Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: USS Iowa explosion
Message-ID: <6451@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 11 May 89 01:25:08 GMT
References: <6272@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6322@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 22
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>>On a different note, why have the 40mm guns been removed from the BBs?
>
>For the same reasons the Sgt. York was canceled: too short of a range,
>too old, optically sighted, etc. etc.  3 inch guns were popular for
>a while, but they have gone as well.

One should note, of course, that these are the *arguments* that lead to
removal of the guns.  Arguments != facts.  Each new war tends to forcibly
remind people involved that the arguments in favor of missiles and against
those old, short-range, optically-sighted guns weren't quite as solid as
they seemed in peacetime.

The 4.5 inch guns of the British warships in the Falklands were completely
ineffective against aircraft, despite theoretically superior range and
sighting.  Older, smaller, shorter-ranged, optically-sighted weapons, on
the other hand, did some good at times.

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