Re: Battleships...again......

On Mar 10, 8:23 pm, Dan <dnada...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
On Mar 10, 6:50 am, "deemsb...@xxxxxxx" <deemsb...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 10, 12:49 am, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.
   Since I never claimed bombs couldn't kill a battleship, your
examples don't really show anything.

Utterly wrong, as my examples showed several BBs destroyed by
less than your " four bombs ".

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.
    Bombs were one of several factors. The real reason was that
carriers were more effective at more things....especially increased
range to reach out and touch someone.

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Nonetheless, YOUR claim of " four bombs " leaving a bb in better
shape than four torps, was... *wrong*.

Deal with it.

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.
    Which doesn't change my point.

No, it demolishes your " point ".

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.
    You still haven't changed my point.

<Projection>

Andre

I guess we can always apply the same argument used by those who favor
big-gun ships: Which form of aerial warfare endured, bombs or torpedoes?

Your statement/question makes little, if any sense.

The point remains: aircraft, such as those coming from carriers, can
control a far, far larger area of ocean space than can a battleship.
As well as delivering capital ship-killing ordinances at such can't-be
matched-by-battleships ranges.

The reason why battlships died of is not *just* that hey can be
killed from hundreds of miles away from an airbase, fixed or
mobile; Its also that the airbases, fixed or mobile, can *control*
far, far more ocean space than can a battleship.

Once those facts are in place, it matters not whether the ordinance
is a ship killing bomb, a ship killing torpedo, or a ship killing anti
ship missile.

Andre
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Battleships...again......
    ... bombing of NELSON's deck got the LION's cancelled? ... I'll put 4 torps into the hull of your battleship. ... less than your " four bombs ". ... Why don't you show me cases of BBs shrugging off torpedo hits...I ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Battleships...again......
    ... bombing of NELSON's deck got the LION's cancelled? ... I'll put 4 torps into the hull of your battleship. ... less than your " four bombs ". ... battleships some cover from both of the original torpedo delivery ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Battleships...again......
    ... I'll put 4 torps into the hull of your battleship. ... Neither was hit by as many as four bombs, yet one sank, and the ... battleships some cover from both of the original torpedo delivery ... is a ship killing bomb, a ship killing torpedo, or a ship killing anti ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Battleships...again......
    ... I'll put 4 torps into the hull of your battleship. ... Neither was hit by as many as four bombs, yet one sank, and the ... trajectory shell fire against enemy ships and battleships. ... battleships some cover from both of the original torpedo delivery ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Battleships...again......
    ... big-gun ships: Which form of aerial warfare endured, bombs or torpedoes? ... there is a decided lack of torpedo planes as ... is a ship killing bomb, a ship killing torpedo, or a ship killing anti ...
    (sci.military.naval)