Newsgroups: sci.military
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson)
Subject: Re: Battleships
Organization: Famed Parquet Floor
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 90 02:09:15 GMT
Approved: military@att.att.com
Message-ID: <1990Oct18.020915.6029@cbnews.att.com>
References: <1990Oct11.050942.29548@cbnews.att.com> <1990Oct15.033624.12338@cbnews.att.com> <1990Oct16.010804.10809@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Lines: 42



From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson)
In article <1990Oct16.010804.10809@cbnews.att.com> klb@pegasus.att.com (Kevin Blatter) writes:
>
>
>From: klb@pegasus.att.com (Kevin Blatter)
>
>I noticed recently when reading the article on the USN Battleships that only
>two BB's were sunk during combat (and stayed that way).  The only two that I
>recall from the list were the USS Arizona and the USS Utah, both of which are
>collecting barnacles at Pearl Harbor.
>
>How come the US never lost any other BB's?  Good tactics?
>
>Kevin L. Blatter
>AT&T - Bell Labs
>Lincroft, NJ
>
>[mod.note:  More like good luck, I guess...]

USS Oklahoma is listed as a war loss.  As the article said, she was refloated
but never repaired or recommissioned.  At the time of her loss, USS Utah
was not a battleship -- she had lost her main armament and was used as
an AA training ship and, with her AA guns covered, a target.  USS Wyoming
served thru WWII with a bizarre asymmetrical AA battery for training, but
was not used as a battleship.  USS Maine was, of course, blown up in Havana
in 1898.  She was only sort of a battleship, though, and the explosion was
as likely an accident as a mine.

So I see our total battleship losses as two -- Arizona and Oklahoma.

The salvage job on the Oklahoma's hulk is worth an article by itself.

					phil

-- 
  |  phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG 		 | Phil Gustafson
  |  {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil 	 | UNIX/Graphics Consultant
  |  sgi!gsi!phil 	        	 | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126
  |  phil@gsi                   	 | 408/286-1749