Why don't we use battleships anymore? They're powerful and effective as we saw in WWI and WWII. And they also can show off your navy dick to the rest of the world.
Aircraft carriers are more versatile.
>>73637264
they were not effective in ww2. battleships were being cucked by aircraft carriers since 1939.
>>73637332
Yea but aircraft carries can't shell the shit out of a country for a week. And planes can get shot down.
>>73637428
Those were Japanese battleships, they were inferior and they were overconfident with their strategies by spreading them out too thin.
>>73637264
Zumwalt class would have the same bombardment capabilities. Unfortunately the cucks are only building 3 now.
Anything a battleship can do a carrier can do better.
>>73637607
>how you want your battleship senpai?
>I like lighthouses
>I got you
>>73637443
Aircraft carriers can bomb a country, ya' dingus.
>>73637443
You can't shell anything more than 40km inland unless you use cruise missiles and at that point you might as well just use an aircraft carrier because it's better at the job
>>73637264
They're too expensive to operate. Missiles and aircraft are more effective than cannons.
However, once railgun technology becomes advanced enough, we will probably see Railgun Battleships become real.
>>73637264
missile and planes beat guns nigga
>It's a op thinks he's smarter than the MIT egg heads and highy experienced war veterans that come up with these strategies thread
>>73637607
Navy fag here, it's not due to cucks, its that the entirety of the Zumwalt class is just a test bed for crazy shit. No one is trying to fund the Zoomie fleet, they just want to see what happens when you strap railguns and laser weapons on a boat...
>>73637826
I doubt it, Railguns will likely replace the bow cannons most missile boats have now unless theres some super advance in railgun lethality against anything larger than small craft. even with a rail gun, missiles and bombs are still more effective for bombardment
>>73638044
So is naval warfare useless then?
>>73638044
They look badass as fuck though. We need more shit like this.
Look up the sinking of the Yamato if you want a pretty in depth look about why carriers surpassed battleships. Basically in a ship on ship scenario a battleship will always win, but aircraft just need one decent hit om the propeller and the battleship is completely useless.
>>73638312
IDK having only 4 polygons looks really wierd
>>73638296
No?
Why the fuck would you think that?
>>73638426
Because apparently all you need to do is transport planes to a strategic location and take it from the air
>>73638511
>Because apparently all you need to do is transport planes to a strategic location
doesn't that take a navy though
>>73638662
Let me clarify, naval warfare, boat vs boat, is, from what I'm getting from this, useless.
>>73637776
Not to mention the massive collateral damage that comes with long range shelling.
Battleships are were never that useful, even in their heyday. It was more useful to build smaller and more numerous vessels than a battleship.
Today's guided missile destroyers are leagues deadlier, cheaper and more versatile than battleships.
>>73637504
BB's are slow and expensive plattforms and easy targets... since 1939.
>>73637264
Former USN engineer, here. The cost to upgrade, modernize and retrofit an Iowa class, would be about the same as building 3-4 Arleigh Burkes.
>>73638762
Yes. As far as I know the battle of jutland was the last time you saw big battleships shooting at each other.
>>73638789
Who gives a fuck? We didn't give fucks when fire bombing civilian targets in WW2.
They were finally retired when the military realized that there were far more effective and cost efficient methods of delivering 2000 pounds of explosives onto targets within 20 miles of a coastline. All of the machine shops equipped to service and repair 1940s warships also closed down. Battleships were awesome as hell, both WWI and WWII types, but are part of the past.
>>73638952
So then why did the German Military in preliminary WWI spend a third of their defense budget on their navy? (Which the majority were huge dreadnoughts and battleships)
>>73638762
Not at all, we've just been moving it to smaller ships since you can deliver bigger payload in smaller packages.
Carriers can't be everywhere, nor are they cheap to maintain. That's why the US and other countries maintain destroyers and cruisers, because they can still hit hard without being a massive commitment.
>>73639166
Because they didn't know any better.
>>73639166
Because the Kaiser was so impressed by the British naval review, he was awed by the power projected by a huge battle fleet, so he wanted one just like his Grandmother's. Both the Kaiser and the Czar were her grandsons. Those world wars were caused by a bunch of members of a retarded family who just couldn't get along.
