Ping.
Wow, that’s almost as much displacement as you get with Michele Obama’s ass!
I always love how they use weight to symbolize might. To me tonnage just mean it goes down faster when its sunk
As a spectator from the peanut gallery, I would like to see something like that brought back.
With modern technology and nuclear propulsion, it would be a dangerous ship to cross. From large railguns to anti everything missiles and guns, it would be bolstered by it’s thick armor all over.
Today’s ships seem to be made of tinfoil. Something like a anti-ship missiles that actually escapes active countermeasures would be facing thick steel armor, not aluminum.
It would be a paradigm shift in an increasingly automated and fast evolving threats.
see tag
Well, that's open to discussion. It depends on the definition of 'built'
Vangard Laid Down 1941. Launched 1944. Commissioned 1946.
Jean Bart Laid Down 1936. Launched 1940. Commissioned 1949.
Wisconsin Laid down 1942. Launched 1943. Commissioned 1944.
So, of the three, construction of the Wisconsin commenced last, construction of the Jean Bart was finished last. (Kentucky was laid down in 1942, and was launched in 1950 but never completed. So the British ship trails in 1) Date laid down, 2) Date Launched, and 3) Date Completed.
Battlewagons were made obsolete by increasingly lethal air power. In fact many of the older class battleships in service at the start of WW II were made obsolete by their vast fuel requirements and the fact that they couldn’t keep up with the new class of fast carriers, speed-wise. That was seventy years ago. Of course the Missouri and the Iowa and the New Jersey had second lives as great gun and missile platforms. But this behemoth?
Background on the USS Montana from the current curator of the battleship New Jersey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtoLnOGMDSU
Keep em coming - everyone loves it!