Why don't we use battleships anymore? They're powerful and effective as we saw in WWI and WWII...

Why don't we use battleships anymore? They're powerful and effective as we saw in WWI and WWII. And they also can show off your navy dick to the rest of the world.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_battle_of_the_battleship_Bismarck
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Aircraft carriers are more versatile.

they were not effective in ww2. battleships were being cucked by aircraft carriers since 1939.

Yea but aircraft carries can't shell the shit out of a country for a week. And planes can get shot down.

Those were Japanese battleships, they were inferior and they were overconfident with their strategies by spreading them out too thin.

Zumwalt class would have the same bombardment capabilities. Unfortunately the cucks are only building 3 now.

Anything a battleship can do a carrier can do better.

>how you want your battleship senpai?
>I like lighthouses
>I got you

Aircraft carriers can bomb a country, ya' dingus.

You can't shell anything more than 40km inland unless you use cruise missiles and at that point you might as well just use an aircraft carrier because it's better at the job

They're too expensive to operate. Missiles and aircraft are more effective than cannons.

However, once railgun technology becomes advanced enough, we will probably see Railgun Battleships become real.

missile and planes beat guns nigga

>It's a op thinks he's smarter than the MIT egg heads and highy experienced war veterans that come up with these strategies thread

Navy fag here, it's not due to cucks, its that the entirety of the Zumwalt class is just a test bed for crazy shit. No one is trying to fund the Zoomie fleet, they just want to see what happens when you strap railguns and laser weapons on a boat...

I doubt it, Railguns will likely replace the bow cannons most missile boats have now unless theres some super advance in railgun lethality against anything larger than small craft. even with a rail gun, missiles and bombs are still more effective for bombardment

So is naval warfare useless then?

They look badass as fuck though. We need more shit like this.

Look up the sinking of the Yamato if you want a pretty in depth look about why carriers surpassed battleships. Basically in a ship on ship scenario a battleship will always win, but aircraft just need one decent hit om the propeller and the battleship is completely useless.

IDK having only 4 polygons looks really wierd

No?

Why the fuck would you think that?

Because apparently all you need to do is transport planes to a strategic location and take it from the air

>Because apparently all you need to do is transport planes to a strategic location
doesn't that take a navy though

Let me clarify, naval warfare, boat vs boat, is, from what I'm getting from this, useless.

Not to mention the massive collateral damage that comes with long range shelling.

Battleships are were never that useful, even in their heyday. It was more useful to build smaller and more numerous vessels than a battleship.

Today's guided missile destroyers are leagues deadlier, cheaper and more versatile than battleships.

BB's are slow and expensive plattforms and easy targets... since 1939.

Former USN engineer, here. The cost to upgrade, modernize and retrofit an Iowa class, would be about the same as building 3-4 Arleigh Burkes.

Yes. As far as I know the battle of jutland was the last time you saw big battleships shooting at each other.

Who gives a fuck? We didn't give fucks when fire bombing civilian targets in WW2.

They were finally retired when the military realized that there were far more effective and cost efficient methods of delivering 2000 pounds of explosives onto targets within 20 miles of a coastline. All of the machine shops equipped to service and repair 1940s warships also closed down. Battleships were awesome as hell, both WWI and WWII types, but are part of the past.

So then why did the German Military in preliminary WWI spend a third of their defense budget on their navy? (Which the majority were huge dreadnoughts and battleships)

Not at all, we've just been moving it to smaller ships since you can deliver bigger payload in smaller packages.

Carriers can't be everywhere, nor are they cheap to maintain. That's why the US and other countries maintain destroyers and cruisers, because they can still hit hard without being a massive commitment.

Because they didn't know any better.

Because the Kaiser was so impressed by the British naval review, he was awed by the power projected by a huge battle fleet, so he wanted one just like his Grandmother's. Both the Kaiser and the Czar were her grandsons. Those world wars were caused by a bunch of members of a retarded family who just couldn't get along.

>So then why did the German Military in preliminary WWI spend a third of their defense budget on their navy?
because the kaiser had the mind of a child and a massive inferiority complex.

The Bismarck had a few duels, it took on the Prince of Wales and the Hood, then the Rodney and King George V a few days later, in which the Bismarck was sunk. The Duke of York sank the Scharnhorst in 1943, and the USS South Dakota sank the Kirishima off of Gualdalcanal. The last Battleship on battleship action was the Battle of the Surigao straits, in 1944 in which about a half dozen US battleships sank the Fuso and Yamashiro. One of the 2, I forget which, was actually sunk by destroyers, but this battle was the last on in which a battleship fired upon another.

WW2 proved that small planes could destroy huge battleships no matter how much armor they pack

and the bismarck was what?

I think we need to start focusing on space ships.

It's 2016....

We own the seas.

We don't need them anymore.

Scuttled, not sunk.

This. We can't really afford to be swinging dick in the middle of the ocean right now

Did the Americans import Japanese vehicles into Pearl Harbor?

The most Jewish warship...

...in the world

They're big juicy targets, air superiority defeats their purpose, and subs do the whole bombardment thing better and more expensively than battleships.

I always wondered about it, yes using guided missiles is better in some ways but isn't it damn near impossible to stop a shell from hitting while missiles can be countered?

Gary McKinnon the autist hacker revealed that the US have a space fleet and an exchange program with Aluims
Search up "non terrestrial officers"

They just aren't that effective for their cost. It's like asking why we don't use knight armor anymore. The time and place for it has gone.

we do. remember a few years back america used a battle ship in the balck sea to threaten russia during the olympics just before the ukrainian coup that ends up instigating the ukrainian civil war

murica said it was for counter terrorism reasons they were pointing cannons on a battle ship at moscow. like firing into a city after some one blows them self up is going to make things better

Missiles

Nobody knew what was going on. Everyone is always fighting the last war.

