My teenage son is involved in a group term project.
They are assigned the task of setting up a display of the Pacific Ocean
and identifying the major/turning point Naval battles and providing
statistics on losses for each party involved.

Can anyone help me locate websites or servers or basically anywhere we
may find some of that info?

In article <857145201.9...@dejanews.com>, g...@dlcwest.com writes

Why spend money when you don't have to? It's like the footage I've seen
of USAF F-15s flying armed with only two AMRAAM missiles. Does that mean
they _can_ only carry two? Or that in peacetime it makes sense to save
wear and tear on the equipment, so more of it will be war-ready?

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...            

On 27 Feb 1997 06:01:28 GMT, "Brandon Moore" <ta...@prodigy.net>
wrote:

It just seems like a stretch of the old planes. Looks like someone was
trying to shortcut on some engineering.

Not that there's anything WRONG with that, but cost seems like the
issue, not "stealth".

In article <33178898.2707...@news.enter.net>,
   gr...@enter.net (Gary Roth) wrote:

David Pincus (remove the x) wrote:

In article <33178898.2707...@news.enter.net>, Gary Roth
<gr...@enter.net> writes

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...            

I give you my list of weapons platforms that have been
killed/decommisioned/hanging by a thread for stupid reasons. Next to the
name
is the name of what has replaced it.

1. The Iowas: Arsenal ship? ROTFL! Just assign contracts to begin
manufacturing 16-Inch gun barrels and shells after a 50-year absence.
Ditto
with those 'spare parts' you're so fond of pointing out as a weakness.

2. The A-6E Intruder: The F-14 'cat. Can a Tomcat attack a target in any
kind
of weather, can it fly extreme low level missions? No. If the A-6s are too
old, build some new ones.

3. The A-10 Warthog: After the Gulf, where they kicked ass, the fighter
mafia
is still trying to kill off this beloved plane.

4. The M-14 with the M-16: Now that 'automatic' on a M16 is -three-
rounds,
we can design a .30-06 cal. rifle with the firepower of a M16A2.

5. The M-60 with the SAW: Excuse me, the M-60 fires .30 cal. rounds, while
the SAW fires .223 rounds. The Army would've gotten a better machine gun
if
they had bought the MG-42 from Germany. Heh, 1200 rounds a min, and .30
cal,
to boot. Worst of all, the SAW is from Belgium, a country that got their
asses kicked in WWI and II.

6. The LAW: We need a cheapo AT weapon, not a expensive mostrosity such as
the Javelin

7. The A-1 Skyraider. We should give McDonnell Douglass a contract to
manufacture new "Spads", and assign them to the Army. The Air Farce
dropped
thousands of tons of bombs in Vietnam and Iraq and did nothing to really
have a
effect on the war(s). It was the CAS and tactical missions that won the
Gulf War. The Army really needs a genuine fixed-wing CAS capability.

8. The Colt .45 M1911A1 Automatic with the M9 Beretta. The .45 was
originally
made to put down charging Filipino insurgents holding machetes. If i shoot
someone, I want him -down- for good, not just getting back up after being
shot with a wimpy 9mm round.

I have spoken!
Believe the word of the true believers, not the infidels' false claims.

PS. I can kill a modern US surface group easily. Here's how. Fill the sky
with decoys, and they'll expend all their missiles on drones, then I have
my
attack planes, loaded with iron bombs, come skimming the sea at 100 feet.
Since today's US warships have pathetic guns, they're as good as dead.
However, if I tried this tactic on the Russians, my ass would get kicked.
Why? Because the Russians have had to design their ships to take into
account
overwhelming US carrier-based air power, while we haven't had a genuine
threat from carrier-borne planes since 1942, the battle of Midway.
Consequently, our ships have little  rapid-fire weapons. The Russians,
however, can fill the sky around a surface group with a solid wall of lead
from the shitloads of automatic weapons their ships carry.

PPS. Carrier Aviatiors and Air Farce pukes are wimps. If I had to trust a
air
force with my life, I'd trust the RAF only. Y'know why? In the Gulf war,
RAF Tornados, flying extreme low level missons, took heavy casualities,
and kept on flying at low level.  The US Navy lost 2 A-6s on a low level
mission and they freaked out, and after that all US planes dropped their
bombs from 12,000 feet. If I have to depend on someone, I want people who
won't give up, and will keep on flying even though in the face of heavy
casualities, not wimps who after a few losses, fly so anally they can't
hit anything.

OTOH, the arsenal ship is nothing but a defenseless target waiting for
a cheap kill. Gimme somore Burkes, please.

The SAW also uses the .223 ammo for a very good reason - its the same
stuff that the M16 uses. The M60 ammo difference has always been a
logistics nightmare, the common NATO ammo solves a big problem.

A few LAWWs would be great to have around for taking care of the odd
semi-hardened, but not too threatening target. Heck, the cops in LA
could have used a few in the last couple of days.

If I attack a Russin SAG, it won't be from that side of the water's
surface - if you see what I mean. By the time my Mark 48s finish with
the SAG, it'll be sagging, allright.

From the air, I would never dream of using iron bombs anyway - I don't
want to send anyone on a suicide mission as you have described. This
is what the Good Lord made Harpoons for, after all. And don't tell me
about the high-capability air defences killing all those slow-moving
Harpoons either. They fly so low and fast enough that many of them
WILL get through. They are much harder to hit than you think and you
have very little time to detect them, target them, and hit them. I've
seen pictures of what they do to destroyers - and it ain't pretty. The
whole fantail was gone to the waterline.

Guns do have their place, but for air defence - no.

The US Navy lost 2 A-6s on a low level

All this stuff is fascinating, and I know just enough about it all to
be dangerous.

Gene Bruce              Texas Instruments
                       Systems Group
                      Electronic Systems Division
_/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/    Ocean Surveillance Radar
   _/       _/      2501 W. University, MS 8056
  _/       _/      McKinney, Texas 75070
 _/       _/      Phone/Voice Mail: (972)952-4937
_/     _/_/_/    FAX: (972)952-4275