|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 11, 2011 23:47:03 GMT -5
That's largely my point. Since carriers aren't much of a threat in naval combat these days and there's an entire ocean between China and the US, this isn't really a threat to US naval superiority. A sign that the US should be on its toes about any Chinese ambitions, certainly, but not a direct threat. Battleships are what has been rendered obsolete. Carriers are intended for you to be able to park your ship 100 miles away from shore and then send in the jets to fuck shit up. Which is still a somewhat useful thing. There's a reason they still get used. I'm a little confused here. Did I say somewhere that aircraft carriers are obsolete? |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Jun 11, 2011 23:47:38 GMT -5
The thing that most reduces the usefulness of battleships is that it is far more effective to send a few Hornets in to blow up the bastards with more accuracy than a shell can provide.
|
|
|
|
Post by Damen on Jun 11, 2011 23:54:41 GMT -5
The thing that most reduces the usefulness of battleships is that it is far more effective to send a few Hornets in to blow up the bastards with more accuracy than a shell can provide. Actually, that's not completely true. During the first Gulf War, the Missouri would send up a spotter drone to keep a set of cross-hairs on a target and feed data back to the ship. The old battleships could put a shell right on the bullseye, even at the extreme limit of their range. However, the simple fact is that you can put an aircraft carrier farther off the coast and be able to send a few Hornets up to hit a target further inland than a 16-inch shell can reach, even if the battleship is firing from the shallows. |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 11, 2011 23:56:47 GMT -5
The thing that most reduces the usefulness of battleships is that it is far more effective to send a few Hornets in to blow up the bastards with more accuracy than a shell can provide. Back in WWII when ships still used to throw shells at each other, sure. However, in this day and age of not only long range ship-to-ship missiles but also ship-mounted SAMs, not so much. Carriers make a good air base substitute when no land-based counterpart is available, but in terms of naval fire power cruisers are where it's at nowadays. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Jun 11, 2011 23:58:05 GMT -5
Yeah. IIRC, a battleship's 16" cannons can hit stuff for up to "only" 75 miles away. The shells screaming by overhead, from what I've heard, scares the shit out of the locals.
It may be a bit more expensive to send a compliment of Hornets to blow something to pieces, but each Hornet can carry enough ordinance to flatten multiple targets. I must admit that a single 16" shell will fuck up anything it hits, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 12, 2011 1:20:03 GMT -5
Yeah. IIRC, a battleship's 16" cannons can hit stuff for up to "only" 75 miles away. The shells screaming by overhead, from what I've heard, scares the shit out of the locals. It may be a bit more expensive to send a compliment of Hornets to blow something to pieces, but each Hornet can carry enough ordinance to flatten multiple targets. I must admit that a single 16" shell will fuck up anything it hits, though. They didn't earn the nickname "pool makers" for nothing |
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jun 12, 2011 11:17:13 GMT -5
I think the beauty of a shell is that you literally cannot do a damn thing to stop it so it is very dependable fire support. Jets can be knocked down and disrupted with cheap shoulder fired weapons, gun batteries and SAM sites (never mind enemy aircraft). Missiles are harder to mess with, but their response time to a targeting request is slow. To stop a battleship from pounding things to snot from 70 miles away requires major effort that I imagine most nations are incapable of mustering and a request to shift fire 20 meters can be met very quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Jun 13, 2011 22:36:31 GMT -5
I think the beauty of a shell is that you literally cannot do a damn thing to stop it Unless you have some kind of CIWS. The average apartment building wouldn't, of course. But airbases and stuff might. |
|
|
|
Post by Napoleon the Clown on Jun 13, 2011 22:58:47 GMT -5
Uh, Fred? A 16" shell ain't gonna get stopped by a gunfire. It's coming down to wreck your shit. Gravity is what is telling it to come kill you. Planes and missiles? Yeah, they can get blown up. The shells they fired? 1,000 kilos or more. Those aren't gonna give a shit about what are essentially spitwads pelting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by shadoom2 on Jun 14, 2011 21:04:31 GMT -5
Yes, but you could pretty easily get a quote from some US navy founder saying the same deal. New, successful states aren't necessarily Nazi evil. Not to mention 1908 is kind of a neutral point in time for germany. Kinda like pointing to a random point in any nation's history and saying that this is bad Umm, what? In 1908 Germany was well into the arms race with the UK that was one of the main causes of World War 1. [1] The context of the Kaiser's quote, and the one from the Chinese general, was after being asked: "Why are you building a huge navy that seems specifically designed to fight the UK/US?" So, in both cases a rapidly developing power has been in an arms race with an established superpower,[2] and when important people from the country were asked about their arms build up their response is that its to defend their economic interests. In the first case a world war started 6 years later, so the similarities in the second case seem rather ominous. 1: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_naval_arms_race)2: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13761711(I realize that trying to argue historical points online is mostly pointless, but I have no essays to write at the moment so this is my way of practicing) |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Jun 14, 2011 21:42:16 GMT -5
Not to mention 1908 is kind of a neutral point in time for germany. Kinda like pointing to a random point in any nation's history and saying that this is bad Umm, what? In 1908 Germany was well into the arms race with the UK that was one of the main causes of World War 1 [1]. The context of the Kaiser's quote, and the one from the Chinese general, was after being asked: "Why are you building a huge navy that seems specifically designed to fight the UK/US?" So, in both cases a rapidly developing power has been in an arms race with an established superpower[2], and when important people from the country are asked about their arms build up their response is that its to defend their economic interests. In the first case a world war started 6 years later, so the similarities in the second case seems rather ominous. 1: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_naval_arms_race)2: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13761711(I realize that trying to argue historical points online is mostly pointless, but I have no essays to write at the moment so this is my way of practicing)As opposed to someone trying to link it to Nazi Germany? |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Jun 14, 2011 22:16:29 GMT -5
Not to mention 1908 is kind of a neutral point in time for germany. Kinda like pointing to a random point in any nation's history and saying that this is bad Umm, what? In 1908 Germany was well into the arms race with the UK that was one of the main causes of World War 1 [1]. The context of the Kaiser's quote, and the one from the Chinese general, was after being asked: "Why are you building a huge navy that seems specifically designed to fight the UK/US?" So, in both cases a rapidly developing power has been in an arms race with an established superpower[2], and when important people from the country are asked about their arms build up their response is that its to defend their economic interests. In the first case a world war started 6 years later, so the similarities in the second case seems rather ominous. 1: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_naval_arms_race)2: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13761711(I realize that trying to argue historical points online is mostly pointless, but I have no essays to write at the moment so this is my way of practicing)It seems to me that the "protecting economic interests" is the standard excuse used to cover any military build up for any reason. Hell, you could probably ask an Indian admiral about his country's naval building program and he'd likely say the same thing. No, I don't have a quote to prove it and no I can't be arsed finding one, I'm just saying I don't think war with China in the near future is particularly likely, especially considering the relationship between China and the west is rather symbiotic. |
|
