Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!shelby!labrea!rutgers!att!cbnews!nmm@apss.ab.ca
From: nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: USS Iowa explosion
Summary: subs a trifle more effective!
Message-ID: <5979@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 27 Apr 89 03:10:47 GMT
References: <5788@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5853@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Alberta Public Safety Services
Lines: 30
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: nmm@apss.ab.ca (Neil McCulloch)

In article <5853@cbnews.ATT.COM>, rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) writes:
> very prudent modernization of naval surface gun armament.  
> 
> On the other hand, if either party in the Falklands War had had an Iowa
> class battle ship, it would probably have proved decisive.  Surely it
> would have made the RN's carrier operations impossible (I am allowing
> for air attacks by the Brits, too, which I think would not have been
> effective).  We have already discussed the fate of the Glorious in 1940
> at the hands of two Germain battle cruisers mounting 11" guns.

I would have thought that an Iowa class battle ship would have survived
only a few more hours longer than the Belgrano. Capital ships without
their protecting screen of destroyers and frigates are sitting
ducks.

As for HMS Glorious, it might have been interesting if it had been
possible to launch the aircraft in defence. Strikes me that an
aircraft carrier which can't launch it's planes is pretty much
equivalent to an unarmed merchant man and a sight bigger to boot.
(Makes it easier to hit!)

Let's temper the glamourisation of this class of ship with a little
reality. They have their place but that is not the same as it was
30 years ago.

neil