Quote:
Originally Posted by Armchair General
With enough dinky little 500 lb warheads you should be able to get mission kill, make the ship unable to launch the nukes. We were able to smash the Hiei up pretty well with 5" guns and smaller anti-aircraft weapons in Guadalcanal. Can't sink a battleship with such weapons, but I doubt the ABLs for the Tomahawks could take too much fire.
|
True enough, that would pretty much suffice (assuming you could do a proper BDA) but in the case of potential nukes I guess you pour on the ordnance until the coroners throw up their hands and ask for a vacuum cleaner.
(and the original question was Can cruise missiles
sink the Missouri?
)
Small plot hole: 2 TLAM-N's have been launched, the rest were on the sub that was destroyed by 16-inch gunfire. Good so far?
Most of the terrorists are dead, if swaggering Steven and his scratch crew of strippers, launderers and whoever else were keeping a running body count. (passenger complement of a CH-46? 25 or so)
The ship's missile fire control (Of
course! The FIRE CONTROL!) is back in friendly hands. Not to mention smashed into a million pieces.
There is still at the very least, several
hundred Missouri sailors still alive. (They were operating on a "skeleton crew" or whatever)
So why is the Navy still so anxious to destroy the
Missouri?
Yes, there are still conventional Tomahawks and Harpoons (just in case you want to keep redecorating Observation Island with anti-ship missiles
) but how are you going to launch them?
Why not hold off for a few minutes and see if maybe you can keep your battleship (oh yeah, and her crew) instead of blasting it into a blazing derelict?
Why did Steven have to cry like a little girl and beg the admiral to call off his bombers
after the two nukes were destroyed?
Ah well, at the battleships got one movie before they were put away.
It's a shame that it had to be a Seagal movie.