Re: Tin Cans versus Dreadnoughts

--- adrian.johnson@sympatico.ca wrote:
> Hi Folks,
> 
> just a couple of brief thoughts re the battleship
> thread...
> 
> <snip lots>
> 
> >  The ability of one modern CV (or CVN) to take out
> multiple Kirov or
> Missouris 
> >is a matter of conjecture.  They may be able to
> mission kill (ie render 
> >inpotent) the ship due to topside distruction of
> radar, optics and comm.  
> >However the ability to completely punch through 12
> to 16 inchs of specially 
> >designed armor is a matter of great concern.  If
> the warheads were shaped 
> >charges then maybe but general explosives, I doubt
> it.  Unless the
> torpedoes are 
> >designed to explode under the hull the BB are a
> real tough customer.

Yamato and Musashi were sunk by ordnance whose
performance was not that spectacular. Even ordinary
bomb hits and near misses inflicted considerable
damage. As long as you have the means to pile it on,
your target will eventually sink.

> 
> <snip lots more - interesting stuff...>
> Also, there are a lot of air- and sea- launched
> weapons other than Harpoon
> type and size...  Imagine being hit by a Kelt? 
> Chances are you'd be able
> to shoot the thing down, but the Soviet Kelt
> missiles were *huge*.  Make a
> big mess if one hit a modern ship.  And then, of
> course, the warhead could
> be a baby nuke, at which point things are academic.

Yes, the Soviet missiles' warheads were deadly,
capable of sinking or mission-killing 10,000ton
cruisers with single hits. One test of a live AS-1 ASM
(with a standard shaped charge warhead) in 1960 or so
produced a clear penetration through a Sverdlov-class
cruiser's hull, including penetration of its 100mm
armor belt on the way out. 

> 
> What about the sinking of the Admiral Belgrano
> during the Falklands?  That
> was a late WWII-era heavy, wasn't it?  How many
> shots did it take from the
> British submarine that attacked it?  Certainly
> wasn't as many as were
> needed to sink the Yamato. I thought only one or
> two.
> 
> And with laser guided armour piercing 2000 pound
> bombs and stealthy
> aircraft (manned or unmanned) guiding them - a
> battleship would be a
> sitting duck, I'd think.  Same old problem - I build
> heavy armour, you
> build a bigger gun, I build heavier armour, you
> build an even bigger gun.
> But now, as they say, modern conventional weapons
> can defeat any practical
> thickness of armour.
> 
> My 0.02.

That's right, which is why there are so few armored
ships being built right now, except for local
anti-fragmentation protection. 

Mike J.

=====
Visit 20th Century/Future Wargame Resource page
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Rampart/1966/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/