Who would win?
The entire British naval fleet from the 1700s
Or the boat in pic related with experienced crew and 2 Browning M2s??
>>30572848
How much ammo are we talking for those M2s
>>30572848
More info required.
Wheather conditions? Range?
>>30572858
what he said how much ammo in the M2's
>>30572848
Is this a joke? Drop some chain-shot in the cannon and one broadside shreds that carbon-fiber fagamaran
>>30572848
A single good hit from a 12 pounder would sink that little boat.
>>30572848
my money is on the naval fleet, chain and grape shot is going to do more damage to ships than .50
>>30572848
The M2 isn't really an effective anti-boat weapon.
>>30572848
naval fleet you retard
>>30572876
The effective range of a Ma Deuce is over a mile.
It'd all be down to how much ammo the catamaran has, and whether the ships can close the distance.
OP here what about a naval fleet vs a b1 lancer with a nuke?
>>30572848
The guys with the M-2's win hands down.
The M-2 would shred those old wooden boats from well beyond the range of any weapon available to the 1700's fleet. However, the small boat would need to keep itself from getting boxed in and the Fleet would take months to sink....wood by itself doesnt sink well.
>>30572946
do you have any idea how thick the wooden hulls on those ships are?
>>30572960
What if the small yest agile and fast catamaran was able to get boats to fire against each other? Totally posssible if wellseley snipe was on it.
>>30572960
Yes. A .50 BMG round would pass through the hull and out the otherside.
>>30572909
you seriously think you can actually hit targets a mile away while you are both moving and bouncing everywhere?
>t. someone who actually sails
>>30572848
Good luck foraging for supplies or getting into any port not to mention fortified ports
at some points those M2s are going to dry up or start to corrode and needing some lube or worst break down
not to mention storms and nature and diseases, and sailors are notorious for needing to bang every female looking thing they see after months on sea
if you start sinking trade ship your going to get more than just the Brits after you
sure its going to be effective but for how long
>>30573076
That depends, how much ammo you got?
If it's magical unlimited ammo, than eventually.
![Twin_M2HB_machine_gun[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3vm2o9x.jpg "Twin_M2HB_machine_gun[1].jpg")
the Catamaran is faster but not as stable of a gun platform.
the english ships of the line will have at least a foot of live oak or teak wood.
the M2 will easily place accurate fire farther out than the smooth bore guns of the english ships.
I supposed if you put the M2s in a mount, like Pictured. Has thousands and thousands of rounds of Mk211 ammo. Then you could harass the ships all day outside their effective range. Hoping to set off some powder charges and get a fire going. Pray that you set the powder magazine off.
>>30572898
Incendiary rounds. Wooden boats wouldn't stand a chance.
>>30573076
M2 is still good enough to keep you out of their effective range.
All they can do is spam grape shot at max elevation.
even if the catamaran decides to stay outside the cannon's firing range, it'd be surrounded and plowed under
>>30572937
Is she kill? Can I raep her, yet?
>>30573220
the cat is so much faster than the Man of Wars.
they could have engage it in a coastal region . Where they can pin it between land masses and surround it with squadrons that propositioned days ahead.
>>30573198
What's with the refrigerator just chillin' in the background?
>>30573218
>several hundred ships with an average of 26 cannon to a side
>shooting approximately 60 projectiles per cannon
>every couple of minutes
>against a boat with zero cover, armor, or system redundancy
They'd be butchered in a matter of minutes.
There's an old adage about this: if youre dodging bullets, you have to be lucky all the time. If you're the one shooting, you only have to be lucky once
Would a .50cal bullet ignite a powder storage room? I imagine it would if it was a tracer, but what about a regular bullet?
>>30573252
IDK what that chick is doing, to me is is the perfect "annefrank,french resistanceww2" pic I could find.
>>30573076
Eventually/occasionally, yeah. Especially in calm water.
They were very big and kinda slow.
>>30573218
>>30573187
you clearly know nothing about modern or current sailboats. youre obviously not an astronaut
>>30573306
It would have to be either tracer or incendiary outside of a one in a billion hit like shattering a lit lamp over an open powder keg
>>30573306
there is several feet of very strong and very dense wood between you and the powder magazine.
you'll never get an AP Incendiary round to score a direct hit. You'll have to ignite things outside the powder mag and hope they lose control of the fire.
