BBs vs CVs vs ASMs (Get a fucking clue, keep it out of PST)

[Rogue 9]

b)what offensive punch a battleship does have can nowadays easily be packed into a cruiser-size vessel.

Really? So they make cruisers that can do this:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/BoardPics/IowaBlast.jpg
now? Color me unconvinced.

Cute. Why don't you try to get her within gun range of a reasonable modern surface force...
A BBs missile armament, which is the only one relevant in a surface/surface engagement, can easily be packed into a cruiser size vessel.
Case in point: 32 Tom's for an Iowa vs up to 122 for a VLS AEGIS. Hell, a modified Spruance can outgun her...
Are you being deliberately dense?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that you said that a cruiser can match the Iowa's offensive firepower, with no qualifiers indicating that you were only counting one weapons system. Each of those gun barrels is tossing a 16" shell, each weighing at least a ton (I forget the exact shell weight). Barring a tactical nuclear warhead, a Tomahawk missile's warhead is only half that. A Spruance would simply disintegrate beneath that broadside. The same cannot be said of that battleship, its armor belt, and a few Tomahawks. I'm not saying that the battleship isn't obsolete. I'm saying that it can throw more steel and high explosive than any other surface combatant. You're equating range with firepower, which is simply not true.

[Batman]

I repeat: how do you intend to get Iowa within gun range of a credible modern surface force?
The Spruance will never get that close because the Iowa died to missile strikes 250 miles out...
And we're NOT talking 'a few' Tomahawks. We're talking DOZENS.
Let's not talk about Iowa vs a RUSSIAN SAG...

Oh, and by the time you posted that nifty picture I had clarified I was talking about missiles...

[Rogue 9]

I don't intend to get the Iowa within gun range of a credible modern surface force. In case you failed to notice, I was saying precisely this back on the previous page when I noted why battleships were retired from the Navy. The only thing I'm disputing is that a destroyer can beat a battleship for volume of fire, not that modern CGs and DDGs can't beat the shit out of the BB at range. But just for the sake of argument, if we're talking about just the Spruance by itself, how did it locate the battleship? Remember, no satellites and no aircraft support beyond the destroyer's chopper. 250 miles out is well far enough for an object on the surface to be below the radar horizon of a surface installation/ship. The missile can't hit something it can't find, and the destroyer without support has no means of finding it. Granted, the unsupported battleship can't find the Spruance either, so unless they blunder into each other we're looking at a non-encounter. And the outcome of one ship against an entire battle group is preordained no matter what the ship is, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

[Batman]

I don't intend to get the Iowa within gun range of a credible modern surface force. In case you failed to notice, I was saying precisely this back on the previous page when I noted why battleships were retired from the Navy. The only thing I'm disputing is that a destroyer can beat a battleship for volume of fire,

For the volume of fire it can actually bring to bear in a modern surface warfare scenario, i.e. a missile engagement, it DOES. Whatever firepower the ship has in theory can safely be ignored if it cannot be conceivably brought to bear. Since you seem to know it cannot be brought to bear what is the problem?

And the outcome of one ship against an entire battle group is preordained no matter what the ship is, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

I never intended to run a single BB up against a complete task group, though I see how you got the idea.
However, in a believable engagement between two task forces -one with BBs the other with DDGs/CGs -the CG/DDG force has equivalent (superior, actually) employable firepower to the BB group...

If the qualifier is not painfully obvious by now-

what relevant offensive punch a battleship does have can nowadays easily be packed into a cruiser-size vessel.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer than that.

[Uraniun235]

This one is, unless you care to show that a starship's weapons have a longer firing range than the Peregrin tactical fighters have engine endurance.

It's not just engine endurance; there's also the critical questions of how much firepower the fighters can pack and how much punishment they can take.

A carrier fighter can carry a bomb that will severely damage an enemy capital ship in one hit.

A handful of naval fighters can disable or even sink an enemy capital ship on Earth.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

No, I'm not. I'm saying that you said that a cruiser can match the Iowa's offensive firepower, with no qualifiers indicating that you were only counting one weapons system. Each of those gun barrels is tossing a 16" shell, each weighing at least a ton (I forget the exact shell weight).

Using the whole shell weight (which counts body and propellant) is like using the whole Tomahawk weight. The real bursting charge even in Iowa's HC shells is 154 pounds.

Using this count, and 130 rounds per gun for the Iowa, the total explosive weight is 180,180 pounds. You may then tack on 32000 pounds for the onboard Tomahawks. The Tico VLS system's missiles can have 122000 pounds, 2/3rds of the total salvo firepower and over half even counting the refitted missiles.