>>73639166
>So then why did the German Military in preliminary WWI spend a third of their defense budget on their navy?
because the kaiser had the mind of a child and a massive inferiority complex.
>>73639047
The Bismarck had a few duels, it took on the Prince of Wales and the Hood, then the Rodney and King George V a few days later, in which the Bismarck was sunk. The Duke of York sank the Scharnhorst in 1943, and the USS South Dakota sank the Kirishima off of Gualdalcanal. The last Battleship on battleship action was the Battle of the Surigao straits, in 1944 in which about a half dozen US battleships sank the Fuso and Yamashiro. One of the 2, I forget which, was actually sunk by destroyers, but this battle was the last on in which a battleship fired upon another.
>>73637264
WW2 proved that small planes could destroy huge battleships no matter how much armor they pack
>>73637504
and the bismarck was what?
I think we need to start focusing on space ships.
It's 2016....
We own the seas.
We don't need them anymore.
>>73640006
Scuttled, not sunk.
>>73639002
This. We can't really afford to be swinging dick in the middle of the ocean right now
>>73637504
Did the Americans import Japanese vehicles into Pearl Harbor?
>>73637607
The most Jewish warship...
...in the world
>>73637264
They're big juicy targets, air superiority defeats their purpose, and subs do the whole bombardment thing better and more expensively than battleships.
>>73637264
I always wondered about it, yes using guided missiles is better in some ways but isn't it damn near impossible to stop a shell from hitting while missiles can be countered?
>>73640190
Gary McKinnon the autist hacker revealed that the US have a space fleet and an exchange program with Aluims
Search up "non terrestrial officers"
>>73637264
They just aren't that effective for their cost. It's like asking why we don't use knight armor anymore. The time and place for it has gone.
>>73637264
we do. remember a few years back america used a battle ship in the balck sea to threaten russia during the olympics just before the ukrainian coup that ends up instigating the ukrainian civil war
murica said it was for counter terrorism reasons they were pointing cannons on a battle ship at moscow. like firing into a city after some one blows them self up is going to make things better
>>73637264
Missiles
>>73639166
Nobody knew what was going on. Everyone is always fighting the last war.
>>73637332
>>73637428
>>73637637
>>73637714
>>73637776
What's funny is that aircraft carriers are also outdated technology. Once again, even today our admirals and generals are fighting the last war. Pic related.
>>73637443
You must be retarded.
A Nimitz class carry boasts about 90 aircraft and can stay operational at sea for months on end without resupply.
It alone possess more aircraft than most nations in their entire air force.
A single sortie from an Aircraft Carrier squadron can take down an entire Battleship, whereas if the Battleship wins it has only taken out a handful of pilots.
I'm surprised to see that nobody has said anti ship missiles yet.
Naval guns are simply useless when you can fire a single missile that can destroy an entire ship.
These missiles have dozens and dozens the effective range of a naval gun.
Most navies even "spam" smaller ships called missile boats that are just big enough to carry enough some 4 or 8 AShMs.
Of course, a lot of ships still have their naval guns, and they're expected to be used in close engagements.
In the Korean penninsula, both Northern and Southern navies make a lot of use of naval guns, because a conflict between the two is expected to involve a lot of close range naval fighting.
>>73637504
Remember that the Sheffield was hit by a single missile and sank during the Falklands war.
>>73641096
Here's a dong hae class just out of curiosity.
It has 3 Dual Oto Melara guns, 2 CIWs guns and a dual type something anti air gun.
>>73640382
>Sexy babe
>Only belt and thong cover cunt and ass
>Search google
>IOS/Android Game
>Bone gone
>>73641096
The Millennial Challenge.
>>73640997
Nazi germany uses all its budget to make missiles capable of cucking airplanes of the era
how far they can get?
>>73641496
They could've had more success at stopping Allied bombing, but it's hard to say.
Americans and British had considerable advantage in electronics.
>>73637264
We have missiles
>>73641496
Far enough to hit London.
It's a little different though, since they didn't have pinpoint guidance chips. A modern missile is accurate enough that it can fly up the nose of a carrier's captain.
