Newsgroups: sci.military
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Battleships
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 90 02:28:02 GMT
Approved: military@att.att.com
Message-ID: <1990Nov1.022802.9231@cbnews.att.com>
References: <1990Oct24.012123.19865@cbnews.att.com> <1990Oct30.050136.3942@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Lines: 33



From: fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)

In article <1990Oct30.050136.3942@cbnews.att.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> 
> 
> From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
> In article <1990Oct29.024749.5785@cbnews.att.com> mailrus!sharkey!amara!khai@uunet.UU.NET (S. Khai Mong) writes:
> >plus, given the geography, they were almost on a suicidal mission.  In
> >fact, it was one of the few times in history that the classic "T" was
> >crossed, where the entire broadside of the American battleship line
> >was brought to bear on an advancing Japanese fleet...
> 
> And to cap it off, this was a night battle and some of the US battleships
> had fire-control radar.

The Imperial Navy put in a lot of time training for night surface actions,
and expected to have a distinct edge over the US Navy in such engagements.

Actually, it worked pretty well as planned several other times.

Good night vision just isn't enough of a counter to reasonable radar.

(The Japanese Navy did have radar, but it was too little, too late, and
not effective enough.)

--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes 
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------