Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Good, the ships need some more practice in shore bombardment. Time to move in and wipe out any town or village with a dock.
PDT_Armataz_01_40
Good, the ships need some more practice in shore bombardment. Time to move in and wipe out any town or village with a dock.
Most of our ships do not carry guns suitable for shore bombardment, you should at least have a 4.5 to 5 inch main gun for that task.
The Israelis have shown that the OTO 76mm (like those used on the 280's) can be used in a pinch, but it is far from ideal. Don't even think about trying to use the rinky dink 57mm on the 330's.
We need bigger guns.
PDT_Armataz_01_40
Good, the ships need some more practice in shore bombardment. Time to move in and wipe out any town or village with a dock.
Most of our ships do not carry guns suitable for shore bombardment, you should at least have a 4.5 to 5 inch main gun for that task.
The Israelis have shown that the OTO 76mm (like those used on the 280's) can be used in a pinch, but it is far from ideal. Don't even think about trying to use the rinky dink 57mm on the 330's.
We need bigger guns.
We would use missiles more accurate and a bigger payload. The ideal ship for shore bombarment is the mighty Mo still tied alongside Pearl Harbor
We would use missiles more accurate and a bigger payload. The ideal ship for shore bombarment is the mighty Mo still tied alongside Pearl Harbor
So we are going to use a $500,000 missile (thats about what Tomahawks, the premier land attack missile, go for these days) to blow up some Somali pirate hut that ain't worth $50 bucks CDN?
5 inch guns are more cost effective, never mind that we don't have a ship capable of carrying the TLAM system
We would use missiles more accurate and a bigger payload. The ideal ship for shore bombarment is the mighty Mo still tied alongside Pearl Harbor
So we are going to use a $500,000 missile (thats about what Tomahawks, the premier land attack missile, go for these days) to blow up some Somali pirate hut that ain't worth $50 bucks CDN?
5 inch guns are more cost effective, never mind that we don't have a ship capable of carrying the TLAM system
Yes we do, the missile launcher on the destroyers can carry every naval missile in the NATO arsenal including Tomahawks equipped with tactical nukes.
Yes we do, the missile launcher on the destroyers can carry every naval missile in the NATO arsenal including Tomahawks equipped with tactical nukes.
I'd be happy if we had someone in this thread who had served on the TRUMP conversions... anyway there are two main types of Mk.41, strike length and tactical length.
The TRUMPs have tactical length Mk.41, which are not deep enough to accomodate the tomahawk missile.