Couldn't those battleships be blindly sunken if another nation has high tech missles that are miles away?
Just wondering
The Zoogie People
10-01-2004, 22:49
No gun on the battleship has the kind of range desireable. Missile cruisers, destroyers, subs, are all more useful. Then we have aircraft, we have a range that is more effective than them all, who can effectively destroy ships with AM-39 Exocets or AGM-84 SLAM-ERs.
Let air in? Not only does that, it also creates this gigantic fireball that tends to leave things around it scorched and useless. Aircraft are very effective against battleships.
The Battleship is obsolete. :)
The United States navy has ZERO battleships in operation. All have been decomissioned. Destroyers, frigates, and cruisers are the way to go.
The BB has weak topa rmor, and the underdecks are weak. A missile hits the top, and bye bye ship.
Central Facehuggeria
10-01-2004, 22:57
Not necesarily. I mean, a really good point defense system could prevent anti-ship cruise missiles from doing much damage, while an effective SAM system on the battleship could prevent standard aerial units from bombing them. Now the ship would have to be huge to have enough room for all this plus its normal weapons, but it could be done, and the resulting battleship would be effective enough to go toe to tow with just about any aircraft carrier out there.
Edit: But long range missiles have two problems
1: A cruise missile costs much more than a shell
2: A cruise missile can be intercepted (Especially by any point defense systems available, while a shell can't)