• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Last Ship - Discussion Thread (spoilers possible)

Then there's the fact that the ship gets called out as an Arleigh Burke class Destroyer at least twice per episode.
 
Lol. What, does the ship go kablooey in episode 2?

No, it's just that you meant "warship," not "battleship." I know what you meant, but the internet being what it is I was anticipating soembody jumping in with a technical correction.

:shrug: Lots of people's definition of "battleship" consists of "Well it's in the navy and it shoots stuff, so it's a battleship, right? Just like in the movie with Rihanna!"
I saw that movie and like the mockbuster American Warships they got an actual battleship into the fight. Just like the museum Gallactica was in the miniseries
 
Well for all I knew, a destroyer was just a class of battleship.

And I'm not exactly sure how it really affects what the show is about in either case.
 
Um, I've never been in the military and I'm not a Special Forces wannabe. I know what I know because I'm a naval enthusiast and there are plenty of open sources of information that explain basic shit like the difference between a battleship and a destroyer.
I happen to be in the Navy, and though I was aware (mainly from Battleship movie reviews, I think) that the term "battleship" had fallen out of use, I didn't know why, and it certainly wasn't taught at Boot Camp. Even google wasn't tremendously helpful. I guess the difference is the main stated purpose of battleships are to battle other ships, whereas warships such as modern destroyers are designed to hit sea, air, and land targets all.

Anyways, I was impressed that Rhona dropped "p-way" while talking to Agent Sitwell, when "corridor" would have been a more audience-friendly word and in keeping with her Britishness. A nice touch that shows her blending in a bit. ("P-way" is Navy talk for passageway, or hallways, both of ships and shore buildings.)
 
I would think the reason that "battleship" has fallen out of use is that currently there are no battleships in the U.S. Navy. It's a class of ship, not a role.
 
The difference between a destroyer and a battleship (and most other types of warships) is determined by the displacement, measured in tons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displacement_%28ship%29

Nowadays, there are three basic types of warships:
- carriers
- surface combatants
- submarines

Battleships were once the largest type of surface combatant vessel until they were gradually superseded and replaced by aircraft carriers. I think battleships had simply become too large and too slow (and hence easily sinkable) and warships with huge guns didn't give you much of an military advantage anymore if you had modern navies with jet fighters and nuclear submarines.

Hence, blue-water navies were often restructered in a way that the heavy surface combatants like battleships were eventually decomissioned and a huge chunk of the middle- and small-sized surface combatants were relegated to escort duty for the nominally unarmed carrier vessels. In more recent times, middle-sized surface combatants like the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers were also used as missile launch platforms.

Technology marches on. At one point, it was important to have hips with huge guns. Nowadays, it is important to have ships with either jets or missiles.
 
Last edited:
And yet to the laymen, which is the vast majority of people on the planet, a "battleship" is just a synonym for any naval vessel with big guns on it.

You know, just like "Coke" is a synonym for any type of soft drink. Or "Hoover" is a synonym for any type of vacuum cleaner. etc.
 
And yet to the laymen, which is the vast majority of people on the planet, a "battleship" is just a synonym for any naval vessel with big guns on it.

You know, just like "Coke" is a synonym for any type of soft drink. Or "Hoover" is a synonym for any type of vacuum cleaner. etc.

Strictly speaking, it's like calling a Toyota Corolla a "truck" though. ;)
 
I happen to be in the Navy, and though I was aware (mainly from Battleship movie reviews, I think) that the term "battleship" had fallen out of use, I didn't know why, and it certainly wasn't taught at Boot Camp.

Interesting. It was covered in boot camp, though not in great detail, 25 years ago. But back then there still were battleships in the fleet. Mostly for political and PR purposes, but they were there. Actually Iowa was in reserve at Suisun Bay, CA, till only four or five years ago.

The difference between a destroyer and a battleship (and most other types of warships) is determined by the displacement, measured in tons:
[...]
Battleships were once the largest type of surface combatant vessel until they were gradually superseded and replaced by aircraft carriers. I think battleships had simply become too large and too slow (and hence easily sinkable) and warships with huge guns didn't give you much of an military advantage anymore if you had modern navies with jet fighters and nuclear submarines.

