Skip to comments.
Saving the Battlewagons of the U.S. Marines
HUMAN EVENTS ^
| Sep 15, 2006
| Oliver North
Posted on 09/18/2006 7:41:46 PM PDT by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220, 221-230 last
To: Freeport
I kinda like very big floating gun platforms for gunfire support. They can hang around a heck of a lot longer than the fast flyers.
221
posted on
09/20/2006 3:57:24 PM PDT
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
To: rahbert
An antiship missile or 2 or three could disable any on these.
Dont forget that the old BBs are armored, unlike the modern warships.
222
posted on
09/20/2006 4:02:25 PM PDT
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
To: Pontiac
223
posted on
09/20/2006 4:08:29 PM PDT
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
To: R. Scott
224
posted on
09/20/2006 4:15:51 PM PDT
by
Pontiac
(All are worthy of freedom, none are incapable.)
To: Arthalion
Battleships are the big guns. Big guns are needed to take out areas of resistance that the USMC encounters prior to taking control of a beach head. That mission requires big guns that can quickly and effectively neutralize harden enemy positions on or near the beach head. No other platform can do the job, none. Which is why the USMC wants to keep a couple of big gun ships around. Once the Marines get thier 105's and 155's on shore and set up the BB is not longer needed but until then only the BB can provide the neccessary fire mission support.
225
posted on
09/20/2006 4:35:49 PM PDT
by
jpsb
(USMC vet (2549, naval shore party, Big Gun spotter.))
To: Reily
Formerly USS Phoenix (Brooklyn class CL) launched 1938 and present at Pearl Harbor.
226
posted on
09/20/2006 6:24:43 PM PDT
by
rahbert
To: rahbert
I remembered it being a Lt Cruiser. I didn't remember it having that kind of lineage.
227
posted on
09/20/2006 6:28:51 PM PDT
by
Reily
To: Pontiac
You are trying to compare the effect of a weapon against a modern lightweight unarmored ship to the effect on a ship of 45,000 tons displacement with Class A armor.
228
posted on
09/21/2006 3:01:17 AM PDT
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
To: R. Scott
No, the photos were simply to illustrate the way in which a Mark 48 torpedo is used to attack any ship.
On the other hand I see no logical reason that a Mark 48 would not be able to break the Keel of a Battle Ship, its 45,000 tons would work against it.
229
posted on
09/21/2006 3:20:27 AM PDT
by
Pontiac
(All are worthy of freedom, none are incapable.)
To: Pontiac
You may be right. Thick steel hull, heavy keel, large mass and solid construction would react the same to the blast as aluminum hull, minimal mass and light weight construction.
I bow to your superior ignorance wisdom.
230
posted on
09/21/2006 3:21:17 PM PDT
by
R. Scott
(Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180, 181-200, 201-220, 221-230 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson