| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Your Typical Beneteau!
http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/200...421ymnews.html
Rudder failure causes British couple to abandon sailboat. Wilbur Hubbard |
Your Typical Beneteau!
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:55:38 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote: http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/200...421ymnews.html Rudder failure causes British couple to abandon sailboat. Rudder and steering issues are certainly not unique to Beneteaus but you know that right? |
Your Typical Beneteau!
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/200...421ymnews.html Rudder failure causes British couple to abandon sailboat. Wilbur Hubbard Glass, throw, houses, in, people, stones, shouldn't, stones...re-arrange to suit. At least they abandoned a damaged boat, unlike the muppets over the pond. http://www.boatbuilding.net/article..../04/10/1123245 |
Your Typical Beneteau!
"Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/200...421ymnews.html Rudder failure causes British couple to abandon sailboat. Wilbur Hubbard It happened to the Bismark too. Was she a Beneteau boat? Dennis. |
Your Typical Beneteau!
"Dennis Pogson" wrote in message
... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/200...421ymnews.html Rudder failure causes British couple to abandon sailboat. Wilbur Hubbard It happened to the Bismark too. Was she a Beneteau boat? Dennis. I believe the Bismarck's rudder failure was arranged by the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm and delivered by Fairey Swordfish. -- Duncan Heenan |
Your Typical Beneteau!
In article , Adrian
wrote: "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/200...421ymnews.html Rudder failure causes British couple to abandon sailboat. Glass, throw, houses, in, people, stones, shouldn't, stones...re-arrange to suit. Which rather dodges the larger question. I have only once been aboard a vessel that smashed her rudder and then she was small enough that we could unship the remains* and get enough steering force from a towed bucket. Now -if- you can break/saw/unbolt the offending article a jury rigged paddle will probably get you by, together with streaming warps if things get lively, but I've never really given it a thought as a likely hazard for an ocean-crossing passage. Not too difficult if it's possible to use a dinghy as a repair platform but when did trouble ever occur in a calm? A hacksaw blade on a pole might be enough to cut away damage but only if you can somehow get it into the right position... What tricks do you lot have in reserve? Cheerio, * For unship read: crowbar out, bending the upper pin. -- Fishing: http://www.fishing.casterbridge.net/ Writing: http://www.author.casterbridge.net/derek-moody/ uk.rec.fishing.game Badge Page: http://www.fishing.casterbridge.net/urfg/ |
Your Typical Beneteau!
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:18:49 +0100, Derek Moody
wrote: Now -if- you can break/saw/unbolt the offending article a jury rigged paddle will probably get you by, together with streaming warps if things get lively, but I've never really given it a thought as a likely hazard for an ocean-crossing passage. Not too difficult if it's possible to use a dinghy as a repair platform but when did trouble ever occur in a calm? A hacksaw blade on a pole might be enough to cut away damage but only if you can somehow get it into the right position... What tricks do you lot have in reserve? Boats entering the Newport-Bermuda Race must be able to demonstrate a workable emergency rudder/tiller that meets with the satisfaction of the safety inspection committee. A common strategy is to have a cabin door that has been prepared for lashing to the spinnaker pole. I wouldn't want to steer a 50 footer 300 miles that way but it could probably be made to work. |
Your Typical Beneteau!
"Duncan Heenan" wrote in message ... "Dennis Pogson" wrote in message ... "Wilbur Hubbard" wrote in message anews.com... http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/200...421ymnews.html Rudder failure causes British couple to abandon sailboat. Wilbur Hubbard It happened to the Bismark too. Was she a Beneteau boat? Dennis. I believe the Bismarck's rudder failure was arranged by the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm and delivered by Fairey Swordfish. -- Duncan Heenan 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. Dennis. |
Your Typical Beneteau!
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:18:49 +0100, Derek Moody wrote: Now -if- you can break/saw/unbolt the offending article a jury rigged paddle will probably get you by, together with streaming warps if things get lively, but I've never really given it a thought as a likely hazard for an ocean-crossing passage. Not too difficult if it's possible to use a dinghy as a repair platform but when did trouble ever occur in a calm? A hacksaw blade on a pole might be enough to cut away damage but only if you can somehow get it into the right position... What tricks do you lot have in reserve? Boats entering the Newport-Bermuda Race must be able to demonstrate a workable emergency rudder/tiller that meets with the satisfaction of the safety inspection committee. A common strategy is to have a cabin door that has been prepared for lashing to the spinnaker pole. I wouldn't want to steer a 50 footer 300 miles that way but it could probably be made to work. Not knowing the boat, it's difficult to imagine what would cause the rudder to jam at full lock, but I would guess the cause to be internal, rather than external. Dennis. |
Your Typical Beneteau!
On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 00:18:49 +0100, Derek Moody
wrote this crap: Which rather dodges the larger question. I have only once been aboard a vessel that smashed her rudder and then she was small enough that we could unship the remains* and get enough steering force from a towed bucket. Now -if- you can break/saw/unbolt the offending article a jury rigged paddle will probably get you by, together with streaming warps if things get lively, but I've never really given it a thought as a likely hazard for an ocean-crossing passage. Not too difficult if it's possible to use a dinghy as a repair platform but when did trouble ever occur in a calm? A hacksaw blade on a pole might be enough to cut away damage but only if you can somehow get it into the right position... What tricks do you lot have in reserve? I once broke the tiller. We steered with the sails. Vote for Palin-Ahhhnold in 2012. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
Your Typical Beneteau!