[Alyeska]

I leave for 24 hours and find you people arguing this shit in my PST thread. I have split the thread and now I am going to purge EVERY Trek reference from the OT thread and EVERY modern reference from the PST thread.

You irritate me by ruining my thread and giving me this work.

[frigidmagi]

now thats impressive! Are you talking about the liquid kevlar jackets?please give me a link or something this should be a good read, thanks.

No, I'm talking the current ceramic insert used by me and the boys when we hit Iraq. A Corpsmen I knew was evacing wounded via copter when one of them stood up and shot him with said AK-47. He was knocked on his ass and returned fire with his 9 Mil, killing the Iraqi.

He told me of this in Kuwait after the war, showing me an impressive dinner plate sized briuse. Say it felt like being hit by a fricking Bat.

[Howedar]

No it wasn't. The USSR built four like the Admiral Gorshkov- the Admiral Gorshkov was the last of them

No, the Admiral Gorshkov (launched in 1982) was the first of this kind of carrier, it was a sort of mini version of the much larger Admiral Kuznetsov which was launched in 1985.

Congratulations Nobrain_Shitstain, you're flat out fucking wrong. Not only was Baku (later Admiral Gorshkov) the last of the Project 1143's, but it was in no way related to Kuznetsov.

[fgalkin]

I leave for 24 hours and find you people arguing this shit in my PST thread. I have split the thread and now I am going to purge EVERY Trek reference from the OT thread and EVERY modern reference from the PST thread.

You irritate me by ruining my thread and giving me this work.

Why? How is this any differend from any other thread hijack? And don't we have rules about altering posts?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Alyeska]

I leave for 24 hours and find you people arguing this shit in my PST thread. I have split the thread and now I am going to purge EVERY Trek reference from the OT thread and EVERY modern reference from the PST thread.

You irritate me by ruining my thread and giving me this work.

Why? How is this any differend from any other thread hijack? And don't we have rules about altering posts?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Rules for altering posts? A whole damned "thread within a thread" was created and it was longer then the original. I deleted every Trek reference because they don't bloody belong and have nothing to do with the newly spawned debate.

[Alyeska]

No it wasn't. The USSR built four like the Admiral Gorshkov- the Admiral Gorshkov was the last of them

No, the Admiral Gorshkov (launched in 1982) was the first of this kind of carrier, it was a sort of mini version of the much larger Admiral Kuznetsov which was launched in 1985.

Congratulations Nobrain_Shitstain, you're flat out fucking wrong. Not only was Baku (later Admiral Gorshkov) the last of the Project 1143's, but it was in no way related to Kuznetsov.

Standing rules on not flaming or flamebaiting Allbran, try to calm down Howedar.

[fgalkin]

I leave for 24 hours and find you people arguing this shit in my PST thread. I have split the thread and now I am going to purge EVERY Trek reference from the OT thread and EVERY modern reference from the PST thread.

You irritate me by ruining my thread and giving me this work.

Why? How is this any differend from any other thread hijack? And don't we have rules about altering posts?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Rules for altering posts? A whole damned "thread within a thread" was created and it was longer then the original. I deleted every Trek reference because they don't bloody belong and have nothing to do with the newly spawned debate.

You should have split the the debate, but not alter the posts. And yes, it did have something to do with Trek. Someone made a carrier/battleship efficiency comparison and the thread got off from there.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Alyeska]

Why? How is this any differend from any other thread hijack? And don't we have rules about altering posts?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Rules for altering posts? A whole damned "thread within a thread" was created and it was longer then the original. I deleted every Trek reference because they don't bloody belong and have nothing to do with the newly spawned debate.

You should have split the the debate, but not alter the posts. And yes, it did have something to do with Trek. Someone made a carrier/battleship efficiency comparison and the thread got off from there.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

I DID split the debate. I also outright deleted the Trek refrences because they apparently wanted the OT debate so badly they needn't have anything to make them think about swinging back to the other debate except doing so in the correct thread. When it comes to such badly off topic hyjacks I will happily supress the small portions of posts that people kept on topic when they felt it so important to go off topic.

[fgalkin]

But what's the point? The thread originated in a Trek thread, so naturally it would have Trek references. Since it no longer has anything to do with Trek, it was split, but we don't go around suppressing parts of people's posts without good reason.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Alyeska]

But what's the point? The thread originated in a Trek thread, so naturally it would have Trek references. Since it no longer has anything to do with Trek, it was split, but we don't go around suppressing parts of people's posts without good reason.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

They won't be missed. They never cared about the real debate to begin with.

