As per my question, do naval weapons have scope in this site because up until now example questions are mostly about atomic and hand-held weapons.

IMO putting naval and aerial weaponry will increase the scope of this site.

Proposal: Weapons

  • 4
    Try posting an example question and see what happen, that is the point of having them. – James Jenkins Dec 8 '16 at 11:01
  • 1
    There's no reason why a question about weapons systems used in naval or aerial combat wouldn't be on-topic. I cab see that being extended to the various support systems for them, too. The vessels or aircraft themselves though? I would say much as Aviation SE does: they'll happily talk about the aircraft or flight techniques, but the weapons themselves are discouraged (though not perfectly eliminated) from what I've seen. That would create a natural division between the two, and between Weapons and any future "Ships & Boats" SE, which leaves everything covered but not repeated. – Nij Dec 13 '16 at 1:16

Naval Vessels do contain weapons. After all, we wanted a Weapons community without really specifying what kind of weapons we can discussion about.

Even if you use evidences : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon

A weapon, arm, or armament is any device used with intent to inflict damage or harm to living beings, structures, or systems.

In short, navel vessels do have weapons like torpedoes or artillery to cause damage , lives losses , etc. Furthermore,if you have a good knowledge about ship/sea fleet battles, some ships(mostly heavier/armoured ones) are being used to ram other ships, when they ram, they cause damage to other ships. Hence, even ships themselves are considered weapons!

Hence, this shouldn't be off-topic unless

  1. The user ONLY talks about other specific parts except weapons.Like focusing on engine parts only, etc. (Asking if an armour plate from Hibiki can protect against a 50.Cal round is still fine.)
  2. Broad,mainly not specific about weapons. For example, simply asking about the capabilities of a DD[Destroyer] which may lead to other user's talking about many other parts of a ship.(Hence resulting in 10-15% of the conversation talking about weapons only)

But its good to take note that its better to keep the discussions around with the ships' weapon. Though it is good to link the weapon to the ship, but we mainly need to discuss about it's weapons.

  • 1
    In other words, yes. Unless the post is, for example, on sailing or something. But a question on Navy Destroyers would be on topic. (In general) – Cullub Feb 6 '17 at 15:45
  • 1
    i want to say any war machine, vehicle, or vessel can be considered a "weapon". – Zero Mar 11 '17 at 3:04
  • Most certainly, you shouldn't look at wiki though.. We decide what we want in scope. If naval vessel is not a weapon then what is it? And if someone is interested in what power do their engines have I don't mind that... I would say planes, tanks, ships and SWORDS will bring the most interesting questions... – Matas Vaitkevicius Oct 29 '17 at 5:57

A military professional tends to speak of weapons systems, reflecting current paradigms including the “kill cycle” which may have a kinetic element (say a warhead) but is irrelevant without considering the cybernetics and sensory networks involved in target acquisition, guidance, post strike assessment, etc.
In a naval context, weapons systems are dependent upon the vessel, satellite imagery, networked guidance and targeting. For that matter, the USN considers a CVBG (a carrier battle group) as a tactical synthesis of the weapons systems on multiple ship types. But honestly, in my spare time I read about Greek and other ancient “bladed” weapons. My point is that weapons exist within a tactical framework for their use.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .