Battleship Design Fun

Discuss anything not related to Shipbucket here.

Moderator: Community Manager

Message
Author
User avatar
klagldsf
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm

Re: Battleship Design Fun

#11 Post by klagldsf »

As I implied in my other post, this class of naval rifle would easily qualify a vessel as a "super-battleship" if guns are used as the sole measuring criterion.
Hood
Posts: 7243
Joined: July 31st, 2010, 10:07 am

Re: Battleship Design Fun

#12 Post by Hood »

Haven't we tromped over this topic time and again? Seriously the battleship is dead, an outmoded concept. You might as well talk about a modern suit of knight's armour, a laser-guided trebuchet, stealth Zeppelin bombers, modern sailing warships. Technology moves forward, methods of waging war and delivering destruction improve. What was once cutting edge becomes obsolete junk. Just as Sopwith Camels ain't coming back the battleship isn't going to either.
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft
APDAF
Posts: 1508
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:42 am

Re: Battleship Design Fun

#13 Post by APDAF »

Hood wrote:stealth Zeppelin bombers.
Being worked on somewhere in the USA for some reason.
Rodondo
Posts: 2493
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: NE Tasmania

Re: Battleship Design Fun

#14 Post by Rodondo »

....not sure if trolling or serious...
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards
TimothyC
Posts: 3765
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:06 am
Contact:

Re: Battleship Design Fun

#15 Post by TimothyC »

APDAF wrote:
Hood wrote:stealth Zeppelin bombers.
Being worked on somewhere in the USA for some reason.
Why do you insist on opening your mouth and proving that you don't know what you're talking about?
πŒπ€π“π‡ππ„π“- 𝑻𝒐 π‘ͺπ’π’ˆπ’Šπ’•π’‚π’•π’† 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆
APDAF
Posts: 1508
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:42 am

Re: Battleship Design Fun

#16 Post by APDAF »

It was on the BBC world service at about 3:30 GMT a week ago I think.

All I know is that they are being worked on in the US somewhere.
User avatar
Thiel
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

Re: Battleship Design Fun

#17 Post by Thiel »

He's talking about this.
Hardly a bomber.
β€œClose” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.
APDAF
Posts: 1508
Joined: June 3rd, 2011, 10:42 am

Re: Battleship Design Fun

#18 Post by APDAF »

No not that one.

it was at least 300'' long.
User avatar
Thiel
Posts: 5376
Joined: July 27th, 2010, 3:02 am
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

Re: Battleship Design Fun

#19 Post by Thiel »

That's the only stealth blimp around as of today
β€œClose” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.
User avatar
Portsmouth Bill
Posts: 3220
Joined: August 16th, 2010, 7:45 am
Location: Cambridge United Kingdom

Re: Battleship Design Fun

#20 Post by Portsmouth Bill »

God's Blood :x Can't you guys even stay on topic for once? Is there an attention deficit problem here. So yes, Hood is quite correct. If ever the Battleship ever had any support, it died the day the Prince of Wales was dispatched; therafter it could only survive with air cover, and for all the hype the last generation of Battleships hardly proved themselves in combat, being too expenisve to risk: Nuff said.
Post Reply