Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: battleships
Message-ID: <1991Feb15.064150.7336@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 15 Feb 91 06:41:50 GMT
References: <1991Feb13.220636.4720@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Famed Parquet Floor
Lines: 33
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson)
In article <1991Feb13.220636.4720@cbnews.att.com> jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:
>From: jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy)
>The news reported that the Missouri shelled Iraq, and not many shells
>were reported.  Then it was reported as replaced by the Wisconsin, and
>today I read that the Missouri is back.  Is there some feature of
>battleships that limits the number that can be fired or limits the
>time the battleship can spend in the place from which it fires?


The limits to battleship fire are set by their ammunition capacity and
the guns' barrel wear.  Battleship loads were traditionally calculated
to include 100 rounds per main-battery gun (1,100+ tons of projectiles
for the Iowas!) and were routinely exceeded in wartime.  16" guns have
to be relined every 200-300 rounds, depending on the size of the charges
and projectiles used.

A battleship can stay wherever it likes as long as it doesn't run out of fuel
or food and nobody sinks it.

Given two BB's in a relatively small place, and given the need of only
one ship on any given day, it seems sensible to let them take turns.
It equalizes magazine exhaustion, gun wear, and crew stress between
the ships.


-- 
  |  phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG 		 | Phil Gustafson
  |  {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil 	 | UN*X/graphics consultant
  |  sgi!gsi!phil 	        	 | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126
  |  phil@gsi                   	 | 408/286-1749