EVE General Discussion

I agree - When compared to current systems - EVE ships should be (much) faster, have bigger guns AND have MUCH longer ranges.

With its fondness for drones and it's rail gun technology that's almost finished being developed I think the U.S. Navy is more like Gallente.

U.S. Navy Railgun Test

Hahahahahahahaha!

That was hilarious. I like the part about how they showed all the modern weapons designed around destroying ships that are not Battleships than pretty much stating that nothing can sink them.

Then they pointed to the Battle of Samar where 1 Escort Carrier was sunk by a surface fire and 1 actually sunk by a Kamikaze. Note that the Escort Carrier is not a fleet unit but built on a merchant ship hull, all the planes were armed with ground attack ordnance not anti ship, all six Escort Carriers weighed less than Yamoto alone, the only reason they were able to get so close to the fleet was because a colossal failure in intelligence combined with a diversion that cost four Japanese Carriers and the US won the Battle with the fleet 1/5 the size using convoy escorts. As for the HMS Glorious that was entirely their fault for not spotting them with I don't know their entire Airwing which was not flying at the time, the invention of Radar of course makes scenario unlikely to happen again.

Does the person who made this think a Carrier today or any armed missile ship will ever be within 30 km of a Battleship. No they will instead launch like 900 missiles from 100km+ away. They will never be in range of the enemy fleet unless they are using Missiles then what the hell are they wasting all that room for guns on?

If you think that is funny, you should watch what he does with the M1A2, Bradley and Stryker.

If you are an American it's your tax $ paying for it all.

“Sometimes” ≠ “this time”, and especially ≠ “any time you involve real constraints”. This one forgets the lessons the Romans learned: gutta cavat lapidem, non vi sed sæpe cadendo.

Given how (relatively) easy it has been shown to be to get a mission kill on an entire carrier group, which offers every piece of versatility and survivability in the book, a Battleship on the modern battlefield would just be a bigger target. When in doubt, more dakka — it solves every problem.

And anyway, if we're going to talk about “they should build it because it would be totally cool and unbeatable”, nothing beats ye olde orbital kinetic-kill re-entry vehicle.

The problem with railguns will still be the same as for all unguided munition: hitting over the horizon. Then there's the problem of damage degradation over longer ranges. Now for swatting annoying flies out of the sky, on the other hand…

IMO, the real question will be how to power those weapons for sustained fire. We are talking about a metric ass ton of electricity released every single shot and you need to resupply the system. The ship will definately need to be nuclear for that I guess.

Not quite although Americans like to think that.

CSS Virginia and USS Monitor were riverboats, both far from ocean worthy. They did not render the ocean going wooden ships obsolete. That honor goes to the French Gloire and even more so to HMS Warrior. The first true ocean going iron hulled ship that combined armor, a screw propellor and a steam engine. It was also twice the length of any other warship at the time. Warrior could sail through any fleet of the time unscathed and rendered all navies, including its own almighty British navy obsolete.

Both Gloire and Warrior predated the American ships but the first actual fight between ironclads happened at Hampton Roads.

Again, its battle record shows the weakness of HMS Hood, which was a product of a different way of naval thinking, namely speed tanking. This way of thinking lead to battle cruisers like Hood which lacked deck armor in favor of speed but proved utterly useless in actual battle during both the great wars. The Hood was the pride and joy of the budget cut British Navy and in all their excitement they forgot it wouldn't match up to a true battleship. The admiralty made a fatal flaw ever pitting that ship against a battleship.

As far as construction goes, there was nothing revolutionary about the Bismarck. For a battleship its size it wasn't especially better armored nor was it fitted with extraordinary guns. The American Iowa class was superior to Bismarck in every field that matters.
What provoked the press about Bismarck is that its very construction was in breach with the Treaty of Washington that limited battleship sizes at the time (it also ended British rule over the seas as 4/5 of the British BS fleet was destroyed in accordance with the treaty). In all honesty Germans weren't supposed to built battleships at all. This lead to a whole breed of German "supercruisers" miniature battleships built under Adolf Hitler before Bismarck.

If you want to understand why the big fuzz about a ship. At the time battleships were seen as the ultimate weapons of war and destruction similar to how we see weapons of mass destruction today. So breaking the treaty was like North Korea building Nukes and led to a lot of diplomatic pressure.

Anyway, could discuss the subject for hours and left out a lot. Your view needs slight adjustment but I am not trying to belittle the Bismarck. It was by all measurement one of the greatest BS ever constructed and deserves its place in history.

Thats debatable for the uk at times