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.

wrote:
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.


Hi Joe,

It is true that armor would keep bullets out, but an Exocette with go
through that like so much cardboard.

It's the main thing that Admirals (and Navies!) have nightmares about.

Shaped charges "cut" through armor rather than trying to penetrate by force.
Battle tanks use "reactive armor", high explosive panels to "repel" such
attacks. The counter to that is to simply fire two rounds. The first one
pops the reactive armor, the second kills the tank.

Ships are too lightly built and too weight dependent for such devices.
And they only work once, so the second mouse does indeed get the cheese.

To defend itself a modern surface vessel needs to control the airspace for
100 miles around it. (Most of these kind of air launched missiles have a 40 to
60 mile range)

A battle ship, with great big guns, is still just another sitting duck target.

It depends entirely on the air group coverage provided by the aircraft carrier
for it's survival.



(quote)

The Exocet missile is a French-built anti-ship missile that has been in service
since 1979. The Exocet missile can deliver a 165 kg explosive warhead to a range
of 70-180 km. A sea-skimming missile, the Exocet stays close enough to the water
that it can be difficult to pick up on radar. There are several versions of the
Exocet missile that can be launched from submarines, surface vessels, or
airplanes. Several hundred of these missiles were launched by Iran during the
Iran-Iraq war, and a few were launched by Argentina against United Kingdom ships
during the Falklands War.

Tuned for doing the greatest possible damage to ships, an Exocet missile can
travel at 315 m/s (1134 km/h), meaning it hits most targets within a few minutes
from launch at most. This speed is slightly under the speed of sound, which
prevents the Exocet missile from creating an easily detectable sonic boom.
Beginning its flight solely based on inertia, in mid-flight the missile turns on
an internal radar navigational system that helps it hone in on its target.

In 1982, during the Falklands War, between Argentina and the UK over the
Falkland Islands off the southeast coast of Argentina, several Exocets were used
to devastating effect on the UK Navy. Super Entendard warplanes equipped with
Exocet missiles managed to sink the HMS Sheffield, a destroyer, on 4 May, and
the 15,000 tonne merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor on 25 May. This made Exocet
missiles world-famous. In the UK, the term "Exocet" became shorthand for a
devastating attack.

Recently declassified documents make it clear that at the time of the Falklands
War, UK military intelligence was very intimidated by the Exocet missiles,
worrying about a "nightmare scenario" where one or both of the Navy's aircraft
carriers in the area might have been sunk, making recapturing the Falklands much
harder. The cost difference between an Exocet and an aircraft carrier is huge --
several million dollars compared to dozens of billions of dollars. The
vulnerability of capital ships to anti-ship missile attacks has caused some
military strategists to question the value of these ships. Such questions play a
role in strategic planning in the United States, especially in context of a
possible war with China over Taiwan. Without an effective anti-missile system,
nuclear-tipped or conventional Exocets could likely sink much of the US Navy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark...4/slide27.html

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.