| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |

Sumthinburnin
Industrial Solutions Vae. Victis.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:48:00 -
[1] - Quote
something i have thought about for some time, but never asked. Why are our big nasty ships soo under gunned? I know alot of people are gonna think im nutz (its ok i kinda am lol)
Hear me out first....On our precious little rock the battleship era ended with WW2 (mostly i know we in the US used them a bit longer)
Those ships had BIG guns, medium guns and AA guns. Massive numbers of them too
Example....USS Missouri Displacement:45,000 tons Length:887.2 ft (270.4 m) Beam:108.2 ft (33.0 m)
Weapon Systems (1940's) 9 +ù 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns 20 +ù 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns 80 +ù 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns 49 +ù 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons
1984 9 +ù 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns 12 +ù 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns 32 +ù B G M-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles 16 +ù R G M-84 Harpoon Anti-Ship missiles 4 +ù 20 mm/76 cal Phalanx C I W S
This vessel is about the size (in length ) as a Coercer(278 m), has guns as big 406 mm (Very near eve's biggest rail gun)
quickly to the point i guess (gotta go to work lol)
Other than the KISS plan (keep it simple stupid) why are our ships so under gunned. |

Adunh Slavy
766
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:53:00 -
[2] - Quote
Because Eve is a game. If BSes had point defense weapons, frigs would be pretty useless. It's about balance and roles. So, even new players in frigs have a role. |

Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3188
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 00:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
You're counting the barrels. The Missouri had 3 turrets, and then a bunch of smaller guns thrown on.
EVE Battleships have drones to cover the role of protection from smaller ships, and most in-game turrets have 2+ barrels on them. Its a weak comparison to start with, and EVE Battleships are overgunned if you decide to use it. TEST Alliance BEST Alliance |

baltec1
Bat Country
6365
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 01:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
Do you have any idea how much power is contained in a 425mm antimatter slug fired out of railgun? |

Jarod Garamonde
Action Bastards
144
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 01:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.
I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :) "you can identify eve players by looking at their cars. Since they don't drive what they can't afford to lose."-á --áBienator II |

Frake Lomes
Century Citadel
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 01:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
BS's in EVE can use drones for point D, or if you're really squirrelly, smart bombs, nuets, nos and whatever else you feel is necessary. Besides, nothing stops you from putting point guns on your BS...not recommended but hey, it's EVE, go ahead and do it!!!
As for the USS Missouri, it was designed to destroy horribad CGI Alien ships from another planet. EVE Battleships don't get to kill any aliens (rogue drones and sleepers don't count)
|

Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3189
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 01:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jarod Garamonde wrote:Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.
I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)
Honestly, if you want an example of a top-of-the-line real-world battleship, you name the Yamato, Musashi or Bismarck. TEST Alliance BEST Alliance |

Jarod Garamonde
Action Bastards
144
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 01:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
Akirei Scytale wrote:Jarod Garamonde wrote:Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.
I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :) Honestly, if you want an example of a top-of-the-line real-world battleship, you name the Yamato, Musashi or Bismarck.
Bismarck got sunk by a British battlecruiser.
The Bizzy's pilot prolly just didn't train up his support skills before he got in it, though :p As for the Yamato... the two could have gone toe-to-toe, during WWII, but when the Mo got her refit in the 80's, it was (and still is) the single most powerful ship in history. "you can identify eve players by looking at their cars. Since they don't drive what they can't afford to lose."-á --áBienator II |

baltec1
Bat Country
6366
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 01:17:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jarod Garamonde wrote:Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.
I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)
The Yamoto is the lord of all battleships. |

baltec1
Bat Country
6366
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 01:20:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jarod Garamonde wrote:
Bismarck got sunk by a British battlecruiser.
The Bizzy's pilot prolly just didn't train up his support skills before he got in it, though :p As for the Yamato... the two could have gone toe-to-toe, during WWII, but when the Mo got her refit in the 80's, it was (and still is) the single most powerful ship in history.
An astute would rip her in half in a single shot. |

Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3189
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 01:20:00 -
[11] - Quote
Jarod Garamonde wrote:Akirei Scytale wrote:Jarod Garamonde wrote:Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.
I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :) Honestly, if you want an example of a top-of-the-line real-world battleship, you name the Yamato, Musashi or Bismarck. Bismarck got sunk by a British battlecruiser. The Bizzy's pilot prolly just didn't train up his support skills before he got in it, though :p As for the Yamato... the two could have gone toe-to-toe, during WWII, but when the Mo got her refit in the 80's, it was (and still is) the single most powerful ship in history.
The Bismarck wasn't sunk by a battlecruiser. It was maimed by a very lucky torpedo bomber, and then finished off by a battlecruiser while it could barely even turn. TEST Alliance BEST Alliance |

Nitrogen Isotopes
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 01:34:00 -
[12] - Quote
Akirei Scytale wrote:If you want to argue the "most powerful ships in history", the list would be entirely populated by Japanese and American aircraft carriers. That or Russian nuclear subs, depending on how you decided to measure power.
Norm Macdonald's rebuttal |

Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts Hegemonous Pandorum
166
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 01:40:00 -
[13] - Quote
Sumthinburnin wrote:something i have thought about for some time, but never asked. Why are our big nasty ships soo under gunned? I know alot of people are gonna think im nutz (its ok i kinda am lol)
Hear me out first....On our precious little rock the battleship era ended with WW2 (mostly i know we in the US used them a bit longer)
Those ships had BIG guns, medium guns and AA guns. Massive numbers of them too
Example....USS Missouri Displacement:45,000 tons Length:887.2 ft (270.4 m) Beam:108.2 ft (33.0 m)
Weapon Systems (1940's) 9 +ù 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns 20 +ù 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns 80 +ù 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns 49 +ù 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons
1984 9 +ù 16 in (406 mm)/50 cal Mark 7 guns 12 +ù 5 in (127 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns 32 +ù B G M-109 Tomahawk cruise missiles 16 +ù R G M-84 Harpoon Anti-Ship missiles 4 +ù 20 mm/76 cal Phalanx C I W S
This vessel is about the size (in length ) as a Coercer(278 m), has guns as big 406 mm (Very near eve's biggest rail gun)
quickly to the point i guess (gotta go to work lol)
Other than the KISS plan (keep it simple stupid) why are our ships so under gunned.
We have drones and if you want to fit them smartbombs for point defense. As well as fiat shields which don't exist on the missouri. Our weaponry is built on external swivels with 360 degree firing arcs and we operate in a 3D environment with no obstructive horizons and pesky islands to get in the way. The missouri can only go 33 knots at full tilt, a coercer is 252m/s base which is 489.8 knots (4sf). Also, a coercer takes a few hours to make and costs a pittance in terms of capsuleer resources while the Missouri represented a significant investment and took months to build.
Essentially, if you were in a universe where you can replace something close to modern battleship class in a matter of hours, had shielding and could support unmanned drones, why wouldn't you just stick some main guns on it and be done?
Also, balance. |

Kirjava
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5816
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 01:40:00 -
[14] - Quote
We had a very in depth discussion on this topic in OOPE recently, thread is here.
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. Cardinal Kirjava - Redeclaring the Crusade in the name of the Goddess since 2012. /S¦¦GùòGÇ+GÇ+GùòS¦¦\ |

baltec1
Bat Country
6369
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 01:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
Akirei Scytale wrote:
The Bismarck wasn't sunk by a battlecruiser. It was maimed by a very lucky torpedo bomber, and then finished off by a battlecruiser while it could barely even turn.
It was finished off by two battleships, two heavy cruisers and a few destroyers, one of which was Polish. |

Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3190
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 02:03:00 -
[16] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Akirei Scytale wrote:
The Bismarck wasn't sunk by a battlecruiser. It was maimed by a very lucky torpedo bomber, and then finished off by a battlecruiser while it could barely even turn.
It was finished off by two battleships, two heavy cruisers and a few destroyers, one of which was Polish.
Fair enough. TEST Alliance BEST Alliance |

Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
51
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 02:33:00 -
[17] - Quote
Jarod Garamonde wrote:Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.
I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)
You didn't, you are right that many Americans are nuts and ignorant tho.
The Japanese Yamato-class had almost twice the displacement of the Missouri.. So that's almost twice your tonnage and 2 of the class were built. You are even lucky that Adolf ****** started his war before his navy was ready. 5 planned classes were to be built, were bigger then the Missouri. The biggest class was 5 times as large and was to carry 20 inch guns. Would have been an absolute beauty. In the end all Adolf ****** achieved was besting even the worst Americans when it came to nuttiness and ignorance tho. Google "Nasi H-class battleships" for more info about them. Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first. |

Radius Prime
Tax Evading Ass.
51
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 02:37:00 -
[18] - Quote
Akirei Scytale wrote:Jarod Garamonde wrote:Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.
I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :) Honestly, if you want an example of a top-of-the-line real-world battleship, you name the Yamato, Musashi or Bismarck.
Bismarck was smaller then the Missouri, smaller guns, armor and boat.. and if it wasn't for the weakness of the British Hood it would have gone down as silent as its sister Tirpitz...
Reopen the EVE gate so we can invade Serenity. Goons can go first. |

Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3191
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 02:41:00 -
[19] - Quote
Radius Prime wrote:Akirei Scytale wrote:Jarod Garamonde wrote:Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give n example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.
I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :) Honestly, if you want an example of a top-of-the-line real-world battleship, you name the Yamato, Musashi or Bismarck. Bismarck was smaller then the Missouri, smaller guns, armor and boat.. and if it wasn't for the weakness of the British Hood it would have gone down as silent as its sister Tirpitz...
The reason it was a major battleship is that it was revolutionary at the time of its construction, had a very solid combat record, and was very, very influential in its theatre of war. It was probably the most influential battleship ever constructed, as it caused the freaking Royal Navy to panic. TEST Alliance BEST Alliance |

