i dont no much about kirov class and what it did but just saying it out ranges the
iowas guns or i think any other gun with its missles by alot and i looked up some
stuff but its nothing to brag about it had a dual 6 inche guns (1 turret)


and IMO range+speed= win (REMEBER MY OPINION) in naval battle with some
decent fire power you can destroy many ships

The modern Kirov class was a failure. It plays the same role as two ballistic missile
submarines, but is more expensive to operate and infinitely easier to find and sink.
There are two roles for surface combatants in the modern navy... independent operations
and carrier group operations. The Kirov did neither.

ok i agree on some stuff but the the missle thing i mean look at the russian kirov clas
(battle crusier) its not the one in the game its a missle ( JUST MISSELES) battle
crusier any missele from it can out range battle ship guns and if its faster thare no
point in chaseing them casue it stays out side of its range shooting all it wants will
the big battle ship wont stand a chance but im not includeing other ships in this
cause i dont think huge ships like that will ever be working alone they will usally
have a escort but this is my opinion and the cost thing good point never thought
about it thanks

Missiles weren't what killed the battleships, cost did. The cost of manning them, and
the cost of the support vessels to get them close enough to use their primary guns.
Battleships are still markedly more effective at killing other ships and land targets,
but they have 1/10th the range of a missile...

Battleships also have little to fear from missiles themselves, it's mines and
torpedoes that were the concern. When I was deployed in the Gulf on USS
Wisconsin, the danger of shore or aircraft launched missiles was trivial compared to
the worry of hitting a mine.

right now like everything after korea or WWII for that matter thare was no need for
a battle ship its way to big and is a easy target(missles)


but the mod sorry cant remeber your name is right it comes to a point you dont need
a bigger gun you work on your shells if they weigh more they can hit very harder not
sure about other things but its like fireing a rock that blunt and everything then a
aero dynamic shell i mean who would win???

makes sense that it would take more kenetic energy and that a bigger shell is less
practical.

With ballistics, increased shell size is a complicated thing. It takes more force to
accelerate a more massive round, ditto with one that has a larger bore diameter. As a
result, the US Navy found that 16" shells could be propelled with more kinetic energy than
could 18" shells. I'm sure more development might have solved that, but by the war's end,
ballistics as a means of fighting naval wars was obsolete.

yeah missles and how domminating air power became

Post WWII the navy moved to smaller guns with a higher rate of fire, because they were
shown to be more effective. That, along with the development of cruise missiles, is why we
do not have any battleships in active service.

Helms nobody cares. i was just askin a question. thank you everbody else i
understand the reasons behind the smaller guns.