JFK's greatest achievements/Apollo (Was: Deep Apologies to everyone....)

(Richard Casady) wrote:

On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 23:40:26 +0000 (UTC), Rick Jones
wrote:

They
would have been the only US Navy battleship class to have come
close to rivaling the Empire of Japan's Yamato-class battleships
in terms of armor, weaponry, and displacement.

The Yamato shells were not all the good. Only 3300 lbs. A scaled up
2700 16in would weigh 3900 lbs. The Yamato shells would not penetrate
much if any better than Iowa shells. A 55 caliber 16inch would be
better. In other words, the Yamatos were not that good, ton for ton.

And, IIRC, they had deficiencies in their handling and loading,
director, and fire control systems as well. Armor and shell weight
count for a lot, but they are far from the whole of the picture.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:

My home state doesn't have a model of it's namesake BB on display...

It's got the actual BB.


Ours got cut up for scrap metal, or a least most of it....a couple of
decades back they were doing landscaping at our capital grounds when
they ran into a very large piece of metal sunken into the ground in a
grove of trees. It turned out to be the decoration that was mounted on
the bow of the North Dakota. Apparently it had been put on display after
the ship was decommissioned and had just slowly sunk into the ground as
the trees grew up around it till everyone forgot it was there.
It was raised out of the ground and repaired, and is now on display just
outside the section of the museum that has the model in it, visible
through the windows of that room.
You can see this somewhat throwback feature of the battleship on a photo
of its launching, he
http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...a/ndak1908.jpg
She had a unusual turret layout for a U.S. battleship, with two turrets
forward and three turrets aft:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/012964.jpg
The cage masts are very striking on the big model of her, though I'd
hate to be the person who had to build them.
Here, Japanese Admiral Togo visits the ship in 1911:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/012970.jpg
His remark: "Our new battleships will have _six_ turrets, and make this
heap look like a fukin' iron lifeboat, ye scurvy dogs." ...did not sit
well with the captain or crew, who quickly showed him the gangplank.
Here is the admiral being run off of the ship; the crew no doubt already
suspecting future Japanese treachery and counting the silverwa
http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/012971.jpg
....unaware that they had just met "Mr. Joe Fuji", world famous Admiral
Togo impersonator. :-D

Pat

Rick Jones wrote:
Sounds more like they would have been spectacular targets:

With an intended armament of twelve 16-inch (406 mm) guns and a
greater anti-aircraft capability than the preceding Iowa class,
the Montanas would have been the largest and the most
heavily-armed battleships put to sea by the United States. They
would have been the only US Navy battleship class to have come
close to rivaling the Empire of Japan's Yamato-class battleships
in terms of armor, weaponry, and displacement.

Those Yamoto-class battleships were so very effective weren't they...


Back prior to WW II, there was a article in one of the old
science/mechanics magazines I used to have of a "Future U.S. Battleship"
that was designed to withstand air attack. It would have made a great
model, as it was all smooth and streamlined and had domed turrets. One
really odd feature was the funnel, which had a big louvered assembly
atop it to prevent bombs going down it into the ship. If you had ever
tried to armor a battleship as heavily as shown in the article, it would
have become a submarine.

Pat

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Back prior to WW II, there was a article in one of the old
science/mechanics magazines I used to have of a "Future U.S. Battleship"
that was designed to withstand air attack. It would have made a great
model, as it was all smooth and streamlined and had domed turrets. One
really odd feature was the funnel, which had a big louvered assembly
atop it to prevent bombs going down it into the ship.

There were in fact perforated armor plates in way of the armored decks
in the uptakes of armored ships.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Feb 6, 12:11*am, Neil Gerace wrote:
On Feb 6, 3:03*am, Eric Chomko wrote:

The reason JFK wanted to go into space and onto the moon was to have
the country implement a large difficult task that would have
historical significance.

"So it's a question of prestige then, is it, Mr Bridger?"
"Yes Croker. It's a question of prestige."

I think its more like:
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to
the moon in this decade and do the other things,
not because they are easy, but because they are
hard, because that goal will serve to organize
and measure the best of our energies and skills,
because that challenge is one that we are willing
to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:25:17 -0600, Pat Flannery
wrote:

If you had ever
tried to armor a battleship as heavily as shown in the article, it would
have become a submarine.

Not really. All you have to do is increase the draft to gain the
bouyancy. Today tankers draw some 90 feet. Its not like you can't weld
on more steel. The added displancement would run up the power
required, of course. They have tanker terminals miles offshore, and
very few drydocks anywhere. With that much draft there would be few
harbors and no docks. Have lighter everything, or do some really
expensive dredging.

Casady

Derek Lyons wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

They've got a _huge_ model of the battleship on display next to it.

My home state doesn't have a model of it's namesake BB on display...

It's got the actual BB.



D.

And it's not in the *least* bit ostentatious, I'm sure. Tastefully done ?
Ok, I'm jealous, which ship is it ?

cheers....Jeff

Derek Lyons wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

They've got a _huge_ model of the battleship on display next to it.

My home state doesn't have a model of it's namesake BB on display...

It's got the actual BB.

Hey, mine too! (Massachusetts)
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

It doesn't take many trips in Air Force One
to spoil you. -- Ronald Reagan

"Jeffrey Hamilton" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

They've got a _huge_ model of the battleship on display next to it.

My home state doesn't have a model of it's namesake BB on display...

It's got the actual BB.



D.

And it's not in the *least* bit ostentatious, I'm sure. Tastefully done ?
Ok, I'm jealous, which ship is it ?

Only one of the best looking ever built, not that I'm biased or
anything...

North Carolina.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:
There were in fact perforated armor plates in way of the armored decks
in the uptakes of armored ships.


Boy, when the Val pilot can get through your AA fire and drop his bomb
_that_ accurately...you've got a _real_ problem.
That bomb that "went down the smokestack" on the Arizona (the fatal bomb
wasn't anywhere near the funnel) and blew it up didn't help things any.
Hans-Ulrich Rudel claimed he had dropped a bomb down the funnel of a
Russian battleship with his Stuka and destroyed it, but if you want to
sink a battleship, you hit in in one of its magazines, not in its funnel.
Oddly enough, most battleships didn't have their ammo stored anywhere
near the fires that heated their boilers. :-D