Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: OneWingedShark
Star Trek was ‘alright’ there are things that I really didn’t like though: Why would a ‘mining ship’ have weapons?

I don't know. Say, let's ask any ship in Nigerian waters!

Much less ones that could destroy, with ease, the “state of the art” semi-warships of a hundred or so years in the past.

Take a ship from the 1940s. Put it against a ship of the 1840s. Simple defensive weapons would crush it.

Take a ship from 2010. Put it against a ship from 1910. Simple defensive weapons would crush it.

16 posted on 04/29/2010 9:16:56 AM PDT by Lazamataz ("We beat the Soviet Union. Then we became them." -- Lazamataz, 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Lazamataz; OneWingedShark

Add to that much mining equipment can be repurposed as weapons. We even developed nukes for mining.


21 posted on 04/29/2010 9:21:58 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Lazamataz

>>Much less ones that could destroy, with ease, the “state of the art” semi-warships of a hundred or so years in the past.
>
>Take a ship from the 1940s. Put it against a ship of the 1840s. Simple defensive weapons would crush it.
>
>Take a ship from 2010. Put it against a ship from 1910. Simple defensive weapons would crush it.

But my point wasn’t about any ship, it was about specific ships. What would happen to, say, a modern tanker if it went up against a 1910 battle-ship?

Here’s some 1910 era battleship info:
http://www.cityofart.net/bship/michigan.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_class_battleship_%281910%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_battleship_Vergniaud_%281910%29

Here’s modern tankers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Large_Crude_Carrier

Consider that the battleships were equipped with things like: multiple 200+ and 300+ guns and armor designed for battle.
Consider, also, maneuverability. The simple physics are going to favor the smaller vessels for work-to-movement ratios.


35 posted on 04/29/2010 9:39:40 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Lazamataz
Take a ship from 2010. Put it against a ship from 1910. Simple defensive weapons would crush it.

Hmm - that show would be worth watching. Episode I: WWI-era Dreadnaught-class battleship (all available armament) vs. Sheffield-class destroyer (defensive weapons only). Better hope the battlewagon's gunners don't get a bead on that destroyer.

Next week's show: Iowa-class BB vs. DDX, same ROE. Last one afloat wins.

63 posted on 04/29/2010 11:21:07 AM PDT by Charles Martel ("Endeavor to persevere...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Lazamataz
Take a ship from 2010. Put it against a ship from 1910. Simple defensive weapons would crush it.

Bad Example. 2000's Oil drilling ship -vs- 1912 Battleship.

-VS-

The 14" Rifles might not be state of the art, but they can reach out 15 miles and the couple of .50 cals or sonic disruption devices used for self defenses on the drill ship couldn't do much more than scratch the paint.
66 posted on 04/29/2010 12:34:41 PM PDT by GonzoGOP (There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Lazamataz

I think this is astute, regardless of the rest of the replies.


84 posted on 04/29/2010 5:38:43 PM PDT by real saxophonist (The fact that you play tuba doesn't make you any less lethal. -USMC bandsman in Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson