Miragetank90

Vanguard, Hood, Iowa, Yamato, Kongo, Nagato, Bismarck, Scharnhorst, Republique, Richelieu, Midway, Essex, Saipan, Bogue, Enterprise, Audacious, Fletcher, Grozovoi, Daring, Des Moines, Wooster, Moskva, Stalingrad... I guess just a few off the top of my head. I'm most partial to Vanguard and/or Iowa though.

Congrats, I'm glad you won Now I can have some peace and quiet again I think, slowly slowly, I'm getting the hang of this! Moved up to purple in PR now, so that's nice :D

I never stated otherwise, so... My argument is not centred on the weaknesses of Carriers. It's in opposition to your laughable underestimation of their abilities, in open contrariety to the grand strategy of the most powerful navy in the world, which heavily rests on their usage then, now and will for the foreseeable. There are their potential enemies too, who take the threat of them very seriously. Or do you not think they do? They buy/build their own. they develop anti-CV capability as the USN develops counters. Are they, according to you, making a mistake and should abandon the platform entirely, as it's ''pretty useless''? Thanks for arguing my point. Despite the weaknesses of the CV as a platform, the USN and other major powers still actively seek to develop and field CVs, and also to develop their strategies, countermeasures, and CV killing capability. Ergo, they are not useless, or at least, none of them seem to think so. Congrats, you just played yourself. Also, sorry Excav. I've argued my point properly and I don't want to derail the topic. I just want to lurk in the dark again. If he doesn't get it I honestly don't care :D So don't quote me again. @Sunleader Love ya.

They will, and plans already exist? But not in the next century. The concept of CV will still remain however. @Sunleader It's nice that you see yourself as a fount of wisdom on CVs, but you're way out of it if you think anything you say will hold any water in defence circles. I know this much, and I'm only an enthusiast, while you see yourself as knowing more than people who have lived it and made a career out of knowing it. It's a little pompous and sad, but anyways. *Shrug* I'm perfectly capable of being convinced otherwise. I've already ceded that my prediction of 200 years may be too far to be accurate. But from you, I haven't seen yet anything that would change my mind, because it's nonsense, based not on established facts or logic, rather you projecting your argument onto things that are not necessarily related, or making claims you can't prove, and passing it off as your truth, not helped by a knowledge of defense that is even more limited than mine. Like this: lol. How do you even know this to be true? If you do, show me and I'll cede this point. Otherwise, like you, I'm not willing to expend the effort to change the mind of someone who is determined to get internet points with walls of text at whatever the cost. Regarding the second part of your post, you should get in touch with the USN, I'm sure you could educate them on exactly how their strategies for the last century and foreseeable future are very gravely flawed.

@loppantorkel Assuming there are no radical shifts in conventional naval wisdom and doctrine within that time to turn everything on its head, then no, it's not un-debatable. New designs and technologies will keep them in theatres as long as they have a role to fulfil, it's that simple. IF the role is overturned thanks to some quantum technological leap, then of course it will become obsolete, but this certainly not going to happen in the 50 years you mentioned. If I end up being wrong, you can tag me in and say ''I told you so!'' After all, the CV discussion has shown resilience, if nothing else. hue. @Sunleader Did you read my posts in response to Capra76? Because you missed the whole point about having CVs. I honestly don't have to answer any of that, because it's all already been addressed, and I didn't even touch on everything. Also, you know that carrier fleets have the tech, do drills and train specifically for envisioned major power conflict scenarios, right? That they will be the first response in certain scenarios? The tip of the spear? Or did you think the USN spends trillions on CV battlegroups, and pours in the majority of their manpower just to loom over Iran and Somalia in the gulf? Are the UKs new Queen Es made just to boss around someone with nothing but AK47s and Toyota pickups? Highly doubtful, and no offence, but you'll forgive me if I appreciate their wisdom more than yours on this particular matter.

bump

They are a thing, but so are countermeasures, though as yet AFAIK largely untested in combat situations. In instances where they have been, to my knowledge, results have been mixed. However the USN is the world leader in the field for the moment. God willing, it stays that way.

