[KC_Lion]

"The Zumwalt-class destroyers were originally envisioned as a fleet of thirty-two destroyers designed to attack targets far inland with precision-guided howitzer shells. Designed in part to support amphibious landings by the U.S. Marine Corps, the Zumwalts were meant to make up for the lack of big-gun firepower caused by the retirement of the Iowa-class destroyers."

Who wrote this?

Better question would be "Who edited this?

Iowa Class Destroyers? Seriously?

This is on par with naming every gun a "Glock" regardless what it really is.

All warships are the same in a liberals eyes.

Second, no this things are not new "Pocket Battleships". A waste of money at best. Usless waste of money at worst.

Reminds me of when I was in the Air Force and we wen through a lesson that right before Vietnam, it was explained to pilots asking why their fighters didn't have cannons, that "Because of Nuclear weapons we will never again fight a conventional war".

Then Vietnam and every war since has been nothing but conventional.

When the rubber meets the road in war, nothing backs you better than great artillery. The Navy is almost as bad as the Air Force at overthinking a solution to a non-existent problem.

[MeganC]

I’ve read the Massey books “Dreadnought” and “Castles of Steel” and one of the things that comes to mind is that during the Battle of Jutland there was a German ship that had taken a horrendous pounding yet it stayed afloat.

Due to a fire the crew were unable to reach the stern to strike the flag and the British returned and pounded it some more.

So 100 years ago there were ships that were so tough even their own crews were unable to put them out of action. They suffered hundreds of hits and they stayed afloat.

I hate to say but a Zumwalt would be taken out of action by a single round from a shore-based tank.

Lord only knows what an Iranian Bayliner-class battleship would do to it!