Dennis Pogson wrote:

I was being facetious, you are quite right, the old Fairey Swordfish
marked the end of the battleship era. I would have thought that would
have been obvious to the military boffins during WW1, but it took
another 25 years to prove the point.


Reagan recommissioned a couple of battleships. While it seemed crazy
they performed very well for shore bombardment duties.

Then there's the submariner's view: There are two kinds of ships:
submarines, and targets. But they are the guys that had my
father-in-law as a stoker on a diesel-electric boat!

Andy

On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:02:15 +0100, Andy Champ
wrote:

Reagan recommissioned a couple of battleships. While it seemed crazy
they performed very well for shore bombardment duties.

It was crazy. They performed well for a battleship but not compared
to modern precision guided munitions. Accuracy at typical range was
something like plus or minus 400 feet, close enough to scare your
target but not necessarily destroy it.

That was the accuracy back in WWII. In Beirut they were hitting houses.
But the main thing is it is very hard to sink a battleship. Most antiship
missiles today will not penetrate there thick hide.


On 16-Aug-2009, Wayne.B wrote:

Reagan recommissioned a couple of battleships. While it seemed crazy
they performed very well for shore bombardment duties.

It was crazy. They performed well for a battleship but not compared
to modern precision guided munitions. Accuracy at typical range was
something like plus or minus 400 feet, close enough to scare your
target but not necessarily destroy it.

wrote:
That was the accuracy back in WWII. In Beirut they were hitting houses.
But the main thing is it is very hard to sink a battleship. Most antiship
missiles today will not penetrate there thick hide.



They don't have to penetrate the hull to disable the ship.

On 16-Aug-2009, cavelamb wrote:

wrote:
That was the accuracy back in WWII. In Beirut they were hitting houses.
But the main thing is it is very hard to sink a battleship. Most
antiship
missiles today will not penetrate there thick hide.



They don't have to penetrate the hull to disable the ship.

And can you explain how that might work?

wrote:
On 16-Aug-2009, cavelamb wrote:

wrote:
That was the accuracy back in WWII. In Beirut they were hitting houses.
But the main thing is it is very hard to sink a battleship. Most
antiship
missiles today will not penetrate there thick hide.


They don't have to penetrate the hull to disable the ship.

And can you explain how that might work?

The superstructure is still vulnerable.

That's where all the sensors, antenna, and weapons are located.

Take out the electronics and the ship is combat ineffective.

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:17:04 -0500, cavelamb
wrote:

wrote:
On 16-Aug-2009, cavelamb wrote:

wrote:
That was the accuracy back in WWII. In Beirut they were hitting houses.
But the main thing is it is very hard to sink a battleship. Most
antiship
missiles today will not penetrate there thick hide.


They don't have to penetrate the hull to disable the ship.

And can you explain how that might work?

The superstructure is still vulnerable.

That's where all the sensors, antenna, and weapons are located.

Take out the electronics and the ship is combat ineffective.


It was quite common during navel battles, WW II, for ships to be
rendered unable to fight either offensively or defensively and not
sunk. In fact, I believe that most large warships that were sunk were
first damaged to the extent that they couldn't fight and then shelled
until they sunk.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On 17-Aug-2009, cavelamb wrote:

wrote:
That was the accuracy back in WWII. In Beirut they were hitting
houses.
But the main thing is it is very hard to sink a battleship. Most
antiship
missiles today will not penetrate there thick hide.


They don't have to penetrate the hull to disable the ship.

And can you explain how that might work?

The superstructure is still vulnerable.

That's where all the sensors, antenna, and weapons are located.

Take out the electronics and the ship is combat ineffective.

Dead wrong:
1. The superstructure is not vulnerable, it is 12 inches thick.
2. They carry spar and emergency antennas.
3. All they need is GPS and a data link with an AWACS to take out ANYTHING
in range.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:02:15 +0100, Andy Champ
wrote:

Reagan recommissioned a couple of battleships. While it seemed crazy
they performed very well for shore bombardment duties.

It was crazy. They performed well for a battleship but not compared
to modern precision guided munitions. Accuracy at typical range was
something like plus or minus 400 feet, close enough to scare your
target but not necessarily destroy it.


Odd, I thought I recalled them being used a cruise missile launchers
among other things...

Andy

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:52:31 +0100, Andy Champ
wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 20:02:15 +0100, Andy Champ
wrote:

Reagan recommissioned a couple of battleships. While it seemed crazy
they performed very well for shore bombardment duties.

It was crazy. They performed well for a battleship but not compared
to modern precision guided munitions. Accuracy at typical range was
something like plus or minus 400 feet, close enough to scare your
target but not necessarily destroy it.


Odd, I thought I recalled them being used a cruise missile launchers
among other things...


They might have had some cruise missles also but that was secondary to
the big battleship guns. A battleship is a very inefficient platform
for launching missles since the historical advantages were heavily
armored hulls and massive artillery, none of which is required for
missle launching since it can be safely done from hundreds of miles
away. Cruise missles have an accuracy of about 10 feet or better vs
maybe 400 ft for a battleship's guns on a good day.