Naval Warfaretards/Churchillians, to me!

[Syt]

They took on the task of transforming a country full of Nazis and Nazi accomplices into a country full of pacifist Euroweenies.  I don't see how that could be accomplished without firebombing.

[grumbler]

Yea..lol, battleships contributed greatly in WW2..... made nice artificial reefs.

Battleships were a key element of sea control until the development of torpedoes effect enough to hit and sink them were deployed.  Do some reading on the war in the Med, and you will understand why it is absurd to argue that battleships didn't contribute to the allied victory in the war.

[grumbler]

You know no such thing.   Battleships have managed to do practically nothing since their advent--except get sunk by airplanes.

Yep.  Airplanes sank 1,391 battleships in the war, if you believe their pilots.

Well there was that one time they sunk each other then proceeded to never even leave port again till the war was over, and that one time Dreadnought ran over a submarine by accident, and OK there was Glorious and Taffy 3, but otherwise.

Well, they never left port like the bombers never took off, except when the bombers took off and missed their target cities by miles.

[11B4V]

Yea..lol, battleships contributed greatly in WW2..... made nice artificial reefs.

Battleships were a key element of sea control until the development of torpedoes effect enough to hit and sink them were deployed.  Do some reading on the war in the Med, and you will understand why it is absurd to argue that battleships didn't contribute to the allied victory in the war.

I didnt say they didnt contribute. Just not greatly. Read the post you quoted.

[grumbler]

They took on the task of transforming a country full of Nazis and Nazi accomplices into a country full of pacifist Euroweenies.  I don't see how that could be accomplished without firebombing.

If not one bomber ever flew against the German cities, the Soviets would have accomplished what they did (" transforming a country full of Nazis and Nazi accomplices into a country full of pacifist Euroweenies") anyway.  Bombers helped by forcing the Germans to use up ammunition decimating the bomber raids, but the Sovs would have gotten there in the end without them.  The money spent on bomber command and Eighth and Twentieth Air Forces would have been better spent on tactical and operational air power and getting more trucks to the USSR.

[grumbler]

And they're useful in the maritime strike/maritime reconnaissance role too.  But we both know that.

P-3 is a much better strike/recon platform.

A pproperly equipped B-52 would put the P-3 to shame in this role.  The P-3 was a great plane for the mission, but certainly was much more constrained by cost than the Buffs were.

[grumbler]

Yea..lol, battleships contributed greatly in WW2..... made nice artificial reefs.

Battleships were a key element of sea control until the development of torpedoes effect enough to hit and sink them were deployed.  Do some reading on the war in the Med, and you will understand why it is absurd to argue that battleships didn't contribute to the allied victory in the war.

I didnt say they didnt contribute. Just not greatly. Read the post you quoted.

  I read it, and am agreeing with you that " battleships contributed greatly in WW2."  Even an elementary examination of the war at sea would tell you that.

[11B4V]

Yea..lol, battleships contributed greatly in WW2..... made nice artificial reefs.

Battleships were a key element of sea control until the development of torpedoes effect enough to hit and sink them were deployed.  Do some reading on the war in the Med, and you will understand why it is absurd to argue that battleships didn't contribute to the allied victory in the war.

I didnt say they didnt contribute. Just not greatly. Read the post you quoted.

  I read it, and am agreeing with you that " battleships contributed greatly in WW2."  Even an elementary examination of the war at sea would tell you that.

No they didnt.

[grumbler]

No they didnt.

Make up you mind!

In any case, you argument here is very compelling.... to a seven-year-old.

[11B4V]

No they didnt.

Make up you mind!

In any case, you argument here is very compelling.... to a seven-year-old.

No reason for ad homs

[grumbler]

No reason for ad homs

Indeed, not.  That's probably why there haven't been any.

[PDH]

No they didnt.

Make up you mind!

In any case, you argument here is very compelling.... to a seven-year-old.

No reason for ad homs

  That is more of a demeaning metaphor than an ad hom.

[11B4V]

No they didnt.

Make up you mind!

In any case, you argument here is very compelling.... to a seven-year-old.

No reason for ad homs

  That is more of a demeaning metaphor than an ad hom.

Well of course...

[Grey Fox]

Back to talking about Boats, damn it.

WOuld you say that defeat in Vietnam is a direct correlation of having no(or enough) Battleship engage?

[PDH]

If the Iowa could have been dropped from orbit onto the Ho Chi Minh Trail it would have been interesting.  Tim, discuss.