Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

I'm not recommending that we bring back the battleships. They are simply too expensive and require too large a crew to operate. Yes, they are impressive but how much should we pay for impressive?

As far as vulnerability, I don't know of any existing non-nuclear missiles that are capable of seriously damaging a battleship. They are simply not going to penetrate 16 inches of armor. I think the decks are 4 inches of armor but even then a lot of the force would be disapated.

Today's missiles are designed to destroy todays non-armored ships. When they operated most recently, the existence of battleships in our active fleet posed a problem for our enemies because they simply had nothing in the inventory that could defeat battleship armor.

They are vulnerable to torpedos but even then their size makes them significantly harder to destroy than any other modern ship. And, the Iowa class are very fast, at 33 knots.

Senior Chief Firecontrolman(SW) USN(Ret)


17 posted on 04/15/2005 4:00:00 AM PDT by Belasarius (Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks fly upward. Job 5:2-7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Belasarius
Wasn't one of the reasons the Navy doesn't like the BBs is that their 16 inch guns use black powder and the safety worries about that? Thought I heard/read also that accumulated hands on knowledge of the handling of black powder was also lost overall. Correct or not? Any knowledge?

Nam Vet

278 posted on 04/15/2005 11:48:15 AM PDT by Nam Vet (MSM reporters think the MOIST dream they had the night before is a "reliable source".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson