Most Awesome Battleship to Ever Battle [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 7 years ago Misc

Now that"s a fire.
There are 74 comments:
Male 22
uhhh.... Faaag. im your dumb. what Electric battle ships are you talking about? the us hasnt had a battle ship on active duty or even in the navy since the 60`s. And why the hell would they put rail guns on them? when was the last time you saw a ship to ship battle. even if it was used to fire at land new technology like drating missles can do more power are more acurate and are cheaper then drating rail guns. You`re an idiot. Dont say things you know nothing about.
0
Reply
Male 694
it should be obvous that it didnt move, as the water on the other side is undisturbed....

and this aint poo, the military plans to have all-electric battleships outfitted completely with Railguns by 2020ish, or in 20 years, i cant remember when they said it would be. go google the videos of the railgun test fires. THATS some badassery

0
Reply
Male 36,388
Not shopped, just mega-tons of awesomeness!
Oh, go google-image it!
0
Reply
Male 143
Why Can`t I be the fkkin smart guy for once?!?!
0
Reply
Male 299
Boy that would put an end to Japanese whaling
0
Reply
Male 2,220
kairobert: the shells are doing twice the speed of sound, not exactly a big fraction of the speed of light, so the only thing you need worry about here is the conservation of momentum.
I omitted the momentum of the propellant gases - assuming that the gun would be pretty efficient at imparting energy on the main projectile, otherwise it would be a **** gun!
The maths on the link included a version which did account for the gases, without much difference to the final figure.

Battleships do not surge sideways when they fire.

No the picture was not shopped.

Yes its shockwaves from the guns blast that you can see.

Twist13: Yes I am an idiot.

RearEchelon : But I`m still smarter than you.

0
Reply
Male 2,220
Er, like that was my point KC.

"I`ll never accept that this li`l boat can be moved sideways more than a gnat`s rooster"

Unless it was in space and firing all guns so that the resultant force was through the CoM..

0
Reply
Male 11
No drag from the water <- there`s your problem assumption.

A battleship moving *sideways*, yeah, thats a MASSIVE amount of drag. Also, "ignoring rotational effect" is another biggie considering the large width of the ship as well.

Furthermore, the massive force is a very short impulse alot of which would pass through the ship as a shockwave and dissapate into the water on the other side.

Those factors combined will compensate for most of your 14cm estimate which is why in reality Battleships recoil something more like a theoretical few milimeters which is negligable in a non-still sea.

0
Reply
Male 608
It does not move sideways in the water... It IS NOT PHOTOSHOPPED (IDIOTS) It is the blast/concussion effect you are looking at on the water.

0
Reply
Male 1,623
Matt, are you counting the force of the explosion or just the force, say a catapult, would transfer to the ship if firing a 1000kg boulder? There`s more than just mass here, there`s mass turning into energy.
0
Reply
Male 2,220
So ignoring rotational effects... using conservation of momentum.. no drag from the water. 9 guns firing a 1000kg shell at 740m/s from a 55,000,000Kg ship. So maximum POSSIBLE sideways velocity of ship (ignoring rotational effects and a significant volume of water) is
roughly 7500/55000 m/s. i.e. a bit less than 14cm a second. Not exactly a surge.

stupid units for clever Americans

So I`ll accept the pic is not shopped, but I`ll never accept that this li`l boat can be moved sideways more than a gnat`s rooster.

0
Reply
Male 2,220
Anyway - where does it say you ahve to be right to post on IAB? S*d that :)
0
Reply
Male 2,220
Actually.. If we are gonna spar on the intellectual front.. Wouldn`t a flatter profile sitting on top of the water have more tendency to surge rather than roll. Whereas a deeper profile is going to roll more than surge.
0
Reply
Male 207
A CHALLENGER APPEARS!


0
Reply
Male 139
Matt, if you`re going to wax intellectual about something, at least have the decency to be right. Battleships in fact DO surge sideways when firing a full broadside. It doesn`t roll over because there`s more ship below the waterline. It`s not just floating on top.
0
Reply
Male 1,623
"DEMOCRACY, BITCHES."

You do know that the kind of rule aboard a battleship is a hierarchy (/dictatorship)?

