USS Tennessee

[CountDeMoney]

Stukas had a soundtrack.  Therefore, WIN.

[Neil]

Stukas had a soundtrack.  Therefore, WIN.

Quite the opposite.  After all, what's the best dive bomber attack of all time?  The Dauntlesses diving at Midway, totally by surprise.  One minute, the Japanese sailors are cheering their guys while they massacre Devastators.  The next, they're getting incinerated by a somewhat careless aviation gas system that has been blown up.

[Ed Anger]

Neil's post gave me a Banzai Boner.

[KRonn]

Great pic of the battleship! Can't beat a pic of a battleship, best lines of any warship! 

[grumbler]

The early Stukas, of the sort used in the Battle of Britain (before they put the improved engine in them) where inferior to the Val in speed and range.  I will give you the bombload, armour and the torpedo.  Looking at wiki, it actually give better figures for the Val in range and speed even over the Junker Jumo Stuka, but I wonder if they might be comparing an unloaded Val to a loaded Stuka.

I recalled an assertion that the Stuka had a longer range loaded than the Val (and vice-versa unloaded) due to the Stuka's more powerful power plant and three-bladed prop, but I think my recollection was faulty.  Looking at load versus range, the Val appears to be better loaded and unloaded.

[PRC]

Here is another shot of the USS Tennessee:

[KRonn]

It's always so impressive seeing pics or video of the big guns going off.

I also  couldn't help feeling empathy for those soldiers and marines aboard the landing craft heading to shore, and the tough slog they'll be up against.

[CountDeMoney]

And in the age of anti-access and area denial, we don't need that kind of resilience or amphibious naval gunfire support anymore, no sir.

Disposable littoral ships that don't meet shock testing standards, that's the answer.

[Berkut]

And in the age of anti-access and area denial, we don't need that kind of resilience or amphibious naval gunfire support anymore, no sir.

Disposable littoral ships that don't meet shock testing standards, that's the answer.

We don't need that kind of naval gunfire support though. In the age of cheap PGMs, the idea of area obliteration of targets is a thing of the past.

[PRC]

It's always so impressive seeing pics or video of the big guns going off.

When I see the great guns going off I always hear Thulsa Doom's voice: "THAT is strength!  THAT is power!"

[CountDeMoney]

We don't need that kind of naval gunfire support though. In the age of cheap PGMs, the idea of area obliteration of targets is a thing of the past.

Nonsense.  Besides, arty shells are fiscally prudent alternatives.

[11B4V]

One of my Fav classes. More thought of as a Battle Cruiser IIRC. To me the most visually appealing, second only to the Iowa-class BB's.

Scharnhorst and Gneisenau





http://www.scharnhorst-class.dk/gneisenau/gallery/gallgneiseseatrials2.html

[derspiess]

I'm more of a Type VII u-boat guy, but those are nice.

[Berkut]

We don't need that kind of naval gunfire support though. In the age of cheap PGMs, the idea of area obliteration of targets is a thing of the past.

Nonsense.  Besides, arty shells are fiscally prudent alternatives.

I doubt that the cost of 50 artillery shells is less than the cost of a single cheap PGM. Plus the cost of the ship to move all those shells, etc., etc.

[grumbler]

One of my Fav classes. More thought of as a Battle Cruiser IIRC. To me the most visually appealing, second only to the Iowa-class BB's.

They are good-looking ships, no question.  They really are inferior battleships, though, rather than battlecruisers, because they didn't really have a speed advantage over contemporary battleships.  They were good ships for what they were built for (commerce-raiding), but I think that an objective analysis of their worth would conclude that their main value was in providing German shipyards badly-needed experience in building big armored ships.

They are similar to the Dunkerque class in both of those regards.