Oh how I love….

battleships!

21 Responses to “Oh how I love….”

  1. Mr. Bingley says:

    And just the physical presense they provide is awesome, and intimidating. However, the problem that remains is does the Navy have enough men to crew the BBs?

  2. Cullen says:

    The military doesn’t have enough men, period.

  3. Crusader says:

    I would say the bigger problem is does the Navy want to pay to crew the BBs. The design they show would have problems with turbulance from the stacks I would think. But I would love to see them upgraded and back in service. UCAVs for spotting, improved rounds for the 16s, and they would just be schweet. But never again will I see them in active service, I am afraid.

  4. Nightfly says:

    “Hello, we’re the US Navy – traveling on business.”

  5. BOOM!!! shacka lacka BOOM BOOM!!

  6. Mr. Bingley says:

    Hmmm, maybe all those unemplyed NOLA folks might want a government-sponsored way to see the world????

  7. Mr. Bingley says:

    A government cruise line, dang it Cullen!

  8. Cullen says:

    The U.S. Army puts lots of people on boats, too.
    Honestly … if we could maximize our ability to get artillery into theater, we could accomplish similar goals. But until we develop Scotty and the transporter, battleships and big guns are gonna be needed.

  9. Crusader says:

    Heck I don’t know if they still do, but not long ago the Army was using an old Iwo class LPH-10 Tripoli as a missle trials platform, so yeah, the Dogfaces can swim, sorta.

  10. Cullen says:

    Not that a nine-year Army veteran is posting here or anything (*cough* me *cough*). Or that a certain Army engineer posts often (*cough* JeffS *cough*).
    On Okinawa, we did drownproofing classes often. We had a lot of nonswimmers also.

  11. Crusader says:

    hehe, knew that would get you and JeffS’s attention. Comes from being in a Marine-focused family, I suppose. I know I will hera it from JeffS……

  12. Ken Summers says:

    Um, okay, maybe I’ll get booted out of here for this comment, but didn’t battleships become effectively obsolete about 1942?

  13. Mr. Bingley says:

    The fellow addresses that very point in in the article, Ken. He thinks not, and I would tend to agree.

  14. Oh yeah they did. Just ask the poor Lebanese Druze militia and Yassir’s guys hiding up in the cedar forests how ineffective they were, at nine Volkswagons a pop-worth dumped on their cloth swabbed gourds.

  15. Crusader says:

    For those that don’t know, this is how big just one of the 16″ rounds are. And it can lob 9 at a time.

  16. Crusader says:

    And Ken, remember the Exocet that sank the HMS Sheffield and damaged the USS Stark? It would take dozens of them to put an Iowa class out of action, many more to sink one. And remember the USS Cole? Think a few barrels of battleship gray paint, and that is about what would be needed to repair an Iowa after a similar attack. They would cause the opposition to divert some pretty serious hardware in order to counteract, and that in and of itself is a good thing, as it would spread a smaller enemy out even thinner, all while dropping 1500+ lb love packages on their heads.

  17. Nightfly says:

    Obsolete or not, I think I would remember urgent business elsewhere if that thing was pointed at me. “Now everyone will die the primitive way.

  18. Ken Summers says:

    Hadn’t gotten to read the whole article before, and I’m happy to concede (I still think he overstates the case a bit, though – navy against navy, the carriers will beat the battleships).

  19. Mr. Bingley says:

    Perhaps, oh circa-1942-one, but as we’re effectively the only navy with carriers…

  20. Crusader says:

    As Bingley said, who else has carriers? The Russians only have one that doesn’t see much service, the Indians have one with a second being refurbished/built, and the Chinese, well, I keep hearing ominus stories, but I just don’t think the PLN has enough sway at this point to get one.

Image | WordPress Themes