Re: Battleships...again......
- From: Andre Lieven <andrelieven@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 21:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 10, 12:35 am, "deemsb...@xxxxxxx" <deemsb...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Regardless, this doesn't change the fact that my examples belied
your claim.
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.
Then, you fail to grasp the lesson that having bombs that kill
battleships, were the last major nail in their coffin.
Battleships were big gun ships, intended to fire relatively flat
trajectory shell fire against enemy ships and battleships. As
long as that was also their primary danger that their defensive
systems had to protect against, they ruled.
Once torpedoes came in, destroyer escort forces allowed the
battleships some cover from both of the original torpedo delivery
systems, subs and enemy destroyers.
Now, bring in long range plunging heavy shellfire, AND airborne
torpedo delivery craft, AND finally, airborne heavy bomb delivery
craft. Against ALL THOSE, the battleship could not stand, and
it could not strike back to ranges from which the aiborne delivery
craft come from.
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.
You utterly missed the whole point. No soup for you.
Andre
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: deemsbill@xxxxxxx
- 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
- Re: Battleships...again......
- From: deemsbill@xxxxxxx
- Nuclear-Powered DDG?
- Prev by Date: Re: Battleships...again......
- Next by Date: Re: Facing Russian Carrier Delays, Rising Cost, India Consider the U.S. Alternative
- Previous by thread: Re: Battleships...again......
- Next by thread: Re: Battleships...again......
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|