StarDestroyer.Net BBS

If you were to go back in time to the time of the American Revolution and either fight for America or England or carve your own empire.. which ship would be the best for the LONG run to take to achieve dominance?

1) The U.S.S. Iowa (Battleship)
2) Or the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan? (Carrier)

And assume that you can only take ONE of these ships and NO support or supply ships.

The Iowa. Planes would suck up fuel too fast if I have no resupply. Of course, it's ridiculous to think a single battleship with no resupply could hold an empire.

strategically, the carrier is better. you wouldnt need a battleship because the enemy ships are completely incapable of damaging a modern ship. force projection thanks to planes is a much better weapon. you can not only target other ships but could take out entire armies without having to actually kill anyone because the ship and planes alone would be enough to force concession.

SirNitram wrote:The Iowa. Planes would suck up fuel too fast if I have no resupply. Of course, it's ridiculous to think a single battleship with no resupply could hold an empire.

But you can use terror tactics to get people to join your forces.

The Iowa. I agree with Nitram. planes just aren't practical. but then again the Iowa would run out of fuel not more than a week or so after entrance intocombat. I would really rather have one of these! Isn't shepretty?

Well, let's stand this thing here on its head for a moment.

You could reconfigure the carrier as well. Odds are you don't need all 80+ airplanes. You wouldn't need some of the planes at all since there are no underwater or air threats. Maybe even 20-30 planes or even less would be needed. I'm pretty sure with 10 planes you could wreak havoc on any fleet or army and you could use the extra space for fuel tanks since bombardment from enemy fleets would not likely risk penetrating through the decks and rupturing the fuel.

Or maybe take a few vulcans.. nail them onto the deck and ram enemy fleets while straffing at their hulls.

You have the technology,you have the knowledge of where the oil is,build what you need to get the oil,refine the oil and you`re back in Brits crushing business.

A modern CVN carries enough aviation fuel and spare parts for an unsupported cruise of at least two months' length (Operation Sea Orbit, an unsupported world cruise in 1964 of Nuclear Task Force One - USS Enterprise CVN-65, USS Long Beach CGN-9 and USS Bainbridge DLGN-25 (later CGN-25) - lasted from 30 July to 3 October 1964).

We're looking at one bomb-one ship kill for the Royal Navy, and Reagan can outrun any ship the RN can send after her like it was standing still (for that matter, so could Iowa, but Iowa has a range limitation in her conventional oil-fired steam engines).

Two months of carrier operations would completely subdue the British forces in the Colonies.

Trytostaydead wrote:Well, let's stand this thing here on its head for a moment.

You could reconfigure the carrier as well. Odds are you don't need all 80+ airplanes. You wouldn't need some of the planes at all since there are no underwater or air threats. Maybe even 20-30 planes or even less would be needed. I'm pretty sure with 10 planes you could wreak havoc on any fleet or army and you could use the extra space for fuel tanks since bombardment from enemy fleets would not likely risk penetrating through the decks and rupturing the fuel.

Or maybe take a few vulcans.. nail them onto the deck and ram enemy fleets while straffing at their hulls.

convert the whole damn thing into a superdreadnaught. cram the flight deck with nothing but phalanx and TLAM's. save a few helicopters.

As far as nuclear-powered surface ships go, I'd rather have a Virginia-class CGN (updated with VLS) than a Kirov. Of course, getting your hands on a Virginia right now might be tough...

Iceberg wrote:As far as nuclear-powered surface ships go, I'd rather have a Virginia-class CGN (updated with VLS) than a Kirov. Of course, getting your hands on a Virginia right now might be tough...

Come on, overkill is overkill. A Kirov would do the job fine.

The Carrier. Frankly, you'd only need to make one or two runs with the aircraft. After your aircraft unleash death and destruction from the skies, most if not all 18th century would instantly cave into your demands, out of fear.

irishmick79 wrote:The Carrier. Frankly, you'd only need to make one or two runs with the aircraft. After your aircraft unleash death and destruction from the skies, most if not all 18th century would instantly cave into your demands, out of fear.

Not bloody likley, most likley they'd all agree to take you on and fight to the end, at least if you try to subjugate a democracy. However if you just get rid of the British Navy you'd be fine. HEck they'd probably keep on coming for another month before home even got the news.

Does either choice come with nuclear weapons?

Arrow Mk84 wrote:Does either choice come with nuclear weapons?

Well, carriers carry tactical nukes, don't they?

Trytostaydead wrote:

Arrow Mk84 wrote:Does either choice come with nuclear weapons?

Well, carriers carry tactical nukes, don't they?

If they do, it's news to me...not that I'm exactly up-to-date with the armaments of carriers.

Well, with the machine shops on either vessel you should be able to bring up the local tech level pretty far...

EmperorMing wrote:Well, with the machine shops on either vessel you should be able to bring up the local tech level pretty far...

I said exactly something like that,but noone ever listen to poor Zathras.

Ronald Reagan, unlike Iowa she won't run out of fuel after 20,000 miles. While her air group wouldn't last long, afterwards the vessel would be able to haul a vast force of troops and could mount plenty of cannons for her own defence though ramming would smash anything afloat. The vessel also has a very large machine shop to help maintain her air group which could be of great use, Iowa also has one but its much smaller.

I'd pick the carrier. The battleship would only be able to strike targets close to shore. However, with a few bombers at my disposal, I'd make short work of those colonial terrorists.

Trytostaydead wrote:

Arrow Mk84 wrote:Does either choice come with nuclear weapons?

Well, carriers carry tactical nukes, don't they?

US surface vessels have not carried nuclear weapons since the early 1990's

Sea Skimmer wrote: US surface vessels have not carried nuclear weapons since the early 1990's

Actually from what ive heard they keep a small number of free fall tactical nuclear weapons B57 or B61s i think.

As for the question i take the carrier Unlimited range and enought fuel for 1-2 months of full scale flight ops. If you ration you could extend that out to over 6 months. You wouldnt need many stikes to decimate the English army and navy. After that it would be pure power projection.

I'd say the carrier. The planes could take out forces inland, and a month or two should be enough to carry out their mission.

What if once you take the carrier back in time, you realize that you forgot the planes and can't go back to get them? Would the carrier have any use without planes?

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi wrote:I'd say the carrier. The planes could take out forces inland, and a month or two should be enough to carry out their mission.

What if once you take the carrier back in time, you realize that you forgot the planes and can't go back to get them? Would the carrier have any use without planes?

Scaring the shit out of the coastal regions.