Project Reality Forums

I Think project reality should skin a British battleship, seen as the US have a carrier, why can't the british have there own ship?

A know it would be a lot of work...... but it would be Arwsome!

britian doesnt use battle ships anymore.

but the british equverlent of a aircraft carrier would be this one.

Ships ahoy

i rather the landing craft and more game relevent stuff is dont first rather than a static object with very little point other than to spice up maps

oh and welcome to the forums

'[5NFSO wrote:Thunder']britian doesnt use battle ships anymore.

battleships aint been built since WW2 since they where so easy for planes to sink them...

These days you have to worrie about planes, missiles, the lot so they would be even more veunerbal to attack today if they where used.

'[5NFSO wrote:Thunder']britian doesnt use battle ships anymore.

but the british equverlent of a aircraft carrier would be this one.

Ships ahoy

i rather the landing craft and more game relevent stuff is dont first rather than a static object with very little point other than to spice up maps

oh and welcome to the forums

uhm, that boat right next to the carrier looks alot like a battleship (atleast the modern equivelant)

they are called Destroyers now.

@ Rhino, with new threats come new defence measures. Naval ships have a shitload of protection measures. Scarey ones.

causticbeat wrote:uhm, that boat right next to the carrier looks alot like a battleship (atleast the modern equivelant)

er.. that would be a frigate .. a smaller vessel in a carrier group.

afaik the US is the only ones with a battleship, but I believe the last 2 of those went out of service last year.

wrt a Brit Carrier.... a *lot* of work to use on a few maps largely just to get a little ramp on the end (that does nothing game play wise).

we'll be using the US carrier model for any Brit carrier scenarios.

I don't think its worth it frankly, the current carrier is hardly moddelled accurately and it really doesn't play a part in the game. I agree with Eggman using the US carrier for the Brit maps, would be a waste of time and manpower otherwise.

'[R-DEV wrote:eggman']er.. that would be a frigate .. a smaller vessel in a carrier group.

afaik the US is the only ones with a battleship, but I believe the last 2 of those went out of service last year.

wrt a Brit Carrier.... a *lot* of work to use on a few maps largely just to get a little ramp on the end (that does nothing game play wise).

we'll be using the US carrier model for any Brit carrier scenarios.

the usa have two battleships moothballed, but they weren´t in service for years. they are onlys keept because most times it is just cheaper to bomb a target with long range naval artillery guns, than with high end precision missiles, which do about the same damage ^_^

That's HMS Norfolk: a type 23 frigate.

There NO carrier in BF2!

The essex is an amphib, the nearest UK equivelent would probably be HMS Ocean.

The only modern application of Battleships is after Air and Sea superiority is obtained and an effective and efficient shore bombardment is needed. As mentioned before, I think the US is the only country that still keeps these type of ships in a somewhat usable state. I mean battleships are tops on the wow and cool scales, but I'd take precision guided munitions over ballistic 16 inch shells.

last time a battle ship fired its guns was at the start of the gulf war.

and HMS Ocean, isnt that what the *forgot which unit* use to lanch amhip attacks from.

also isnt it also classed as a flat top destroyer rather than a aircraft carrier.

i probley made these up so correct me if im right or wrong

hahaha a battleship, the only country that has battleships is the US with the Iowa class ships. none of the the 2 are in service at the moment. but i know at least 1 (uss wisconsin) can be brought back if needed. though its like 50 years old it would still kick anythings ***. it was updated before the first irak war with cruse missles and phalanx anti w/e comes close gun system and tomahawk missles and other stuff. it has 9 16" guns that shoot 3000 lb shells over 25 miles. and will go about 50mph even though it weighs about 45,000 tons.
they would be super sweet in the game but it would make absolutly no sence to put one in. i mean, the US doesnt even get a real sized carrier, they get the little 1/4 a carrier. a giant *** battleship would be ridiculous.

btw, the german navy tested a few years ago, how a 155mm turrent from a phz2000 performs on a ship - with the current advance in guided ammunition and stuff (like a high rof), and a huge cost difference (as i pointed out, artillery shells are just much cheaper than rockets), this could prove a real alternative.

they plan to mount those things (the test´s are stopped for now) on the future type 125 ships



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONARC

LOL, a tank turret ship, orginal and cool. Is the land based version a manual loader, i wonder if they added a autoloader - probaly had to but a manual version would have been proper old school style and highly amusing.

nope, the phz2000 (a self-propelled howitzer by the way ) is autoloaded.

only problem they´ve encountered afaik is the fixed mounting - firing puts very great strain on the ship´s structure, so they´ve figured they would need a slightly differnt "mount"

Yeah last time US used a Battleship IIRC was in Desert Storm as a Tomahawk platform. All are now retired or on reserve in favor of guided missile cruisers, destroyers, and Aircraft carriers. And IIRC the in-game Carrier is just a huge static, 3 actually I believe

'[5NFSO wrote:Thunder']also isnt it also classed as a flat top destroyer rather than a aircraft carrier.

I think its classed as an LPH, a landing platform helicopter, or helicopter assault ship as oppossed to a landing platform dock.

Aircraft carriers are ships used in a 'moving airbase' role, rather than a 'jump off' point for an invasion, to put it simply.