Mk-48 Hit
1:33
Added: 5 years ago
From: rncook
Views: 179,841
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (188)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • The one-two punch of the Mk48, the lifting impulse to break the keel and then the tremendous water jet that cuts half-inch steel and rips the hull, superstructure, weather decks and framing like it was tinfoil. Those Mk 48 designers knew a thing or two about how to use the delayed water jet from the explosion to cut steel using mass, speed and focus. I was on a USN Fast Frigate and cruise missiles are less of a threat than the deadly MK48.

  • @AUWarEagle122 Was that an Oliver Hazard Perry Class? We still have 2 in service in the RAN.

  • @gnarkillkicksass I was on a Knox-Class Fast Frigate FF1081 USS Aylwin.

    The Knox Class (FF1052) came after the Garcia Class (FF1040) Fast Frigates.

    They are all decommissioned now.

    The Perry Class Fast Frigates where the FFG-7 class frigates with guided

    missiles hence the "G" designation after the Fast Frigate ("FF").

  • @AUWarEagle122 Ah thanks! I have heard they are good ships - here thy are FFGs.

  • Mk 48 basically, you're fucked

  • It's not a battleship, destroyer OR a frigate. Built in Australia as Modified Leander Class they were commissioned as Destroyer Escorts.

  • Well it is not even a destroyer, actually a Brittish origin frigate of Leander class...

  • China will start WW3 near or on 12 06 26

    The world will enter NUCLEAR WINTER soon after

  • @killdaclownz its gonna happen anyhow.... so what can we do ??

  • @killdaclownz You saw this in a vision? Ye i see dead people too. I dont wana even know what you basing these ideas on but ye i think you play to much shoot'em up games.

  • Back breaker Mark 48.

  • 1 shot 1 kill Mk48 fired over the horizon from HMAS Collins..... 

  • HMAS Torrens was a River class Destroyer Escort based on the British Leander class frigate Built in Australia to RAN Specs, Hardly a Battleship in fact far from it, I remember doing wheelies and skids over the ocean alongside this ship when i served in the RNZN on our Leanders back in the 80's and 90's, Sad to see a ships life end this way, My old ship was also sunk as a diving attraction HMNZS Waikato, which the scuttling of her is also on this site

  • dude holly shit!!! That torpedo completely fucked that ship!!

    Holly shit... I thought you needed more than one torpedo to destroy a ship apparantly not!

  • @dalesalsa Prior to modern torpedo design, torpedoes impacted the armored hulls of WWII ships with an armor-piercing shaped charge to punch holes in the hull requiring several to kill an armored vessel.

    Modern Torpedoes like the MK48 dive under the hull and detonate very close to the keel at amidships to blast the water out from under the keel leaving no buoyancy support for the ship's hull causing it to collapse under its own weight. Then comes that steel-cutting water jet. One Dead Ship.

  • @AUWarEagle122 Holllyy fucking shit.. That is fucking hard core.. didn't have a clue.. That is fucking bad ass. Is there any defense to that..? Maybe throw depth charges like a motherfucker..?

  • @dalesalsa MK-48 torpedoes operate with or without wire guidance using active or passive homing. After launch, a thin wire spools out linking the submarine and torpedo electronically. An operator in the submarine initially to guides the torpedo toward the target. This helps the torpedo avoid decoys and jamming devices deployed by the target. The wire is severed and the torpedo's high-powered active/passive sonar guides the torpedo during the final attack. It's difficult to defend against it.

  • @AUWarEagle122 That's all true for a MK-48 ADCAP, but the most amazing thing imho is that the wire-guidance lets both the torpedo and sub communicate securly back and forth, not just sub to torpedo. That means the torpedo can use its own more accurate active SONAR, while the sub itself stays quiet. If the sub it using a towed array (which it almost certainly would be in wartime), it can use both the torpedo and the towed SONAR-buoys to triangulate a target without giving away its own position.

  • @dalesalsa Here are some unclassified stats for this deadly torpedo: Max Speed: 55kts (63.2mph) Range: MK-48 (ADCAP) 54,685 yd (31miles) at 40kts or 42,530 yd (24.7miles) at 55kts. Reported Depth: 3000ft

    650 lbs (292.5 kg) high explosive, has built-in defenses against countermeasures and decoys. This torpedo is a ship killer for vessels destroyer class and smaller. One would cripple a carrier, two or three would kill it.

  • @dalesalsa: Bar sinking the sub, probably not.

  • @AUWarEagle122 Cobblers. Shaped charges weren't used in WWII torpedoes. They don't blast the water out from under the keel, the primary blast effects destroy the ship, the explosion punches up through the ship. You listen to too many people down at the pub.

  • @cageordie You are right. I mis-read the WWII MK14 torpedo manual. On page 19 of the manual it states: "The war head contains a charge of high explosive, either TNT or Torpex, which is poured into the shell in the molten state".... "The War Head Mk 16, when loaded with Torpex, has a cavity in the after end of the charge in order to give the war head proper trim characteristics." So, I was right that is shaped but not for explosive purposes. You are right that isn't a traditional shaped charge.

  • @cageordie I am man enough to admit when I make an error. I simply mis-read the manual. Thank you for pointing out the error. I am not familiar with the MK14 at all and read the manual. Search "Mk 14 Torpedo manual" to read it at hnsa.org. I became familiar with the MK48 when I was in Submarine Squadron 4 in Charleston, SC in the 1980s. By the way, the new MK50 advanced lightweight torpedo that does, in fact, have a 100lb "shaped charge" in the traditional sense. Tip of the hat ol' man!

  • Dude where is my destroyer?

  • RESPECT for this weapon.

  • :O The Aussies sunk my battleship? This is war! LOL

  • its OK mate, it was an Australian Destroyer : )

  • So that's what the North Korean's did to the South Korean ship...oof. And it seems like they didn't even have a chance to retaliate.

  • that would've sucked for anyone if people were on board lol

  • @rncook . Incorrect. "Battleship" is a proper noun that refers very specifically to the class of ships characterized by the heaviest protective armor and largest naval rifles. "Destroyer" similarly has a very specific meaning...

  • It looked like a model when it was crushed, holy shit have torpedos advanced!

  • @Puschit1 The Mk 48 has been around for over 20 years.

  • USA sank a South Korea's Ship to incriminate to North Korea. USA and South Korea had millitary exercises this month.

  • @Rasengax you are so full of SHIT its unreal... fuckin commie

  • USA sinked a South Korea's Ship to incriminate to North Korea. USA and South Korea had millitary exercises this month.

  • Holy shit that's a helluva torpedo!

  • it flexes and buckles before it is sheared in half. that is some scary shit right there

  • scuttling ships for training allows them to become reefs for fish. then they would be an even better tourist attraction. seriously would you rather visit a old rusty ship or a reef full of colorful fish?(assuming you are not a naval buff)

  • Which would cost more to maintain them and keep them staffed. Both have real uses, but at least blowing a ship up will still cause it to be an artificial reef.

  • besides training, one of the other primary reasons is environmental. they become artificial reefs

  • i went on a tour of a de-commissioned COncord. it was very historical and informative... but i would rather see it destroyed in an artillery strike or something equally explosive.

  • you cant keep every darn ship theres already a plenty of tours out there we dont need anymore

    either melt em down or sink them for excersise missions

  • Ever been to holbruk? 200km inland and there is a submarine

  • Ahh the sweet sights of magnetic influence detonators. Broke her back...

  • He said the best sub in the royal ASTRAILIAN navy stupid

  • Comment removed

  • 2000 ton "battleship" <- best joke ever, and btw the germans have the best sub in the world you cant top this ;-)

  • Are you serious you obviously have not read read into the Virginia Class submarine. I'll let you read on it first before carrying on a conversation with you. Not to take anything away from the Germans they do have great subs, but first read on the Virginia class. I know I'm a former submariner.

  • or the seawolf class, although the diesel electrics esp the Upholder/Victoria-class submarines, very very good and capable submarines....

  • I wouldn't say the Upholders are anything special. Canada has been having problems ever since they received them from UK. They have been pier queens.

  • only because the deal took so long that they had deteriorated before the Canadians got them. They served the Royal Navy well

  • The RN didn't much bother maintaining them. They let them rot then sold them to us without disclosing the extent of the problems.

    Last time we should ever buy anything from the UK.

  • the u 212 is quieter than the virginia class btw and uses and air independent propulsion system and can operate in 17m of water

  • but that a 1 time deal (AIP) you ass so 12 hours later batteries are dead then they have to surface right back up. oh and the fuel supply is only for about 1000 nm range, virginia i a nuc not real real comparison so. shut your face.

  • no hydrogen fuel cells last for weeks underwater and obviously go's way farter and as for the refuelling all you need is hydrogen and oxygen

  • the virgina class isn't even the tip of our spear as far as subs go. Seawolf class is the new and improved.

    Diesel subs are nothing in compairson to the capabilities of a Nuc.

  • seawolf were made first virginia is less expensive to make up for numbers and aio can hunt nuc subs like when the u.s. used a swedish gotland class in an exercise and it got with in firing range of the carrier and its battle group

  • Aussie Collins class on exercise with american destroyers (ASW exercise)

    The Destroyer picks up a sonar contact at exactly the same time as the CO of said destroyer gets a call. the call is from the aussie sub with a firing soloution. The sonar contact is the entire aussie crew singing 'Do you come from the land down under?".

    The yanks claimed we cheated.

    :P Diesels, in the right hands, are incredibly effective.

  • nothinng is quiter than a diesel on batteries, thier dis advantage is that they have to breath

  • i think that diesel electrics engines are not quit. Nuclear reactors are very quiet.

  • @4everUSNavy nuclear subs are noiser than diesels but nuke subs dont have to suface anywhere near as much as the diesels.

  • The diesel engine is not quiet no, but they charge an electric drive which is much quieter than the steam turbines on a nuke sub. That's why diesel subs are quieter than a nuclear sub, however they don't have the range of a nuclear sub and they have to surface a lot more.

  • 2000 tons does not a battleship make.

  • In 2011, Australia will have THE most advanced subs on the planet. For a while anyway. So don't mess with us ragheads!

  • C'mon man.. Australia?.....Spit wads and sling shots would take you out... Same goes for Canada...

  • NO The best subs in the world. We've got the money! We are the only country to survive the global recession. We are the most mineral rich country in the world ie We have half the worlds uranium supplies and a massive coastline to patrol. We also have the largest muslim population as our neighbours. We can afford it and we have the technology. Look at Metal Storm for example 100% Aussie owned. Its just that some people are so blinded by their own arrogance they don't see it coming. Pearl Harbour

  • Ok, Ok, you win.. :)

  • Yeah we suck, our army only had major role in dealing the first defeat to the Africa Corps (first land defeat of the German army at El Alamein ) and the Japanese army (at Kokoda). Also look up an exercise called RIMPAC, the same class sub got within range undetected of the Abraham Lincoln CSG (Carrier Strike Group). Not bad for DIESEL-electric subs.

  • No, we don't. They are so full of problems that they even have depth restrictions because of hull/fitting deficiencies. The recent doco that was on TV even showed how stuffed up their diesel engines are. And as for RAN collins class sneaking up on CSG's I say even the Chinese with their noisy nukes were able to do same. Any sub, if employed the right way can do it. And "Ragheads" is a yank term, & not a very good one at that. Stop talking like a Seppo, mate. If you wanna be like them then move!

  • I said in '2011'. Not the Collins class. Did you not know we are building brand spankers? And this arguement is 5 mths old. And a rag head is a rag head full stop regardless of what western country you're in. Get with the times!

  • jeez the stokers could have blown soot before the boilers were shut down for the last time lol, tho the torp clearly blew the shit out of the funnel as it detonated

  • see that shit! damm,like a toy man!

  • I think it works.

  • Just shows you the incredible destructive power of the Mark 48 ADCAP.

  • Where's your Allah now motherfuckers?

  • haha nice one

  • Its an Australian ship sunk by an Australian sub. Australian isn't a Muslim country.

  • Maybe I'm nit-picky, but I hate when the announcer called it a "battleship" at 0:35. It's clearly a destroyer...it can't be both.

  • Think of it as a generic term, as "a ship that goes into battle," rather than a specific type of warship.

  • @2ndOfficerCHL

    ..and I hate it when a an alleged 2nd Officer CHL (what is one of those anyway?) can't tell a destroyer from a FRIGATE!

    This is HMAS TORRENS, an ex RN Leander class FRIGATE. It was sunk by one Mk48 torpedo fired from the aussie Collins class submarine FARNCOLM on 14 June 1999.

    Maybe I'M being picky but I suspect some dog watch ship recognition classes are well overdue!

  • holy shit

  • Australian navy kick ass

  • holy mother

  • Any particular reason there are people on this video talking shit about america, saying we torpedoed the Russian submarine Kursk in 2000? It was a MALFUNCTIONING RUSSIAN TORPEDO in the Kursk's magazine that caused the explosion, not a MK 48 YOU STUPID FUCKS! SO Jimderkaisser, Shut the fuck up and GO FIST YOURSELF!

  • So much smoke and debris... it looks as though the ship was made out of concrete!

    Nice video, BTW.

  • pwned

  • Canada in 2000's visited russian military exercise for buy a new type of torpedo, called shkval ( 500km/h underwater speed ) US claim the Kursk sunk by his own torpedo.. But the problem..no longer after this accident , two US submarin had a fatal domage like a torpedo impact..you can see the Kursk image with a deep impact in the submarin nose..a torpedo specialist claim that was a MK48 impact..after this "accident" or act of war..canada cancel shkval contract for his own security..

  • The US submarin was in norway for reparetion at Haakonsvern base. Canada have Mk48 but our gouvernment know this torpedo suck as hell..in fact russian torpedo can shoot at 500km/h ! like a damn missile but in the water ,at this speed you can hit every boat on this planet..but because american are dumb, canadian dream to buy the most powerfull torpedo was finish

  • jimder: You stupid fuck. Another moronic conspiracy theorist. I bet you think the Jews were beind 9/11 don't you? You probably also believe in UFOs and that Putin is a shape-shifting lizard from another galaxy.

    Fuck you and all your asshole conspiracy theory bullshit. Kursk sank because the fuel in a faulty russian torpedo exploded. Deal with it.

  • lol In the human right constitution they claim we can beleive what we want. You can be in jail for said that

  • actually he cant go to jail for that, because the constitution guarantees freedom of speech

  • Hey don't bring UFOs into your rant.

    If you don' t think they exist, you're the stupid fuck. Do some research. There are indisputable declassified FOIA documents that prove they have fucked with our military for decades.

    And the latest ADCAP is still the premier heavy weight torpdeo. It's plenty fast enough to catch anything in the water, and its sensors and engineering are uncomparable to anything the Russian Navy has. The Bear swims, but it's old and slow.

  • saddam: Thanks for bringing some humor into my world today. I always get a chuckle out of oddballs that believe in UFOs, astrology, or vampires. I think it's a combination of low IQ and a pathetic need to make order out of a frighteningly complex world.

    Time for you to put your little tin foil hat back on and double up on the prozac. Or perhaps buy yourself a cat. These things will help calm you down.

  • Are you dumb the canadians are not going to buy russian made torpedos because they suck. The mk-48 is way better than any other russian made pice of shit.

  • The Mk48's second explosion is also powerful enough (about the same as half-a-tonne of TNT) to blow the entire superstructure off the top of the hull.

  • Notice how there are two explosions? The first one is the real shockwave, the second is a massive ball of expanding gas. The explosions were 1.3 seconds apart, perfect for breaking the ship. The first explosion 'bananas' it up and then the ship settles and due to the damage already sustained, it bananas down. The second 'shockwave' bends it back up, with much more force than the first, perfect for snapping a ship in two. Also, the Mk48 does not detonate on the hull. Just about 15 metres below it

  • this is why i decided not to join the navy. THis could happen at any time to any naval vesel

  • off the coast of australian??? sweet english

  • This Australian submariner would have no problem doing this on a dark night. Sea shepard provokes my surface ship comrades, provokes, provokes and video's them to use against them. I would not shed a tear.

  • They should use Sea Shepherd ships as the targets in those tests. They'd have to make sure those terrorists were on board when they fired torpedoes though. Otherwise it's just pointless.

  • I AM SORRY TO SAY BUT IT LOOKS SOOOO fake even though i know that it's real

  • according to that logic, A weedwacker is a weedwacker but then so is any other piece of lawn and garden equip because they are all used to cut weeds and grass. But not vice versa. Thats not a lawn mower, its a weedwacker. And so is that weedwacker. But neither of them are lawn mowers.

  • LOL at the discussion of "battleship" vs "destroyer".  On subs, they are all just considered "targets". They all sink just the same. :)

  • LOL.. ship got fucked in the side!

    Good to see an Auzzie military test, instead of USA test, you see that bin laden..suck my dick asshole!

  • it wasn't hit in the side but from below

  • That's the point of this torpedo. It creates a huge amount of air bubbles that the ship "falls" into, the hull comes under a great deal of strain only to receive a devastating shockwave at the stress point from the torpedo detonation.

    it's a great sight to behold.

  • However, the Aussies still used a US torpedo, the Mk-48 ADCAP. Granted it was launched from a Collins class SSK.

  • doesnt matter, you guys suck at cars

  • Kyrie, Eleison...

    At least the HMCS Huron was spared this fate. An I feel sorry for the first sailors who have to face such a weapon.

