Smart or Stupid
- Thread starter kelly4
- Start date
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
You said, she said, he said ,...but I can`t .....Right?
tip top toker
Well-Known Member
You made the claim
your argument would be like me claiming I can fly but demanding you prove I can't. You're an idiot.When you make a claim, you have to back it up. You can't. Yet are too stupid to then retract your claim, instead just opting to make yourself look like a fool.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
I disagree and see many issues with water and that kind of exposed juice. It`s a limited use but deadly weapon.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
You made the claim
When you make a claim, you have to back it up. You can't. Yet are too stupid to then retract your claim, instead just opting to make yourself look like a fool.
I stand by my claim. It wont happen and can`t be done to a battle ready US warship. So you don`t twist more, I have stated a few times we are talking about a moving sub.
tip top toker
Well-Known Member
Yet you can't prove a thing. You can offer nothing more than your opinion. And whether you claim to be talking about a moving sub or not, your statement was that it could out run torpedo's. Just grow up and accept your error. Sheesh.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
It can. It has durring tests, that`s recorded. Show me it can`t.
OddBall1st
Well-Known Member
That gun has gone back to the drawing board a few times with major flaws. When it`s perfected, if they can....Look out cuz you could prolly hit the moon with it. It`s probably gonna end up being a land based gun. But time will tell.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Battleships are gigantic. They need to be gigantic to house the insane amount of guns and ammo they carry. Their cannons are obsolete in the face of cruise missiles. No need for guns means no need for gigantic size. Smaller size means more maneuverable, harder to see, and harder to hit. Having 5 small ships that can be easily deployed to various locations is vastly superior to having one large ship, with a limited range, that's super easy to hit.
Carriers fuck up battleships big time, and have the capability to lead a fleet as a capitol ship making battleships even more obsolete.
End of discussion.
Carriers fuck up battleships big time, and have the capability to lead a fleet as a capitol ship making battleships even more obsolete.
End of discussion.
I guess we will have to wait and see.. http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/US-Navy-Ready-to-Deploy-Laser-Gun-2014-02-17/
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
Need more be said? Do you still have to take that Constitutional oath thingy?
That is because torpedoes are not all created equal.
You can Three main factors; yield (explosive power), speed, and range.
An increase in one means decreases in the others.
First, to think of killing a BB you need massive yield. This will reduce speed and range.
Since a modern BB would be super fast, it becomes problematic to get a torpedo big enough, to hurt a BB, that can be launched from a platform small and maneuverable enough to get into range without getting obliterated that is fast enough to close distance and has enough range. You would need multiple vessels launching torpedod to get a wide enough spread. Trust me, this isn't easy.
Then the BB isn't the only problem, it is going to have escorts. DD, CL and FF running around killing the small torpedo boats and doing asw.
A modern BB would be problematic to deal with from the enemies point of view.
I think they are versatile enough to possibly justify a new design once we have perfected the rail gun.
Or perhaps the German style pocket battleship to deal with close quarter situations. Look up the DKM Duetchland, and P Project. Small, heavily armored, with 11 inch guns that packed a punch.
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
They no longer fill a niche.
Carriers can deliver much more firepower, from further away, and also travel in fleets, protected by corvettes, frigates, and destroyers.
Battleships were designed to take out other ships. Planes do an exceptionally good job at this already.
So, what purpose, besides overlapping already existing platforms, would a giant BB have? What offensive or defensive operation can you not handle with the 90 aircraft (and 2 × Mk 29 ESSM launcher
2 × RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile 3x Phalanx CIWS[SUP][/SUP]) on board a Nimitz-class carrier that you could get done with the guns on a BB? lol
Maybe if railguns become active, a specific railgun ship would be advantageous.... but as for old ass BB's, with old ass guns, it's just silly.
nobodycanknow
New Member
I know many people who have joined the military.... A good percentage joined for the benefits and lifetime insurance. It's only 4 years minimum.
Cost. I don't think we need to have massive numbers of them like early twentieth century navies had, but having a handful could be beneficial under the right circumstances.
A 16inch he round is significantly cheaper than a cruise middle or a strike fighter.
Air defense networks cant do anything against a shell.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Consider the slogan.
The navy can't even imply that we should join the service out of duty to our country, out of a desire to serve Americans. What it is forced to do is quietly signify that perhaps our military doesn't defend our rights but because it is OUR military, and because it is a "force for good" then the country must be "good". want to do some "good"? join a military that commonly kills children and brown people in the interests of one economic concern or another, or better yet, in the pursuit of a small group's political motivations. Here, put your life on the line so Dick Cheney can assert his understanding of the power of the executive branch. Or, here, put yourself on the edge so that Obama can wield you with the others as uncertainly as is possible. Or, here, join the military so that you will be celebrated one day of the year by the country and used by the political right paying lip service "thank you for your service", while ensuring that your family may or may not remain on food stamps and might help you with any diseases or injuries you may have gotten in while performing that "service".
canndo
Well-Known Member
Battle ships gave my father an erection too. That is until he served as interpreter for the Italian Navy during the Bikini Atoll tests. Then nuclear bombs gave him an erection while all of the navy brass of three countries, America, England and Italy, each at one time or another ruled the sea exclaimed or thought - "with this, all navies are now obsolete".
Turns out they were wrong.
canndo
Well-Known Member
Have you any idea now much trouble I get every time I use this very line of reasoning? "well, the military defends our rights" they say. And I ask which rights I have that I would not have had if we had not lost men in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf I and Gulf II. It upsets them more when I explain that currently it is lawyers who "defend our rights", along with common folk who invoke those lawyers.
canndo
Well-Known Member
I am respectful of linemen, those people who risk their lives every day to ensure we all have dependable power for our homes, our hospitals our schools and our industry. Thank you linemen for your service.
canndo
Well-Known Member
the short answer is no. Our military did not protect our freedoms by going into Afghanistan even if there were training camps there. Now, did the NSA protect our freedoms? Does the CIA protect our freedoms? some could argue that they have while others will argue that they have actually been instrumental in removing them and they have been far more sucessful than AQ or terrorists could have ever deamed of being.
What if we said that our military makes us "safer". Might be the case, but probably not with regard to terrorists. Terrorism has never been about killing people. It is about asymetrical warfare and instilling terror in the population. It is about causing large countries to over react and inhibit their own proceedings while terrorists simply sit back and wait. How many millions of hours of productivity did one man with a failed plan to put a bomb in his shoes did that single man manage to deny our country? He was very successful even though he actually managed to do nothing at all but terrorize us. In fact I don't even think he managed to terrorize anyone but our government.