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:
>At 10:07 AM 8/27/98 -0700, Bruce Alan Macintosh wrote:
>>In some earlier thread I think I mentioned the case of modern Aegis
>cruisers -the
>>the most capable surface warships the USN is constructing - which 
>would
>>be essentially incapable of damaging each other except at short (gun) 
>
>>ranges, as their anti-air/anti-missile capability is vastly superior 
>to the
>>handful of anti-surface missiles they carry. They only have a dinky 
>little
>>5" gun, too - they'd practically have to ram each other. As Chris 
>points out,
>>these are specialized warships rather than general purpose, though.
>
>	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!
>

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]