and that's what they did.
now that you have been informed, i am hiding your faggot bait thread and going about my day, ignoring your life outside of occasionally wishing in general terms that you die.
fag. it.
>>30468054
Why do you post this so often?
>>30468429
because he gets (You)s.
>>30468291
When your armor means shit because a hypersonic anti ship missile can be guided right into the bridge, they are obsolete.
>>30468054
They did, for 70 fucking years.
Because that's not what force projection is
>>30468054
>>30468054
I'll be projecting force with my dick into a BB.
>>30468054
Because the guys who know how to maintain the Iowa's are long dead or dying. And the ammo for the main guns are fucking rare and expensive to make.
because this...
>>30469571
...and this...
>>30468054
ta8co, are you ever gonna stop with these shitass 'nazy-seulz carriers' threads?
>>30469586
Don'r forget this!
>>30469586
...don't forget these (love that reactor technology...
>>30469616
I didn't, fellow anon. I just had to wait to post again and then the phone rang
How advanced is anti-sub warfare? If there were a naval battle, would submarines be very important or are they just nuclear triad pieces now?
>>30469947
Subs still have their place as shipkillers. Even with advances in ASW, they're always a persistent threat to ships and other subs. Otherwise, nobody would still bother with SSNs and AIPs.
>>30468054
Tomahawk missile range
850+ nm
Battleship gun range
20 nm
>>30468054
I love battleships.
But they had their time and place and that's over now. Forever. Deal with it.
Modern anti-ship weapons make heavy armor on warships pretty much useless.
>>30469947
Submarines would be doing the bulk of the anti-surface work themselves.
>>30468291
>I want to modernize the battleship.
>>30470098
A modern battleship with have light armor and be loaded with tons of VLS rather than large-bore cannons.
Basically what we now call destroyers.
>>30468054
>force projection?
The big guns don't do that so well and a handful of tomahawks isn't going to cut it.
>>30470119
I want to _________ the __________.
>>30468291
>If armor doesn't stand up to weaponry, there is not enough of it being used.
16" belt armor wasn't enough, and missiles have the ability to plunge the deck where its 7" very easily.
Adding MOAR ARMOR! past the Iowa and Montana concept design raises the weight above the water line, that means less speed and worse seafaring capacity.
General rule of thumb: HEAT charges can penetrate 7 time their Charge diameter in RHAe, this means the Harpoon at 13.5" has MASSIVE penetrative power if it was fitted purely for Penetration, Thats why AShM's moved to HE and active defense in the form of CIWS
>>30468054
Because a BB projects force for 40 miles tops, destroyers filled with missiles project force for 100 miles and Carriers project for 1000 miles
Because it's a waste of money to upkeep a ship when there's cheaper alternative platforms to perform the same duties. The use of battleships for shore bombardment in the Vietnam War didn't have that much effect. The Iowa also suffered an explosion that killed almost fifty sailors as well when it was still in use during the 80s.
>>30468054
Why do you keep making these treads?
Mods should just autoban any treads that has the word "battleship" in the first post
>>30470703
>Mods should just autoban any treads that has the word "battleship" in the first post
I agree that these threads are dumb, but auto-banning would ruin relevant threads about WWI, WWII, and informative threads for history buffs.
Battleships aren't the problem. It's wanting to *revive* the battleship.
They will be useful if all the other ships are sunk.
>>30470616
>Iowa also suffered an explosion that killed almost fifty sailors as well when it was still in use during the 80s.
>tfw the Navy blamed it on gay butsex
>>30470703
>Mods should just autoban any treads that has the word "battleship" in the first post
>mods
>autoban
Only threads that talk about gun laws.
>>30471228
/k/ would improve overnight if "obsolete" "find a flaw" and "common sense gun control" were autobans.
>>30468375
SALTY
A
L
T
Y
>>30468054
Turns out supertenders spamming squadrons of flying missile boats are the future, anon.
What the US needs is armored coastal and river monitors
Without those, there is no way to engage in actual amphibious operations.
Because they aren't anything but large, expensive to operate, manpower intensive, limited capability, outdated, easily sinkable, and hard to protect targets.
No need for them.
>>30468054
They should build battleships with railguns and laser-based ciws.
>>30473034
Why are you describing aircraft carriers to me?
>>30468375
You are one based motherfucker. God bless you and God bless the us of a.
