It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

North Korean Battleship...!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Amuk,

You did lose..

As i become your goal to take over whole Korean penisula, buyt you failed.

There is still two Koreas.

Which really isnt a good thing as people in these two nations are the same.

NK just wanted to unite their artficially divited nation!
(this was done after ww2..)


amuk Fulcrum is right, we did lose or there wouldnt be two koreas, just like we lost against vietnam.
o and also i dont think that this rivalry doesnt belong in this thread and i think that thats a crappy arse looking ship and even a plastic bottle could sink it.




posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 12:19 PM
link   
o and one more thing, is the largest warship class a battleship or are there dreadnoughts too??? cause if there are then i would really love to ride on one. even a juggernought wouldnt be that bad and i think ARSENAL is a really kewl ship offshore missle platform baby. too bad the senate deemed it a waste of billions of dollars and the project was shut down.(found this on a stealth aircraft site dont remember the link but its mentioned in the aircraft project forum somewhere under stealths. youll have to search.)



posted on Jan, 7 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I realize that this may have been parody and has degraded into gingoism of the polar opposites,but I would like to point out that the whole of North Korea is basically a "Battleship". The number of static hardened positions for everything from infantry to airfields are found nowhere in greater numbers. They started digging when they discovered what an enemy could do to their infrastructure if they did not control the skies over their own troops and factories in the Korean War of the middle fifties, they have not stopped.

If they come across the 38th then it is a question of who can get there "the fastest with the mostess". The UN side will prevail if they can get their troops to the field. If another nation decides it needs to attack and occupy NK for whatever reason then I think they will get far more than they bargained for no matter the advantage that they think they may have and this is without taking WMD into account. With them then its a whole new ballgame with no winners.



posted on Jan, 10 2004 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by THENEO
Soon the Koreas will be reunited and it will be a deal with China.

China will get Taiwan and South Korea will get North Korea.




HAHAHHAHA!



funny sh*t.



south gets north and the nukes?


HAHAHAHA!



posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Seeker,

nevermind..

Just had you been here at the 'start' to tell that this was more of a joke than nothing else,

This wouldnt have gotten so much out of hand with Amouk and some other less blessed people..



intelgurl:

www.shipunov.com...



30MM AK-630M AUTOMATIC GUN MOUNT

The system is designed to engage unmanned and manned air threats, small size sea targets, soft-skinned shore-based targets as well as floating mines.

The armament consists of the GSh-6-30K (AO-18) anti-aircraft automatic gun which provides firing of 400 rounds burst.


Basic Characteristics

Caliber, mm
30
Rate of fire, rds/min
5000
Maximum firing range, m
5000
Ammunition load, pcs:
magazine
2000
ammunition room
1000
Weight, kg:
mount (without ammunition load and external units)
1000
belt ammunition
1918

From the looks of it this ship has these as its CIWS, 4 of these..






One difference with the AK-630 versus the Goalkeeper or Phalanx CIWS's: the AK-630 is not a self contained unit, requiring external guidance either optically or by radar........


regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian

Originally posted by THENEO
Soon the Koreas will be reunited and it will be a deal with China.

China will get Taiwan and South Korea will get North Korea.




HAHAHHAHA!



funny sh*t.



south gets north and the nukes?


HAHAHAHA!


I don't understand.

Are you saying China won't give up n.korea to s.korea because they don't want a nuclear power across their border?



posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof

One difference with the AK-630 versus the Goalkeeper or Phalanx CIWS's: the AK-630 is not a self contained unit, requiring external guidance either optically or by radar........


regards
seekerof


I know this..

But it isnt that big of a difference..



AK-630 still is 'automatic'..
(The guns are pointed where sensors direct them.. just like in "Phalanx")

Only differnce is that these are not mounted on the same mount.. and i cant say that is that better or worse.. just takes little more deck space..




posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Thanks for further explanation John/Fulcrum.

Whats your opinion on the Goalkeeper CIWS?
IMHO, I tend to think it is the best or one of the best CIWS that is available besides a few others.

Also, I think a closer look at the original picture will, I think, show a possible CIWS just aft of mid-section. (Going by memory and will look again).



regards
seekerof



posted on Jan, 11 2004 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by gooking


I don't understand.

Are you saying China won't give up n.korea to s.korea because they don't want a nuclear power across their border?




uh?



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
can someone post another pic of this alleged battleship?



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Seeker,

I found your 'fun' very offensive, offensive to intelligence.

That is that.



If you hate America so damned much, how come you have an AMERICAN PILOT as your avatar??

[edit on 1-28-2005 by groingrinder]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paladin327
can someone post another pic of this alleged battleship?


Sadly, Paladin327, it appears that the bbs.China.com board has deactivated the picture. Even a direct link to it does not work.
This was the direct link:
bbs.china.com...

Went to the site, and it seems that they have purged (cleaned out, thinned) some of their forums. Probably for performance reasons, etc.
Sad, the picture was rather interesting.



seekerof



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies

Originally posted by FULCRUM
Amuk,

You did lose..

As i become your goal to take over whole Korean penisula, buyt you failed.

There is still two Koreas.

Which really isnt a good thing as people in these two nations are the same.

NK just wanted to unite their artficially divited nation!
(this was done after ww2..)


amuk Fulcrum is right, we did lose or there wouldnt be two koreas, just like we lost against vietnam.


No it was a stalemate not a loss , neither side got what they wanted N Korea can claim no victory because their goal was to take the south and they failed. Thats pretty much the exact definition of a stalemate.

And dont be fooled people we were fighting China and N Korea and to small extent Russia not just N Korea. N Korea was getting its butt kicked until China stepped in. Russia also had no problem sending its pilots over to fight.

[edit on 28-1-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
I think what a lot of people don't understand is that the US exploited the Soviet boycott of the UN for a short period as a protest to get a UN resolution against the North passed through. If the soviets were in the UN, there's not a chance their would of been a UN force in the South.

Anyways, while I feel the US lost the war (didn't conquer the north), it came out as a stalemate between the North and the South.

Pyongyang is a very beautiful city, pity that a lot of it is just a sham. I look forward to the day that the dictatorship is broken and the north and south are reunified, though I am against any US aggression against the North as it would be yet another waste of good men.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Since when has it been the policy of ATS to bash other countries military arms?

If the U.S does invade North Korea, there are going to be alot of dead yanks.



posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Kenshin...
This is, after all, the Weaponry Forum. As such, please do some looking around in most of the threads, past and present. What do you find? Bashing, belittling, simple straight out calling something worthless, etc?
This is not a matter of policy. It is simple straight-up member oriented opinions, all within the Terms and Conditions of this board.

As to your last comment, it amounts to being irrelevant and rhetoric.

Btw, did you see the picture when it was up? Fascinating how many guns can be placed on a floating river barge and then called a 'battleship'.




seekerof



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   
I did not see the picture.



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   
oh, oh well, anyway, what does the USS Pueblo have to do with a North Korean Battleship?



posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Not sure, Paladin327.
Size comparison, maybe.
Not sure, will have to look back through the comments to see how it was brought up and referenced.



seekerof



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join