Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
|
#2
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
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? |
#4
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
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) |
#5
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
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. |
#6
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
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 |
#7
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 22:25:22 -0500, cavelamb
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 Exocets 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. I think Billy Mitchell proved air supremacy in the 1920's Battleships were and are excellent bombardment delivery systems. I seem to recall each 16" shell is about 2000 pounds - I looked at Wiki and they say 1900-2700 pounds. Big problem is the manpower required to deliver the explosives. This gives some perspective, "When firing two broadsides per minute, a single Iowa-class battleship can put 36,000 pounds (16,000 kg) of ordnance on a designated target every minute, a figure that can only be matched by a single B-52 Stratofortress of the United States Air Force.[47] A B-52 can carry up to 60,000 pounds (27,000 kg) of bombs, missiles, and mines, or any combination thereof." Putting aside all the other delivery issues like shell capacity before re-arming and how many B-52's that can equal, the 3 turrets require 300 men total to operate. That's just the gun crews. A B-52 has a 5 man crew. A battleship is hugely expensive to build and operate for what you get. Anyway, there's all kinds of ways of looking at it. I kind of see it as 3-D aircraft and subs versus 2-D ships. The 3rd dimension element is a big advantage. Bottom line is the BB's are all gone. Even in WWII their role was limited to mostly Pacific island bombardment. Though their presence affected strategies of fleet movement, the carrier task groups were where the real action was. They were magnificent machines of destruction though. Not just the guns, but the other engineering that went into them. BTW, sci.military.naval used to have some pretty good discussions on this kind of thing. But as has happened in many other groups, the political bull****ters have made it a chore to read. --Vic |
#8
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#9
posted to rec.boats.cruising
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Typical Motorboater | Cruising | |||
Typical Democrats | ASA | |||
Typical ASA post #2 | ASA | |||
Typical ASA Post #1 | ASA | |||
Typical | ASA |