Saving the Battlewagons of the U.S. Marines

HUMAN EVENTS ^ | Sep 15, 2006 | Oliver North

[R. Scott]

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.

[R. Scott]

An antiship missile or 2 or three could disable any on these.

Don’t forget that the old BBs are armored, unlike the modern warships.

[R. Scott]

Not a valid comparison.

[Pontiac]

Explain.

[jpsb]

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.

[rahbert]

Formerly USS Phoenix (Brooklyn class CL) launched 1938 and present at Pearl Harbor.

[Reily]

I remembered it being a Lt Cruiser. I didn't remember it having that kind of lineage.

[R. Scott]

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.

[Pontiac]

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.

[R. Scott]

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.