Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!military From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Battleships Message-ID: <1990Oct24.012123.19865@cbnews.att.com> Date: 24 Oct 90 01:21:23 GMT Sender: military-request@att.att.com Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 30 Approved: military@att.att.com From: richard welty 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. >Could this really be true? >How come the US never lost any other BB's? Good tactics? >[mod.note: More like good luck, I guess. ...] a big part of it was that the survivors of Pearl Harbor were immediately withdrawn to convoy escort between Hawaii and the west coast, and were not returned to service in the more dangerous areas of the Pacific until the new BBs and the newer CVs were ready; when returned they were primarily treated as floating shore bombardment platforms. this was done because Kimmel, and his replacement, Nimitz, both recognized that the 22knot top speed of these older ships was tantamount to a death warrant if they were ever placed up against the Japanese carrier units. Kimmel may have been caught by suprise at Pearl Harbor, but the man wasn't stupid. he completely understood the implications of the nature of the attack. richard