Re: Battleships...again......
- From: "deemsbill@xxxxxxx" <deemsbill@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 10:01:02 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 9, 12:55 pm, "BF Lake" <non...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.PiergiorgioNI...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:VZTAj.12239
What put the CV above BB was the development of the monoplane torpedo
and especially the dive bomber, whose IMHO reach the full maturity ~1944..
It was the plunging shell or bomb on the deck that did them in. (or a
cunning, shell -made- into -a- bomb, dirty trick even!) It was not possible
to armour the deck sufficiently. True even if no aircraft ever built.
IAW it was long- range shooting post-WW1 which meant plunging fire. For
bombs, it did occur after the aircraft developed power/strength enough to
carry a heavy bomb just pre-WW2 say.
Regards,
Barry
I disagree. The torpedo has always been the worst aerial enemy of
even the biggest ships.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: BF Lake
- Re: Battleships...again......
- References:
- Nuclear-Powered DDG?
- From: dumpster4
- Re: Nuclear-Powered DDG?
- From: TMOliver
- Re: Nuclear-Powered DDG?
- From: Andre Lieven
- Battleships...again......
- From: Dean A. Markley
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: Andrew Robert Breen
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: Dean A. Markley
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: Gernot Hassenpflug
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: dott.Piergiorgio
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: BF Lake
- Nuclear-Powered DDG?
- Prev by Date: Re: Battleships...again......
- Next by Date: Re: Battleships...again......
- Previous by thread: Re: Battleships...again......
- Next by thread: Re: Battleships...again......
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|