What's funny is that aircraft carriers are also outdated technology. Once again, even today our admirals and generals are fighting the last war. Pic related.

You must be retarded.

A Nimitz class carry boasts about 90 aircraft and can stay operational at sea for months on end without resupply.
It alone possess more aircraft than most nations in their entire air force.

A single sortie from an Aircraft Carrier squadron can take down an entire Battleship, whereas if the Battleship wins it has only taken out a handful of pilots.

I'm surprised to see that nobody has said anti ship missiles yet.

Naval guns are simply useless when you can fire a single missile that can destroy an entire ship.

These missiles have dozens and dozens the effective range of a naval gun.

Most navies even "spam" smaller ships called missile boats that are just big enough to carry enough some 4 or 8 AShMs.

Of course, a lot of ships still have their naval guns, and they're expected to be used in close engagements.

In the Korean penninsula, both Northern and Southern navies make a lot of use of naval guns, because a conflict between the two is expected to involve a lot of close range naval fighting.

Remember that the Sheffield was hit by a single missile and sank during the Falklands war.

Here's a dong hae class just out of curiosity.
It has 3 Dual Oto Melara guns, 2 CIWs guns and a dual type something anti air gun.

>Sexy babe
>Only belt and thong cover cunt and ass
>Search google
>IOS/Android Game
>Bone gone

The Millennial Challenge.

Nazi germany uses all its budget to make missiles capable of cucking airplanes of the era

how far they can get?

?

They could've had more success at stopping Allied bombing, but it's hard to say.
Americans and British had considerable advantage in electronics.

We have missiles

Far enough to hit London.

It's a little different though, since they didn't have pinpoint guidance chips. A modern missile is accurate enough that it can fly up the nose of a carrier's captain.

It looks unnatural and therefore eerie and menacing. It's like the giant D8 Angel from Evangelion

>What was the Battle of Leyte Gulf?

>it looks menacing

you know nothing pablo

>What is anti-Missile technology?

Brits proved the effectiveness in the Falklands war of just throwing up a bunch of shit to confuse the missile from its target and lead it off course.

The farther away you fire the missile the more time the fleet has to prepare to show you how much time you've wasted.

St Petersburg I could believe but Moscow is hundreds of km away from the ocean

A week? A battleship can empty its balls in one afternoon of shelling.
+1 for picking a South Dakota Class.

Do you really think that anti missile technology is that effective?
The Argies were using Exocet missiles, by the way.

Bismarck was inferior to most US Battleships and was btfo by one torp from a biplane.

And the Brits threw up tin foil to confuse it
But it still worked.
US carrier task forces use AEGIS to guide intercept missiles
Once again, the only advantage is supposed to be "muh distance"
But "muh distance" also gives the carrier fleet time to coordinate intercept missiles

Which is why the DF-21D was developed with that in mind. It's high speed, and high maneuverability makes it quite impossible to hit with another missile (or anything else) before it impacts, and even EMC is only partially effective, since it can use infrared, radar, and optical targeting, all at the same time.

Given it's speed, from maximum distance after launch you would have about 15 minutes maximum to detect it, deploy ECM, and change course far enough that it can't readjust.

Quite simply, submarines are basically the only naval force of any use anymore.

They were obsolete by WW2, what makes you think they're effective now? That's not to say I wouldn't mind having battleships because god those things are beautiful.

Washington sunk Kirishima, not South Dakota. Fuck that credit stealing bitch.

I asked /k/ and they said you are all stupid. Also they posted this.

As much as I love the size and armour of the old superdreadnoughts and battlecruisers, nowadays surface combat doctrine is all about not getting hit in the first place. Ships need to be quick and agile now, to avoid the real shipkiller MVPs, pic related.

The only role battleships can play now is shore bombardment which we can do more accurately with missiles and airdropped bombs, and of course drone strikes.

The Japanese Navy was the most advanced and experienced force on the water at the start of WWII.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_Prince_of_Wales_and_Repulse

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_battle_of_the_battleship_Bismarck

> And they also can show off your navy dick to the rest of the world.

Aircraft carriers are better for this.

What's with the Scottish flag flying on that ship? Also what's the other flag above it? Russian?

Signal flags?

Whoops, forgot pic

>They're powerful and effective as we saw in WWI and WWII.
WWII was literally the conflict that showed they were irrelevant compared to aircraft carriers.

because it turns out that you can equip a frigate with some cruize missles and sink a battleship without even being in the range of its' artillery

>b-but, sh-shore bombardment

if it's against a smaller country, you can just send your superior airforce. very effective too, as seen in iraq.

if it's against a strong country, they will just throw 10 ballistic missles and incapaciate it. even if you have screens with some protection system equipped, 2-3 will definitely land.

battleships are just obsolete.

Yes. He's basically saying he's docked.

>that pic
CBARS is being developed to offset this.

Spoke to an O-1 who knew more about it than I do. Said the lasers are more short range than anything.
Also said the recession had a lot to do with the low numbers.
Also you ready for China bro?

The average IQ on /k/ is 80, evidenced by the fact that this retard has to post in all-caps to get his point across.

Fuck me, that thing looks like it's made of timber and they just painted it grey and built some other shit on it. Wouldn't surprise me if that entire superstructure is made of plywood.

The superstructure on the first Zumwalt is made from composite, the other 2 will be steel.

MAC cannons when

NOW BITCH!

USA

USA

USA

OP has never heard of the Bismarck or Yamato

Modern ships don't have armor. Seriously ASM are so powerful it would be pointless to weigh down the ship.

Because today a cruise missile could sink a ship that large before it even got within firing range. Its all about speed and stealth now.