>the HMS Victory would be no match against the German High Seas Fleet

>the HMS Victory would be no match against the German High Seas Fleet
who needed to know this?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The difference is that the HMS Victory was still commissioned in WW1 while the Montana class was never built.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's clearly of national interest. They said so right there.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    truly quality journalism right here

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > Next on The National Interest: Wrigths‘ gliders are no match for the Chinese Air Force

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >too small to be targeted by missile
      >too slow to be gunned down by a jet
      Checkmate Chang.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      SIMPSONS DID IT! SIMPSONS DID IT!

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >chinks think it'll be a naval war
    don't rook up!

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Montana-class
    No duh, they were never built, so they never got the modernization that the Iowas did.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >implying that even the modernised Iowas have any place in a contemporary war

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Depends who your fighting.
        I think there are more countries that would have their flagship beaten by Iowa than those that would win.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They worked in Iraq because by that point the threat of being sunk was nonexistent. But they're nothing more than outdated gun batteries with a few CIWS and VLRS cells taped on. They aren't worth the expense of ever bringing back into service when the conflict they were built to fight no longer exists.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The need for ship-mounted artillery that doesn't cost a whole second ship to fire exists, especially with the Marines ditching most of their combined arms under the expectation the Navy will fill in for them in the Asian island-hopping front, but the Zumwalt has been a stark failure.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Crew costs are a huge part of the cost of running a ship,

              Iowa: 151 officers, 2,637 enlisted (WWII)

              Ticonderoga: 30 officers and 300 enlisted

              So unless it's in an active shooting match it's costing almost 9x in crew costs, which is 24/7

              Even if you could reduce that down with modern techniques, it is still a massive ship and a floating disaster.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Mount HIMARS on a barge and tow it into range.
              There, I saved you $4 billion in construction costs and $300 million a year in personnel costs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It worked for Snake Island with Ukrainian Uragans.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They have an enormous, entirely manual operated steam plant that IIRC requires 50 guys to just run.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A modernized Iowa would be more than enough to render the chinks' shitty 70s-era destroyers into scrap.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Missouri was flinging cruise missiles and providing artillery barrage in the Gulf War.
        Look at Ukraine, and describe me a contemporary war.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They would do fine hunting Chinese poaching fleets

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >4x CIWS
        >Additional anti missile counter measures
        >Tomahawk cells
        >Harpoon cells
        >Expectation of crew to fire stingers off the deck if needed
        >Anti torpedo counter measures
        >Still have most of the old guns
        >Uav and helo launch ability
        Not only would they work but I desperately want to see it, shit that's better. Hell look at some of what the ruskies have been using in Ukraine, the closest thing they have to CIWS systems is having some guys shoot PKMs off the side. The upgraded iowas are a night and day improvement over that

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Additional anti missile counter measures
          It had none and needed other ships to intercept for it during Desert Storm
          >Anti torpedo counter measures
          None other than some spaced armor along the belt.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >A roman bireme would be no match against the Nuestra Señora de la Santísima Trinidad

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Now imagine if Pravda were to make this exact same piece on how T-55 is no match to modern NATO tanks.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That one GI Joe episode showed the Constitution could beat the Montana. So can could Old Ironsides beat the Chinese Navy?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Absolutely. Have you seen the actual build quality of Chinese ships? The ocean is going to beat the Chinese navy

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why did the Montana become the subject or so much clickbait recently? I've seen at least five articles suggested to me in the past month about it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      She’s about to be released as a character in kancolle or azur lane

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why can you bastards not supply a link in the OP anymore you lazy shits?

    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/montana-class-battleships-would-be-no-match-against-chinas-military-209963

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This is just some AI garbage

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You're probably right:

        User - Write me a news article in the style of the websites "nationalinterest.org" and "realcleardefence.com" as to why the Sherman M4 tank from WW2 is no longer suitable for use on a modern battlefield. Keep the article under 1800 words, dramatic but concise.

        ChatGPT - Title: The Fall of the Sherman M4: Obsolescence in Modern Warfare

        The Sherman M4, a legend of World War II, stands as a symbol of American valor and industrial prowess. However, on the unforgiving stage of the modern battlefield, its legacy is overshadowed by its glaring inadequacies.

        Armor and Firepower: Once formidable, the Sherman's armor and firepower now falter against modern threats. Advanced anti-tank weaponry, including shaped charge warheads and kinetic penetrators, render its thin armor useless. Meanwhile, adversaries field tanks armed with cannons far more potent than the Sherman's, leaving it outgunned and outmatched.

        Mobility and Electronics: In an era of lightning-fast warfare and network-centric operations, the Sherman's sluggish mobility and lack of advanced electronics spell doom. Modern tanks boast superior speed, agility, and a suite of sensors for enhanced situational awareness and precision targeting.

