3 ms·
That super sized destroyer has non of the battleship aesthetics though.
by tokai 10mo ago
That super sized destroyer has non of the battleship aesthetics though.
- hermitcrab 10mo agoIndeed. WW1 and WW2 battleships are incredible pieces of engineering and (IMHO) rather beautiful in their own way. And some of them were built in very short time frames when you consider they had no computers to design them with.
- lostlogin 10mo agoIt’s lucky the were pretty. They were outdated before the First World War.
- hermitcrab 10mo agoBased on what evidence? The battleship was clearly vulnerable to airpower in WWII. Much less so in WW1.
- lostlogin 10mo agoBased on them being involved in one battle in WW1 and being massively vulnerable to air attack in WW2. It’s an exaggeration saying that they were outdated in WW1, as they basically acted as a deterrent, but it was at enormous expense and they don’t do much. Too big, too slow, too expensive. The argument was playing out even prior to WW1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship Aircraft carriers took over, as you say.
- hermitcrab 10mo agoThat 1 battleship vs battleship action (Jutland) was hugely influential on the course of the war. Also there were several battlecruiser/cruiser vs battlecruiser/cruiser actions.
- lostlogin 10mo agoFaster and cheaper battleships was what they all wanted, and heavy cruisers seem to fill that role. Jutland was influential, but mainly just resulted in big ships doing nothing. That is sort of the role nuclear weapons have too I guess?
- hermitcrab 10mo ago>Faster and cheaper battleships was what they all wanted That would be a battlecruiser, and they don't seem to have been regarded as a success.