[2ndDivisionVet]

Iowa class destroyers? The Iowa class were battleships.

[SargeK]

Exactly. I quit reading at that point.

[doorgunner69]

Urinalists. Military stuff is, like, hard!

[Billthedrill]

He probably meant the Spruance class battleships.

[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.

[PAR35]

The Zumwalt probably should class out as a light cruiser. (Close to 15,000 tons displacement, 6 inch guns (but only 2 of them).

Compare that to a World War II Fletcher class destroyer, displacement just over 2000 tons, or the USS Atlanta, a light cruiser built during World War II with a roughly 12,000 ton displacement, also with 6 inch guns (but 12 of them, plus some 5 inch dp mounts).

[Leaning Right]

If I recall correctly, the Iowa-class destroyers were designed as an improvement over the older South Dakota-class PT boats.