Originally Posted by c/Commander

Yes, yes, innovation and production and all that, correct?

Nimitz class has all those in spades. I'm wondering how the Nimitz got placed behind a battleship that was made in the time when battleships where useless?

Originally Posted by mmarsh

This list is pretty bad

but there are other ships that deserve to be on the list more. For example

HMS Dreadnaught
HMS Victory
IJN Yamato (superior to USS Iowa)
USS Constitution
USS Monitor/CSA Virginia

While the USS Monitor was interesting because it was the first turreted warship to see both service and action, the CSA Viginia was nothing more than a poor copy of the Ironclads already in sevice with a number of European navies.
Both wouldn't have stood a chance in a battle against HMS Warrior, which was in sevice before either had been built.

Redcoat

I wont disagree, but I will say that CSA earned its place in the history books because she was the first Ironclad to see combat and the first ironclad to sink an enemy ship.

Originally Posted by Doug97

As long as that country doesn't have any submarines ...

A Gotland class submarine could sind any of them.

http://forums.filefront.com/showthread.php?p=2255069

I do agree with the Nimitz and Iowa being the top two. If this means anything the Iowa was #1 on a Discovery Military Channel show with Nimitz at number two. They of course looked at armourment, years in service, firepower, etc.

Originally Posted by roger

A Gotland class submarine could sind any of them.

http://forums.filefront.com/showthread.php?p=2255069

No, it could shoot a salvo at one. After that, it's pretty much screwed, as the carrier can outrun it (or survive even a few hits), call in the battle group, launch aircraft, and bye bye submarine.