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.

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.... :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.... :)

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...

It was probably the most influential battleship ever constructed, as it caused the freaking Royal Navy to panic.

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.

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.

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.... :)

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?

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.

My favorite battleships of the war were the Kongo class. Of Japanese Battleships they did more fighting in Pacific than the rest combined.

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.

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.... :)

And yeah, Japan wanted the Pacific war to be decided in one massive engagement, so they kept all their "flagships" and critically important vessels as safe as possible, avoiding committing them to small engagements. Hence, the less-equipped battleships saw almost all of the action.

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.

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.

You mean they would have been good target practice for carrier launched torpedo bombers?

Guns are so 1940s... modern warships are basically Caldari. All missiles and ECM.

Don't forget Dive Bombers.

Torpedo's hit below the belt, Dive Bombers burn the deck. I like that combination because it gives me the mental image of a very short guy running up to a big tall fat guy and punching him in the nuts, while he hunches in pain over another one comes up and drops an anvil on his head. Thump!

Call of Duty Looney Tunes Edition.

Love that battlecruiser btw.

Kirov reporting!

As opposed to the smart rational people of other nations.


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, the Shinanno designed to face Aircraft Carriers and was sunk by a Sub.

Just can't catch a break.

WHY AM I LOSING TOO BLIMPS!!!

I HATE THIS GAME!

Hey OP, the point you really want to make about BS in eve vs RL.. is the fact there aren't many windows on RL BS, but there are hundreds perhaps thousands on EVE BS. Considering these old BS have actual crews and ours have just one, who does the looking out of the many thousands of empty windows...

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)

We do have crew

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 should compare to projectiles :P

...and stabber (217m) fits 720mm arties....

Fraid we don't, not the capsuleers..though in the past some of us wanted somehow to put the 'crew equation' in. As is, it's all empty save for your pod. Empire ships are of course crewed.

WHY AM I LOSING TOO BLIMPS!!!

I HATE THIS GAME!

As some of you are into Battleships, and some of you think they have been consigned to history via aircraft carriers, you might find this interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR9xDHQX0AU

Yes. The dreams of armchair generals are always interesting funny.

Yes. The dreams of armchair generals are always interesting funny.

Yes. The dreams of armchair generals are always interesting funny.

Do you have any idea how much power is contained in a 425mm antimatter slug fired out of railgun?

Guns are so 1940s... modern warships are basically Caldari. All missiles and ECM.

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.... :)

As some of you are into Battleships, and some of you think they have been consigned to history via aircraft carriers, you might find this interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR9xDHQX0AU

None, rails are awful.

Hahahahahahahaha!

That was hilarious. I like the part about how they showed all the modern weapons designed around destroying ships that are not Battleships than pretty much stating that nothing can sink them.

Then they pointed to the Battle of Samar where 1 Escort Carrier was sunk by a surface fire and 1 actually sunk by a Kamikaze. Note that the Escort Carrier is not a fleet unit but built on a merchant ship hull, all the planes were armed with ground attack ordnance not anti ship, all six Escort Carriers weighed less than Yamoto alone, the only reason they were able to get so close to the fleet was because a colossal failure in intelligence combined with a diversion that cost four Japanese Carriers and the US won the Battle with the fleet 1/5 the size using convoy escorts. As for the HMS Glorious that was entirely their fault for not spotting them with I don't know their entire Airwing which was not flying at the time, the invention of Radar of course makes scenario unlikely to happen again.

Does the person who made this think a Carrier today or any armed missile ship will ever be within 30 km of a Battleship. No they will instead launch like 900 missiles from 100km+ away. They will never be in range of the enemy fleet unless they are using Missiles then what the hell are they wasting all that room for guns on?

Hahahahahahahaha!

That was hilarious. I like the part about how they showed all the modern weapons designed around destroying ships that are not Battleships than pretty much stating that nothing can sink them.

Then they pointed to the Battle of Samar where 1 Escort Carrier was sunk by a surface fire and 1 actually sunk by a Kamikaze. Note that the Escort Carrier is not a fleet unit but built on a merchant ship hull, all the planes were armed with ground attack ordnance not anti ship, all six Escort Carriers weighed less than Yamoto alone, the only reason they were able to get so close to the fleet was because a colossal failure in intelligence combined with a diversion that cost four Japanese Carriers and the US won the Battle with the fleet 1/5 the size using convoy escorts. As for the HMS Glorious that was entirely their fault for not spotting them with I don't know their entire Airwing which was not flying at the time, the invention of Radar of course makes scenario unlikely to happen again.

Does the person who made this think a Carrier today or any armed missile ship will ever be within 30 km of a Battleship. No they will instead launch like 900 missiles from 100km+ away. They will never be in range of the enemy fleet unless they are using Missiles then what the hell are they wasting all that room for guns on?