0
Reply
Male 2,344
Oh my pooting balls.

That is manly.

0
Reply
Male 592
wow... i want a button that does that
0
Reply
Female 150
Seeing this made my hangover worse ><
0
Reply
Male 2,220
SHOP! (Good job though, no obvious artefacts)

For those that reckon the ship would surge sideways when it fired a broadside... erm, why wouldn`t it just roll over?

0
Reply
Male 62
Actually to all of you arguing about battleships, our modern naval weapons are just about ALL based on battleships. From the usage of internal space to the heavy strategically placed weaponry, all modern naval warfare with the exception of underwater units are in at least some small way modeled after battleships (this includes carriers whose entire design is a giant battleship with a different deck)
0
Reply
Male 7,585
i dont know much about Navy ships or anything, and this could be real. but the flames just dont look right
0
Reply
Female 196
a pyromaniac`s paradise
0
Reply
Male 59
Hey, ferdyfred: I was born in 1969 (see my username?)I was on this ship. (Joined the Navy at 17).
0
Reply
Female 248
extreme fishing...
0
Reply
Male 73
Just to clear up some misconceptions:

There are currently no battleships on the naval vessel register. No nation operates gun battleships anymore. The Russians operate very large cruisers known as battlecruisers, but they are based on missiles. The Iowa and Wisconsin are ostensibly to be maintained in a ready status, but it would take 2-4 years to return one to service. They are not in the reserve fleet. The Iowa class, pictured here, are the second largest battleships ever constructed. (The Japanese Yamato class were the largest.) The ships are considered obsolete because besides their heavy armor they are defenseless against cruise missiles. Modern naval weapons have much longer ranges than the battleships can achieve. They would possibly be useful during an amphibious landing in modern war as fire support, but would be completely useless against a modern navy.

0
Reply
Male 431
this looks too awesome to not be shopped. and yet...
0
Reply
Female 5,222
0.0
0
Reply
Male 59
Smoke on the water, fire in the sky!

why this coment? just felt like it, Im going to take my pills now! :D

0
Reply
Male 2,238
How Tsunamis are REALLY made.
0
Reply
Male 50
It makes you wonder what the really big battle ships looked like when they were firing all guns.
0
Reply
Female 4,197
KABOOOOOM!

wow, its totally pushed sideways from the blast... scary to think about really

0
Reply
Male 690
that`s f*cking awesome
0
Reply
Male 22
DEMOCRACY, BITCHES.
0
Reply
Female 15,763
So remember kids, if you ever need to boil some Ramen but the stove isn`t working... setting the ocean on fire works as well.
0
Reply
Male 1,837
amazing how it gets pushed sideways.
0
Reply
Male 252
To those of you arguing about the effectiveness of battleships... We havent built a single one since 1944. They are all currently in the reserve fleet - Mothballed. No crew unless needed. The last time one sailed in war was the first gulf war. Sure, we could sell them for scrap metal, but boy would we regret it when it came time to battle a powerful navy. Heck, even wars fought on land can benefit from those beasts. In the vietnam war, they sat 20 miles off shore and just lobbed shells at the enemy lines.
0
Reply
Female 931
peeeeeeeeeeeeew =]
0
Reply
Male 309
goaliejerry---- we havnt fought anyone with a half decent navy since WWII, so obviously there havnt been any battleship fights recently. Im pretty sure no countrys with good navys have fought. but if england goes rogue and we need to cut them off from supplies youll be damn happy weve got these ships.
0
Reply
Male 620
pew pew.

its just a pea shooter ;p

0
Reply
Male 1,244
Wow LazyMe484 thats the most ignorant comment i think ive ever read on IAB. Try getting a clue then post your offhand comments.
0
Reply
Female 9,402
It looks so fake but so cool.
0
Reply
Male 1,381
michael bay joins the navy...
0
Reply
Male 59
Wikipedia has the pic, and lists it as the USS Iowa (still Iowa class though).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BB61_U...

0
Reply
Male 10,440
Aside from how cool it looks, I see no point to this vessel. Its a needless expense.

As goaliejerry says, its obsolete.

