Age of the battleship really ended when?

[chuck]

In 1916 the british blew a mine under the lochnagar trench, using 60,000 lbs of ammonall debriss rose to about 4,000 ft.


i wownder what this would do to the pyramids

I bet if you put in a mere 30 tons of explosives under the 6 million ton pyramid and detonate it, the center part of the pyramid might heave up an inch or two, some smoke will shoot out of the seams between rocks, and then it will settle back down more or less in its original configuration, perhaps with its astonishingly precise original alignment of edges slightly disturbed, but otherwise undamaged. Remember each lb, or fist sized block, of explosive in this scenario will have to move 100 tons of rocks.

I bet If you pack all the powder in an entire battleship magazine, say 300 tons, under the pyramid, the pyramid might heave a little higher, some surface venting of explosive gases through its internal system of passages will occur, and it might shake off a certain quantity of loose blocks off of its surface, and it might settle down with its edge alignment slightly more disturbed, but I bet it would still look very much like a pyramid and you would still be hard pressed to find any evidence of damage on casual examination.

[richter111]

with all sincerity, I hope no act of terrorism is EVER perpetrated on the pyramids. You know we ALL will be the chief suspects!!!

[chuck]

I think in this thread we deviated from the original subject as far as we have ever deviated with any thread,starting from a discussion about the end of battleships we meandered all the way to how to blow up a pyramid.



If anyone wants to discuss how the structural geology of Tibetan plateau effects how many battleship shells it would take to level mount Everest, I am game!

[Guest]

In 1916 the british blew a mine under the lochnagar trench, using 60,000 lbs of ammonall debriss rose to about 4,000 ft.


i wownder what this would do to the pyramids

Theoretically of cource

It would really upset a bunch of mummies!!

[HMAS]

If anyone wants to discuss how the structural geology of Tibetan plateau effects how many battleship shells it would take to level mount Everest, I am game!
Well yes I would love too as well, however are we using 16" turrets land mounted or do we have to transport a battleship there?
I'll bet your redundant ship against my new ship as below.

ncc.jpg

[kennylibben]

Sign Me Up!

I'd love to go to tibet, and if by shelling it is the only means, that'll do!

Now, are we shelling the TIBETANS, or the COMMIES?

[chuck]

do we have to transport a battleship there?

Any battleship worth its salt would be able to blast a canal from the sea through the Himalaya foot hills to the base of Mt. Everest using the awesome fire power of its 16" guns. And from there it can then commence the penultimate bombardment of the summit of Mt. Everest a mere 40 ship lengths above.

[chuck]

Now, are we shelling the TIBETANS, or the COMMIES?

We are shelling the mountain, Kenny. Get with the game!

[richter111]

reminds me of a commercial from when I was a child..

How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop????

One, two, three, CRUNCH...

The world may never know...........

How many shells does it take to destroy a _____________

I am somehow reminded that no matter how old we get, we all tend to be young kids with a model, and handful of fireworks, and most importantly, no parents around!



Ric

[kennylibben]

Now, are we shelling the TIBETANS, or the COMMIES?

We are shelling the mountain, Kenny. Get with the game!

Yes, but you see... if we say we are shelling the tibetans on the mountain, the Chinese may like us more. If we say we are shelling Chinese on the mountain, most of the world will like us more!

[DJ Blackburn]

with all sincerity, I hope no act of terrorism is EVER perpetrated on the pyramids. You know we ALL will be the chief suspects!!!

WRONG!! The only one who will be blamed is George W. Bush.

[bengtsson]

"The age of the Battleship [as THE captial ship ,the one class which decided who controls the seas] ended when" : USN task force 58 was formed. This Carrier fleet brought together enough naval airpower to defeat any Battleship force long before that force could approach within gun range.
One could also argue that while the Japanese had their 6 carrier force combined, such as at Pearl Harbor, that the age of the Battleship had ended. But since that force [four of them] was quickly sunk by USN Carriers, the Battleship was still a potent weapon for a year or so afterwards .Task force 58 was more or less too strong to be sunk by any force that existed to oppose it. So that ended the BB as a capital ship. In my opinion.
So my best effort to answer the original question is. Task Force 58 Any opinions??

Bob B.

[Werner]

That may be what history demonstrates, but the reality is, from the mid-1930s on, no exclusively surface force was safe without command of the airspace around it. The tactics and equipment were ready, they only wanted an opportunity.

[chuck]

I don't completely agree. Halsey was intent upon engaging Ozawa's carrier force with his battleships at Leyty gulf. The reason why task force 58 seemed to decisively establish the dominance of carriers is because there is no comparable carrier force to oppose it. In such circumstances there is no strong reason to call on battleships, even though Halsey was still trying to call on his battleships anyway. It seems to me that, had there been an opponent who could deploy a carrier force of competitive quantity and quality, including effective CIC directed, radar assisted carrier fleet air defence, then it is well possible that taskforce 58 and the notional opponent would exhaust their air powers against each other without inflicting decisive blow upon each other, and giving rise to opportunity for skillful deployment of accompanying battleship forces to decide the issue.