It's not just displacement size, it's their role and how it evolved. I'll try to keep it brief: "Battleship" is short for "line of battle ship," which goes back to sailing navies. They were designed to serve in fleets which would steam in big parallel lines and pound the hell out of each other with huge guns till one side won. They were a county's ultimate weapons. After WW1 it was realized that a battle line that also had aircraft in the air to scout and observe for it had an advantage, and thus the two sides would also battle for control of the air, so they needed aircraft carriers. When WW2 happened, battleships were mostly old and slow because of treaties between the wars, carrier aircraft had advanced enough to be dangerous to armored warships, and even big, fast carriers could be cranked out with ease compared to battleships because huge guns and armor plate were super-expensive and slow to make. Plus Japan was using multi-carrier forces on offense pretty effectively, and after Pearl Harbor the US battleship fleet wasn't in the best of shape, so the fast carrier became the de facto capital ship.

And yet to the laymen, which is the vast majority of people on the planet, a "battleship" is just a synonym for any naval vessel with big guns on it.

Indeed. I have heard a CNN reporter call a destroyer a battleship; they should probably get it right. But the general public, you know what they mean. I admit it used to bother me when someone would call an A-6 or A-7 a "fighter," too, but now, it's not a big deal, I know what they mean.
 
So basically... destroyers are just smaller and faster versions of the old battleships? Alright, cool. Think I got it now. :p
 
So basically... destroyers are just smaller and faster versions of the old battleships? Alright, cool. Think I got it now. :p
No they are larger versions of torpedo boats. A battleship is expected to trade hits and keep fighting, a destroyer is to go out in front and sacrifice itself to protect the battleship or aircraft carrier. My service was in the army but I will spare the tracked vehicle versus tanks analogy. As a Trek fan the first games I saw 30 years ago were ship on ship combat that along with WWII histories are what taught me the differences between ship classification. What made the Enterprise a cruiser and what was the significance of Dreadnought joining Starfleet
 
I never had much idea what a destroyer was supposed be, but I finally picked up the idea that class of ship was specifically intended to go after submarines. From what I see here, I guess that's not entirely wrong, but it probably isn't a good categorical description.

Ironically, I inferred that meaning from reading the novel The Last Ship. :lol:
 
It was an ocean spanning ship designed to shield the line of battle and mercantmen from costal torpedo boats. U boats, being able to hide extended the need to shield out onto the open seas.
 
So basically... destroyers are just smaller and faster versions of the old battleships? Alright, cool. Think I got it now. :p
No they are larger versions of torpedo boats. A battleship is expected to trade hits and keep fighting, a destroyer is to go out in front and sacrifice itself to protect the battleship or aircraft carrier. My service was in the army but I will spare the tracked vehicle versus tanks analogy. As a Trek fan the first games I saw 30 years ago were ship on ship combat that along with WWII histories are what taught me the differences between ship classification. What made the Enterprise a cruiser and what was the significance of Dreadnought joining Starfleet

Star Fleet Battles FTW!
 
I never had much idea what a destroyer was supposed be, but I finally picked up the idea that class of ship was specifically intended to go after submarines. From what I see here, I guess that's not entirely wrong, but it probably isn't a good categorical description.

Around 1900, destroyers were fast little ships with guns to protect the big ships from torpedo boats. Then they put torpedoes on the destroyers themselves so they could go on the offensive. Then they added stuff to hunt submarines. Then they added stuff for anti-aircraft. By WW2 the destroyer was the jack-of-all-trades warship, still an escort to bigger ships at heart, but able to take on all kinds of different missions (though still fairly short-ranged if they were making a lot of speed). They were so versatile that after WW2 everybody stopped building cruisers in favor of big destroyers, which were cheaper but could handle the guided missile systems that were the wave of the future. Now destroyers are usually the biggest surface fighting ships (what the US now calls cruisers are really an offshoot of destroyer design).
 
FINALLY they launch a missile! What's the point of having a guided missile destroyer as your set if you never launch a missile?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top