That picture is the closest representation of what hellfire must be without entering nuclear territory. For sheer display of power, that is that, in my opinion.
Quick, someone remind me which ship it was that was starting to sink so they just shoveled water to one side do they could extend the range of their weapons and effectively become an extra artillery team during WWII (was that the siege of Normandy?)
I wouldn’t call it great, but at least they put up a facade. And the actual action, as cool as it was, shouldn’t have ever needed to happen and was therefore pretty not great.
I wish the US stood for something positive. Whether that’s freedom (and actual freedom, not the shit we’ve been peddling for the last 200 years), happiness, well-being I don’t care.
But we haven’t stood for anything, or even bothered to put on the facade that we stood for anything, at least for the last 10 years or so. At least, that’s what I’ve felt. At some point we just said “fuck it you’re right. We’re here to make money, we were only pretending to care before lol”
I mean we can be cynical about what it was, but it’s plain to see that people actually cared and worked together when we had the facade of caring about freedom. As we become more divided and cynical, as we push each other away and become more aware of the injustices around us without taking the steps to affect them, we clearly become less effective all the way down to the individual level
The country back then was divide by law. Fascism was very, very, popular. There was routine civil/labor rights violence. Political assassination, and attempts, were more common.
There’s very minimal lateral movement. Almost all of the recoil goes downward. It would be very bad if the recoil moved the ship laterally, because then you lose your fire control solution.
Fun fact: The US ha a Hellfire missile that doesn’t even explode. It’s meant to hit one person and kill them while limiting casualties in the proximity.
All of Trinidad’s throw weight is less than a single 16".
Trinidad Total throw. 1510lbs.
Missouri single barrel single shot weight. HE 1900lbs AP 2700lbs.
Total throw weight. HE 17,100lbs AP 24,300lbs and that’s ignoring all secondaries and AA and later added missiles. Missouri could throw the total weight all of Trinidads cannons themselves in a single broadside. Oh and that’s throwing it 24mi…
I get it, though your calculations are a bit off, the Trinidad’s total throw comes off as a bit more, around 1150 kg, not 684 kg as you suggested.
That said, I was going by spectacular explosions, or amount of boom. If it’s about how much shit you can throw at an enemy, the recently sunk Moskva could launch 76000 kg of explosives and steel at you in a single volley (if operated by someone not as completely inept as the Russian Navy). In fact, rocket artillery is so OP from this perspective that a single old Katyusha could throw more than 500 kg at you, so the Missouri is worth around 1.2 shitty technical trucks with MLRS batteries strapped to them per cannon.
It would loose in volume and range too a single bofors would be more than a match for Trinidad and Missouri had 10 quad mounts or 40 receivers throwing a 2lb shell 140 times a minute to a range of 23,000ft.
That picture is the closest representation of what hellfire must be without entering nuclear territory. For sheer display of power, that is that, in my opinion.
They are sending so much hate that the entire ship was pushed sideways, look at the wake off the bow.
“Burn to oblivion. I have places to be.”
Probably the ship, if it was sentient.
Quick, someone remind me which ship it was that was starting to sink so they just shoveled water to one side do they could extend the range of their weapons and effectively become an extra artillery team during WWII (was that the siege of Normandy?)
USS Texas, commanded by Captain Baker.
Man the US was so much cooler when it stood for something
I think both work unfortunately
What’s the sad but true emoji?
You mean when it was great?
I wouldn’t call it great, but at least they put up a facade. And the actual action, as cool as it was, shouldn’t have ever needed to happen and was therefore pretty not great.
Don’t pin your bullshit on me :)
What do you think the US should stand for?
I wish the US stood for something positive. Whether that’s freedom (and actual freedom, not the shit we’ve been peddling for the last 200 years), happiness, well-being I don’t care.
But we haven’t stood for anything, or even bothered to put on the facade that we stood for anything, at least for the last 10 years or so. At least, that’s what I’ve felt. At some point we just said “fuck it you’re right. We’re here to make money, we were only pretending to care before lol”
The fight against the wrong type of racism?
I mean we can be cynical about what it was, but it’s plain to see that people actually cared and worked together when we had the facade of caring about freedom. As we become more divided and cynical, as we push each other away and become more aware of the injustices around us without taking the steps to affect them, we clearly become less effective all the way down to the individual level
The country back then was divide by law. Fascism was very, very, popular. There was routine civil/labor rights violence. Political assassination, and attempts, were more common.
People also fought for us to be where we are now. They didn’t roll over and die like so many want to do now
How many assassination attempts did presidential candidates have back then?
That’s only minimaly due to sideways movement. Much more important is that the shockwaves are pushing water down creating a terracing effect.
There’s very minimal lateral movement. Almost all of the recoil goes downward. It would be very bad if the recoil moved the ship laterally, because then you lose your fire control solution.
Sending *freedom.
FTFY
Fun fact: The US ha a Hellfire missile that doesn’t even explode. It’s meant to hit one person and kill them while limiting casualties in the proximity.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/agm-114r9x.htm
So it’s essentially a rocket propelled
rockknife block?It is like a rocket propelled slap chop to one person that shouldn’t exist meaningfully to the horror of the person sitting next to them.
Ah yes, the knife gun.
Knife MISSILE, CIVVIE
The hop-and-chop
If you don’t need accuracy, the Age of Sail beats this easily. This boy has 12 cannons, the Santísima Trinidad had 140.
A broadside must have been spectacular.
All of Trinidad’s throw weight is less than a single 16".
Trinidad Total throw. 1510lbs.
Missouri single barrel single shot weight. HE 1900lbs AP 2700lbs.
Total throw weight. HE 17,100lbs AP 24,300lbs and that’s ignoring all secondaries and AA and later added missiles. Missouri could throw the total weight all of Trinidads cannons themselves in a single broadside. Oh and that’s throwing it 24mi…
I get it, though your calculations are a bit off, the Trinidad’s total throw comes off as a bit more, around 1150 kg, not 684 kg as you suggested.
That said, I was going by spectacular explosions, or amount of boom. If it’s about how much shit you can throw at an enemy, the recently sunk Moskva could launch 76000 kg of explosives and steel at you in a single volley (if operated by someone not as completely inept as the Russian Navy). In fact, rocket artillery is so OP from this perspective that a single old Katyusha could throw more than 500 kg at you, so the Missouri is worth around 1.2 shitty technical trucks with MLRS batteries strapped to them per cannon.
No it’s not. At is biggest it was 1588lbs, 1150kg is 2535lbs.
https://threedecks.org/index.php?display_type=show_ship&id=2647
It would loose in volume and range too a single bofors would be more than a match for Trinidad and Missouri had 10 quad mounts or 40 receivers throwing a 2lb shell 140 times a minute to a range of 23,000ft.
All of the Trinidad’s iron cannon balls would bounce off the 12" steel armor of the Iowa battleship.
Yeah and the Iowa would be powerless against a sustained modern ASM volley. But still, it would look cool.