Last Two Battleships!

[Kapitan]

1) The GB was hopelessly unmodernized and poorly crewed

erm hell no GB had the most modern destroyers to date at the time of the conflict not to mention the newly bought in type 22 frigates.

poorly crewed well according to america france and a great deal of naval powers through out the world britain has the most grueling training reghieme on the planet, not to mention the highly trained crews and according to american officals and analysts they are envious of the royal navys training and tactical ability and have ranked the RN as number 1 in this field PERIOD.

2) The GB was operating without proper ASW, and AAW screens.

type 22 and type 12 and a few other ships are fully capible of intercepting and sinking nuclear and conventional submarines as they are today, type 42 is an air defence destroyer capible of engauging multiple targets and destroying them.

type 22 is capible of anti air warfare and anti submarine and anti ship warfare and is partnerd to a type 42 for tactical advantages so the entire spectrum is coverd not to mention the helicopters they both carry giving the ASW and AAW field a broader out look.

3) There is simply no other ship with persistence, survivability, and firepower of a modernized Iowa BB. With proper screening they are virtually unsinkable short of a nuclear warhead.

to me luftwolf and no offence but thats a load of BOLLA**S no ship is unsinkable even the iowa you americans sank the yamato which was alot more powerful advanced and stronger than any iowa with primative torpedos and bombs.

6 SS-N-19 or 6 SS-N-22's should sink an iowa no problem or render it so badly damaged there is no use for it bar scrapping.

if you want id rather take a kirov than an iowa simply because you maintain a 16inch gun yes but it has a meek range of only say 24 miles i can sail out side that range and out side the range of your harpoons (70 miles) and yet i can still launch on you with a battery of 24 SS-N-19 which would certainly destroy you.

Iowa is old very old and the strength of the steel isnt what it used to be.

would be unmatched by any other ship afloat,

in terms of weapon battery the kirov surpasses the iowa despite only having 6 inch main guns the kirov a battle cruiser is faster and more agile than the iowa and can travel greater distance at greater speed in a 1 v 1 id take a kirov simply because my weapons out range yours and are more effective.

No other navy in the world can support such an act! nor would they ever contemplate taking it on!

dont think the kirov was ment to just sit in port looking innocent they were designed specificly for such a ship

If you remember, the General Belgrano did not fare too well during the Falklands war.

belgrano was obsolete even when she first was built the argentine navy was not well funded 90% of thier navy was ex WW2 at that time the captain of conquorer recals sighting US allen m summner class destroyers these were 1940's relics floating antiques by this time.

ultimutly the most unique thing that happend to the belgrano was the fact she was sunk by WW2 MK8 torpedos not wire guided tigerfish.

the crew were inadiquately trained the ship was poorly maintained (feture which showed on the 25th of may aircraft carrier) and were lacking funds to even support extended trips to sea.

the kirov is the only modern battle ships at sea infact they are very very large cruisers classed as battle cruisers 2 are in reserve 1 active one in repair pending scrap

just think if the wall came down 10 years later there could have been 24 or even 30 kirovs romeing the waves along with 12 typhoons