It's still a carrier though

I think that's a fair point, but I'd hesitate to say 'within very few years''. Very long range, extremely high endurance UAVs that can carry payloads already exist today, y'know? Yet CVs are not obsolete as a combat platform... Why? There are several reasons for this from a strategic and doctrinal perspective. Here's a just few. - Having your Aircraft(UAV or otherwise) based on a CV greatly reduces mission times. No matter how fast the aircraft is, a shorter distance to target means less flight time, quicker strike time, and higher sortie rates within the same period than if you had launched them from halfway across the world. - Having your aircraft based on a CV allows greater tactical and strategic flexibility. You can attack an enemy from any direction, at any vulnerabilities, through any holes in their air defense network, and you can do it quickly. Attacks solely from bases based in your own country(or bases everyone knows about abroad) can limit the effectiveness of such strikes because they come on known vectors, into prepared air defenses, set up to guard against them. You can still attack from unexpected directions, but that increases mission time significantly and reduces sortie rates. Some aircraft might not even have the endurance for such missions if you are forced to do this. With CV battle groups deployed, you can much more easily launch coordinated and concerted attacks from multiple directions. This also has the effect of forcing a potential enemy to distribute rather than concentrate their air defenses, negatively impacting their effectiveness. - Theatre presence. A ship and battle group with powerful capabilities has the effect of keeping potential enemies in check, and that's just a simple, well-known fact. It's been that way for centuries, CVs are just the latest iteration. Not to mention, in the event of any incidents, they can be nearby and on hand to deliver where needed. It's efficient power projection, which works both militarily and diplomatically, and is not achievable around the globe without them. That's why any country with eyes on global exertion of force, exertion of influence, or seeking to shift the balance of power wants them. In others, where you already have a strong presence, they've proven their worth in combat already as invaluable force multipliers, and then some. Yes, technology advances at a rapid rate. That being said, CVs aren't becoming obsolete any time soon. All the tanks, guns, bombs, planes, gas, missiles and nukes in the world still haven't made the infantryman and his rifle obsolete, because he still has a job to to.

Meh... In randoms relying on a literally random bunch gives random results. Don't rely on them too much. Focus on your own play.

Honestly, the best thing is to just ignore it. They shoot you, so what? keep playing like it never happened. If they keep shooting you, report them and send the replay to support. That is the best thing you can do. Don't rage. Blacklist, block and just move on to the next game.

Questionable? No. Debatable? Yes. That's just my prediction anyways. Feel free to make your own. Then, we can have an argument.

Zumwalt tried and kinda failed as a long-range artillery focused ship, for different reasons. And I don't know what the latest is on the separate USN Railgun experiments =( I need to renew my Jane's Subscription

I will. It just so happens that the experts and brass of every major naval power also thinks the same way, so that's a nice coincidence!

They will stay far, because they don't have to get close ^^ If they are ever threatened, you'd be surprised at what they have in terms of survivability and self-defense capability on their own, escorting fleet notwithstanding. USN doctrine is built around carrier battle groups for a reason, and is also emulated by anyone who wants to have any meaningful conventional(and nuclear) presence and strike capability, whoever the foe may be. Lastly, I'll say this: As weapons technology develops, so too do countermeasures - defenses hard or soft, and strategies. It's a never ending arms race and always has been, but CVs are very far from useless in the modern battlefield and will remain key to dominance through at least the next 2 centuries, consider the last bit my personal prediction. Btw, as we type, John F. Kennedy nears completion, which leaves 8 more of the Gerald R. Ford-class

That's why the most powerful navy in the world has so many, and is the world's second largest air force. After its own air force. lel. That's why other countries still actively pursue carrier capability. No. Consider this, too: Why do people still build tanks? There are so many ways and weapons built to kill tanks, but people still build and design new tanks continuously. Your logic is flawed.

Nah, Salem is a great ship. Yes you have to choose between Hydro and a meh radar, but that's where the weaknesses end. It's far more tanky than Des Moines - the heal is not a just a bit but actually much stronger in several ways, including amount healed per use and heal per pulse, and her armour isn't weaker, it's the same as Des Moines, which is to say - just fine imo. Plus, you can take range mod. on Salem, which is very useful, whereas on Des Moines Legendary Mod. is kind of a no brainer once you get it. But yeah, should you get Smolensk? @shugendo imo yes, simply because it's going away very soon and you'll no longer have the option. Based on that, if you're thinking about getting it, now's the time.

Well, it's Finnish Folk Metal and it's about drinking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1yQEioVL4Q A lot. But let's leave it at that before Excav shuts me down for being alcoholic in the CV thread

Meanwhile, at Mirage's house...

If it works ''so great'' there, that's good. But this one works so great here since day1, so I don't see why it should be removed.

No, removing the HP bar will negatively affect the poorest players the most. Is this your intention?

And this is bad... why? So you would remove the best way to know this and replace it with pure visuals on the ship, which is something that would be harder to see for some and easier for others, depending on a variety of factors, including eyesight. Have you been focused while at low HP and sunk recently, by any chance?

Heh, don't we know it. Your mod is great btw. I'll be using it on my Midway now. Thanks for that, I've been wanting this.

Left that ashore with our wives and kids. We start next week, and as far as I'm concerned it's all hands to battle stations You in KOTS this time @rnat?