Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BulkyPage t1_jd838io wrote

Reply to comment by Dreadedvegas in U.S. will speed transfer of Abrams tanks to Ukraine, Pentagon says by Just_A_Dogsbody

But how are we going to protect our carrier fleets if we don't have any Abrams? Put some water wings on those bad boys and set sail for freedom.

18

tbarr1991 t1_jd8c72v wrote

Same reason naval fire power is kind of meh nowadays. Yes having control of shipping and what not is great but aerial supremecy. Why float a slow moving heavily armored target when you can just blow up xyz at the 2x or 3x the sound barrier and be gone in 30 seconds instead of 30 hours.

Not saying a strong navy isnt important unless youre literally a landlocked country that doesnt touch an ocean iunno like Afghanistan. Then a navy would be well fuckin worthless.

4

Senyu t1_jd8old5 wrote

I don't know, seeing a bunch of Abrams on a carrier firing off into the distance would be pretty cool looking. Gotta' flex where you can /s

5

tbarr1991 t1_jd93a9l wrote

Why use tank on a carrier to shoot shit in the distance at that point and just build ships with even bigger guns mounted to em. WELCOME TO THE GUN SHOW.

Also TIL Bolivia is a landlocked country that has a navy.

3

Senyu t1_jd9dape wrote

I honestly thought that'd be the route the Navy would go with their railguns, but it seems that project has been put on hold indefinitely. My guess is they value air strikes and missles more than a kinetic launcher that's costly in electricity. I think both are good, especially given the range and ammo costs of a railgun, but we'll see if it ever resumes.

2