Space marine fleets: why no cruisers?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 minutes ago, Tacitus said:

9 times out of how many battles?  You've continually tried to call CV vs BB inefficient while everything about Battleships - especially with your claim that Battleships were for fighting other battleships - was even more so.  You also laughably keep trying to claim Battleships only went away because no opponent had any anymore, yet the two biggest battleships in the world - and used by people were actively at war with - didn't sink until two years after the Montana Class was cancelled.

If you would like to continue this discussion feel free to to DM. This is extremely off topic, and I don’t want this thread to be locked.

 

also i edited my previous response with one final tidbit.

Edited Tuesday at 03:33 AM by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Tacitus]

5 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

If you would like to continue this discussion feel free to to DM. This is extremely off topic, and I don’t want this thread to be locked.

 

also i edited my previous response with one final tidbit.

Oh I wouldn't worry about moderation.  If they were going to moderate this, they would have done it a couple days ago when you called me stupid.  But have no fear:  even though that suggests I CAN reply in kind by telling everyone you're so moronic you would redefine the word imbecile, I'm not going to do that.  Unlike those idiots who have to argue with insults, I shall maintain my commitment to ethical debate and remain ad argumentum.  Like that time you spewed that idiocy about the US cancelling their Battleship order because they had enough ships, and all their enemies didn't have any anymore.   As I've already pointed out, the Montana Class was cancelled 21 July 1943.  Of the dozen - that's 12 - Battleships and Battlecruisers in the Imperial Navy of Japan, only 3 of the 12 were sunk before July 1943.  That means 9 of them were still afloat when the US cancelled its Battleship order.   The Kriegsmarine additionally had 7 battleships, only losing one before July of 1943.  So the Japanese and Germans had 15 Battleships still sailing at the time the US cancelled its last order for new Battleships. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

7 hours ago, Tacitus said:

Oh I wouldn't worry about moderation.  If they were going to moderate this, they would have done it a couple days ago when you called me stupid.  But have no fear:  even though that suggests I CAN reply in kind by telling everyone you're so moronic you would redefine the word imbecile, I'm not going to do that.  Unlike those idiots who have to argue with insults, I shall maintain my commitment to ethical debate and remain ad argumentum.  Like that time you spewed that idiocy about the US cancelling their Battleship order because they had enough ships, and all their enemies didn't have any anymore.   As I've already pointed out, the Montana Class was cancelled 21 July 1943.  Of the dozen - that's 12 - Battleships and Battlecruisers in the Imperial Navy of Japan, only 3 of the 12 were sunk before July 1943.  That means 9 of them were still afloat when the US cancelled its Battleship order.   The Kriegsmarine additionally had 7 battleships, only losing one before July of 1943.  So the Japanese and Germans had 15 Battleships still sailing at the time the US cancelled its last order for new Battleships. 

Ok, you really want to keep this going?

 

ok, in 1943 how many battleships did the US and England have? The US alone had 23 BBs the Brits had 9, so all in all the US and UK had more than double the number of battleships that Japan and Germany had.

 

the cancellation of the montana class has nothing to do with carriers making battleships obsolete. 
personally I believe WWI arguably proved the dreadnought (and later super dreadnoughts) were already arguably obsolete due to the financial investment in the ships, and crews making them too valuable to lose, particularly to lose to something as comparatively cheap as a submarine, torpedo boat or destroyer.

 

the US alone had more than enough battleships to defeat the Japanese battleship fleet in 1943 even including the Musashi and Yamato. The threat Japanese subs posed to allied logistics and battleships was why the Montana class was cancelled, for the price of building and crewing a Montana a dozen or more DDs and DEs could be built and crewed. A Gearing class DD cost $8m and a Cannon class DE topped out at $3.5m an Iowa cost $100m, so it makes way more sense to build 10 DDs and 5 DEs, than a single Iowa let alone Montana that would cost way more. Because again, the US had plenty of battleships to meet Japanese battleships in the line of battle if it was necessary, and there were bigger threats to the allied plan than the Japanese battle fleet.

 

this also isn’t counting Alaska class cruisers, which while classified as cruisers still mounted 12” guns. Meaning the US had more than double the number of ships with ‘battleship sized guns’ than the Japanese had.

Edited Tuesday at 05:07 PM by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Dr_Ruminahui]

I think this has run its course.  Note, if you want a moderator to take action because of a member's behaviour, you should really use the report button - we aren't necessarily reading every thread closely, or reading it in the same light as a particular member may be.

 

Dr. R.

Edited Tuesday at 05:12 PM by Dr_Ruminahui