And as your my old-fashioned, gun-armed, real-flesh-and-blood troop gets on his motorcycle to get back to base, one of my guys comes up and says,
"Say. That's a nice bike."
Posted on 04/15/2005 2:27:55 AM PDT by Zero Sum
You are assuming that human beings, who will write the software, will one day be able to themselves understand the process of abstract thought and somehow translate that into a machine. The human brain and how it works is a mystery.
AI prgramming is still in it's infancy and will remain stuck there for a very long time as long as it requires imperfect human beings with imperfect knowledge to move it along.
One of the key virtues of the Iowa-class is that they are tough and designed to take a hit and keep on fighting. The new platforms may have technology and fire power up the wahzoo, but they can't take a hit. They are too light.
Actually Mitchell's theories were never proven correct, as no battleship, underway with AA manned, was ever sunk by level bombing from altitude with unguided bombs.
They've created gps guided artillery shells for 155mm howitzers, they sure can develop the same for rounds coming out of the 16-inchers. Bringing the battleships back was one of Regans better ideas, standing them down was one of the worst post-Regan actions.
You are right because the Iowa's 16 inchers had a much higher muzzle velocity plus a heavier AP shell than the Brits had on their battlewagons.
The Iowas saw a lot action but unfortunately never had a chance to meet another enemy battleship in combat. Halsey blew his chance at Leyte Gulf when he fell for the Jap deception. Had he fought Kurita at Samar he had the Iowa, New Jersey, Alabama, Massachusetts, Indiana and Washington plus 12 cruisers and 50 tin cans vs Yamato, Nagato, Haruna and Kongo 6 cruisers and 25 tin cans. It would have been the day the Jap navy ceased to exist.
You discount nuclear-tipped sea-skimming missiles. They exist. For one example:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm
And, you don't have to sink a ship, to take it out of the fight. A "mission kill" happens at a much lower threshold of damage.
No, I think you're wrong. If you put an Iowa up against the Yamato, the Iowa would have come off the champ. The Yamato was poorly constructed, it was slow, it had difficulties in seakeeping and was not an efficient use of resources. It was, in effect, merely a barge made to drag along big guns which never did any serious harm to anyone. It was a testament to Japanese pride and not so much a viable weapon of war.
That guy's contention was that because the biggest battleship in the world was vulnerable, all of them were. And perhaps they were, but to varying degrees. That vulnerability was subject to many different variables such as the proficiency of damage control parties, damage control equipment, spacing of machinery, armor belt, quality of steel, reserve bouyancy, etc.
The Yamato was not so much a batllehsip as a monument and that's why it was a non-factor in the war.
They have already developed GPS guided and Rocket Assisted 16 inch projectiles with a range of greater than 100 miles.
And you are assuming that one has to understand how something works to use it.
And as your my old-fashioned, gun-armed, real-flesh-and-blood troop gets on his motorcycle to get back to base, one of my guys comes up and says,
"Say. That's a nice bike."
The minute you introduce this weapon then you open Pandora's box. The other side is likely to retaliate with strategic nukes as well as tactical ones.
That generally holds true for anything. After all, you may be able to stab someone with a scalpel, but it doesn't automatically follow that you can perform brain surgery, does it?
A battleship, like a screwdriver is merely a tool.
Well put!
The worst part of BISMARCK's design was that she (unlike other vessels) had extreme difficulty being steered using the screws alone. This was glaringly obvious on her trials and ended up helping doom her in the end.
The Incas performed brain surgery. Based on the percentage of healed trepenations their survival rate was as good as modern surgery in the 1980's...
The Yamato's guns though bigger had a much slower rate of fire. The Iowa's guns had near equal armor penetration power, better radar control and could unleash two rounds per minute as opposed to one round every two minutes.
Yamato at 6 knots slower could not manuever as fast and is easier to hit.
Most of the sinking of the Japanese merchant fleet, was done by our submarince fleet, not our surface fleet. I don't think that example does much to refute Mr. Jeeves points.
I would commend Silent Victory to you.
These were developed nearly twenty years ago too and have versions where they could deliver hundreds of bomblets like MLRS.
And what does that have to do with comparing Iowas and Yamatos? That the Incas actually took the time to learn something about the brain andperferm surgery is a cultural and scientific marvel but it would not have been a war-winning weapon.
I'm impressed by Inca brain surgery, but the Incas never put a battleship to sea, did they?
The Yamato was built to to slug it out with other battleships and bring heavier and superior gunfire to bear. It did nothing of the sort and the Japanese never found another use for it, except as a kamikaze. It was a tremendous waste of resources, manpower and money. The Japanese themselves realized this and tried to convert the third ship of the class into an aircraft carrier, but couldn't do it because they lacked the resources.
For all the fear the Yamato put into people's hearts, it was the survivors of Pearl Harbor, 20 year old battleships, that managed to sweep the seas of the Japanese surface fleet at Surigao Strait.
The Yamato which was flagship of the Combined Fleet for most of the war was referred to "as a floating hotel for idle inept admirals" by many Japanese line officers during the war.
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.