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.

 

Battleships VS. Aircraft Carriers

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Now listen up I got a friend who has a thing about brute force and close combat offensive power over stealth and defense. Ok now I say that aircraft carriers are superior in nearly every way. I want to know what all you other people think. Ok he says carriers are to vulnrable to other ships up close and he says attacking from afar is cowardly. Plus he thinks that battleships have more firepower. My view is that aircraft with missles are versitle than cannons on a ship. I also think that air to surface missles pack more punch. Then carriers can attack from greater distances and are equipped to intercept aircraft and subs.

Ok what do you all say???

P.S. please don't take anything personal that you see in this topic.




posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 03:15 PM
link   
They both have their strengths and their weeknesses. That is what commanders and leaders are for, to take and exploit those weaknesses.

Either way, they both have a bunch of armor, and I'm sure battleships can stop missile attacks too.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   
What time period are you and your friend basing this 'controversy' off of?

If you and your friend are speaking in matter of 'here and now', I think the answer is pretty self-evident: true battleships have been mothballed and scraped and replaced with Arleigh Burke type 'battleships'.


seekerof



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   
We would be basing this in modern times anywhere from now to a few years back.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
and he says attacking from afar is cowardly

Unfortunaltly in war nothing is fair and as far as being cowardly goes, your out of luck. They both have meaning for what they are intended for.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   
In a modern setting, versatility is of significance. Both, in their own respective right, are very powerful platforms. As such, and IMHO, though I am very fond of bringing back battleships, the modern and future carrier(s) (super-carriers) will always be the most powerful, most versatile, most formidable, and certainly, one of the most impressive capable ships in exisitence.

A modern carrier can support more dimensions than a modern battleship could: air, land, sea, and underwater. Modern carriers provide air cover and support for land operations, and though a battleship can do likewise, the battleship cannot do what air support can: on site, at the moment real-time visual observations in the sense of an piloted aircraft can. This is taking into account that the battleship has and can launch UAV's. That withstanding, nothing takes the place of the human aspect of observation and reporting.

This can go on but I would safely speculate that the modern super-aircraft carrier would be the real 'king' of the seas.



seekerof



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Man I thought this argument was first settled in the 20's when the aircorp sunk the german battleship in tests after WW-1.

Proven with the Pearl Harbor attack, and driven home with the sinking of the Bismark, Yamamoto and Musashi battle ships not to mention the japanese air attack on the battleship Prince of Wales and the Battle cruiser Repulse.

Battleships with surface escorts and no airpower would never be allowed to get close to a Carrier battle group, to call that cowardly is wishful thinking on your friends part, cowardly is letting the men of your ship be put in harms way.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 04:01 PM
link   
*big grin*

Just ran across an article saying some of what I was implying and a whole lot more.....good article to read:
Is the Super Carrier Going to be Obsolete?

Being it comes from an Asian source, I know that the Chinese have read this and have taken it into account.



seekerof



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 04:03 PM
link   
"Battleships with surface escorts and no airpower would never be allowed to get close to a Carrier battle group."

Exactly. Carriers have support because they do have weakness. Without support you are "putting your eggs in one basket." You carrier is your largest muscle. If your flight deck is down, what will you do then? It needs the support.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Not to say more about my argument but my prediction after seeing that link is that the U.S. will always have the most expensive war machines possible. So I get the feeling that the equivelent of a super carrier will always be a part of our Navy, that is unless enviromentalists or something take control of our budget.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
"Battleships with surface escorts and no airpower would never be allowed to get close to a Carrier battle group."

Exactly. Carriers have support because they do have weakness. Without support you are "putting your eggs in one basket." You carrier is your largest muscle. If your flight deck is down, what will you do then? It needs the support.



Granted that all capitol ships are sitting ducks alone and by themselves, witness the suicide run of the Argentinian battlecruiser Belgrano in the Falkland war sunk by three? torpedos from a British submarine.

The difference between carriers and battleships is the ability to project power much further and in greater quantity by the carrier battlegroup - its much more versatile.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Battleships now adays are obsolete, the answer would be carriers.

Modern day carrier groups do not consist of any battleships, merely frigates and missile cruisers to counter enemy assault from subs and missiles.

In my own opinion, the reason for this is that carriers can sink battleships in mere minutes from outside the battleship assault group, it would be out of range, and no space or time to retaliate, you would be too busy tring to save the ship from sinking.