[fgalkin]

But what's the point? The thread originated in a Trek thread, so naturally it would have Trek references. Since it no longer has anything to do with Trek, it was split, but we don't go around suppressing parts of people's posts without good reason.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

They won't be missed. They never cared about the real debate to begin with.

That's not for you to decide. We have rules against editing people's posts. And if you looked through the thread carefully, you would see that they did care about Trek, its just that the whole thing got sidetracked.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Illuminatus Primus]

Wow, I'm really digging the new parameters for discresion by mods over whether my posts are worth shit or should just be deleted. Score for Alyeska.

[Beowulf]

No it wasn't. The USSR built four like the Admiral Gorshkov- the Admiral Gorshkov was the last of them

No, the Admiral Gorshkov (launched in 1982) was the first of this kind of carrier, it was a sort of mini version of the much larger Admiral Kuznetsov which was launched in 1985.
Of course the USSR built more than one carrier, my earlier statement was a badly worded sentence (the sort you write when you are talking and typing at the same time). It should have read something like: one of the more succesful carriers the USSR built was...blah blah. since they their carrier fleet was poorly maintained it was never as great a threat as their subs.

Do not argue with Vympel on the Russian military. He knows more about it in his little finger, than you have in your entire brain. And the reason why Russia never had CVBG was because they never could make a decent enough carrier to be able to try and compete with the American supercarrier. They had no ability to make catapults, and so they were limited in the type of fighter they could fly.

[Alyeska]

Wow, I'm really digging the new parameters for discresion by mods over whether my posts are worth shit or should just be deleted. Score for Alyeska.

Don't get overly emotional. I just cleaned up the discussion for the stuff that people really cared about.

This wasn't a simple hyjack. This was a complete change in direction of the thread. What was removed could not reasonably be responded to in the previous thread (no inpost split option) and I didn't want it clogging up this thread and confusing people.

[Rogue 9]

No it wasn't. The USSR built four like the Admiral Gorshkov- the Admiral Gorshkov was the last of them

No, the Admiral Gorshkov (launched in 1982) was the first of this kind of carrier, it was a sort of mini version of the much larger Admiral Kuznetsov which was launched in 1985.
Of course the USSR built more than one carrier, my earlier statement was a badly worded sentence (the sort you write when you are talking and typing at the same time). It should have read something like: one of the more succesful carriers the USSR built was...blah blah. since they their carrier fleet was poorly maintained it was never as great a threat as their subs.

Do not argue with Vympel on the Russian military. He knows more about it in his little finger, than you have in your entire brain.

While you're correct there, merely appealing to Vympel's authority doesn't actually prove anything.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Don't get overly emotional. I just cleaned up the discussion for the stuff that people really cared about.

That's not something you should be in the business of deciding. Others disagree, showing from the outset your little brilliant assessment wasn't as clean as you thought.

Hardly the first time for something like this, though.

This wasn't a simple hyjack. This was a complete change in direction of the thread.

Ok, tell me where the board policy is objectively outlining the precise distinction. Because all I see is calling a diamond a spade.

What was removed could not reasonably be responded to in the previous thread (no inpost split option) and I didn't want it clogging up this thread and confusing people.

Then split the sole-military stuff off and warn people in the last post to the Trek thread that all military posts were to go there. If you're right about no one wanting to talk Trek, it would die out on its own and that'd be that. If people didn't listen, you could take further action and lock. But no, you just deleted everything and changed people's posts, rather than taking measured steps. Brilliant.

[Beowulf]

Do not argue with Vympel on the Russian military. He knows more about it in his little finger, than you have in your entire brain.

While you're correct there, merely appealing to Vympel's authority doesn't actually prove anything.

Which is why I didn't merely to Vympel's authority, but also added my own argument.

[fgalkin]

Wow, I'm really digging the new parameters for discresion by mods over whether my posts are worth shit or should just be deleted. Score for Alyeska.

Don't get overly emotional. I just cleaned up the discussion for the stuff that people really cared about.

This wasn't a simple hyjack. This was a complete change in direction of the thread. What was removed could not reasonably be responded to in the previous thread (no inpost split option) and I didn't want it clogging up this thread and confusing people.

And what do you think a thread hijack is? Btw, you seem to have a very low opinion of the intelligence of the members if you think they will be confused by references to the original thread in a split thread, considering that they have not been in any other split threads.

Btw, this discussion is a thread hijack, too, so could you plese split it to the Mod forum?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[fgalkin]

Oh, and Aly, here's something to refresh your memory on the offcial policy in case you have forgotten.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin