OT: WW2 sub-vs-sub followup

3 posts ยท Aug 27 1998 to Aug 28 1998

From: Phillip E. Pournelle <pepourne@n...>

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 12:27:54 -0700

Subject: Re: OT: WW2 sub-vs-sub followup

> At 10:07 AM 8/27/98 -0700, Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:

As an AEgis Cruiser Driver, I must Disagree with Bruce. While a cruiser may be
limited to its ability to affect events ashore with a 5 inch gun, there are
weapons systems coming online to change that. As listed in Jane's a cruiser
can carry 8 Harpoon Missiles and the Standar Missile,
normally used for anit-air missions, are actually quite capable of
damaging a ship. I may not get a catastrophic kill with these, but I'm certain
to get a mission kill. A Standard Missile is very fast...

Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!

From: carlparl@j... (Carl J Parlagreco)

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 19:20:11 -0400

Subject: Re: OT: WW2 sub-vs-sub followup

Regarding surface-to-surface damage, isn't the 5" gun carried a rather
potent little weapon? I dont' know the details, but I thought it was an
automatic weapon with nice (okay, so not missile range) range that could chew
up a modern surface combatant without too much trouble. After all, these ships
are not heavily armored any more.

On Thu, 27 Aug 1998 12:27:54 -0700 "Phillip E. Pournelle"
> <pepourne@nps.navy.mil> writes:

From: Paul O'Grady <paulog@o...>

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 14:47:38 +1000

Subject: Re: OT: WW2 sub-vs-sub followup

A 5 inch gun is a fanatstic weapon...it can engage air targets (or at least
oput up some nice flak to distract the target), very nicely chew up a surface
combatant, and put out the roughly equivalent firepower of a towed artillery
battery against a shore target with a range of ammunition. I understand the
USN is developing some rather flash ammo wiuth ridiculous ranges, but whether
we poor provo Navies will get it (or can afford it) is another matter.

The 5 inch gun-Dont leave home without it....I don't.