Sometimes thou 'arm chair generals' are more knowledgeable about things then the real thing.

Railguns are going to seriously change the game once they are brought into active use (See the video I posted above) as they'll have just as good of range as missiles with the benefit of having projectiles that are extremely faster, a fraction of the cost, and unable to be shot out of the sky like aircraft or missiles can be

M1A2, Bradley

Which means ships of undetermined type with guns may one day at an undetermined might some day come back after a 50 year absence. Unless of course they build giant Railguns on shore with ICBM range or Rail Planes or Satellites completely obsolete that, or lasers. I doubt it would be heavily armored since this new super weapon is so powerful so it would be a Battlecruiser not a Battleship.

That really doesn't create the "myth of the battleship", just mean guns may come back on warships as offensive weapons.

The problem with railguns will still be the same as for all unguided munition: hitting over the horizon. Then there's the problem of damage degradation over longer ranges. Now for swatting annoying flies out of the sky, on the other handGǪ

No space battleship discussion can be had without the mighty Yamato!

Looks like it has point defense against frigates.

Most influential probably has to go to the Merrimack and Monitor. The Battle of Hampton Roads made every warship prior obsolete.

Which means ships of undetermined type with guns may one day at an undetermined might some day come back after a 50 year absence. Unless of course they build giant Railguns on shore with ICBM range or Rail Planes or Satellites completely obsolete that, or lasers. I doubt it would be heavily armored since this new super weapon is so powerful so it would be a Battlecruiser not a Battleship.

That really doesn't create the "myth of the battleship", just mean guns may come back on warships as offensive weapons. If they want to call that ship a battleship like they were planning for the defunct arsenal ship I am fine with that.

Watched one. He compared it to a later built Bradley clone built after the Bradley's were all built made by allies that had all the information on it with horribly inflated production costs. The Bradley is up for replacement now that it is 20 years old BTW. Not really worried about the slightly better here or there category.

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.

As I said it's your tax $ paying for it all.

Who said I'm from the US? Besides that is this like a new revelation you are trying to share with the world because you might be surprised to know that every army is in fact funded by tax's. In fact it is common knowledge.

Thats debatable for the uk at times

You had such a beautiful war machine.

It could be worse. Canada is the second largest country in the world and we have about 90 F/A 18's to defend our boarder. Navy is in similar shape. I am pretty sure the yanks haven't conquered us yet because think they already did at some point and forget we're still a nation.

Can you loan us a couple of Eurofighters or somethin.

But we are totally overpayin' for some kickin' new F35. Delivered next century or something...

The brits also sold us some fire hazardous submarine so I'd rather not buy from europe.

CBC said that they were just testing the toaster oven on high.

I hope we get those F-35's before our Hornets become the new Seakings. You know what, I hope we give up, just spend our military cash on more healthcare or something.

We'll just be America's medic when war breaks out.

US Soldier: Ah I'm hit!
Canadian Medic: Where does it hurt?
US Soldier: .....Nothing big. I'll duct tape it later.
Canadian Medic: I'm Canai..
US Soldier: Left Arm, it's in my Left Arm and it's burning!

Why do these discussion always turn into America vs the world *sigh*

The op was just illustrating that RL BS are bristling with guns and it would be cool to have the same kind of COMPRABLE fire power.

Who said I'm from the US? Besides that is this like a new revelation you are trying to share with the world because you might be surprised to know that every army is in fact funded by tax's. In fact it is common knowledge.

But we are totally overpayin' for some kickin' new F35. Delivered next century or something...

The brits also sold us some fire hazardous submarine so I'd rather not buy from europe.

You had such a beautiful war machine.

It could be worse. Canada is the second largest country in the world and we have about 90 F/A 18's to defend our boarder. Navy is in similar shape. I am pretty sure the yanks haven't conquered us yet because think they already did at some point and forget we're still a nation.

Can you loan us a couple of Eurofighters or somethin.

It was working fine before you took it from port.

You had such a beautiful war machine.

It could be worse. Canada is the second largest country in the world and we have about 90 F/A 18's to defend our boarder. Navy is in similar shape. I am pretty sure the yanks haven't conquered us yet because think they already did at some point and forget we're still a nation.

Can you loan us a couple of Eurofighters or somethin.

Battleships went away after WW2 because of carriers. Carriers made Battleships obsolete. Or something like that.

Honestly, if you want an example of a top-of-the-line real-world battleship, you name the Yamato, Musashi or Bismarck.

Orly? How come all of those are on the bottom of the ocean then?

Because they are so awesome they are also Submarines.

Which is why I trained drones when I first started, and it was good - for a while. Now I'm looking at Tengu prices like everyone else.