>>73638411
It looks unnatural and therefore eerie and menacing. It's like the giant D8 Angel from Evangelion
>>73639047
>What was the Battle of Leyte Gulf?
>>73641989
>it looks menacing
you know nothing pablo
>>73640997
>What is anti-Missile technology?
Brits proved the effectiveness in the Falklands war of just throwing up a bunch of shit to confuse the missile from its target and lead it off course.
The farther away you fire the missile the more time the fleet has to prepare to show you how much time you've wasted.
>>73640985
St Petersburg I could believe but Moscow is hundreds of km away from the ocean
>>73637443
A week? A battleship can empty its balls in one afternoon of shelling.
>>73637264 +1 for picking a South Dakota Class.
>>73642472
Do you really think that anti missile technology is that effective?
The Argies were using Exocet missiles, by the way.
>>73640006
Bismarck was inferior to most US Battleships and was btfo by one torp from a biplane.
>>73642696
And the Brits threw up tin foil to confuse it
But it still worked.
US carrier task forces use AEGIS to guide intercept missiles
Once again, the only advantage is supposed to be "muh distance"
But "muh distance" also gives the carrier fleet time to coordinate intercept missiles
>>73642472
Which is why the DF-21D was developed with that in mind. It's high speed, and high maneuverability makes it quite impossible to hit with another missile (or anything else) before it impacts, and even EMC is only partially effective, since it can use infrared, radar, and optical targeting, all at the same time.
Given it's speed, from maximum distance after launch you would have about 15 minutes maximum to detect it, deploy ECM, and change course far enough that it can't readjust.
Quite simply, submarines are basically the only naval force of any use anymore.
>>73637264
They were obsolete by WW2, what makes you think they're effective now? That's not to say I wouldn't mind having battleships because god those things are beautiful.
>>73639770
Washington sunk Kirishima, not South Dakota. Fuck that credit stealing bitch.
I asked /k/ and they said you are all stupid. Also they posted this.
>>73637264
As much as I love the size and armour of the old superdreadnoughts and battlecruisers, nowadays surface combat doctrine is all about not getting hit in the first place. Ships need to be quick and agile now, to avoid the real shipkiller MVPs, pic related.
The only role battleships can play now is shore bombardment which we can do more accurately with missiles and airdropped bombs, and of course drone strikes.
>>73637504
The Japanese Navy was the most advanced and experienced force on the water at the start of WWII.
>>73637264
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_battle_of_the_battleship_Bismarck
> And they also can show off your navy dick to the rest of the world.
Aircraft carriers are better for this.
>>73644879
Signal flags?
>>73644997
Whoops, forgot pic
>>73637264
>They're powerful and effective as we saw in WWI and WWII.
WWII was literally the conflict that showed they were irrelevant compared to aircraft carriers.
because it turns out that you can equip a frigate with some cruize missles and sink a battleship without even being in the range of its' artillery
>b-but, sh-shore bombardment
if it's against a smaller country, you can just send your superior airforce. very effective too, as seen in iraq.
if it's against a strong country, they will just throw 10 ballistic missles and incapaciate it. even if you have screens with some protection system equipped, 2-3 will definitely land.
battleships are just obsolete.
>>73644879
>>73645169
Yes. He's basically saying he's docked.
>>73640997
>that pic
CBARS is being developed to offset this.
>>73638044
Spoke to an O-1 who knew more about it than I do. Said the lasers are more short range than anything.
Also said the recession had a lot to do with the low numbers.
Also you ready for China bro?
>>73644094
The average IQ on /k/ is 80, evidenced by the fact that this retard has to post in all-caps to get his point across.
>>73641353
Fuck me, that thing looks like it's made of timber and they just painted it grey and built some other shit on it. Wouldn't surprise me if that entire superstructure is made of plywood.
>>73646702
The superstructure on the first Zumwalt is made from composite, the other 2 will be steel.
>>73637826
MAC cannons when
>>73646975
NOW BITCH!
USA
USA
USA
OP has never heard of the Bismarck or Yamato
>>73641155
Modern ships don't have armor. Seriously ASM are so powerful it would be pointless to weigh down the ship.
>>73637264
Because today a cruise missile could sink a ship that large before it even got within firing range. Its all about speed and stealth now.
