Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!marsh@mbunix.mitre.org
From: marsh@mbunix.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: USS Iowa explosion
Message-ID: <5883@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 Apr 89 03:20:32 GMT
References: <5789@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA
Lines: 30
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: marsh@mbunix.mitre.org (Ralph Marshall)

In article <5789@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes:
>
>
>From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
>Further, you must understand that, shortly after WWII, they stopped
>putting armor on ships, for a variety of reasons.  In response,
>modern antiship weapons (such as Exocet) aren't designed to defeat
>armored targets.  Thus, the Iowa is extremely survivable in the modern
>battlefield; its only real concerns are submarines and nuclear warheads
>exploded in close proximity.
>
	While none of this comes as news to me, I've never understood
*why* they've stopped putting armor on ships.  I can understand that
it probably isn't as useful as the extra speed/space on certain classes
of ships, but something like a cruiser which is designed to slug it out
with other heavily armed ships or ground weapons could certainly benefit
from it.  Does anybody know when this decision was made, what prompted
it, and why, in an era where most weapons are missiles with limited
warheads, we are sticking with it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Marshall (marsh@mbunix.mitre.org)

Disclaimer:  Often wrong but never in doubt...  All of these opinions
are mine, so don't gripe to my employer if you don't like them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------