Re: Battleships...again......
- From: "deemsbill@xxxxxxx" <deemsbill@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:35:20 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 9, 10:16 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 9, 8:21 pm, "deemsb...@xxxxxxx" <deemsb...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 9, 1:17 pm, "BF Lake" <non...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<deemsb...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:4ad00bef-3d64-496d-96ea-
> I disagree. The torpedo has always been the worst aerial enemy of
even the biggest ships.
But that didn't stop the carrier from continuing to exist, and it has the
same problem as a BB hull for that. Didn't Andy just post that test
bombing of NELSON's deck got the LION's cancelled?
Regards,
Barry
Carriers had greater strike capabilities than battleships. That's
why they replaced them. Put 4 bombs on the deck of my battleship and
I'll put 4 torps into the hull of your battleship. I'd be willing to
bet the odds that my battleship would still be underway and at least
partially mission capable are greater than yours.
If your wager is limited to all sorts of WW2 ordinance, then the fate
of
Roma and Warspite in 1943 puts paid to your side of the bet.
Neither was hit by as many as four bombs, yet one sank, and the
other one wa 100% mission klled, and damned near sank, too.
Oh, and Arizona took not too many bomb hits, too...
Andre
And I could bring up Barham, Royal Oak, Fuso, and Kongo that were
all sunk by 4 or less torpedoes. The Italian BBs at Taranto come to
mind. Also, Oklahoma which was sinking from 3 torps when 2 more
capsized her.
My point is that torpedoes were more dangerous, on average, to
battleships than bombs. Battleships could shrug off many bomb hits,
but rarely did so to torpedo hits. Punching holes below the waterline
was usually more serious than explosions on the deck.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: dott.Piergiorgio
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: Andre Lieven
- 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
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: deemsbill@xxxxxxx
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: BF Lake
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: deemsbill@xxxxxxx
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: Andre Lieven
- Nuclear-Powered DDG?
- Prev by Date: Re: Facing Russian Carrier Delays, Rising Cost, India Consider the U.S. Alternative
- Next by Date: Re: Battleships...again......
- Previous by thread: Re: Battleships...again......
- Next by thread: Re: Battleships...again......
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|