Comments by "WALTERBROADDUS" (@WALTERBROADDUS) on "Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battleships? - SCB 19 and the Incomplete Iowa class" video.

  1. To what end? The main Cold War threat is long range Soviet strategic bombers and submarines. What is the point of trying to put short range guns on a single ship?
    3
  2.  @MFitz12  👏😑 aggreed
    3
  3. 🙄 I'm going to play Grinch or at least General Curtis LeMay and the Strategic Air Command. I would absolutely torpedo this project. What is the main Aviation threat? Long range Soviet nuclear bombers. In the United States own nuclear tests at Bikini Atoll showed the effectiveness of nuclear weapons on a naval formation. These ships would have little utility versus such targets. And their guns offer little coverage of protection when the best defense is to spread out the formation. Thus, spending is better used on a fleet defense fighter to provide defense in depth or smaller more numerous ships.
    2
  4.  @phillip0537  effective at doing what?
    2
  5.  @vikkimcdonough6153  most of those ships were thoroughly worn out by the end of the war. Despite their historical value, they don't make any economic sense in most places. Nor was the world particularly interested in memorializing what was recent history. Most want to forget about it. There's also the major issue of funding and caretaking. Unlike battlefields like Gettysburg, ship museums are not run by the National Park Service. They take up a lot of space and require a lot of upkeep with not a lot of visitors to pay the bill.
    2
  6. Soviet bombers are not geese.
    2
  7.  @HaloFTW55  I don't know what you expect to hit with those things? A Soviet bomber not even going to come in range?
    2
  8.  @MFitz12  I hate to play Grinch, I'm not sure any of this makes any sense in a Cold War Naval environment?
    2
  9.  @leftcoaster67  in this case he might have been right. I could see his b47s toss bombing this thing to death.
    1
  10.  C  why do you want a bunch of Oddball caliber guns that have no dual purpose role?
    1
  11.  @thesuit4820  armor itself? Rather well.
    1
  12.  @iDuckman  it's one of these strange obsessions of war game fans thinking that ships are somehow shooting ducks or something? The guns are too big and traverse too slow to be truly dual purpose.
    1
  13.  @jimtalbott9535  why would anyone want to keep a hull for 40 years?
    1
  14.  @Hailfire97  it would have been a waste of resources.
    1
  15.  @iDuckman  the mechanics of the game? No, I'm not a player.
    1
  16.  @gregorywright4918  The Soviet copy of the B-29 was Flying as early as 1947. The TU-4.
    1
  17. BK 👏😏 Fellow wise man. What kind of Soviet bomber is going to even come close to the gun range of this thing before it nukes them all? What is needed is a fleet defense fighter and smaller vessels to provide a ring of Defense in depth. But it makes the World of Warship crowd happy.
    1
  18.  @BestAnswer12549  if we can toss a bomb from a distance. So can the Russians.https://youtu.be/mqIJL8lx00o
    1
  19.  @BestAnswer12549  my main point is , that this AA battleship won't even get a shot off. The Cold War threat really wasn't Mig Fighters or anything out at sea.
    1
  20.  @MFitz12  bumblebee program?
    1
  21.  @grahamstrouse1165  this is still circa 1950. You're a long way from such guided projectiles.
    1