    But I also wonder what it would be like against a modern ship. 1990-2000 era.

  • poor ship...lol

  • I would want to see it used against a carrier

  • That would be awesome, but unfortunately it probably won't happen unless it happens in combat...and then any film coverage of the event would be minimal. I at least want to see it on a ship of comparable size, like a tanker or something.

  • True

  • the Mk 48 ADCAP is a wire guided torpedo, so even if the ship was moving & using countermeasures the Sub's fire control party could command the torp to ignore countermeasures as long as the wire is intact.

  • I don't know why you'r argueing with that Idiot, He belives in the global warming scam al gore came up with to make money. Anyone who payed attention to their Early American history class in school knows that the Climate was changing before man was on the scene. oh & by the way a battle ship is a large armored warship with guns 12 inches or larger. A destroyer is a smaller ship with little armor & 5 or 6 inch guns.

  • I don't know why you'r argueing with that Idiot, He belives in the global warming scam al gore came up with to make money. Anyone who payed attention to their Early American history class in school knows that the Climate was changing before man was on the scene. oh & by the way a battle ship is a large armored warship with guns 12 inches or larger. A destroyer is a smaller ship with little armor & 5 or 6 inch guns.

  • Cool The Torpedo was actually undetected(not like WW2 Torpedoes)

  • poor ship got raped....

  • It Open every hatch (door) for easy sink. So May look like blown apart like movie.

  • w00t! Keel-breaking torps!

  • It is an old british Leander class ASW frigate, not a destroyer.

  • No, Its the HMAS Torrens

  • you scratched my boat you bastard

  • you sank my battle ship

  • The MK48... as in the MK48 ADCAP with a 650 pound warhead... that MK48?

  • You'd think all these sinking ships can't be good for the environment. In fact, the sunken ships provide great holds for coral polyps. In time, each sunken ship is its own beautiful coral reef.

  • Sinking ships is not the worst part of the navy vs. environmentalist court battles. If the latter gets its way, the former should be banned from using active sonar while undergoing sub and anti-sub trainings. Sounds ridiculous, eh?

  • why not just torpedo those environmentalist?

  • Not a destroyer. It's a Leander Class frigate.

  • A 'River Class' destroyer escort, the Royal Australian Navy's name for Leander Class frigates

  • Split just aft of the boiler room. I would say between the reduction gears and the boiler room.

  • nice!

  • they should havbe tested a torpedo onto a cruies ship

  • wow lets just burn a million dollar ship to test a torpedo, could of tested it on a old fishing ship or tanker

  • the ship they used was old! It was decommissioned and they needed to sink it to make an artificial reef. These old ships are not easy to sink, they had to go through the ship first and open every hatch (door) so the the ship would actually sink. If I remember right, they also had to cut a whole bunch of holes all throughout the ship to give the water paths into certain parts of the ship.

  • testing on an old fishing ship or tanker doesnt have the same effect since they arent designed for military use the purpose of the exercise was to study the way the torpedo destroyed the hull for the next generation of naval vessels at least thats what my instructor at the academy told us

  • in an attack like this maybe one or two guyss would be lucky enough to get off alive.

  • and the ship is considered a destroyer. not a battleship. a battleship is something like the Iowa class or the german Bismark. ships that no longer are used. there are also other classes like cruisers, frigates, patrol boats, supply ships.

  • if you've got a big enough warhead you could do that same thing to a carrier or any ship. the explosion creates a airspace and the ships breaks in half from its own weight cause it cant support it.

  • not for a destroyer escort being sunk pity the bloke doing the commetary is a dickhead

  • Quite an impact, the destroyer looks like a toy when that explosion rips it apart.

  • I wonder how high the two Y160 Babcock and Wilcocks boilers went at 60 tons each....

  • you mean under steam pressure i think it's gonna say kaboem even greater!!!(LOL)

  • Yep,all 550 psi of superheated/saturated steam's worth.

  • *Sigh* I have seen this video on YouTube so many times. You do know that it is a Collins Class Australian submarine using the decommissioned and stripped HMAS Torrens as test target for the Mark 48 wire guided torpedo?

  • I remember this. There was a big fuss over whether the Collins-class sub had actually taken the shot

  • hey dumb guy. destroyers and battleships are 2 diffferent classes of ships. Even I know that.  Just because it's "used for battle" does not make it a battleship you dolt. If I hop in a rowboat and "go to battle", is that rowboat then a "battleship" too? ROFL.