"Bloody Horvath" wrote in message ... What tricks do you lot have in reserve? I once broke the tiller. We steered with the sails. Vote for Palin-Ahhhnold in 2012. I'm the Mighty Horvath and I approve of this post. Yes, but you are the Mighty Horvath, and you will vote for Palin-Ahhhnold in 2012. He's just a pussy. And he probably likes Obama bin Biden. |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
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 |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
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. |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
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. |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
|
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? |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
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 |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
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. |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
Wayne.B wrote:
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. The New Jersey was used extensively in Nam because of it's pinpoint accuracy. Once a spotter walks the battleship onto the target, its all over. The way it worked was a spotter (often a small single engine, unarmed plane (bird dog)) would tell the battleship the coordinates of the next target. The BS would fire one round and the spotter would radio back a spot. It often took only two or three spots and that was all she wrote. Even our little 5 inchers were deadly accurate but you had to have either a spotter or the target had to be visible so your rangefinder could input to the computer. The shells for 5 inch and up used powder bags separate from the projectile. The powder bags were weighed and powder temp recorded and the computer adjusted for these figures. The gyro stabilized everything. So the spotter says I've got an NVA village and here are the coordinates. You pop in a round. The spotter says thats good, fire for effect. So you send in some high explosive set for a 50' air burst, you send in another with slightly different range and bearing, and you do this until the village is leveled. Then you start over doing the same thing only using willie peter (white phosphorus) and you burn up what you flattened. Not as accurate as a cruise missle, but then GPS wasn't even a thought at that time. Gordon |
Military Ships
Gordon wrote:
Then you start over doing the same thing only using willie peter (white phosphorus) and you burn up what you flattened. Ah yes, dropping white phosphorous onto unarmed women and children, something to be proud of. |
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) |
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. |
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 |
Military Ships
Steve Firth wrote:
Gordon wrote: Then you start over doing the same thing only using willie peter (white phosphorus) and you burn up what you flattened. Ah yes, dropping white phosphorous onto unarmed women and children, something to be proud of. Nope, they never survived the HE! Gordon |
Military Ships
On 18 Aug, 01:53, (Steve Firth) wrote:
Gordon wrote: Then you start over doing the same thing only using willie peter (white phosphorus) and you burn up what you flattened. Ah yes, dropping white phosphorous onto unarmed women and children, something to be proud of. They still got their sorry asses whupped, though. Ian |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
"Gordon" wrote in message m... Wayne.B wrote: 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... [snipped] The New Jersey was used extensively in Nam because of it's pinpoint accuracy. Once a spotter walks the battleship onto the target, its all over. The way it worked was a spotter (often a small single engine, unarmed plane (bird dog)) would tell the battleship the coordinates of the next target. The BS would fire one round and the spotter would radio back a spot. It often took only two or three spots and that was all she wrote. Even our little 5 inchers were deadly accurate but you had to have either a spotter or the target had to be visible so your rangefinder could input to the computer. The shells for 5 inch and up used powder bags separate from the projectile. The powder bags were weighed and powder temp recorded and the computer adjusted for these figures. The gyro stabilized everything. So the spotter says I've got an NVA village and here are the coordinates. You pop in a round. The spotter says thats good, fire for effect. So you send in some high explosive set for a 50' air burst, you send in another with slightly different range and bearing, and you do this until the village is leveled. Then you start over doing the same thing only using willie peter (white phosphorus) and you burn up what you flattened. Not as accurate as a cruise missle, but then GPS wasn't even a thought at that time. Gordon One of my former bosses used to get put ashore in Vietnam to climb hills and spot from there. Said it took him a couple of days to get where he was going and not so much to get out (downhill). Hoges in WA |
Military Ships
On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:53:12 +0100, (Steve Firth)
wrote this crap: Gordon wrote: Then you start over doing the same thing only using willie peter (white phosphorus) and you burn up what you flattened. Ah yes, dropping white phosphorous onto unarmed women and children, something to be proud of. I certainly am. Death and Destruction go a long way. Vote for Palin-Arhnold in 2012. I'm Horvath and I approve of this post. |
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 |
Military Ships (was Your Typical Beneteau!)
On Aug 17, 3:42*pm, Wayne.B wrote:
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. Nah, the battleship guns were quite accurate... many times in WW2 they could blow open shore fortifications quicker & easier (and with a lot less risk) than an attack bomber. It's been recorded that many ships not only hit the target with great accuracy but then put another shell thru the same hole. And that was with 60+ year old technology. Nowadays they track the shell in-flight with the SPY-1 radar & AEGIS system.... no need for forward observers. Another point... 16" shells are relatively cheap & a battleship holds a LOT (iirc the lower magazines can carry 800 per turret). It's a very efficient fighting platform, especially considering the survivability. Suicide bombers can blow themselves up against the side of the hull, a- la Cole, all day every day. 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. Regards- Doug King ...ex-BT1(SW) |
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!)
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 |
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 10:04 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com