RE: I just feel like showing off...
September 27, 2015 at 5:32 pm
(This post was last modified: September 27, 2015 at 5:33 pm by TheRocketSurgeon.)
(September 27, 2015 at 4:34 pm)abaris Wrote:(September 27, 2015 at 4:29 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: 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.
No, it's more like an Abrams tank compared to a Sherman. The submarines and other torpedo carriers had all the advantages over basttleships. The Battle of the Skagerrak was the only real battleship battle in history. And it ended with a stalemate.
Actually, come to think of it, the battleships were on the same lines of outdated tactics as the land battles with blind charges were. Technology had moved on, but the thinking of the strategists hadn't.
It's true about the thinking of the strategists and the rapid rush of technology, but it's not true during WW1, when the planes were not a serious threat to the battleships, and submarines were not yet highly effective. (Of course, subs scored victories against the battleship and other warships, which led to the development of anti-torpedo bulges and other design- and tactics-changes.) It is ironic that, given their lack of domination of the ocean battlefield, the people who owned them were so reluctant to use them because of the moral value of their loss on the people of the nation who lost them, and so the battleships rarely came to blows simply out of fear of employing them as they were meant to be employed.
And yes, Jutland was the only "true" action of that sort, but there's also the whole Bismarck v. Hood fight, and the second battle of Guadalcanal, where Kirishima was sunk by two American battleships. All that said, I wonder what the second world war would have looked like if we had put our effort spent building the Iowa class battleships into fleet carriers, or if we had done more along the lines of the Saratoga and Lexington, and built carriers from the half-completed hulls of battlecruisers and battleships. Imagine a US fleet with the South Dakota-class and North Carolina-class ships built into six fast, super-heavy carriers!
I see Parkers Tan beat me to it! Hehe.
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.
