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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Well, it's true they have stregths and weaknesses.

Battleships: Cannot lauch aircraft from their decks. Although they can fire missiles and heavy anti-air fire.

Carriers: Can launch aircraft. They can almost do the exact same thing a battleship does except fire missiles at a high rate.

Don't forget Battleships are made for fighting... aircraft carriers are like a portable air force base.




posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:10 AM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:16 AM
link   
cool listen u can nudge it off course but a high exsplosive shell will cause damage even if it doesnt hit the ship

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

yes there is no problem with the amount of propellent or type because if it has worked in ww2 then it would work now

ok then i was wrong i thought u where an aircraft man



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   

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.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   
well if it didnt hit in close proximity then they have (V)assed gunners

well if u have the armor and defenses then manoverablility wouldnt be a problem
(remmeber an aircraft carrier isnt so manoverable herself)

yes and what has this got to do about the discussion?

look im just stateing a fact i didnt say it made a diffrence did i calm down
good u know about the military that helps



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   

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.

Wow you over cocky little ******. Just because you are in the military does not mean you know everything that goes on. I'am sure as hell that dozens of things goes on behind your back and you don't even know it.

There is enough evidence in the world to prove that.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
What difference does that make. I am in the military, it only makes sense for me to know about military equipment.
Wow you over cocky little ******. Just because you are in the military does not mean you know everything that goes on. I'am sure as hell that dozens of things goes on behind your back and you don't even know it.

There is enough evidence in the world to prove that.

Shattered OUT...

No, but it means that I know more than you do.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
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



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 01:50 PM
link   

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

O god devil, a carrier can win in any type of combat, just not in a war of attrition.

And cool hand, there are something I know more about than you, and everyone has their own expertise in some field, noone knows everything in every field, all we can do is share our knowledge, not fight about who knows more, you know more about one thing, I know more about another, this seems like something that would work properly in a team, not against one another.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
And cool hand, there are something I know more about than you, and everyone has their own expertise in some field, noone knows everything in every field, all we can do is share our knowledge, not fight about who knows more, you know more about one thing, I know more about another, this seems like something that would work properly in a team, not against one another.

Shattered OUT...

Agreed



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   
shattred i have to say ur wrong
im not meaning a war of atrition im mean further than 5 miles away
a carrier has no real armorments except its airwing it has no cannons only anti missile phalax's and it can fire misiles but thats it really



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   
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...



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 05:26 PM
link   
yeah that would be a sensible thing to do
but this is the navy hihg comand we are talking about here they dont exsactly make sensible decsions



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   

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...


Awesome to see: Yes
Practical: No

All that space would have to come from somewhere. You would have to sacrifice something to put those in.

Plus, carriers are not designed to do that mission.

The seasparrow can be used surface to surface.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 08:23 PM
link   
well actually it would be practical cool because if the ship was in close quarter combat for some reason then they could defend themselves



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   

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


That would never happen. That is why they have carrier battle groups. A carrier never, ever goes out alone. There is always someone nearby to back them up.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Sooner or later they're going to start mounting laser cannon on capital ships. Then cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles and even ballistic missiles will no longer be a significant threat. Attack aircraft and carriers a thing of the past? Could be. Stranger things have happened.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 05:26 AM
link   
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



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 06:21 AM
link   

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


She still could have survived it with what she had. Your scenario made no sense. There is no way that anything can sneak up on a carrier short of a real good sub driver.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 08:26 AM
link   
no they cant sneak up but THEY did sail through ur battle group unchallanged
and i doubt an aircraft carrier can withstand a frigate firing all its weapons on it




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join