        Logistics and Sustainability: Beyond its battlefield deficiencies, the Sherman poses logistical nightmares. Spare parts are scarce, maintenance demands are high, and the burden of keeping them operational in prolonged conflicts is prohibitive.

        Conclusion: While the Sherman M4 holds a hallowed place in history, its relevance in modern warfare has faded to obscurity. Outpaced, outgunned, and outclassed by contemporary armored behemoths, the Sherman's days on the battlefield are but a distant memory.

        Eamon Dillsbury
        Senior Defense Analyst
        National Strategic Review Institute

        ----

        Who knew it was so easy to be a wanky military blog journo? Just slap on some stock photo and you're done.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          a 105mm super Sherman with ERA/cope cage is comparable to the T-55 obr.2023 that Russia is fielding

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Pic related is an Iowa class not a Montana.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Once railguns become feasible gigantic battleships will rule the seas again as it should be.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why?
      Fancier cannons won't solve the problems that make battleships shit now.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why?
        Battleships are cool.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Coolness is not a function of firepower.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Coolness is not a function of firepower.
            It absolutely is.
            It is however not the goal.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              OHP is cool and just as effective, while being less expensive.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >just as effective
                just as effective as what? Battleships?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        What if battleships are the only class large enough to mount shield generators?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          then you use the type of large vessels that made Battleships obsolete?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the problem is that carriers devote most of their space to storing aircraft. and lets say the shields need railguns or something to penetrate, not just missile spam.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >carriers devote most of their space to storing aircraft
              and Battleships devote most of their space to storing munitions
              >lets say the shields need railguns or something to penetrate
              Well yeah, if you restrict the scenario to "only weapons that are best used on Battleships are allowed" then of course Battleships come out on top.

              Would that really still hold true today? BBs are undoubtedly the biggest platform for dedicated AA systems that aren't just your fighters swatting at each other, and dedicating most of their deckspace to modern anti-aircraft weapons would make them better at swatting down J-15s by the squadron than destroyer-scaled hulls.

              >BBs are undoubtedly the biggest platform for dedicated AA systems that aren't just your fighters swatting at each other
              And why risk letting enemy aircraft coming into aerial defense range when you can use your fighters to kill them at a distance? and if you fill your Battleship with enough AA to defend itself, you're going to eat up space for main weapons.
              Lets not forget that there should also be other ships around that can fulfill AA functions.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, let the Aegis platform boats handle aerial threats.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >but muh imaginary goyslop
              "Shields" like in star wars have no basis in reality. Any sort of electromagnetic emission capable of stopping a kinetic impact will be incompatible with the fragile organic crew aboard the ship trying to use it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Use a medium that can absorb the impact when charged with electrical current or some such thing.
                You can stand next to powerlines, moron.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If your predictions for the future aren't full of sci-fi ideas then they're horseshit

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              as opposed to battleships, which are known to consist mostly of open space in order to promote proper feng shui

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Would that really still hold true today? BBs are undoubtedly the biggest platform for dedicated AA systems that aren't just your fighters swatting at each other, and dedicating most of their deckspace to modern anti-aircraft weapons would make them better at swatting down J-15s by the squadron than destroyer-scaled hulls.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      *particle beam cannon

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        *molecular disruptor wave projectors

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >TNI

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The US Navy will never pull the Iowa's out of Mothball Museums to shoot chinamen on the Korean Peninsula again

    ITS JOVER

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      [...]

      (OP) #
      So
      They lost another il 76
      There is a massive rebel legion in Russia driving towards Moscow
      3 Russian oil refineries were destroyed last night. Towers melted down

      That's why all the slide threads

      Russia down 40-45% oil refining now. The 4th, 7th largest refineries went down last night. The 2, 3rd, 6th and 9th were taken down last month

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >ships that were never built 85 years ago would lose to ships built today
    Implessive.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, a 2,700 lb. projectile from 16" gun could not possibly pierce chinesium.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    China can’t even get its people to stop eating cats. the frick makes you think they can win a war?
    their economy is falling apart and they are incapable of innovation.
    I await the day the chinese nation is razed in nuclear hellfire as it deserves for being such a blight upon this earth.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You talking about India?

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I mean it's worse. As far as I know not a single Montana class battleship even had a keel put down. HMS Victory was at one point a functioning warship.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is this what they mean by "yellow journalism"?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      CARLOS I WILL SKIN YOU ALIVE

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You know, the biggest reason the Iowas were kept around was how fast they were.
    Even a modernized Montana would still be pretty slow.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The main reason the Iowas were recommissioned and modernized is because of the Soviet Kirov-class.
      It was just a dick measuring contest about who had the biggest non-carrier warship.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine if the Iowas got another retrofit for GWOT.
    >Remove 2nd fore 16 inch turret for a VLS bay
    >More CWIS
    >More sensors
    >Add AWS systems

    Mah diiiiiiick

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *