Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
On 18-Aug-2009, Vic Smith wrote: Hi Joe, It is true that armor would keep bullets out, but an Exocette with go through that like so much cardboard. The ships taken out by Excepts weren't battleships. Destroyers are unarmored and often have aluminum superstructures. But I agree that *all* surface ships are vulnerable during all out war with a major power in this air/electronics age. This is closest to being correct. The Exocets will not penetrate an Iowa class battleship according to several people that were on them. I am not saying that they can not be sunk by missiles, I just said that the antiship missiles wont do it. They are designed to take out the newer less armored ships. Now could a major power quickly repurpose a missile to kill a battleship? Might take a few hours but necessity is the mother of invention. |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
|
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
The reason why the battleships are history is that they are out of gun barrels. They had a huge stockpile of 16/45 gun tubes left over from WW2 but nobody can make them any more. I think the USS IOWA & her sisters are officially retired and placed as memorials, but the machinery is still under nitrogen blankets, so they might just be able to be recalled. We could then bring back the Fairey Swordfish and the Japanese Zero, just to see if they can still sink these monstrosities. Dennis. |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
The reason why the battleships are history is that they are out of gun barrels. They had a huge stockpile of 16/45 gun tubes left over from WW2 but nobody can make them any more. "Dennis Pogson" wrote: We could then bring back the Fairey Swordfish and the Japanese Zero, just to see if they can still sink these monstrosities. Sure.... they might be slow enough that an F-18 couldn't touch 'em..... OTOH the AMRAAMs can be configured to home on engine noise so they probably couldn't get within sight much less close enough to strike.... hey let's bring back the Sopwith Camel too! No boat that sails well is ever fully obsolete, gaff-riggers still work. A battleship is an awesome naval platform and the USN is smart to keep this option on the table. Fresh Breezes- Doug King |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
In article ,
Vic Smith wrote: Battleships are dodo's of the Navy, for the same reason that Aircraft Carriers will become dodo's in the near future. You need Air and Undersea Superiority around the ships to keep them safe and if you lose that, your not going to have the ships left floating. Yes they were a great Gun Platform, but if you don't have Air and Undersea Superiority in the seas within the Gun Range of the Targets, the enemy will sink your ship, PERIOD. Carriers have, and maintain that Air and Undersea Superiority, via a moving envelop out 300-400 miles, with their combined Fleet, and THEY NEVER get closer than that to the Targets... with Battleships you need to be within 20 miles of the Target, and one Harpoon Missile can ruin your whole week. The Argentineans & the Brits found this out in the Falklands War. No Air and Undersea Superiority, and you have lot of dead ships, and one Nuke Sub, blew the Argentine Cruiser away, with one torpedo. -- Bruce in alaska add path after fast to reply |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
it's me wrote:
"Dennis Pogson" wrote: We could then bring back the Fairey Swordfish and the Japanese Zero, just to see if they can still sink these monstrosities. Dennis, you do know the RN historic flight has two flying Swordfish don't you? (and there are others) Sure.... they might be slow enough that an F-18 couldn't touch 'em..... I wouldn't like to be in the Swordfish. Drop to maybe 300kts and use the Gatling. No problem. I'll be surprised if there aren't any ship-mounted cannon that would work nicely. OTOH the AMRAAMs can be configured to home on engine noise so they probably couldn't get within sight much less close enough to strike.... Really? Those things do Mach 4 don't they - following sound is a neat trick when you're inside a shock wave system. But the Swordfish is metal framed, and should show up nicely on radar. hey let's bring back the Sopwith Camel too! Now as a wood-and-fabric aircraft that might be hard to track on Radar... snip Andy |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:41:22 -0800, Bruce in alaska
wrote: one Nuke Sub, blew the Argentine Cruiser away, with one torpedo. Four fired, two hits. Casady |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
Andy Champ wrote:
it's me wrote: "Dennis Pogson" wrote: We could then bring back the Fairey Swordfish and the Japanese Zero, just to see if they can still sink these monstrosities. Dennis, you do know the RN historic flight has two flying Swordfish don't you? (and there are others) Sure.... they might be slow enough that an F-18 couldn't touch 'em..... I wouldn't like to be in the Swordfish. Drop to maybe 300kts and use the Gatling. No problem. I'll be surprised if there aren't any ship-mounted cannon that would work nicely. OTOH the AMRAAMs can be configured to home on engine noise so they probably couldn't get within sight much less close enough to strike.... Really? Those things do Mach 4 don't they - following sound is a neat trick when you're inside a shock wave system. But the Swordfish is metal framed, and should show up nicely on radar. hey let's bring back the Sopwith Camel too! Now as a wood-and-fabric aircraft that might be hard to track on Radar... snip Andy There is usually enough metal in a wood and fabric airplane to show up on radar. But the low speed may be below the radar speed gate. In which case... |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009 11:41:22 -0800, Bruce in alaska
wrote: In article , Vic Smith wrote: Battleships are dodo's of the Navy, for the same reason that Aircraft Carriers will become dodo's in the near future. You need Air and Undersea Superiority around the ships to keep them safe and if you lose that, your not going to have the ships left floating. Yes they were a great Gun Platform, but if you don't have Air and Undersea Superiority in the seas within the Gun Range of the Targets, the enemy will sink your ship, PERIOD. Carriers have, and maintain that Air and Undersea Superiority, via a moving envelop out 300-400 miles, with their combined Fleet, and THEY NEVER get closer than that to the Targets... with Battleships you need to be within 20 miles of the Target, and one Harpoon Missile can ruin your whole week. The Argentineans & the Brits found this out in the Falklands War. No Air and Undersea Superiority, and you have lot of dead ships, and one Nuke Sub, blew the Argentine Cruiser away, with one torpedo. As I said before, BB's can't be compared to destroyers, nor can they be compared to cruisers. Not disagreeing with your main point, as I've said I felt like a sitting duck on my surface ship, so-called air/undersea "superiority" notwithstanding. But what ships a Navy uses gets into geo-politics and the world at large. That's why carriers have been useful in recent wars, and why the BB Iowa(?) was used in the Gulf War. Not much worry about the Iraqi and Taliban air forces and submarine fleets, though I'm sure the normal Soviet era defenses are still being kept by our fleets. Battleships are gone because they are just too expensive for delivering explosives compared to what you get via airmail. NOTHING is defensible against nuke ICBM's, with MIRVS and all the other flavors, and that's why MAD worked so well. I'm no expert on this, but if you want to really get involved go to sci.military.naval. I'm sure you will find proponents of keeping BB's in the fleet even now, and they'll have lucid tactical and strategic arguments for it. But my understanding is they are gone mainly because of dollars per pound of explosive delivery. Interestingly, as recently as 2005, it looks like Ted Kennedy and John McCain were both advocating for battleships. http://www.globalpolitician.com/2635-foreign-policy-us --Vic |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com