Could cruise ships be repurposed as floating sea fortresses in times of war? They completely mog the largest aircraft carriers
>>61979199Anything can be repurposed if you're desperate enough.
>>61979199Short answer no.Long answer: No.
>>61979199No.
>>61979235Just reinforce the hull. Easy fix
>>61979199As fortresses, no. The amount of modification it would take to add weapon mounts, ammunition storage and handling equiptment, military radar, damage control facilities, etc. would make it prohibitively expensive. You might as well just build a new ship. But they could be useful as mobile barracks to support an amphibious invasion of a coastal mega-city.
Better to utilize their advantages as an isolated floating island you can move and make them into POW camps or something.
>>61979199>Could cruise ships be repurposed as floating sea fortresses in times of war? No. The concept of a floating sea fortress is stupid, because you'd just sink it by snapping its keel. The concept of using a cruise liner as a war vessel is extra stupid because they're fat, slow and have no survivability at all compared to a warship. Their top speed is slower than WWI warships.>They completely mog the largest aircraft carriersCruise ships don't mog shit. They're the equivalent of an morbidly obese woman on a mobility scooter. Aircraft carriers are about 10% wider and 10% shorter for similar total top deck space. Carriers displace less, but you have to ask what the displacement is used for - cruise ships have no useful machinery or equipment, just fuckloads of structure used for a billion staterooms and restaurants stacked on top of each other. The only thing they'd be used for in wartime is the same thing they've always been used for - troop transport.7/5 bait, got me to reply.
>>61979199hull too weak
Lmao no. The best a liner can do is being a hospital ship/command center, nothing even remotely fit for combat.
>>61979199some are quite sturdy and able to sink navy vessels without any modification https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/03/americas/venezuela-navy-cruise-liner-incident-intl/index.html
>>61979245>But they could be useful as mobile barracks to support an amphibious invasion of a coastal mega-city.Well, assuming the enemy does not expect it and has no capacity to sink it.Otherwise it becomes a grave and memorial site huge naval blunder where 10 thousand troopers lost their lives to one shitty seamine.
>>61979259>The concept of using a cruise liner as a war vessel is extra stupid because they're fat, slowConfirmed for being historically illiterate. Cruise ships are fast as shit and have been repurposed as troop transports and hospital ships on multiple occasions by just about every country that has access to cruise ships. Specifically the RMS Queen Mary got the name Grey Ghost for her wartime gray paint job and the fact she could outrun just about anything that wasn't also a sea liner
>>61979344Why post such an utterly gay example?>Venuzuela, not even a naval power>Patrol boat, not even a warship, probably made of hue matchsticks>Liner was only OK because it was some snowflake icebreaker linerKys.Post a real one, like when a British ocean liner (RMS Queen Mary) sliced a British cruiser (HMS Curacoa) in half during WWII, killing over 300 men (on the cruiser).
no and I also didn't bump your fucking retarded thread.
>>61979373You illiterats mongrel, learn to use googls. Those liners aren't the ones OP is asking about. The liners that displace 3 times a CVN (Icon class) have a top speed of 20 knots. Anne Hiro.
>>61979428>displace>doesn't know the difference between dead weight tonnage, displacement and gross register tonnage. killyourself
>>61979428Well shit, I thought you were talking down the practice of using cruise ships in general during war, not the modern Groß neigger options. Yes I concur OP is a retarded faggot, sea fortresses are dumb
>>61979414To be honest the sea is a wild place private vessels can be operated by complete morons and the amount of "incidents" that happened is crazy I mean there is a good amount of sailing boats that get lost at sea that probably were sunk by ocean freighters that just didn't see them or simply decided that it was too much effort to change course. tho as far as I know it's the sailing vessel's fault for not paying attention.
>>61979235the fact that it didn't turn into an environmental catastrophe is a miracle unto itself.
>>61979479nautical code dictates that recreational vessels must always stay clear from working vessels and when in collision course always let them pass and not wait for them to steer. people in sailing boats like yachts are often rich retards with massive egos that like to do all kinds of stupid shit, so most of the times it's their own fault.
>>61979474Nah it's cool my dude, don't sweat it. OP is a fgt, not you.
>>61979199What the fuck is a sea fortress? Can you retarded schizos stop making up terms in your head and spilling your head-garbage everywhere for all to see, expecting us to pretend to comprehend what it is that goes on in that head of yours?
>>61979373>Cruise ships are fast as shit and have been repurposed as troop transports and hospital ships on multiple occasionsThose were ocean liners, not cruise ships. Ocean liners are city busses, cruise ships are party busses.
>>61979531A fortress... at sea. It doesn't take a 150+ IQ to understand what it means
>>61979441>kill>yourselfOver some lame maritime semantic technicality? Lmao. They don't even have treads, why would I possibly care enough to learn the difference, let alone kms over it?
>>6197942820 knots is plenty fast for a cargo/troop transport. Plus moderm cruise ships have azimuth pods, meaning they don't need tug boats to maneuver in tight spaces. They also have stabilizer fins that makes for smooth sailing. Most also have water distillation plants and huge kitchens. Perfect for carrying troops.
>>61979581Oh yeah? And what does that mean schizo? Armament, speed, armor?
Didn't the bongs use cruise ships during the Falklands war as supply and logistics ships?
>>61979581That doesn't explain anything.Do you want it to be immobile like fortresses of old?Do you want it to sit on a shore, grounded?Will troopers sally forth out of it like from ancient fortresses?Describe what you want.
>>61979199No. Too vulnerable to AShMThat being said, I would NOT want to have to clear one room by room. Just the thought of that sounds like absolute hell.
>>61979210I repurposed yur mum.
>>61980249God imagine the melee since the walls are thick enough to fully stop gunfire and the only way not to get swarmed by the defenders is to be as quiet as possible
>>61980279> walls are thick enough to fully stop gunfireNo they aren’t. They’re not even thick enough to stop the sounds of your neighbor fucking the Florida slampig he met at the breakfast buffet
>>61979199a slight breeze tips them over
>>61979373Big fucking difference between an Ocean Liner and a jumbo cruise ship. Ocean Liners were built to maintain strict schedules traveling over the open ocean and speed was a major concern. They carried traveling passengers, mail and cargo that had to get from point A to point B on time. Like a warship they were built to cruise at speed through bad weather. Cruise ships, especially the super huge ones, are not built for weather. They don't have to maintain strict schedules or sail directly through storms in the open ocean. They just putt around in calm waters, go around bad weather rather than through it. And more than that, speed wasn't just important for maintaining a set schedule of operation, back then there was a major competition among whom had the ship capable of the fastest trans-atlantic crossing, aka "The Blue Riband". It was a matter of national pride with ship builders trying to one-up each other with the fastest journey between Europe and the USA. Nobody gave a fuck about that when designing the Lardass of the Seas.
it would probably server better as a hospital/R&R ship>hey guys look! the ice cream/water slide/movie theater/art gallery/shopping mall barge!
>>61979616>semantic>literally doesn't know why different tonnages mean different thingskill yourself so you stop making the world suffer your stupidity. do it for all of us.
>>61979199I mean you COULD do that. It would be completely retarded owing to the fact cruise ships aren't build to nearly the same requirements. But you could do it (at great cost).
>>61979501yeah i mean it's unrealistic for people to expect the multi million to vessel to just steer away from a few ton vessel that is basically moving at a snails pace, my point was that a lot of lost small vessels are probably lost at sea due to being run down by begg freighters and the only evidence of such events is a bit of scratch marks on the bow of the freighters. I guess my take is that people's lives at sea barely amount to a bit of scratch paint on a steel plate.There is also that crazy sailing from Sweden that's been circumnavigating since like the 70s in home made fiberglass boats. The dude is building like his 4th one and he's like 85 years old.
>>61980517>lot of lost small vessels are probably lost at sea due to being run down by begg freightersQueen Mary vs. HMS Curacoa....
>>61980249>That being said, I would NOT want to have to clear one room by room. Just the thought of that sounds like absolute hell.Why bother? If there are suspected enemies on board just scuttle the ship or set it on fire.
>>61980249It's bad enough in XCOM TFTD already
>>61979199Sea fortresses? No. Troop transports and hospital ships? Yes. Also can be useful as a place to go for R&R because they have all the facilities there. Pretty sure a cruise liner was used during the Gulf War for such a purpose.
>>61979365To be fair, that's any surface ship that isn't an aircraft carrier nowadays. Billion-dollar destroyers crewed by hundreds getting mogged by singular fighters with a moderate amount of skill.
>>61979199YES
>>61979199massive troop transport is your best bet
>>61980317Howdy neighbor, just wanted to let you know you gave me a good chuckle.
>>61979199Cruise ships are slow, aircraft carriers are fucking fast bro.
>>61980506No. Make things that go in the water cooler and I'll consider it, otherwise I'll just drop into a naval thread once every few years, misuse some arcane 16th century RN term, refuse to elaborate, and then leave.Everyone knows the Army is much cooler than the Navy, and the Navy is the big gay. That is all.
>>61979199in theory yes, but in reality no since even the most basic bitch anti ship equipment would fuck it over hard, and any competent nation would have no need for it to begin with so at best you would just see some thirdie abominations that are just there for propoganda
>>61979199they could be repurposed as troops carrieror as hospital ships.
>>61982775These were less fortresses and more transports with enough firepower to maybe scare off a smaller vessel.
>>61979199For logistics, yes.For actual naval warfare, no.They'd be great moving people and gear because there's plenty of space for both of those to be transported comfortably.They'd suck in a fight because anti-ship anything would put them under.
>>61980271That's pretty desperate.
They tried turning ocean liners into armed cruisers in WW1 and it was such a waste of time and resources that they never looked back. Troop transports and hospital ships are the only realistic conversion.
>>61979199fortresses? nowhat I'd do is fill them with radioactive waste and explosives and send them in kamikaze missions with POWs trapped in the cabins and tied on the deck to simulate civilians
>>61979199They'd be best used as R&R facilities or something. You could park one in any port for a sorta "shore leave at home" where you party for a night and then it goes to the next place for a USO show. Or even just as a backup food supply ship or something. Just dont expect it to have *any* meaningful damage control.
