site banner
PaperclipPerfector  11d ago (text post)   2756 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for March 6, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

0
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

which have made carriers obsolete in the same way that carriers made battleships obsolete.

Which is to say, not obsolete at all? The idea that the battleship was made obsolete in WWII is a) untrue, and incidentally b) a highly american-centric one based on experiences in the pacific. The only way battleships were made obsolete by carriers is in carrying the role of primary offensive arm of naval strategy (ie- sail your Grand Fleet towards the enemy Grand Fleet, blow them to pieces and then blockade their coast and shell their harbors and raid their shipping with cruisers was replaced by launching airstrikes against capital combatants from long distance and submarine warfare against their commerce), in a tactical and operational sense they were still very much relevant.

Looking at the Iran situation, it would be incredibly helpful to have a vessel that was not particularly vulnerable to drone and missile stikes (through whatever combination of armor and defensive armament) that could cheaply return fire on shore- and small boat-based launchers that we could park in the straight of Hormuz right anout now.

Also, carriers can also serve as highly efficient drone launch platforms, to say they are obsolete in an era of drone warfare is circular logic.

not particularly vulnerable to drone and missile stikes

There have been several generations of armor and anti-armor development since WWII, and I wouldn't bet on the 12+ inch steel belts stopping modern weapons anywhere near as well as they used to. A modern, man-portable Javelin missile claims more armor penetrating power than the Iowa class was designed against, which at the time was something like a 16 inch shell that might have weighted well over a ton and left the barrel at 1700mph. Shaped charges had only started appearing during WWII.

I doubt anyone has ever tested it ("it belongs in a museum!") but I'd bet the latest AT weapons could penetrate a battleship turret. I believe this is part of why modern navy ships are armored only against much smaller shells and depend more on active protection systems.

Nah, AT weapons simply arent at a scale they can pose any threat to a battleship armor belt or turret faces. A javelin may have a spec 800 mm of RHA penetration, but the 12.1" Class A monolithic plate that makes up the main belt on an Iowa is something north of 1000mm RHA equivalent (though RHA equivalent testing is really only done for much thinner tank armor, not naval armoring). Also, there are a minimum of three layers of armor to penetrate the citadel (decaping plate, main belt, spall liner or bomb, main, and splinter decks) with feet of standoff distance between them, that alone would defeat an EFP warhead designed to punch through one layer of tank armor.

Modern naval ships are much less heavily armored for a wide variety of reasons, but armor not working isn't one of them. Economics, geopokitics, and submarines would be the big three IMO.

When I last looked at this, I was specifically looking at the turret armor, which doesn't have the extra layers of ship around it. It might be able to knock out a turret (with some luck on powder handling), but probably not the whole ship barring Jutland-type cascading failures Iowa's designers were aware of. But I also didn't really have much faith in comparing ballistic numbers from the 1920s with modern claims: it's unclear if "RHA equivalent" really is a static comparison and if all the sizes really scale linearly.

Okay maybe obsolete isn't the right word. I think I mean counterable. Until cheap drones and long range missiles, the only thing that could effectively counter carriers were other carriers or land based air forces. The same is true with battleships. Before carriers, the only thing that could consistently counter a battleship was another battleship.

Until cheap drones and long range missiles, the only thing that could effectively counter carriers were other carriers or land based air forces.

Forgetting submarines here, which of course is how the submarines like it.

In an age of ballistic missiles and cheap drones, carriers continue to have a huge advantage because unlike airfields they can move around, and very very quickly. The disadvantages carriers have compared with an airfield is that it's probably easier to repair the airfield, particularly from relatively minor damage, and you can't really fly large aircraft like strategic bombers, transports, or airborne refueling aircraft off of them.

It's also an added, compounding layer of difficulty and complexity launching and landing on them. A country being able to build carriers is impressive, but not as impressive as one that's able to launch planes like from them like clockwork with few accidents bar rounding errors, under stressful war conditions.

100%, although it seems to have gotten much less difficult recently. The US Navy used to always train carrier landings in trainers. Now, thanks to advances in avionics that can enable a more precise control mode behind the deck, they've removed the carrier landing requirement from their next trainer.

Lots of interesting things here, including the likely permanent passing of a difficult rite of passage.

Indeed, it was a submarine that ultimately finished off the Yorktown. How could I have forgotten.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats