Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Naval vessel naming conventions
Message-ID: <11196@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 7 Nov 89 02:17:28 GMT
References: <11070@cbnews.ATT.COM> <11149@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Calif.
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: eos!woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov (Wayne Wood)

In article <11149@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>Another possibly-significant consideration is that with the normal
>inflation of ship sizes with time, modern "destroyers" are often just
>as big and just as heavy as WW2 cruisers... if not nearly as well armed.
>

as a former naval gunfire spotter i can assure you that modern "cruisers"
arte not anywhere as large as their WWII counterparts.  i've seen the
old Oklahoma City and fired it once.  i think that while the high speed
5" 38's and 54's of the newer ship can provide greater volume of fire the
old 8" guns tore up bigger chunks of turf...

just a grunts $0.02 worth

/***   woody   ****************************************************************
*** ...tongue tied and twisted, just an earth bound misfit, I...            ***
*** -- David Gilmour, Pink Floyd                                            ***
****** woody@eos.arc.nasa.gov *** my opinions, like my mind, are my own ******/