The US coast guard does not need battleships, and the US navy doesn`t need anything but carriers.

0
Reply
Male 1,623
I can`t help to think, that with this much gas escaping at such velocity from the barrel, wouldn`t extending the barrel increase the velocity of the projectile?
0
Reply
Male 4,014
Yes, it does get pushed sideways.
0
Reply
Male 4,014
FYI - battleships such as this are obsolete in the age of missiles and aircraft. The last time two battleships engaged in hostile combat was late in WWII in the pacific. Its not even necessary for shore bombardment anymore, with cruise missles and precision guided ordinance fired from aircfaft. Still, thats sweet.
0
Reply
Male 17,512
Someone asked for video.

Battleship Missouri - Gulf War

0
Reply
Male 17,512
Did a picture search, This is the USS Missouri (now decommissioned).
Class: Iowa-class battleship
Length: 887 feet 3 inches
Beam: 108 feet 3 inches
Draft: 34 feet 9 1/4 inches
Weight: 58,000 tons (full load)
Speed: In excess of 30 knots
Boilers: Eight 600 PSI Babcock & Wilcox
Main Engines: Four geared GE turbines
Anchors: Two 30,000 lb. anchors
Main Gun Battery: Nine 16"/50 caliber guns in three turrets, with 2,700 lb armor piercing projectiles and
1,900 lb high capacity projectiles. Rate of fire
- two rounds per min. per gun.
Following the 1987 reactivation, Missouri deployed Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.
0
Reply
Male 201
I want to see a video of this. Does the ship get pushed sideways when this happens?
0
Reply
Male 295
Epic drifting!
0
Reply
Male 838
When you`ve absolutely, positively gotta kill every motherf*cker in the room, accept no substitutes.
0
Reply
Male 807
looks more like its getting blown up that shooting
0
Reply
Male 3,314
"just because some of us are young doesnt mean we are ALL idiots... granted a good 75 - 85% of the young population acts that way... but im not one of them lol"

Your lack of grammar skills kind of points to you being one of them, actually.

0
Reply
Male 754
Avast ye lubbers.Now that BE a broadside.
0
Reply
Male 194
damn, im surprized it didnt flip over and capsize
0
Reply
Male 260
just because some of us are young doesnt mean we are ALL idiots... granted a good 75 - 85% of the young population acts that way... but im not one of them lol
0
Reply
Male 292
damn right.
0
Reply
Male 25,416
Boom shaka laka!
0
Reply
Male 1,108
I was stationed on one of these during the crusades. we sailed it straight through the center of Jeruselem and parked it up behind the spice market. We went out on the lash and when we got back some dirty skank has sawed right through the bike lock and made off with it. Boy were our faces red when we got back to base. We had to win it back from Saladim in a game of marbles. We won best of three in the end but it was close I`ll tell you.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
Somebody on the other end of this just bought his ass a world of grief.
0
Reply
Male 13,624
almightybob1 - Good point! - woodslover69 - Got a come back for that sir?
0
Reply
Male 13,624
Looking at the wake, that is some freakin ass fire power
0
Reply
Male 670
"woodslover69: impressive, considering that even at the maximum of your 18-29 age range, you would have been under ten years old for the duration of the 80`s."

Welcome to the internet? I hope you know that most people on here are old farts and young idiots.

0
Reply
Male 1,442
If they don`t get you, the anti-missile/aircraft turrets that shoot 4,500 times a minute will!
0
Reply
Male 47
shopped
0
Reply
Female 52
add a big-arse bag of marshmallows and that`s one fun war you`ve got there!
0
Reply
Male 4,290
woodslover69: impressive, considering that even at the maximum of your 18-29 age range, you would have been under ten years old for the duration of the 80`s.
0
Reply
Male 4,290
Heh, looks like they`ve armed it with flamethrowers. An unconventional choice, but bound to surprise the enemy.
0
Reply
Male 299
look at how far sideways it was pushed. thats awesome power
0
Reply
Male 59
I was stationed on a ship just like this in the 1980`s. This, no big whoop.
0
Reply
Male 233
Holy Explosion!
0
Reply
Male 19,840
0
Reply