Rubber duckies were already mentioned on this thread.
But since you asked.
Posted on 06/19/2009 6:08:19 PM PDT by Steelfish
This happened with thin skinned vessels in WWII.
Yeah I remember reading about this. I believe it was at Guadalcanal when the US Admiral directed anything that could get underway to intercept a Jap fleet to protect the marine landing. Escorts, LST's and such and the Japs were amazed that their direct hits weren't sinking the American ships.
Rubber duckies were already mentioned on this thread.
But since you asked.
Jealousy is such an ugly thing.
We should sink the NK ship and turn around and head for North Korean to sink the whole damn country.
I agree for 60 years we have been kissing their rear WHY??? there is a reason, but what Is it and Why are our leaders cowards when dealing with this toy country?
I can only guess the reason is; that the intent of our government is for us to get hit when they finally have the vehicle that will reach here.
What kind of destroyer has a single pop gun? That ship wouldn’t scare anybody. Even an old “four stacker” wcould do more harm.
Is this what Zell Miller warned about:”What are you going to use, spitballs?”
Speaking of crappy names, spare a thought for the bubbleheads aboard SSN23...
I'll admit I had to go look...
SSN-23 Jimmy Carter
USS John McCain (DDG-56)
Destroyers have 16 inch guns?
16 inch guns have a range of about 24 miles if I remember correctly, what is the range of a nuc tomahawk and how many can be carried in a VLS Destroyer?
I’m old Navy, steam propulsion all the way, but facts are facts. A BB can sure take a lot more damage than a DD, and intimidates the hell out of anyone who is on the wrong side, but the modern Destroyer packs a bigger punch, from shooting down a ICBM to over the horizon missile launches. And yes, BB’s were equiped with the 4 tube tomahawk launchers, but they don’t come close to vls.
Jack
and can also carry Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles as we see here with the Missouri firing a Tomahawk, the first shot of the Gulf War 1.
If the battleships were not retrofitted to fight more like destroyers and cruisers their survivability in a modern sea engagement would be zero, even if they had 1000 sixteen inch guns. Which was your original post I commented on.
Destroyers have 16 inch guns?
You'd never get into gun range of Burke class destroyer. While I appreciate all the support and love you ex gunnersmates have for your big guns I will just remind that at one time the Trebuchet could knock down fortified walls at thousands of yards range and were greatly feared siege instruments. So much so that great cavalry charges were mounted specifically to take them out at the beginning of medieval engagements.
Battleships are very expensive weapons systems which is why they are no longer deployed. Bang Vrs Buck. Destroyers on the other hand are cheap, but have no where near the Bang of a battleship. Bean counters rule the world. lol. The sixteen inch guns of an Iowa class battleship were designed in the 1930's, a 2010 design would produce a gun capable of 100 mile range, add GPS targeting and rocket assisted fight and you have a naval weapon system far far superior to anything other then an aircraft carrier.
Survivability depends on two things, speed and strenght (armor). An Iowa class battle ship was very fast, 30 plus knots and it had 18 inches of armor plating. It took everything the Japanese could throw at it and took only minor damage in WW2.
All naval surface ships depend on air superiority, if the enemy can control the air above the battlefield no surface ship can survive. However if we can control the airspace then a modern battleship will deliver more killing power then all the destroyers in the world combined. Just ask any nam vet about fire power of the New Jersey.
Hehehehehehe. You’re right of course. Have a great Sunday J. ;-)
You too! Enjoyed the conversation!
I believe most of our leaders are physical cowards who wont put their butts on the line for freedom. They want to hold onto their cushy little jobs and perks. In all probability they would favor surrender to an enemy that threatens the USA rather than fight. The two Bushes, for all the complaining about them, at least had balls enough to go to war if needed.
“I believe most of our leaders are physical cowards who wont put their butts on the line for freedom. They want to hold onto their cushy little jobs and perks. In all probability they would favor surrender to an enemy that threatens the USA rather than fight. The two Bushes, for all the complaining about them, at least had balls enough to go to war if needed.”
Zero would surrender with a place to go and live with the enemy.
The ship was named after his father or grandfather. Both (IIRC) 4 star admirals. Now as to whether the CiC will allow them to act in any meaningful way, is another question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.