|
 |
Grupos de notícias: sci.military.naval
De: dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven)
Data: 28 Feb 2001 23:02:03 GMT
Local: Qua 28 fev 2001 20:02
Assunto: Re: Treaty Battleships......your opinions, please.
Paul Holloway (pau...@exis.net) writes: Not the point. Your *opinion*, without any backing, is not sufficient. > On 28 Feb 2001 13:29:42 GMT, dg...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Andre Lieven) > wrote: >>Paul Holloway (pau...@exis.net) writes: >>>>Paul Holloway (pau...@exis.net) writes: >>>>>> (ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk) writes: >>>>>>>> Get rid of the BBs, use the savings for newer carriers. >>>>>>> They did the only BB that survive were the KGV class and Vanguard. >>>>>>And the US, right ? <g> >>>>> Yep. Didn't really need them though. >>>>Well, they didn't think that, *at the time*. >>> The battleship admirals wouldn't have dared let them go. >>Really ? Got even ONE cite for this claim ? > IMHO, the battleship admirals wouldn't have dared let them go. > Happy now? My opinion being based on research as to how the And, are you going to show, with cites, how these Admirals were > *battleship admirals* viewed the navy and carrier aviation. the ones who had the power to do that, in spite of supposed evidence to the contrary of their positions ? That the BB guys viewed the others as something, doesn't address the >>>>>>> Immediately post war the BB was not seen as obsolete. It might be One action type, one place. However, this doctrine would have been >>>>>>> obsolescent. >>>>>>More or less, with weapons in great flux at the time. >>>>> Became obsolescent during WWII, obsolete by post war. >>>>> Obsolete: Outmoded in design, style, or construction. >>>>> It was clearly outmoded in design and style considering that cruisers >>>>As I've repeatedly said, this was not so cut and dried, as of 1945. >>> Sure it was. As of 1945 the carrier had more than proven itself. The >>As I keep saying... read the books... > Yes, and plenty of the books say the exact same thing. The USN most inappropriate at North Cape. > The preceding is a paraphrased cite from "Cruisers" by Antony Preston. Oh, so you use *much* more general books then I do. It figures. I've read his stuff. Its mostly coffee table materials for the layman. >>> Why do you think that cruisers were built in such large numbers? Hmm... Nothing to answer this one, either... >>For the same reasons that such ships have always been built in greater >>> How many new battleships were part of the wartime building program? As a geologist would tell you, the key to any observation is *context*. >>You mean, how many were built of those programmes. Which have to > And the answer is? You continue to fail to note that. >>> Ummm......gee, just one, the Vanguard. So then, building her was a reasonable choice. Thank you for making >>Which suggests that there was a need for such a ship. Thank you for > Suggests nothing of the sort. The RN felt like they needed a fast my point. > At the end of the war, she was no longer needed for that role. So you say. The pros do not. >>>>> The carrier took over the battleships role as the *ship of the line*. This is 2001. *that* was 1945. Sheesh. >>>>Actually, not fully. And, by now, there is no " ship of the line " >>> Metaphorically speaking. >>*Operationally* speaking. > Then why are USN task forces built around CVs? Ever heard of a CVBG? >>>>> The carrier made the battleship obsolete. You keep missing the point that those admirals don't get to make >>>>The professionals of the time seem to disagree with you. >>> According to some of your sources, some felt that a BB or 2 was still >>That surely qualifies as their disagreeing with your sweeping claim > Just because some of the admirals wanted to keep them around doesn't all of the policy. Unless you have some... *proof* to the contrary ? >>> If they weren't obsolete, then why weren't any new ones built post war For the same reason that the USN didn't build more CAs. They had >>> by *ANY* Navy? The USN finished off more Essexs, built new carriers, >>> yet didn't finish the last 2 Iowas nor start building the Montanas? >>> Why is that Andre? >>Because there was no percieved need for more ships, when ten were in > But if the battleship wasn't obsolete, if it was still a viable, enough to operate. >>> Maybe because they all new that the carrier was far superior and the I note that " if "... >>> battleship had lost it's place. >>Nope. Feel free to cite something that supports such a sweeping claim. > I'm tiring of this. Anybody can see that. If I find a cite, I will > They could see this at that time. The simple fact that no more No, its not. This is your assertion. Show your proofs. > battleships were built is proof enough! >>> Remember, we're talking about what happened *at that time*. This I'm only using *your stated criteria*. If it is deficient, that is not >>> ain't hindsight. >>Fine. So, that the USN all but ceased to buy *any* new hardware, suggests > *sigh* Interpret it any way you like.......... my responsibility. *you* came up with it. > "May you always have fair winds and following seas..." Andre > Paul Holloway -- É necessário Acessar antes de postar mensagens.
Para postar uma mensagem você precisa primeiro participar deste grupo.
Atualize seu apelido na página de configurações da inscrição antes de postar.
Você não tem a permissão necessária para postar.
| |||||||||||||