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.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:56:26 GMT, wrote:


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.

Hey, how come your spell-checker changed my Exocet but left yours
alone? (-:
I spent 3 1/2 years on a can and always felt like a sitting duck.
Most of that time was in a boiler room 12 feet below the waterline.
Battleships had exterior tankage and other means to thwart torpedoes.
I had maybe half an inch of steel. More than once I would look at the
hull and wonder if a Russian torpedo could punch through and land in
my lap before it exploded. Not that I worried about it, but the
thought did come now and then.
Luckily, at that age I was usually just thinking about pussy.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:56:26 GMT, wrote:

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.

Hey, how come your spell-checker changed my Exocet but left yours
alone? (-:
I spent 3 1/2 years on a can and always felt like a sitting duck.
Most of that time was in a boiler room 12 feet below the waterline.
Battleships had exterior tankage and other means to thwart torpedoes.
I had maybe half an inch of steel. More than once I would look at the
hull and wonder if a Russian torpedo could punch through and land in
my lap before it exploded. Not that I worried about it, but the
thought did come now and then.
Luckily, at that age I was usually just thinking about pussy.

--Vic

We had our bottom sandblasted in dry dock. It took three tries to get
afloat. Sandblasted right through that thin old bottom!
Another time at sea, we had to stop and put a diver over the side to
plug a hole.
I don't think we could have stopped a 22!
Gordon

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.

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

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

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

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

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...

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