Adunh Slavy
768
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 03:25:00 -
[20] - Quote
Akirei Scytale wrote: It was probably the most influential battleship ever constructed, as it caused the freaking Royal Navy to panic.
Most influential probably has to go to the Merrimack and Monitor. The Battle of Hampton Roads made every warship prior obsolete. |

Alara IonStorm
5022
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 04:03:00 -
[21] - Quote
Radius Prime wrote: You didn't, you are right that many Americans are nuts and ignorant tho.
As opposed to the smart rational people of other nations. 
Radius Prime wrote: The Japanese Yamato-class had almost twice the displacement of the Missouri.. So that's almost twice your tonnage and 2 of the class were built.
Actually they were a little less than 40% larger.
A third was actually built as an Aircraft Carrier (Shinanno), the heaviest of the war. It was sunk by a Submarine like 10 days out of port. Hilarious I think overall. The Yamoto's designed to fight Battleships met their end to Aircraft Carriers, the Shinanno designed to fight Aircraft Carriers was sunk by a sub.
Just can't catch a break. |

Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
1463
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 04:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
Jarod Garamonde wrote:Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.
Guns are so 1940s... modern warships are basically Caldari. All missiles and ECM. .... when you could be playing Minecraft. |

RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
3372
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 04:36:00 -
[23] - Quote
The USS Missouri doesn't have nearly the rate of fire that EVE Ships have.
Consider, the 1400mm Artillery on a Tornado can fire nearly 4 volleys per minute to the USS Missouri's 2.
1400mm is 1.4m is a 4.5ft diameter barrel. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |

Lyrrashae
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
428
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 05:21:00 -
[24] - Quote
Jarod Garamonde wrote:Notice how every time anyone, anywhere in the world, wants to give an example of a mighty battleship, they invoke the name of the USS Missouri.
I'm not one of those "Mericuh! F**k yeah!" kind of Americans.... but recognize that this nation of mutts I call home, built the single most destructive conventional weapon in the history of mankind.... :)
Ah-murr-ikka's may have been bigger, but Old Blighty's was cooler.
EVE will never accomodate you, or me, or anyone. What will always do, is give everyone options. So research. Learn. Evaluate. Choose. Reap the consequences and/or rewards. But for ****'s sakes, stop whining. |

Tuttomenui II
Aliastra Gallente Federation
77
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 05:34:00 -
[25] - Quote
Battleships went away after WW2 because of carriers. Carriers made Battleships obsolete. Or something like that. |

Alara IonStorm
5022
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 05:37:00 -
[26] - Quote
Not a fan of the Vanguard design.
I prefer the HMS Nelson from an aesthetic point of view.
|

Lyrrashae
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
428
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 05:49:00 -
[27] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Not a fan of the Vanguard design. I prefer the HMS Nelson from an aesthetic point of view.
Oh, sooooo marvellously elegant. How do the Brits do it? Must be something in the water? EVE will never accomodate you, or me, or anyone. What will always do, is give everyone options. So research. Learn. Evaluate. Choose. Reap the consequences and/or rewards. But for ****'s sakes, stop whining. |

Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2383
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 05:54:00 -
[28] - Quote
Frigates are supposed to be useless, small, cheap craft with no punch that serve as the firepower where the other guys have shuttles or as scouts for a bigger battle group or a plain run of the mil ship for your average tom **** and harry with no isk.
And yet CCP and a huge portion of the member base demand hand-holding and camp fires for Frigates at the expense of the bigger ships. Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk! |

Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
3193
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 05:54:00 -
[29] - Quote
Lyrrashae wrote:Alara IonStorm wrote:Not a fan of the Vanguard design. I prefer the HMS Nelson from an aesthetic point of view. Oh, sooooo marvellously elegant. How do the Brits do it? Must be something in the water?
I honestly liked the look of the Yamato. Something about the bridge superstructure just does it for me. TEST Alliance BEST Alliance |

Alara IonStorm
5023
|
Posted - 2013.05.14 06:38:00 -
[30] - Quote
Lyrrashae wrote: Oh, sooooo marvellously elegant. How do the Brits do it? Must be something in the water?
Funny enough, she was designed entirely around naval treaty limitations exploiting superior firepower on a smaller hull and called a treaty battleship. The British argued that since they had a long distance empire to protect their ships weight should not include an excess of water and fuel than made the torpedo defense bulges use water as a defense to deflect explosions.
The were called Cherry Tree class because the Washington Naval Treaty cut their size down. 
Akirei Scytale wrote:I honestly liked the look of the Yamato. Something about the bridge superstructure just does it for me. The Pagoda Mast was designed after Asian temple towers. They were a feature on all Japanese Battleships.
My favorite battleships of the war were the Kongo class. Of Japanese Battleships they did more fighting in Pacific than the rest combined. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |