I mean, is it possible they did? Absolutely. They have a history of claiming nonsense to support whatever agenda. Greenpeace wouldn't have had a clue one way or the other any more than you or I. Originally posted by christof:Well, we could argue about Indianapolis. There weren't reloads for those either, so it'd be silly to use up slots with nukes than were not unusable. Battleships were not only NOT stealthy by any stretch, but they were actively using their tomahawks.
They could have, certainly, but why? Nukes are used as a defensive weapon. technically Indianapolis wasn't a battleship ) But again, we don't know whether that actually ever happened. And they could have been carrying TLAM-A Tomahawks with a W80 warhead at some point and Greenpeace alleged they did. 23 Katie developed (though we don't know whether they were ever carried on board). They were tested as a theoretical weapon but never used and never fired from a gun. Originally posted by Jackson:Nukes weren't carried around on battleships. So yeah, naval aviation is much more historical than tanks concept Not to mention that tanks are pretty much support vehicles for your infantry and are placed in game with class of TANK DESTROYERS AHHAHAHAHA. Is there not a ¿World of Warplanes? can we found airplanes in world of tanks? maybe it would be too much or what Did you play World of Tanks before they crippled artillery? Back when tier VII+ arty could oneshot heavy tank of same tier? they dont risk and dont lose anything from mistakes. carriers are literally the "step beyond" in the naval warfare, its unfair to met them for those who play regular ships.
mimimi" nukes are also installed in battleships but would be unfair and unbalanced to take into a game. Some would say "Carriers are also a warships. Even submarines play under same rules as battleships, that not happens to CVs. Originally posted by trueburundum:thats NOTHING compared to CVs in RANKED.ĬVs are stuff appart from rest of ships.
0 kommentar(er)