  • well.. YES.. difference between people like you and people like me is that I can think by myself.. peoples who were arguing with me at first, finally went in private and apologized, because they researched and finally saw that I was right.. so have a nice day, no-education idiot ;)

  • Right, I'll believe you on the day that I hear a naval officer call a destroyer a battleship - just admit you were wrong and used the term "battleship" incorrectly and we can all go about discussing the video at hand. Though if you keep trying to defend your original comments, go right ahead. Everyone at the office is having a good laugh at your expense ;).

  • lol, just go on with your video game, kid.. the discussion is over.. you and I know i was right.. now your ego being too big to admit something as evident as a ship used for battle being called a battle ship.. well I dont give a damn shit.. but I think theres more people at my office laughing at you then peoples at your office.. if office there is on your side.. you probably 12-13 years old, looking at your grammar.. LOL

  • fr33dom you're obviously an idiot. stfu and go back to BOCES. Destroyers and Battleships and Rowboats and Sailboats are not all the same thing. Dumbass. ROFL.

  • LOL, looks like youre the dumbass here, what do you think, mister " I cannot think my myself, I live in trasherica, and I still try to play smart" ;)

  • Poor simple jealous canadian....

    Did you bother to Google Battleships and Destroyers yet, simpleton? ROFL.

    Does Canada even have Battleships or Destroyers? Hmm? ROFL

    Canada's navy consists of rowboats and old inner tubes.

    Sorry your not American....plz continue to pout and whine and snivel for all of our amusement....

  • oh yes, im sorry im not american, im sorry im not responsible for the humanity dying of pollution, im sorry not to ba a fat mc donald eater, im sorry not to believe in creationnism (go to museum, idiot;).. im sorry i am not american, so i dont need battleships to protect my ass.. LOL :)

  • The most polluted cities tend to be in lesser nations like china and russia. I'm sorry that McD is run by teen-agers and makes billions, if only Canadians were as smart. Some people believe that their great-great-great..grandparent­s were monkeys that threw feces at each other. Those people are called Darwinists. Canada hides behind the USA, so she has no need for battleships.

  • haha, you are totally wrong.. no wonder planes are falling on your stupid heads :D

  • you're a very disturbed person. i hope you get well soon and be back on school.

  • I can assure you, elroto, that a submarine is entirely capable of putting a destoyer on the bottom at will, whether the destroyer is moving at top speed or dead in the water. As a matter of fact, it's actually *harder* for a modern torpedo to hit a stationary target.

  • early detection is vital. the first to see the enemy is the winner.

    destroyers are designed to protect convoys from subs, gunboats and aircraft.

  • ok, stacy is it a destroyer or battleship? make up your mind. Of course the ship was dead in the water.

  • LOL, idiot.. a destroyer is a ship that is used for battle.. therefore, a destroyer IS a battleship..

  • Tell me your joking. That is the STUPIDEST thing I ever heard. A battleship is a ship no longer made because we have fast, technologically advanced destroyers that use highly accurate missiles as opposed to slow, innacurate cannons.

    Destroyers are smaller ships. Battleships are bigger and have no place in today's US NAVY.

  • stupid, a destroyer is in the family of battleships, since you use it for battle.. just go back to school and then youll be aloud to talk here, idiot ;)

  • The funny thing is I'm in school... at a MARITIME academy. If you insist on displaying your ignorance, then by all means, do so... but in the end, your still stupid.

    A Destroyer is not a Battleship just because it partakes in battle. Please stop speaking lest you say something even more dumber.

  • well, first of all, looking at your orthograph, we can easily believe you're NOT in school (or it might be a fucking poor school lol).. second.. you and I know that a battleship is a ship used for battle (use you head, idiot : battle -- ship... battle-ship... battleship.. got it now ?)..

    oh and finally, youre the dumb here, kid ;)

  • Well this is just a silly argument. Why don't we just call them warships and then you can give them any nickname you want. Actually f it, I'll just call them "targets" coz that's what they'll always be to me. Skimmers beware!

  • hehe, sometimes you need sily arguments to make them understand

  • Wow - I'm an army grunt and even I know the difference between Destroyers and Battleships.

  • well read more, kid ;)

  • You're an idiot. The flim states it's a destroyer. Everyone here told you it's a destroyer. Doing a cursory search online will tell you it's a destroyer. Just face the facts. You're just like that destroyer, dead and in the water and broken in half. BTW, that video is the future of the iranian navy.