Re: OT: Battleships vs. Carriers...

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

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.

Roger