Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Marines want their battlewagons.

by marinetbryant / September 11, 2006 8:25 AM PDT
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Marines want their battlewagons.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Marines want their battlewagons.
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
i agree
by Mark5019 / September 11, 2006 8:35 AM PDT

there still needed
and speak quietly but use there big stick:)

Collapse -
Suriviabilty
by Willy / September 12, 2006 2:41 AM PDT

In this mini-sec world of modern combat, once extended beyond the critial minutes, what do you have to "slug it out"? Anything that survives must be able to return fire and a big old metal can with impressive steel and range maybe able to do that. Regardless, of the reasoning for Naval dismantment, I think once reason not to keep them on is plain and simple, the people that keep it running. You need a lot of manpower and its old technology, thus having to train in "old school". Remember, the old power charges are still Korean(maybe WWII) vintage. These personnel can't be easily assigned elsewhere as the "cross-over" is very nil excluding very basic training. Be it as it may, if you have to slug it out and Iran being a country that borders water, any ship worthy of close support falls short of a "battleship" everything else couldn't survive many direct hits. If possible, the battleship can be beached and get the closet support it can, even direct hits from a 155 hortizer may not be all that impressive against it.

just a rant from an old Marine, too -----Willy

Collapse -
Survivability
by marinetbryant / September 12, 2006 11:17 PM PDT
In reply to: Suriviabilty

Was just researching the USS Wisconsin and USS Iowa. In the 90's they were fitted with a Tomahawk missle battery and 4 20mm Phalanx gatling guns, which are used as a last defense measure against missles. They also put Harpoon anti-ship missiles on them. 16" armor plate and 16" guns that can throw a shell 24 miles is still impressive. Plus a top speed of 33 knts!

Tom

Collapse -
These ships, with the new weapons systems, are the de facto
by dirtyrich / September 13, 2006 1:05 AM PDT
In reply to: Survivability

powerhouses of the Navy. They still perform a mission (ground support) that no other ship can match them in, and can now arguably be used as the primary missile defense of a fleet.
The article is correct in identifying WW2 as the turning point in naval mindset - aircraft carriers were unchecked powerhouses (except by other carriers and the occassional submarine). With the Cold War, aircraft carriers were seen as the key to winning big opean ocean engagements, and the fastest track to an admiral's stars was through aircraft carriers, so the Navy is top-heavy with aviators and carrier folk.
Currently, non-carrier surface personnel (while valued for their support roles) are viewed as being somewhat inferior to carrier or sub personnel. I don't doubt that arms manufacturers have some influence on the issue, but I think the article downplays the group prejudicial mindset in favor of carriers.

Collapse -
True
by Willy / September 13, 2006 9:44 AM PDT

All you said its true, the modern surface fleet depends heavily on carriers. But alot of that is lost when getting into close engagement towards beaches or when Marines depart. The closer you are to such the more vulerable you become to not only any naval engagement but land based as well. The carrier has air support responsibles and everything else supports the carrier "except" those for landings. A batleships guns can easily reach 24mi. and closer and still be away from heavy guns from ashore as many don't have 16in. anything. Ohh, I just ranble on... good hunting -----Willy Happy

Collapse -
Toured the USS Wisconsin
by Roger NC / September 13, 2006 4:27 AM PDT
In reply to: Survivability
Collapse -
A friend of mine served on BB-62........
by Tony Holmes / September 13, 2006 7:16 AM PDT
In reply to: Survivability

in Nam,he said the Jersey could have withstood a hit from one of her own 16in shells.

Collapse -
BB-62
by marinetbryant / September 13, 2006 7:57 AM PDT

Sitting on a hill side one day, north of Danang and saw that lady on the horizon. Even at that distance she was HUGE!

Tom

Collapse -
Still alot of old stuff
by Willy / September 13, 2006 9:37 AM PDT
In reply to: Survivability

I knew that but also knew they still use much of the old technology. The analog computer for 16in. guns were left as is as they still do the job. Many electrical items like motors, couplers, geneators, etc. are raided from other old ships when needed if not in the inventory. These to include any "musuem" ships that the public may visit. The weakness is still the decking but improved somewhat as money allows. The reason, I posted no other ship can go "toe-to-toe" when firing non-missle arms and if hit by a missle, it could take several if not hit in a too vulnerable area. The battleships last defense is its "armour" which is not part of many modern surface fleets or comparable. ha!

tada -----Willy Happy

Collapse -
If I remember correctly
by dirtyrich / September 13, 2006 9:53 PM PDT

The remaining battleships have 16+ inches of armor, while modern ships carry just a couple inches. Practicallly all anti-ship systems nowadays have been designed with the 2-3 inch armor in mind, so a battleship use now would bring to mind Old Ironsides (the Constitution) as missiles would simply leave a black mark on their hull.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?