RE: I just feel like showing off...
September 27, 2015 at 4:29 pm
(This post was last modified: September 27, 2015 at 4:32 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
(September 27, 2015 at 4:21 pm)abaris Wrote: Actually, nothing worked as far as battleships are concerned. The Bismarck could sink the misdesigned Hood but fell victim to swordfish torpedoes. Battleships were beautiful, but they were outdated anachronistic freaks from the get go.
Agreed, in general, but I think their "failure" stemmed from everyone except the Japanese failing to realize that the battleship was not so superior as to make it invulnerable to the newfangled things-that-flew. The battleship kills all on the sea, including other battleships, and that is its sole purpose. Failure to grasp that it required carriers and/or land-based aircraft support to operate effectively wasn't a failure of the concept "from the get-go". It was only after the ability to kill even the most heavily-armored ship with aircraft and guided missiles that it because non-cost-effective to build the armored monstrosities.
It's like saying a main battle tank is an "anachronistic freak" because of the invention of antitank missiles. They still dominate the battlefield, if properly supported and protected. But, like the expensive and huge battleships, they are being increasingly augmented by relatively unarmored, more-mobile light vehicles such as the LAV-25.
(September 27, 2015 at 4:25 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: For beauty in warships, I think HMS Hood has it. Pity she had a glass jaw.
I almost went with Hood as my example, as I agree she's one of the loveliest designs, which is odd given that the Brits tended to favor function entirely over form; she's one of the reasons I mentioned cruisers as my preference. But since she wasn't a battleship, I decided to stick with the dreadnought-type ship.
Abaris- That's so cool... I didn't know that about von Trapp.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