This tactic is used throughout the globe, and so there are no more battleships, I' am in fact sorry to say this, because battleships consisted of the largest mobile assault fleets ever seen in human history.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Do you mean one battleship vs one carrier?
Anyways, new generation battleships generally come faster than carriers. So depending on the time period the outcome would change a lot. Also.....
Carrier 3/3 VS Battlecruiser 3/3-Battlecriser wins
Carrier 3/0 VS Battlecruiser 3/0-Carrier wins



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jinja
Do you mean one battleship vs one carrier?
Anyways, new generation battleships generally come faster than carriers. So depending on the time period the outcome would change a lot. Also.....
Carrier 3/3 VS Battlecruiser 3/3-Battlecriser wins
Carrier 3/0 VS Battlecruiser 3/0-Carrier wins

Maybe you weren't paying attention when I typed, BATTLESHIPS ARE NO LONGER USED IN BATTLE. There are no next generation battleships, you seem to misunderstand the pure size and cost of them, destroyers, cruisers and frigates fit the job of a battleship only smaller.

So to clarify, battleships are only in museums(rather used as museums).

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I don't really believe you can compare the two. A battleship is a surface combatant, an aircraft carrier is what it's called.

I never believed a battleship ever lost it's value. The amount of weapons they carried were staggering, and their massive guns provided naval bombardment unrivaled in capability. But they were just that expensive, and carriers seemed to lessen their importance in some ways.

Russia never lost it, however. Their Kirov-class nuclear-powered battlecruiser is the most powerful surface combatant of all time. Unlike our Iowa's, they pack much more weapons in terms of missiles, torpedoes, mines, etc. Those things are highly destructive and more suitable for their doctrine since they can afford to fight in larger home waters. With superb defensive capability, a Kirov augmented with other surface vessels almost negate the need for Russian blue-water naval aviation.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I guess no one got Starcraft reference

Well, to be more serious Battleships are pretty much obsolete nowadays. The range of new aircraft out does anti Aircraft from Battleships. If one plane beats it, then one carrier is gonna ..err beat it more. Though battleships are obsolete stealth warships might stand a chance. Even though no final versions are made the military prototypes are cool. And no, they are not secret weapons, they are declassified ships.



posted on Apr, 10 2004 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
We would be basing this in modern times anywhere from now to a few years back.


Exocet missles in large numbers make both craft vulnerable.
I'll take a SeaWolf.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Now listen up I got a friend who has a thing about brute force and close combat offensive power over stealth and defense. Ok now I say that aircraft carriers are superior in nearly every way. I want to know what all you other people think. Ok he says carriers are to vulnrable to other ships up close and he says attacking from afar is cowardly. Plus he thinks that battleships have more firepower. My view is that aircraft with missles are versitle than cannons on a ship. I also think that air to surface missles pack more punch. Then carriers can attack from greater distances and are equipped to intercept aircraft and subs.

Ok what do you all say???

P.S. please don't take anything personal that you see in this topic.


I'd have to definitely say that an Aircraft Carrier would emerge victorious in such a confrontation. It can strike from such a great distance, not to mention that it's planes can do the same, including the F-14 Tomcat for example, which can fire a missile and hit a target from 146 miles plus. It has a greater variety in it's arsenal of weaponry, and it carries a considerably greater amount of firepower than some nation's entire military! It is by far the most technologicaly advanced ship in most aspects, and it has the greatest amount of man-power as well. As for attacking from distance, it is anything but a cowardly act. It is common sense, and pure wisdom. Would you rather take out an enemy from a Mile + away with a Sniper Rifle, or would you rather Confront them with a Knife Blade? Attacking from a distance creates fear in the unknown, and invisible. It is much scarier to think of fighting an enemy that you can't see, rather than confronting them head on, and knowing what they are made of. That is what supports the United States' Military as being the most powerful in the world, which happens to be it's technique(s) rather than it's pure numbers. Stealth is The Greatest Fighting Technique In History.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 09:50 AM
link   
I thought that we settled this issue back in WW2. The carrier won.

There is nothing on the seas right not that could compare with the carrier for control of the seas. It has the best of everything.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   
actually if the carrier and a battle ship went into comabt then i suppose the battleship would win because it takes some time to fuel arm launch a plane



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join