[Werner]

I don't completely agree. Halsey was intent upon engaging Ozawa's carrier force with his battleships at Leyty gulf. The reason why task force 58 seemed to decisively establish the dominance of carriers is because there is no comparable carrier force to oppose it. In such circumstances there is no strong reason to call on battleships, even though Halsey was still trying to call on his battleships anyway. It seems to me that, had there been an opponent who could deploy a carrier force of competitive quantity and quality, including effective CIC directed, radar assisted carrier fleet air defence, then it is well possible that taskforce 58 and the notional opponent would exhaust their air powers against each other without inflicting decisive blow upon each other, and giving rise to opportunity for skillful deployment of accompanying battleship forces to decide the issue.

That's not an accurate reading of the chain of events. First of all it was TF38. The 3rd Fleet operations order (probably written by "Soc" McMorris) specified a surface action group ("SAG"), commanded by ComBatPac, Willis A. Lee (CTF 34). Given the uncertainties of communication until 1980, Halsey could decide whether to detach the SAG or not. He wanted the BBs to shell the carriers, trusting the rear guard to McCain (3 CVs), who was returning from Ulithi, and Oldendorf's battleships. I do not believe he made an error based on the available information.

Nimitz wrote a series of "battle lessons" which stressed the Japanese tendency to spread their resources too thin and with too many missions. They also stressed the Japanese tendency to consistently fail to follow up a victory. Halsey was applying Nimitz' doctrines as one might expect. US victories occur when the US presses a Japanese failure without waiting to consolidate gains. Halsey was hoping for a "knock-out punch" against the remaining Japanese offensive power, which does not include surface warfare groups in his mind. Remember, intelligence said Japan will have a half-dozen (or more) new fleet carriers in short order. Halsey sees them as the single way Japan can recover the strategic offensive.

If Kurita had been 100% successful given the resources he had, he would not have been able to expel the Americans from Leyte, and their damaged SAG would have been decimated on withdrawal. I don't see how Halsey exposed the war effort. A few mostly empty transports would be neither here nor there.

[Lesforan]

To shell those mountains would endanger the yeti, an already threatened speces. Neither the US or China would get away with that.
As far as I am concerned, I think the Chinese should put their new battleship in service (with upgraded fire control) and go after the Indonesian pirates.

This might encourage the US to put their battleships back in service, as state of the art weaponry would not be needed. Remember, there are more out there than just the Iowas. Imagine Massachucetts, Alabama, North Carolina, and even Texas back thumping bad guys.

Success of the Chinese battleship could encourage a re-appearance of contemporary American reproductions: original battleships Maine and Texas, protected cruiser Olympia. It would warm the reactionary heart of this old reprobate.

[Lesforan]

I think a good example of the limitations of conventional explosives in re-arranging natural formations can be seen in the ill-concieved British attempt to destroy Helgoland Island. Detonating a huge explosive charge buried within the island only succeeded in creating a plateau out of a hillside.

I found this experiment particularly odious because of my family ancestry located there. Fortunately, the centuries-old church containing population archives was not flattened, nor even damaged, as far as I know.

They should have chosen an island farther from shore, and a nuclear device for this sort of tomfoolery (see Bikini Atoll).

[bengtsson]

I don't completely agree. Halsey was intent upon engaging Ozawa's carrier force with his battleships at Leyty gulf. The reason why task force 58 seemed to decisively establish the dominance of carriers is because there is no comparable carrier force to oppose it. In such circumstances there is no strong reason to call on battleships, even though Halsey was still trying to call on his battleships anyway. It seems to me that, had there been an opponent who could deploy a carrier force of competitive quantity and quality, including effective CIC directed, radar assisted carrier fleet air defence, then it is well possible that taskforce 58 and the notional opponent would exhaust their air powers against each other without inflicting decisive blow upon each other, and giving rise to opportunity for skillful deployment of accompanying battleship forces to decide the issue.

Given all that ,you are correct. But, Task force 58 was formed long before Leyte Gulf. It's power was demonstated in it's ability to destroy land based air power, as well as any surface ship around. To the point you made, we could also say that after the two carrier forces were exhausted, the BBs would fight it out, they would exhaust themsleves and then the Heavy Cruisers would be the decise element of the battle. Then on to DDs? My point was, what force decided global naval power? The large Carrier force must be the amswer. Even BB lovers in the IJN listed Battleships as Auxiliary forces by the time of Leyte gulf. Meaning secondary to Carrier and Land based airpower. I was trying to stick to the original spirit of the question. But I agree, Leyte Gulf presents many interesting aspects as a naval battle, but not as the decider of whether the BB was still the decider of naval power. It's day was over as anything but a useful arm of the larger Carrier Forces. Who had the Carriers, decided who controlled the sea. In my opinion

Bob B.
Bob B.

[chuck]

To shell those mountains would endanger the yeti, an already threatened speces. Neither the US or China would get away with that.

Besides, it would put all those "cryptozooalogists" out of business. That would be really cruel!

[Tracy White]

I think there is a an awful lot of crack smoking going on here.