Battle Boats Are Tech

>>57385244
>Secondary guns

Found your error right there.

>>57385262
So... replace them with more main turrets?

>>57385293
Replace them with armor.

Add dual purpose guns to act as AA and secondaries.

Never actually get in a situation where you need to use secondary guns.

And aircraft carrier. Maybe put some anti-missile defense on the ship, and have a nuclear sub guarding it, but advanced weaponry on the actual craft is kind of pointless. At this point the navy should only be use to supplement and improve the airforce's effectiveness, since the airforce is superior in basically every way

>>57385244
there are 2 modern battleships
the ones that have a landing strip for planes and the ones who dive underwater to escort them

traditional battleship ended with the rise of jets

>>57385335
>Planes see subs.
>Planes cover more distance.
>Planes are smaller thus harder to hit.

You aren't wrong.

File: 1478282479886.png (390KB, 674x745px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 674x745px

>>57385244
>tech board
>posts boats

>>57385354
What about destroyers? They have been made for modern scenarios.

File: 1435099277344.gif (358KB, 500x459px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 500x459px

>>57385402
Am I wrong that they are tech though?

>>57385244
>>>/n/
>>>/k/
>>>/jp/
>>>/vg/
>>>/h/

>>57385409
Destroyer != heavily armed and armoured battleship.

File: 1478282877489.jpg (126KB, 834x588px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 834x588px

Damn battleships were cool.

>>57385459
I didn't specify dreadnaughts, just a battleship. More general.

>>57385409
those exist to protect aircraft carriers too

>>57385522
So they do have a modern use.

>>57385537
destroyers arent battleships though

>>57385519
I agree.

>>57385548
>>57385537
Basically are.

File: Viribus1314.gif (117KB, 1231x764px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1231x764px

>>57385459
Just to point out the obvious, but neither carriers or submarines are heavily armored or armed. (although submarines can be heavily armed)

>>57385548
>>57385521
Basically are.

>>57385579
Carriers can be but it's impractical given they would need some mobility.

>>57385575
thats like saying a mosin nagant is an assault rifle
or more in /g/ terms its like saying linux is an os

>>57385609
It's rather that armor is pointless when you can just launch a missile with a nuclear warhead at the vessel and turn it into an irradiated hulk.
It takes just 1 surface to surface missile or even a torpedo hit to knock out a carrier regardless of whether it has armor.

>>57385653
True.

>>57385371
On the flip side
>Subs can patrol longer than planes
>Subs carry bigger weapons than planes
>Planes are easier to see than Subs
It is nowhere near as easy to find a sub from a plane as you seem to think it is. The ocean is a big place and Subs are extremely hard to detect.

Of course this ignores the fact that any competent force would be using both.

>>57385623
So I have specified a a type but not an exact. Yeah, basically.

>>57385720
I'd say that while subs are made to deflect it, sonar could still be very effective. Planes can fly high enough where it is just as difficult to spot and if a sub fails, you likely aren't going to survive. Planes have a slightly better chance to kill the pilots.

Valid point on the fact both are needed.

File: image.jpg (24KB, 257x196px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 257x196px

Semi-submersible arsenal ship.
Basically gunboat diplomacy in action..

>>57385807
I miss Teddy Roosevelt.

File: linus_corrects_rms_8560.jpg (303KB, 806x938px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 806x938px

>>57385623
Linux is an operating system.