>>30573303
The cat is faster than them.
The fleet will be spread out over hundreds of miles. You'll only have to face a squadron at a time. As the others will take all day to days to get to you.
In blue water they'll never be able to bring their numbers on you and will be hard pressed to keep you in sight.
they have to drive you between the coast and an island. where they can have ships blocking the escape at both ends.
Your target, skipper?
Cata wouldn't even have enough ammo to take out even one ship, let alone the entire British Navy
It would literally take a handful of frigates or even corvettes to catch and sink it. Cannons can reach out and touch someone over a mile. The reason they didn't engage is because the balls aren't going to go through a foot or more of white oak/teak at that range. Catamaran does not have that kind of planking or a 2-3 foot thick mast. If it gets unlucky even one time, it cannot move and becomes helpless. Even undamaged, its speed only applies in medium to light winds and seas. Bigger ships will outsail it hard if the weather worsens.
>>30573416
Even a squadron at a time, they could put enough grapeshot in the air that it's highly likely they'll land at least one hit.
And catas are fragile enough and exposed enough that one hit will either disable it outright or cripple it enough to close on.
>>30573295
where else would they keep the beer?
>>30573658
Everything up until speed was good.
Modern cats sail faster than the windspeed and can sail into the wind with impunity.
It will just hydrofoil the fuck out of anything but it's perfect engagement and no ship from 1700 will ever catch it
Better question
The 5 pictured coastguard cutters versus the entire royal navy circa 1880.
>>30573749
>16 inch muzzle loading guns
The late 1800s was objectively the best period in history for shipbuilding.
>>30573701
>Modern cats sail faster than the windspeed and can sail into the wind with impunity.
Catamaran is only sailing faster than the wind on a beam reach, which puts more stress on the mast than any other point of sail.
>It will just hydrofoil the fuck out of anything but it's perfect engagement and no ship from 1700 will ever catch it
Up until the point that the wind shifts against it or it gets caught between the fleet and land. After that all it is is a lucky ball to inflict serious damage to the mast or rigging at extreme range.
>>30573749
the coastguard cutters easily. They are far faster and can easily outrange the older ships
>>30573935
goes back in time to 1939 with us aircraft carrier squadron. finds Japanese fleet proceeds to anally rape all of the Japanese fleet.
Sinks the all the kongos with anti ship missiles destroys the yammoto with antiship missiles tears up destroyers with oto merla 120mm guns fireing 60 rounds a min, unterly kills jappanes airforce with ciwis and missiles.
Phase 2 resupply in Indochina go find german submarines, hunt the wolf packs down. fires type 58 torps that seek the german subs no chance of survival. uses helicopters to find straglers and eliminate them destroyes entire german navy.
>>30572848
The navy wouldn't even have to catch it as so many people are saying, they only would need to surround it, at which point the cat is fucked. With the ENTIRE fleet at their command even an incompetent admiral would be able to manage that drunk, and the British had some great ones.
This is just a less extreme version of 1000 marines vs a gorilla and anyone thinking the cat would win is trolling or just plain dumb.
>>30573204
>zirconium powerd
Why?
>>30573890
this person knows what he's talking about
>>30572848
A more interesting question is verous one of those nordic tiny patrol boats or corvettes that are one of the primary combatants of those "NATO ALLIES"
Like this thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Rasmussen-class_patrol_vessel
Only has 2 m2 plus a 76mm deck gun that could techically be replaced by torps or varous missiles plus one other stanflex mount which is almost always a crane with a rhib.
Wish the US had just gone with these things produced on licence and upgraded a bit instead of the Littoral crap ships.
>>30572848
How about one AMERICAN super carriers, fully loaded with whatever the load is and aircraft.
VS
The entire British navy and every ocean worthy ship at the peak of the brit empire.
Victory is not only decided by damage and whatnot, but also who is playing thier nationalist music the loudest and best while winning or losing.
>>30574081
I'm not weeaboo but you can't sink the Yamato with harpoons. They aren't designed to penetrate much armor. heavy modern bombs like Mk84s would be much more helpful, especially since bombing is so much easier with modern electronics than WWII divebombing was
>>30574403
we sank her with 1000 pound bombs the harpoon carries a 480 pound war head slam a few of those into her thin deck armor she is sinking, or at the least completely non functional due to crew loss damaged equipment etc.
>>30574403
when will this meme die. 480 pounds of explosives exploding right on your thin upper deck armor will fuck you up. also high explosives are very effective against straight steel armor. there is a reason the British used hesh rounds in their tanks
>>30574508
>>30574489
I suppose I can concede that but I still insist about the iron bombs. hitting a BB with a Mk84 in a modern jet would be piss easy, and you wouldn't have to worry about AAA all that much if you did it from high enough. it's not like Yamato has CIWS so shoot the bomb out of the sky
>>30572848
pic related - book series is about a WWII destroyer that slips to an alternate time stream and proceeds to buttfuck the entire worlds navy of square rigged sail based ships.
>>30574489
The thin deck is only the weather deck, which is designed to fuse and detonate bombs and decap and yaw AP shells before they reach the main 8" armored deck at the waterline. The 11-13 torpedo hits did far more to sink Yamato than the bomb hits she sustained.
>>30574585
>pic related - book series is about a WWII destroyer that slips to an alternate time stream and proceeds to buttfuck the entire worlds navy of square rigged sail based ships.
>No way to get fuel
>No way to get ammo
>everyone hates you so you can't even dock at a port
ooookay
>>30572848
Grapeshot would fuck that boat and her entire crew, also cannons of the time firing single round shot could hit out to half a mile or more. HMS Victory alone had 104 guns of various sizes and a crew compliment of 850, you seriously want to go against the entire fucking fleet?
>>30575299
the book is set in a world where there a giant sea monsters, two intelligent races, no humans. One of the Races are intelligent dinosaurs and the others are based of lemurs.
>>30576311
Should probably mention that the destroyer allies with the Lemur folk so it doesn't sound like the destroyer just starts skullfucking everything that breathes.
>>30574081
>Coast guard cutters
>Anti-ship missiles
Try:
>Otobreda 76 mm,
>Phalanx CIWS,
>2x Mark 38 25mm "Bushmaster"
>>30576439
Though to be fair, their CIWS would total their carrier wings.
>>30572871
Lets say half a million rounds
>>30573172
Right well lets say there's plenty of lube. And replacement parts
>>30573198
Yeah that was my thinking
>>30574385
I'll bite, but to clarify i take this as THE ENTIRE ROYAL NAVY BETWEEN 1870 AND 1928
Carrier would loose hands down, due only to the fact that carrier would run out of fuel and ammunition for the jets LONG before you had exhausted a fraction of the Royal Navy.
The smartest strategy would be to priotitize sinking fast cruisers and battlecruisers and run like hell from everything else. Mk 82s for heavily armoured ships and harpoons for DDs and CLs. Leave CIWS and strafing runs for motor torpedo boats and hope you can modify the SEARAMS and Sidewinders to seek Patrol Boats and DDs.
Crew should use the helos to raid to repenish supplies and race outta dodge when the Pre Dreadnaughts show up (I assume they wouldnt be worth the expenditure of ammunition, but pose a threat nonetheless.
>>30576340
>>30575299
>>30575416
I didn't want to spoiler anything
How about this: the entire USB as of 2016 vs every warship in history from before 1900. All ships involved have unlimited ammunition. No nukes.
>>30574203
because it's an incendinary round??
>>30577395
>All ships involved have unlimited ammunition
well what's the point then? carriers other blue-water ships can just wait to be boarded by ancient marines, and then use their UNLIMITED rifle ammo to kill them as they climb up the sides of the ship, or try to enter through doors.
even considering the millions of ancient marines and sailors that could try to attack at any one time, it would only take rifles to hold them off. using larger munitions and aircraft would just be icing on the cake.
>>30573562
the poop deck for sure
>>30574385
You will learn very quickly why carriers need an escort group to do their job.
>>30576956
>between 1870 and 1928
What no. That's crazy.
