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.
Originally posted by devilwasp
1. ok let me c u bring down a ton of metal with more metal
Not a problem with today's systems. The rounds travel in a predictable path at a high subsonic speed. All you would have to do is give it a nudge and you can put if off course.
2.if a battleship was given the latest armor it could with stand bullets and missiles if it was given the same defenses as most vessels then it would stop an air attack
No, because you cannot put the same amount of armor on all sides of it. It would weigh too much. That is why dive bombers were so effective against WW2 Battleships.
3.cool can i ask u a question?
u do realise that the bigger the diameter the barrel of the turret then the farther it will travel so a battleship could sink an aircraft carrier at 15 miles
Yes I did know that. Remember to also take into account the type and amount of propellant.
lastly cool im guessing ur an aircraft person am i right?
Nope.
Originally posted by devilwasp
cool listen u can nudge it off course but a high exsplosive shell will cause damage even if it doesnt hit the ship
Only if it hits in close proximity.
also i know of people who build thier boats out of concrete and THEY still float so i wouldnt worry about the thing sinking cause of weight
I was more worried about lack of speed and manueverability
yes there is no problem with the amount of propellent or type because if it has worked in ww2 then it would work now
You fail to understand what I am trying to get at. The amount and type of propellant determines how far a shell will go.
ok then i was wrong i thought u where an aircraft man
Originally posted by COOL HAND
Originally posted by devilwasp
cool listen u can nudge it off course but a high exsplosive shell will cause damage even if it doesnt hit the ship
Only if it hits in close proximity.
also i know of people who build thier boats out of concrete and THEY still float so i wouldnt worry about the thing sinking cause of weight
I was more worried about lack of speed and manueverability
yes there is no problem with the amount of propellent or type because if it has worked in ww2 then it would work now
You fail to understand what I am trying to get at. The amount and type of propellant determines how far a shell will go.
ok then i was wrong i thought u where an aircraft man
What difference does that make. I am in the military, it only makes sense for me to know about military equipment.
Originally posted by devilwasp
lets all calm down here lets agree on 1 thing
a battleship would win in close quaters combat
a carrier would win in a long range combat
the end
lets not start a bloddy war over this
Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Hasn't anyone taking into consideration on arming carriers with torpedos and missiles and side cannons?
Would that not be awsome to see?
Shattered OUT...
Originally posted by devilwasp
well actually it would be practical cool because if the ship was in close quarter combat for some reason then they could defend themselves
Originally posted by devilwasp
wel cool uir idea about the battle group is right in theory but wrong in practice because if the carrier had real armorments then she could of survived the incident with the frigate i informed about