OT: Battleships vs. Carriers...

Hi Guys,

I don't want to start another huge debate (don't have the time), but there is
a very good article in the January 2000 issue of the
Proceedings.   In short, it will take 3 to 6 carriers (depends on need
escorts, CAP, number of wings per carrier, etc.) to equal the per day throw
weigth of one battleship for fire support. They also go into the
ERGM and AGS for DD-21.

In a message dated 1/10/00 2:56:02 PM Central Standard Time,
> ias@sprintmail.com writes:

<<
I don't want to start another huge debate (don't have the time), but there is
a very good article in the January 2000 issue of the Proceedings. In short, it
will take 3 to 6 carriers (depends on need escorts, CAP, number of wings per
carrier, etc.) to equal the per day throw weigth of one battleship for fire
support. They also go into the
 ERGM and AGS for DD-21.
> [quoted text omitted]

WHo'd argue - for pin point landing support who can beat the
battlewagon. When you loose 9 16" rounds there is no counter measure the enemy
can utilize, there is not pilot in danger and a ton of explosives will do
wonders to alleviate the difficulties of amphibious assaults. We're gonna miss
the New Jersies someday real badly.

> On 10-Jan-00 at 16:19, Popeyesays@aol.com (Popeyesays@aol.com) wrote:

Oh horse hockey.

Would you rather have an airplane taking out that tank or an area affect,
maybe hit the tank barrage from a BB? I know which way I'd go.

Barrage or Napalm on those people hiding in the woods?

If "Throw weight" is your concern then you are right, take the BB, you just
can't beat VW bugs flying through the air.

If actually removing the enemy is what you desire then it's a no brainer, no
brains in the rounds from the BB or brains in the plane.

Um.. I don't know if you have been following RPV (Remotely Piloted Vehicle)
current tech, but those BB rounds are guided by a set of eyes orbiting
overhead in an itty-bitty stealthy RPV equipped with IR, UV , Laser
designators, GPS and freakin' Coffee Machines! Those BB rounds are a hell of a
lot better FOR SOME PURPOSES. they are obviously limited by range, but within
their envelope there is no way you can substitute a Carrier Wing for
it's effect on the modern battlefield short of an air-dropped nuke.

> -----Original Message-----

> Roger Books wrote:

> WHo'd argue - for pin point landing support who can beat the

Nowadays there's something called Precision-Guided Munitions, you
know...

How many EFP-spitting submunitions can you cram into a 16"-shell? There
are 2 in a 6"-shell, so I wouldn't be surprised if you could put at
least 20-24 such subs into a 16" one.

The only reason I can see why the US never developed PGMs for the heavy guns
of their battleships is that the USN has fallen in love with its carriers. Now
it seems to be too late, of course.

Regards,

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know...

During Desert Storm, how much of the fighting went on within range of a BB's
guns?

Most of the Kuwait operation.

> -----Original Message-----

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Imre A. Szabo wrote:

> I don't want to start another huge debate (don't have the time), but

the what? the proceedings of who? the only proceedings i'm aware of are of the
national academy of sciences, which sounds unlikely to me.

tom

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Tom Anderson wrote:

> the what? the proceedings of who? the only proceedings i'm aware of

Proceendings is a Magazine that is geared for students of Bellicose Naval
sciences. It is published by US Naval Institute.

http://www.proceedings.org

In a message dated 1/10/00 3:56:33 PM Central Standard Time,
> books@mail.state.fl.us writes:

<< If actually removing the enemy is what you desire then it's a no brainer,
no brains in the rounds from the BB or brains in the plane.
> [quoted text omitted]

The original comment was in reference to the support of amphibious operations
- yes I'd rather have the support of the 16" guns until I pass out of
there range limitations, then I will be happy to call upon MLRS. gun tubes,
mortars, VTOL's and conventional aircraft RPV's and Point guided munitions. By
the way all you need is a laser designator and the 16" rounds are just as
guidable as the Army's Copperheaad rounds.

> Ryan M Gill wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Tom Anderson wrote:

That's not true at all. The Proceedings is a professional form that is very
well respected in the militaries the world over. It is unique because there is
no oversight from the USN or any other military. This means that ideas get
printed in the Proceedings that would never printed in other journal because
of
dogma of doctrine and/or political correctness.  If the author of an
article doesn't have his act together, he gets shredded in the Comment and
Discussion section for the next several issues. I know of several officers in
the US Army who subscribe to the Proceedings, so it is geared to far more than
students of bellicose naval sciences.

One quick note on range. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency)
developed 11" sub-caliber rounds for 16" guns in the late 1980's.  They
had
a range of   100 nm and delievered 248 M46 submunitions.  They were also
GPS/IMU guided.

If I had been aware of everything in that article one month ago, it would
have gone much worse for the anti-battleship crowd.

In a message dated 1/10/00 8:58:34 PM Central Standard Time,
> ias@sprintmail.com writes:

<< I know of several officers in the US Army who subscribe to the Proceedings,
so it is geared to far more than students of bellicose naval sciences.
> [quoted text omitted]

How firmly was your cheek attached to your tongue? "Bellicose bel*li*cose
(adjective)

[Middle English, from Latin bellicosus, from bellicus of war, from
bellum war]

First appeared 15th Century

: favoring or inclined to start quarrels or wars

synonym see BELLIGERENT

 -- bel*li*cos*i*ty (noun)
What would interest a naval officer more than "bellicose" naval sciences?

In a message dated 01/10/2000 1:56:02 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> ias@sprintmail.com writes:

<< I don't want to start another huge debate (don't have the time), >>

Ahh, but you did:o)

Randy

> On Mon, 10 Jan 2000, Imre A. Szabo wrote:

> > Proceendings is a Magazine that is geared for students of Bellicose

Umm, isnt' US Naval Institute press the group that publishes it?

> printed in the Proceedings that would never printed in other journal

Really, go to sci.military.naval and see what they are saying about the BB
article. Most of the folks there are lambasting it. Blackbeard had some bad
things to say about the article as did A. Toppan. Both I respect highly.

> who subscribe to the Proceedings, so it is geared to far more than

Imre, there is form of speech whereby someone is described as a student of
science X or Y even if they are very well versed in it. I'm sure Lehey
Considered himself a student of naval tactics. I'm sure Nimitz considered
himself a student of Naval Sciences in general (tactics being one of them),
though I'd not presume to think Adm Rickover considered himself a

student if submarine warfare ( he wrote most of the post war book on the

subject).

> Imre A. Szabo wrote:

> One quick note on range. DARPA (Defense Advanced Research

Which ones are the M46s - are they the small scatterable ones, or the
ones used in SADARM (or was it SMArt)? The early date and the number of
sublets suggest scatterables, but I always confuse the designation of
those two :-(

Later,

In a message dated 1/10/00 4:56:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> books@mail.state.fl.us writes:

> If actually removing the enemy is what you desire then it's a

You haven't met too many fighter jocks (well, the Air Force ones anyway), have
you?

(just kidding, people!)

Rob

> Oerjan Ohlson wrote:

> Imre A. Szabo wrote:

M46 submunitions are anti-personel.  They were working on a version with
BATS for anti-tank use.

In a message dated 01/11/2000 2:13:07 PM Mountain Standard Time,
> RWHofrich@aol.com writes:

<< You haven't met too many fighter jocks (well, the Air Force ones anyway),
have you?

(just kidding, people!) >>

Oh no your not! I work with these folks. (Actual write up in Air Craft forms:
"Select switch does not work in "Official" position" Only two settings listed,
ON and OFF;o)

Randy