These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Battleships and above,...weapon systems and such

First post First post
Author
Sumthinburnin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2013-05-14 00:48:53 UTC
something i have thought about for some time, but never asked. Why are our big nasty ships soo under gunned?
I know alot of people are gonna think im nutz (its ok i kinda am lol)

Hear me out first....On our precious little rock the battleship era ended with WW2 (mostly i know we in the US used them a bit longer)

Those ships had BIG guns, medium guns and AA guns. Massive numbers of them too

Example....USS Missouri
Displacement: 45,000 tons
Length: 887.2 ft (270.4 m)
Beam: 108.2 ft (33.0 m)

Weapon Systems (1940's)
9 × 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns
20 × 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns
49 × 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons

1984
9 × 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns
12 × 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
32 × B G M-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles
16 × R G M-84 Harpoon Anti-Ship missiles
4 × 20 mm/76 cal Phalanx C I W S

This vessel is about the size (in length ) as a Coercer(278 m), has guns as big 406 mm (Very near eve's biggest rail gun)

quickly to the point i guess (gotta go to work lol)

Other than the KISS plan (keep it simple stupid) why are our ships so under gunned.
Adunh Slavy
#2 - 2013-05-14 00:53:11 UTC
Because Eve is a game. If BSes had point defense weapons, frigs would be pretty useless. It's about balance and roles. So, even new players in frigs have a role.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#3 - 2013-05-14 00:54:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Akirei Scytale
You're counting the barrels. The Missouri had 3 turrets, and then a bunch of smaller guns thrown on.

EVE Battleships have drones to cover the role of protection from smaller ships, and most in-game turrets have 2+ barrels on them. Its a weak comparison to start with, and EVE Battleships are overgunned if you decide to use it.

Also, EVE is a game. Balance.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#4 - 2013-05-14 01:00:18 UTC
Do you have any idea how much power is contained in a 425mm antimatter slug fired out of railgun?
Jarod Garamonde
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2013-05-14 01:02:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Jarod Garamonde
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)

That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...

    [#savethelance]
Frake Lomes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2013-05-14 01:02:23 UTC
BS's in EVE can use drones for point D, or if you're really squirrelly, smart bombs, nuets, nos and whatever else you feel is necessary.
Besides, nothing stops you from putting point guns on your BS...not recommended but hey, it's EVE, go ahead and do it!!!

As for the USS Missouri, it was designed to destroy horribad CGI Alien ships from another planet.
EVE Battleships don't get to kill any aliens (rogue drones and sleepers don't count)

Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#7 - 2013-05-14 01:04:44 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Honestly, if you want an example of a top-of-the-line real-world battleship, you name the Yamato, Musashi or Bismarck.
Jarod Garamonde
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2013-05-14 01:13:22 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Honestly, if you want an example of a top-of-the-line real-world battleship, you name the Yamato, Musashi or Bismarck.


Bismarck got sunk by a British battlecruiser.

The Bizzy's pilot prolly just didn't train up his support skills before he got in it, though :p
As for the Yamato... the two could have gone toe-to-toe, during WWII, but when the Mo got her refit in the 80's, it was (and still is) the single most powerful ship in history.

That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...

    [#savethelance]
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#9 - 2013-05-14 01:17:20 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


The Yamoto is the lord of all battleships.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#10 - 2013-05-14 01:20:09 UTC
Jarod Garamonde wrote:


Bismarck got sunk by a British battlecruiser.

The Bizzy's pilot prolly just didn't train up his support skills before he got in it, though :p
As for the Yamato... the two could have gone toe-to-toe, during WWII, but when the Mo got her refit in the 80's, it was (and still is) the single most powerful ship in history.


An astute would rip her in half in a single shot.
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#11 - 2013-05-14 01:20:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Akirei Scytale
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Honestly, if you want an example of a top-of-the-line real-world battleship, you name the Yamato, Musashi or Bismarck.


Bismarck got sunk by a British battlecruiser.

The Bizzy's pilot prolly just didn't train up his support skills before he got in it, though :p
As for the Yamato... the two could have gone toe-to-toe, during WWII, but when the Mo got her refit in the 80's, it was (and still is) the single most powerful ship in history.


The Bismarck wasn't sunk by a battlecruiser. It was maimed by a very lucky torpedo bomber, and then finished off by a battlecruiser while it could barely even turn.

As for the Yamato and Musashi, the two ships still hold the record for the heaviest battleships ever built, both in terms of mass and armament. Battleships were a fatally flawed ship design, but in a battleship-on-battleship engagement, there were basically no ships on the planet capable of going toe-to-toe with either one. FFS the Yamato took 13 torpedoes and 8 direct bomb hits to finally sink. Its mere existence was an ever-present threat to the US navy, and they acted accordingly. The Japanese were saving them for a "decisive battle", and the US absolutely refused to ever directly engage the Japanese fleet, instead just constantly bombing them from the air whenever they got the chance.

If you want to argue the "most powerful ships in history", the list would be entirely populated by Japanese and American aircraft carriers. That or Russian nuclear subs, depending on how you decided to measure power.
Nitrogen Isotopes
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#12 - 2013-05-14 01:34:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Nitrogen Isotopes
Akirei Scytale wrote:
If you want to argue the "most powerful ships in history", the list would be entirely populated by Japanese and American aircraft carriers. That or Russian nuclear subs, depending on how you decided to measure power.


Norm Macdonald's rebuttal
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#13 - 2013-05-14 01:40:26 UTC
Sumthinburnin wrote:
something i have thought about for some time, but never asked. Why are our big nasty ships soo under gunned?
I know alot of people are gonna think im nutz (its ok i kinda am lol)

Hear me out first....On our precious little rock the battleship era ended with WW2 (mostly i know we in the US used them a bit longer)

Those ships had BIG guns, medium guns and AA guns. Massive numbers of them too

Example....USS Missouri
Displacement: 45,000 tons
Length: 887.2 ft (270.4 m)
Beam: 108.2 ft (33.0 m)

Weapon Systems (1940's)
9 × 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns
20 × 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns
49 × 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons

1984
9 × 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns
12 × 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
32 × B G M-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles
16 × R G M-84 Harpoon Anti-Ship missiles
4 × 20 mm/76 cal Phalanx C I W S

This vessel is about the size (in length ) as a Coercer(278 m), has guns as big 406 mm (Very near eve's biggest rail gun)

quickly to the point i guess (gotta go to work lol)

Other than the KISS plan (keep it simple stupid) why are our ships so under gunned.


We have drones and if you want to fit them smartbombs for point defense. As well as fiat shields which don't exist on the missouri. Our weaponry is built on external swivels with 360 degree firing arcs and we operate in a 3D environment with no obstructive horizons and pesky islands to get in the way. The missouri can only go 33 knots at full tilt, a coercer is 252m/s base which is 489.8 knots (4sf). Also, a coercer takes a few hours to make and costs a pittance in terms of capsuleer resources while the Missouri represented a significant investment and took months to build.

Essentially, if you were in a universe where you can replace something close to modern battleship class in a matter of hours, had shielding and could support unmanned drones, why wouldn't you just stick some main guns on it and be done?

Also, balance.
Kirjava
Lothian Enterprises
#14 - 2013-05-14 01:40:38 UTC
We had a very in depth discussion on this topic in OOPE recently, thread is here.

[center]Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. /人◕‿‿◕人\ Unban Saede![/center]

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#15 - 2013-05-14 01:52:38 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:


The Bismarck wasn't sunk by a battlecruiser. It was maimed by a very lucky torpedo bomber, and then finished off by a battlecruiser while it could barely even turn.


It was finished off by two battleships, two heavy cruisers and a few destroyers, one of which was Polish.
Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#16 - 2013-05-14 02:03:30 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:


The Bismarck wasn't sunk by a battlecruiser. It was maimed by a very lucky torpedo bomber, and then finished off by a battlecruiser while it could barely even turn.


It was finished off by two battleships, two heavy cruisers and a few destroyers, one of which was Polish.


Fair enough.
Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#17 - 2013-05-14 02:33:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Radius Prime
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


You didn't, you are right that many Americans are nuts and ignorant tho.

The Japanese Yamato-class had almost twice the displacement of the Missouri.. So that's almost twice your tonnage and 2 of the class were built. You are even lucky that Adolf Hitler started his war before his navy was ready. 5 planned classes were to be built, were bigger then the Missouri. The biggest class was 5 times as large and was to carry 20 inch guns. Would have been an absolute beauty.
In the end all Adolf Hitler achieved was besting even the worst Americans when it came to nuttiness and ignorance tho. Google "Nasi H-class battleships" for more info about them.

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.

Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
#18 - 2013-05-14 02:37:13 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Honestly, if you want an example of a top-of-the-line real-world battleship, you name the Yamato, Musashi or Bismarck.


Bismarck was smaller then the Missouri, smaller guns, armor and boat.. and if it wasn't for the weakness of the British Hood it would have gone down as silent as its sister Tirpitz...

Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first.

Akirei Scytale
Okami Syndicate
#19 - 2013-05-14 02:41:17 UTC
Radius Prime wrote:
Akirei Scytale wrote:
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.

I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)


Honestly, if you want an example of a top-of-the-line real-world battleship, you name the Yamato, Musashi or Bismarck.


Bismarck was smaller then the Missouri, smaller guns, armor and boat.. and if it wasn't for the weakness of the British Hood it would have gone down as silent as its sister Tirpitz...


The reason it was a major battleship is that it was revolutionary at the time of its construction, had a very solid combat record, and was very, very influential in its theatre of war. It was probably the most influential battleship ever constructed, as it caused the freaking Royal Navy to panic.
Adunh Slavy
#20 - 2013-05-14 03:25:46 UTC
Akirei Scytale wrote:

It was probably the most influential battleship ever constructed, as it caused the freaking Royal Navy to panic.



Most influential probably has to go to the Merrimack and Monitor. The Battle of Hampton Roads made every warship prior obsolete.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

123Next pageLast page