Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ulysses!att!cbnews!henry@zoo.toronto.edu
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: No armor on new capital ships (USS Iowa explosion)
Message-ID: <6028@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 28 Apr 89 03:24:00 GMT
References: <5789@cbnews.ATT.COM> <5883@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 22
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>I was thinking the USS Long Beach (CGN-9) would be a nice ship to gain
>experience on.  The LB was the first cruiser to lack armor and they almost
>didn't place any gun on it (two-5 inchers amidships)...   a WWIII
>mindset.  All threats and responses were nuclear (or modern missile)...
>It almost totally forgot about conventional and brushfire
>engagements.  The partial role 5 and 8 inch guns were replaced by guided
>(inadequate) missiles...

If you read detailed accounts of the Cuba crisis, you find that a lot of
people in both the USN and the USAF were very embarrassed.  For example,
the USAF had to borrow non-nuclear bombs from the USN.  For another, which
Eugene's comments reminded me of, the blockade of Cuba was enforced by a
handful of 8-inch guns on some old cruisers.  The guns were still there
mostly because it had been considered more trouble to get rid of them than
to leave them there, when the ships were converted for missiles.  But you
can't fire a missile across somebody's bow...

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu