World Affairs Board - View Single Post

maximusslade · 04-23-2008, 23:34 PM

Yeah, you're nitpicking, LOL. I am beginning to think that some people think I am some punk kid gun nut, but I am not going to get into that. Instead I am going to ask that that viewers pay a little more attention to my "Constitution" battlecruiser, seeing as it is the later of my designs.

As to "primary" missions...I am reluctant to restrict my ship to a single mission. The last dreadnaught designs, i.e. Iowas, North Carolinas, South Dakotas, many would say that their primary mission was to sink other ships, but it turned out that they also excelled at other things such as shore bombardment and antiaircraft batteries. Is that what I am trying to turn my ships into? Not really. It is my goal to design a capital warship that has excellent surface combat capability and shore bombardment capability.

Ok...I am just going to come out with it. Why in hell does the Navy need some 5 or 6" round that shoots a hundred miles?? Sure as hell not to provide gunfire support for an amphibious landing or to provide gunfire support for the Army while they are miles and miles inland. Why do I say this? Where are the targets that landing Marines or soldiers are going to need blown up? What general sends a division into battle without its own artillery? So far as I know, there is no general so foolish, and those targets marines need blown up are on the beach. If there is a target beyond the range of a gun, a TLAM or SLAMMER or whatever ship to ground missle that they wanna use, even aircraft with guided munitions. So why not use aircraft to bust targets on the beach during an assault? My thought is if we are landing on some God forsaken beach that probably, just probably many of our air assets are being used up somewhere else perhaps maintaining air superiority or bombing a bridge or whatever may be required. On top of that tanks and artillery will be landed on the beach as soon as there is room for them when the assault force gets off the beach by that time, when they get out of range of navy guns, they can start using their own artillery to support maneuvers. What I am saying is this, we dont need little shells that fly miles (except MAYBE in the case of special ops missions but I am way in over my head there so I am not even going to talk about that further) what is needed for amphipious assaults is ACCURATE and DEVISTATING firepower that is ready at a moment's notice, not dependant upon an aircraft that has limited fuel, limited ammo, and whose base is miles and miles away. It is my very humble opinion that for proper amphibious gunfire support, a platform is needed that can sit pretty a couple miles off shore and and have 5", 6", 12", or 16" steel headed down range in as much time as it takes for the guns to get trained into position. What about civilians? I want to see a report talking about how many civilians were living amongst the beach installations during the Pacific theater or along the Kuaiti coast while our ships were parked off their coast. Maybe I am waaaaaaay off here or maybe it's cause it's almost midnight. But I think I have a point.

As for the second role of surface combatant? That is more clear cut to me. Design a ship that can cause more damage and take more damage than the other guy. Premise is the same as the old dreadnaught. Sink the other guy through superior fire power and survive through superior range and armor. Who here beleives that the US will rule the waves forever??

Okay, I am going to cool it for now. I am certain I am going to get lambasted for this post but I have to say it. I wonder if there is anyone out there who agrees with me or if I made any sense to anyone.

04-23-2008, 23:34 PM	#34 (permalink)
maximusslade Patron Join Date: 04-16-08 Posts: 195	Yeah, you're nitpicking, LOL. I am beginning to think that some people think I am some punk kid gun nut, but I am not going to get into that. Instead I am going to ask that that viewers pay a little more attention to my "Constitution" battlecruiser, seeing as it is the later of my designs. As to "primary" missions...I am reluctant to restrict my ship to a single mission. The last dreadnaught designs, i.e. Iowas, North Carolinas, South Dakotas, many would say that their primary mission was to sink other ships, but it turned out that they also excelled at other things such as shore bombardment and antiaircraft batteries. Is that what I am trying to turn my ships into? Not really. It is my goal to design a capital warship that has excellent surface combat capability and shore bombardment capability. Ok...I am just going to come out with it. Why in hell does the Navy need some 5 or 6" round that shoots a hundred miles?? Sure as hell not to provide gunfire support for an amphibious landing or to provide gunfire support for the Army while they are miles and miles inland. Why do I say this? Where are the targets that landing Marines or soldiers are going to need blown up? What general sends a division into battle without its own artillery? So far as I know, there is no general so foolish, and those targets marines need blown up are on the beach. If there is a target beyond the range of a gun, a TLAM or SLAMMER or whatever ship to ground missle that they wanna use, even aircraft with guided munitions. So why not use aircraft to bust targets on the beach during an assault? My thought is if we are landing on some God forsaken beach that probably, just probably many of our air assets are being used up somewhere else perhaps maintaining air superiority or bombing a bridge or whatever may be required. On top of that tanks and artillery will be landed on the beach as soon as there is room for them when the assault force gets off the beach by that time, when they get out of range of navy guns, they can start using their own artillery to support maneuvers. What I am saying is this, we dont need little shells that fly miles (except MAYBE in the case of special ops missions but I am way in over my head there so I am not even going to talk about that further) what is needed for amphipious assaults is ACCURATE and DEVISTATING firepower that is ready at a moment's notice, not dependant upon an aircraft that has limited fuel, limited ammo, and whose base is miles and miles away. It is my very humble opinion that for proper amphibious gunfire support, a platform is needed that can sit pretty a couple miles off shore and and have 5", 6", 12", or 16" steel headed down range in as much time as it takes for the guns to get trained into position. What about civilians? I want to see a report talking about how many civilians were living amongst the beach installations during the Pacific theater or along the Kuaiti coast while our ships were parked off their coast. Maybe I am waaaaaaay off here or maybe it's cause it's almost midnight. But I think I have a point. As for the second role of surface combatant? That is more clear cut to me. Design a ship that can cause more damage and take more damage than the other guy. Premise is the same as the old dreadnaught. Sink the other guy through superior fire power and survive through superior range and armor. Who here beleives that the US will rule the waves forever?? Okay, I am going to cool it for now. I am certain I am going to get lambasted for this post but I have to say it. I wonder if there is anyone out there who agrees with me or if I made any sense to anyone. __________________ Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...