Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!know!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!pacbell.com!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Battleships
Message-ID: <1990Oct25.145356.29834@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 25 Oct 90 14:53:56 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.012123.19865@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: David Taylor Research Center, Bethesda, MD
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams)

>From klb@pegasus.att.com (Kevin Blatter)
>
>>How come the US never lost any other BB's?  Good tactics?

The battleships never got to be the "stars" in the World War II, especially
in the Pacific Theater; the aircraft carriers became the most important
offensive pieces.  Not surprising, since the battleships have a "hitting
radius" of about 20 miles, whereas the aircraft carriers could strike
at targets up to 350 miles away.

If I am right, there was no battle between the American and Japanese
battleships in World War II.  Since the battleships were too vulnerable
to air attacks from aircraft carriers, their movements were limited
(i.e., the battleships generally avoided the enemy aircraft carriers and
enemy-held islands that had airfields).

[mod.note:  This is incorrect.  There were Japanese-American battleship
duels off Guadalcanal and at the Suriagao Straight. - Bill ]

The American battleships were used mainly in naval bombardment during
offensive invasions of islands, and they also were used to provide
antiaircraft screen for aircraft carriers - the battleships carried a
lot of antiaircraft guns.

This probably explains why U.S. didn't lose any other battleships.