Shipbucket

Yes but it has that ICBM rack and those HUGE guns.

And ? ... you want fire ICBM against small planes ? Or try to hit them with main guns ?

_________________

Nobody expects the Imperial Inquisition!

No I meant she is still a threat even if she is dead in the water.

So you expect the guns would do well against attacking aircraft when the ship is dead in the water? Or do well with ICBMs? This is using fairly primitive ICBM technology so I wouldn't expect to turn them into SAMs any time soon. Even so, a ship dead in the water might not even have power to use any of its weapons.

Anyway, the main guns will do crap in any engagement. As for the ICBMs, they're too expensive and wasteful to use against planes. They would be to wasteful to even try and target a carrier with. Thery're meant for land targets. That is the entire reason the are called Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles.

_________________
Worklist:
Puerto Oeste - AU - WWI-WWII

I was not talking about using the ICBMs or the guns against planes I was try ti say that it could still destroy a city.

Nuclear bombs don't quite fit onto missiles at this stage, even if the Germans had them. The R-7 does't launch until 1957.

_________________

This is an AU not IRL.
Please read all of it then you will understand.

APDAF, you're a Goddamed idiot. Even with an AU, you could do well by sticking within the limits of technology at the time. It doesn't give you a free reign for everything. Otherwise, I'll have an AU where my WW1 nation is going to build a battleship (420 metres long!) with a wave motion gun, Lasers cannons, and X-wings on its catapults. And it will conquer the world!...

Stop, you're giving him ideas!

_________________
Worklist

"If people never did silly things nothing intelligent would ever get done." ~Ludwig Wittgenstein

Thanks for the PM APDAF I wasn't actually talking about your ship. I may have said something about the length yes, but that's the only bit I mentioned. The rest was just you commenting on the idea that you can ignore the state of technology because you say so. It can get ridiculous (as I think I showed).