Re: Search for historical presence: Small vessels and the Wall or Line of Battle

On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Jerry Han wrote:

> Actually, I'm not sure naval history is a good analogy in this
> case.  One of the major reasons NOT to bring your escorts in was that
> their weaponry couldn't hurt battleships/battlecruisers.  3"/5" rapid
> fire cannon just doesn't cut it against 16" of armour belt.  (Ignoring
> 'special purpose' weapons like torpedoes.)

A whole bunch of 5"-38's would mission kill a battle ship pretty quick
if 
the ships were able to not get damaged. 

Why do you think the PT boats bothered with .50 cals and 20mm when they 
went after bigger stuff like DD's and CH's? You will have all sorts of 
folks standing out in the open sighting and directing the guns. Kill 
those, and it will make it harder for the big guy to hurt the little 
guys. The guns don't aim them selves. 

On the North Caroline for example

There were Directors for the Main Guns, Directors for the 5"/38s and 
Directors for the 40mm's that were out in the open. All but the
Directors 
for the main guns were out in the open and in clear view. (the secondary

directors and tertiary directors also directed the spot lights and vice 
versa)

The main directors were armored like noones business but the actual
radar 
emitters were pretty soft. No way to harden something like that. 

Damaging all the directors left the Primary and secondary armament using

its optical hardware, not easy to use.

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------