Do you have any idea how much power is contained in a 425mm antimatter slug fired out of railgun?

Orly? How come all of those are on the bottom of the ocean then?

I don't think the lack of point defense is really the big deal with Battleships, they should near require a support fleet to hit effectively far below them. Cruiser targets should be the mid ground of accuracy for them.

What I think they really need is more Scan Res and MWD Mobility and I was disappointed they didn't get it so far in the rebalance. They tank a while to even lock a BC let alone a Cruiser, I think 150-180 at max skill should be a good average with a Sebo bringing them up to Tier 1/2 BC lock times. The MWD should be able to last 5-7 minutes minutes on its own without anything else running, right now a Heavy Cap Booster is pretty much required for most fits, especially bad on Amarr and the Hyperion. A good run time would have been nice.

Besides those problems Drones cover them fine. Especially with two mids more likely to be free.

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)

Most influential probably has to go to the Merrimack and Monitor. The Battle of Hampton Roads made every warship prior obsolete.

You seem to be missing some very important points about the guns in EVE. Firstly, a 425mm railgun fires slugs that are 425mm in diameter, but the railgun and barrel take up a considerable amount more space. Railguns fire slugs much smaller than ballistic guns because the slugs are fired at much higher muzzle velocity and the barrel system is very complex rather than just a tube of metal.

The battleship autocannons in EVE go up to 800mm -- these fire explosive shells that are 800mm in diameter, MUCH larger than those 406mm artillery shells fired by the battleship you listed. But these 800mm autocannons I believe are fired in pairs (for a single turret), and they fire several shells in a split-second volley. Their muzzle velocity is several times that of the 406mm guns, and their damage throughput is MANY times higher per shot, and they can fire MUCH faster.

The battleship artillery goes up to 1400mm, and those beasts fire those huge shells still faster than the 406mm cannons I believe. Don't quote me on that though. But a 1400mm shell is tremendous, and when it impacts traveling several times the speed of sound, it'll tear through metal like so much water.

You missed a Large part of the point.
nice hack job too.
point was a ship the size of a Coercer carried far more armaments than our super sized Eve warships.
the simple fact that even one eve gun (and its more than one lol ) are similar in size to WW2 components tells me our ships are WAY under gunned.

The fact that Auto cannons and arty are huge doesn't really change anything. facts are these ships are weaker than they should be.

800mm existed. it was german arty on a train =p do we even need to figure out how small a train car is ....I think not

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.... :)

Can I just interrupt your "U S A, U S A" chanting for a second and point out that the Yamato-class battleships had both superior firepower and range over the Iowa-class (USS Missouri).

It took 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs to sink the Musashi
It took at least 11 torpedoes and 6 bombs to sink the Yamato

So did your mom, lol. Joking.


Also, what is more important battles or wars?
Just because something is mechanically superior doesn't make the entity superior. Our tanks where out matched in world war 2 I believe as well.

Can I just interrupt your "U S A, U S A" chanting for a second and point out that the Yamato-class battleships had both superior firepower and range over the Iowa-class (USS Missouri).

It took 19 torpedoes and 17 bombs to sink the Musashi
It took at least 11 torpedoes and 6 bombs to sink the Yamato

Eve Gëá real life.

Also, balance.

Oh yes they were sooo superior,....that's why they reside on the ocean bottom. Big Mo and her sisters were still rockin an rollin even into the 1990's,....and your superior ships were where,....oh yea rusting on the ocean floor. Up until this moment I wasn't chanting USA or" Mericuh! F**k yeah".

I had some knowledge of the ship, I used it because it was a survivor.
In that way I didn't have losers pointing out the fact that my example was,...rusting on the bottom of the ocean.
Instead I have some anti American BULLS**T to deal with.
Like it or not, ALL Axis owned Battleships are inferior to the Iowa class, why because they got sunk.

so,..... Mericuh! F**k yeah

Until someone builds a battleship that can and does sink an Iowa, all y'all just got owned.

20 lolfit Cruise Ravens gang up on 2 pimp Machariels and kill them.

Does that make pimp Macheriels ****? No.

Does that make lolfit Cruise Ravens awesomesauce? No.

If you could just hold back on the fist pumping, flag waving and teary-eyed star spangled banner singing, you would realise that you have once again missed my point entirely.

I'm not saying "down with Americ*nts, Imperialist Japan rulez".

I'm pointing out that SHIP VS SHIP, the Yamato and Musashi outclassed the Missouri.

Which ships actually survived the war is totally irrelevant in the context of my original post, not that you understood it.

You are either a 2nd class troll or a 1st class moron.

so much anger did I hit a nerve? its ok that your ships sucked and got sunk. Japan never used them for more than transports. at least the germans put theres out to fight. ship vs. ship maybe your right, but because Japanese high command sucked balls and used them as transports we will never know will we.

The Germans didn't build Huge warships they were limited by the treaty of Versailles. Anglo-German Naval Agreement in 1935 allowed the Germany to build Bismark and all the other warships that fought WW2 but they were still limited in size. German battleships were smaller, but that made them faster. Their gun size was limited but that just made Germany make better smaller guns.

Japan on the other hand made huge battleships that spent most of the war as troop and supply transports as they wanted to save them for some massive fleet engagement that never happened. With their limited supplies of steel they would have benefited from more carriers, but would 4 or 5 more carriers have really mattered,...maybe lol

As to them NOT being under gunned, well we probably will never agree.

Part of my argument is based on size.

Yes eve is fictional, however they did go so far as to give them (the ships)very real sizes. Based on that and the fact that weapon systems of similar caliber also exist currently, these vessels are, just by space alone under gunned.

The argument that guns are "sufficient" to destroy other vessels maybe true. However, battleships unless lucky, are no threat to frigs, destroyers, or cruisers because their weapon systems simply cannot engage smaller faster vessels.
Those vessels were however in history crunchy little treats for battleships and their BIG GUNS

Battleships are victims of game balance. Instead of them being a true pinnacle of sub capital (lol Battleships sub capital. They ARE capital ships in reality lol) they are a money sinks for eve.

Strategic and command cruisers are far more capable vessels that put out roughly the same amount of DPS and have better abilities

You're thinking far too small in terms of scale. It's all about muzzle velocity.

Rounds fired from projectile weapons in EVE aren't simply a case of a projectile propelled by cordite in a metal jacket. Most of them are rocket propelled and carry, at the very least, nuclear payloads.

If you want to take an example, look at rockets. The four smallest missile types have the following warheads :

EM - EMP
Explosive - Nuclear
Kinetic - Armor Piercing
Thermic - Plasma

In short, it's not about how wide your barrel is, it's got everything to do with what you're firing, how you're firing it, and at what speed.

Also, comparing an EVE battleship to any vessel used in a modern day navy is a ridiculous concept. They're completely different, and share only the name of their class in common.

Also, cool off the attitudes, trolling and personal attacks in this thread. Keep it civil.

My point ---> .














\o/ <--- You

[


Its Gëá it is
Theres Gëá theirs
Your Gëá you are

But I digress.

I feel like I could spend the rest of my life having this conversation.

I am genuinely intrigued as to why you can't understand just because Ship A (let's make this easy for you) was sunk by planes and other ships, that does not make it worse than Ship B.

Are you saying every person that survived WW2 was better than everyone who died in WW2 because they lived?

Please tell me you get it now? I don't have any wax crayons to hand, or I'd do you a diagram.

Actually, that's a period, something I'm sure you experience








When you write.

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)

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...

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
....... etc etc etc not well though argument

If you tried to cram a warp drive into the USS Missouri, you might find little space left over for weaponry.

Mr Epeen

If you tried to cram a warp drive into the USS Missouri, you might find little space left over for weaponry.

Mr Epeen

what part is more un-realistic, me wanting my ship properly protected or 2 mile long ships that are NOT properly protected? Do u honestly believe even a fantasy govt would allow billions of isk worth of ships to be so easily gunned down?

Cry balance all you want.
Battleships used to be fearsome.
They aren't any longer.
Why?
because they listened to the wrong crowd.
Battleships are now just fat a$$ed kill mails that pirates can giggle about in their dark places lol

fiat

When looking at the balance of battleships versus frigates -- for example -- 5x the DPS (not even counting projection) for 25x the cost seems a little ridiculous at first blush but it makes sense from a game design perspective when you consider that it forces players to work together instead of super rich ultra high SP players being able to whelp hundreds of newbies. EVE is a game of diminishing returns and for good reason.

Most influential probably has to go to the Merrimack and Monitor. The Battle of Hampton Roads made every warship prior obsolete.

You're thinking far too small in terms of scale. It's all about muzzle velocity.

Rounds fired from projectile weapons in EVE aren't simply a case of a projectile propelled by cordite in a metal jacket. Most of them are rocket propelled and carry, at the very least, nuclear payloads.

If you want to take an example, look at rockets. The four smallest missile types have the following warheads :

EM - EMP
Explosive - Nuclear
Kinetic - Armor Piercing
Thermic - Plasma

In short, it's not about how wide your barrel is, it's got everything to do with what you're firing, how you're firing it, and at what speed.

Also, comparing an EVE battleship to any vessel used in a modern day navy is a ridiculous concept. They're completely different, and share only the name of their class in common.

Also, cool off the attitudes, trolling and personal attacks in this thread. Keep it civil.

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.