Look at a WWII Battleship and tell me they were actually worthwhile outside of their majestic look, proud naval background, and intimidation and morale factor.It's not all about what is most efficient. Efficiency and utility are great for science, but this isn't science. This is war. War carries with it a few extra variables.And yes yes I knowSeveral points:1. Battleships of all variants (battlecruisers, dreadnought, fast battleships etc etc etc) have been the optimum of naval battle for hundred of years, they were designed to stand in the "line of battle" and survive, the only intimidation factor to a ship of the line was it fearsome streangh. The only reason why battleships and cruiser looked so slick was because it made them sail faster, saltwater ships were the upscale of engineering of their time and still do today.2. BB played in WWII a crucial role in fleet defence, lets not kid our selves, combat naval air ops were at their opening stages in WWII, no one knew how succesfull they will be against enemy naval units, forther more, with the uncertainty of airial attacks on ships of the line you couldn't leave your own battle groups and carriers undefended against the possibility being attacked by the enemys cap-ships.3. By the end on WWII nearlly all new BB and BC hulls the were laid down for construction were converted to aircraft carriers due to the advancment in carrier combat ops science and advanced ammunition and aircrafts, no one kept building them (even for their majestic look, proud naval background, and intimidation and morale factor))4. And last but not least, you clearly haven't spent a day in uniform cause if you have you would have know that it's not the look of a weapon system that effect morale it how many motherfracking ******** you can kill with it that count. Warder[Moderator notice: This is no place for racist epithets. Please refrain from using them in the future.]
1. Ships of the line were most useful in very static, limited roles i.e. blockades and fleet-crushing confrontations. Outside of that there were much faster, much more effective (frigates) ships for prize capturing, patrol, and the majority of other fleet action. Yes, ships of the line were crucial in key battle like Trafalgar where they spearheaded crushing assaults on opposing navies, but unless you managed to lure that navy into a place to pound the hell out of them they were far more limited. For one thing their best point of sail is with the wind, as opposed to sloop-rigged and smaller vessels that can sail well at angles to and against the wind.
2. This is true, before people knew what the hell to do with them people kept tried the same old style of war. But don't tell me that the Bismarck was hunted down relentlessly JUST because it was being used in "fleet defense" (which it wasn't). Smaller ships are much more effective at providing a protective screen anyway, but I digress.
3. And yet they still served in active commission, fancy that. Apparently you have never heard of the Missouri.
4. You clearly have never been under fire, seeing as you don't seem to know what the hell the primary purpose of "suppressive fire" is. I'll give you a hint, it sure isn't to "kill motherfracking ********s" What something looks like is not the only thing I refer to when I say its "intimidation" factor. It's also how it is used. Tell me Atomic Weaponry's strength lies in its devastation capabilities alone. Hmm it must be that, right? Since, you know, human kind has only really used it twice in 60 years? Your comments deny the entirety of the Cold War.
