Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: What would make the Battleship...
  • Subject: What would make the Battleship...
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: What would make the Battleship...
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:

...a viable weapons platform again?

WW2 saw the death of battleships because without air power, they were sitting ducks for other enemy fighters.

This was of course during WW2 and with the creation of missiles, any modern day battleship would be more than capable to shoot down a squadron of enemy fighters.

Or am I just a sucker for the big heavies which prove far too often in actual combat scenarios that they just can't cut it?

[Edited on 01.03.2013 8:45 PM PST]

  • 01.03.2013 8:44 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Writer's Corner
6/15/2011 11:39 PM: bobcast [2597260] issued a 3 day ban expiring on 6/18/2011 11:39 PM.
Reason: A Bungie.net Forum Moderator has banned you for violating the code of conduct and/or rules of the forum in the thread below
http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=61704535
Inappropriate. Went a little to far with the butt hole tearing.

Videogames.

  • 01.03.2013 8:45 PM PDT

Railguns

  • 01.03.2013 8:46 PM PDT

Name: Vien (Sven) 'Quitonm
Age: 19
Species: Sangheili
Height: 6'7"
Weight: 240 Lbs.
Eye Colour: Grey

Well, they do have nuclear subs to scout now...

  • 01.03.2013 8:46 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Mythic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

With missile technology being what it is, the battleship is quite unnecessary. I suppose the big guns could be useful artillery support for invasions, but that is about it.

  • 01.03.2013 8:46 PM PDT

Why Bungie, why would you do this?! - Halo Community

The widespread production and effective use of railguns.

  • 01.03.2013 8:47 PM PDT

Battleships were used in Korea and Vietnam.

  • 01.03.2013 8:47 PM PDT

They won't ever be viable.


Unless they turn into some carrier/battleship hybrid that can defend itself at sea without an entire fleet to support it.


  • 01.03.2013 8:47 PM PDT

Calculus calms my troubled mind


Posted by: HundredJono
Railguns

  • 01.03.2013 8:48 PM PDT

i am antisxeual, i love "doctor who", i want the letters P, H and D after my name someday and humanity's greatest accomplishment will be its own extinction


Posted by: HundredJono
Railguns

legitimately this

  • 01.03.2013 8:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Battleships were used in Korea and Vietnam.

Only because neither of those nations had a Navy that could stand up to them.

  • 01.03.2013 8:51 PM PDT

Signatures are for little kids.


Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Battleships were used in Korea and Vietnam.
Did they help achieve victory?

  • 01.03.2013 8:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:

Posted by: ferret
With missile technology being what it is, the battleship is quite unnecessary. I suppose the big guns could be useful artillery support for invasions, but that is about it.

I think it depends.

Everyone likes using missiles because of ease of use and because they can place the user out of harm's way.

Nobody thinks about the costs though.

Bombardment from a sea based vessel might be cheaper and just as effective.

  • 01.03.2013 8:55 PM PDT

Signatures are for little kids.


Posted by: Methew
Bombardment from a sea based vessel might be cheaper and just as effective.
Whatever kills people for the least amount of money is okay in my books.

  • 01.03.2013 8:57 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

KOTOR

yes i am aledog of alemaxhaxs, no you can not haz sub, no you can not haz me, yes you can haz my boot in yer face


Posted by: Godshatter

Posted by: RockdaleRooster
Battleships were used in Korea and Vietnam.
Did they help achieve victory?


I would not use that word with those wars to be honest.

  • 01.03.2013 8:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Godshatter

Posted by: Methew
Bombardment from a sea based vessel might be cheaper and just as effective.
Whatever kills people for the least amount of money is okay in my books.

Course now-a-days, it's all about precision bombing on far inland targets.

There's no modern navy to actually fight against.

  • 01.03.2013 8:59 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.

Depends on whether real sea-to-shore artillery bombardment is a useful form of combat.

The battlewagons were made to throw huge shells long distances with pretty impressive accuracy. But cruise missiles, drone-launched ordnance and other technologies have reduced the need for a large bang in hostile territory by replacing it with a properly sized bang exactly where it brings the most effect (shutting down communications, destroying a radar network, hitting the vehicle in the convoy that has the lead bad guy, etc.).

Artillery shore pounding was a lot like WWII air strikes, a LOT of booms, but not many of them hit as effectively as they should have. They could crater a few square miles like the moon, and then you could land troops, but that may be a less efficient or effective method.

In which case, these long and heavy gun platforms would be nothing more than expensive and hard to miss prizes for air or shore launched anti-shipping missiles.

I think that their time may have past.

  • 01.03.2013 9:03 PM PDT

Signatures are for little kids.


Posted by: Methew

Posted by: Godshatter

Posted by: Methew
Bombardment from a sea based vessel might be cheaper and just as effective.
Whatever kills people for the least amount of money is okay in my books.

Course now-a-days, it's all about precision bombing on far inland targets.

There's no modern navy to actually fight against.
Sorry, I was being sarcastic.

I live in Canada so wars and stuff you need to fight in wars is the furthest thing from my mind.

  • 01.03.2013 9:04 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Methew
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Recon Number 54
In which case, these long and heavy gun platforms would be nothing more than expensive and hard to miss prizes for air or shore launched anti-shipping missiles.

I think that their time may have past.

Think there's any chance then by basically making them giant floating missile batteries?

  • 01.03.2013 9:12 PM PDT

Air Force wins battles!

I think they are great for intimidation.

I would be scared if i saw this just offshore from me.

  • 01.03.2013 9:17 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

The who wishes, fervently wishes

Turn them into gigantic missile platforms, build some in thirty years with the fully developed railguns, and arm them with a -blam!-on of missile batteries and maybe a UAV launch deck. You could probably put a VTOL pad and have a small squadron of anti-aircraft UAV's.

  • 01.03.2013 9:22 PM PDT

~Thread-killer~


Posted by: Dark Hunter 2100
The widespread production and effective use of railguns.

  • 01.03.2013 9:22 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Well, here we are. I guess that it was destined to come to this.


Posted by: Methew
Posted by: Recon Number 54
In which case, these long and heavy gun platforms would be nothing more than expensive and hard to miss prizes for air or shore launched anti-shipping missiles.

I think that their time may have past.

Think there's any chance then by basically making them giant floating missile batteries?

No. You could build dozens of DDG's and FFG's with the same amount of money, have multiple launchers, each harder to hit, more maneuverable, and impossible to take out all of them with a single missile, and have the same launch capabilities as a single BBG.

The BB's are/were so big because they were built around those freaking immense guns. Without them, there's no reason for a boat that big.

  • 01.03.2013 9:23 PM PDT

Posted by: HundredJono
Railguns

  • 01.03.2013 9:23 PM PDT

Generalizations.
Helping idiots hate other idiots since people have existed.

Small ships can carry huge payloads now with the development of missiles. And battleships are big targets.

  • 01.03.2013 9:24 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2