>>30468054
lets see
>high operating costs
>huge crew
>guns have shit range compared with missiles
Battleships became obsolete during WWII, the only use we really got out of them was fire support for amphibious landings.
>>30473423
I forgot
>armor is useless
>>30468054
Why don't we keep a couple of galleys for warding off pirates?
>>30470267
Fucko the doggo?
>>30473364
Just the laser CIWS will do.
>>30472981
Explain.
Explain the doctrine and the mission that requires this.
>>30473852
This would actually be awesome
>>30468291
Active defense is way more relevant in today's age then layers and layers of armour.
>>30468291
Literally
>I'm 10 and everything I know comes from video games
the post.
>>30468054
They Should have just converted them
>>30468375
why so rused?
>>30468375
5/5
>>30470019
Yes but if you create a technology that makes these missiles completely useless by, let's say, destroying them mid air, then you have to get close to your enemy again and that's where battleships come in. And before you say it, I'm not talking about CIWs. I'm talking about some sort of revolutionary technology of the future that will have a 100% kill ratio against any incoming AShMs.
>>30474772
A system like that would easily be able to shoot down an incoming shell though. That's where you get to railgins, and I seriously doubt you could armor a ship to stand up to one of those.
>>30468291
Tanks don't cost 2gorillons plus maintenance a piece
>>30474474
Funny, the Japanese navy actually did something like that with their own battleships.
>>30476479
To be fair, at that time it was common to convert old cruisers into flat-tops. It wouldn't take too much to do a similar job on a battleship.
That Akagi was a converted cruiser.
>>30474474
they could have but the main guns should have given way to missile arrays.
armor stripped they could have been used as battle-cruisers with vtol carry capability.
>>30476119
you don1t have to a battleship could take quiet a few hits through and through before having problems.
So if armour is obsolete how come the m1a2 and its heavy ass still a thing?
>>30477492
What the hell kind of ship are you thinking can take multiple through and through hits with no problems?
If an abrams fires a sabot straight through a t-72, do you really think that t-72 is going to play any further part in that particular battle? Everything inside, crew included, would be pulverised.
Do it to a battleship, and everything in every compartment on the round's path is gone. Everything remotely near it is fucked. And this is hitting your battleship from two hundred miles away.
>>30468054
The short of it was that the carrier simply had more range. More range=more force projection.
>>30468291
I imagine that a modern BB would be as terrifying as it was in the 1910s. For one, you could fit larger AShMs more akin to SLBMs than cruise missiles. For another, you could plausibly replenish the VLS batteries at sea, possibly from the underside of the batteries.
As always, though, you've got the problem of expense vs effectiveness and as effective a battleship would be, a Carrier is simply more effective.
>>30477603
Sea engagements != Land engagements.
>>30477603
If ventilators exists, why do still both breathing?
>>30477615
Tanks rely pretty much completely on armor (and to a lesser extent active defense), any penetrating hit is likely to be a mission kill. Battleships can be built so they can lose a few compartments and continue to function.
>>30477701
You're delusional if you think any ship, ever, is going to take multiple hits from hypersonic slugs and continue to do anything except maybe, if you're very lucky, run the fuck away with a mere few hundred dead crew and half your shit fried.
I'm sure you're fine with losing a few compartments. And every crew member inside those compartments. And every piece of equipment in those compartments. And every conduit, pipe, wire and duct in the walls the slug just ruined. And any fires the resulting mess makes, or any other secondary damage on top of your pulverised crew and systems...
Real life ships don't have health bars. One hit in the wrong place, which, with modern technology (especially the self guiding slugs the US navy already wants) is really not going to be as much of a problem as it was in WWII, and your multi billion dollar ship is gone.
>>30470088
But what's the point? Even if you prevent the battleship from sinking after a few hits, it doesn't change the fact that the battleship's guns cannot reach far enough to compete against anti-ship missiles. So the battleship will just keep taking hits until it sinks because it cannot engage the enemy.
>>30477868
>>30477868 this was meant for >>30477701
Not this shit again.
>>30477868
1. A battleship won't have only passive defense. Standard missiles, Phalanx CIWS, and in the future railguns and lasers will all provide layers of protection. Armor would be the final layer for the ship.
2. Missile spam is the Navy's biggest worry right now. If a battleship is properly compartmentalized, letting a few missiles through may not lead to a mission kill like with smaller ships.
3. Once both sides have expended their missiles, any remaining participants must withdraw to port to refill them. Having superior naval gunnery would allow pursuit.
