Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnought
[b]However the effects upon the two light cruisers (Savana & Philadelphia) I pointed out should have been a catastrophy since not only lighter in armor but also less compartmentized and hit in the same areas (turrets) then the battleships you mentioned above and yet returned to service one year later and went on after the war to serve other navy's for one of them the other retained. Hows that for hull integrity? [/B}
|
All that proves is that not every hit is the same. The survival of these ships certainly can't just be attributed to the fact they were Americun. USS Philadelphia for example suffered a near-mis, not a direct hit. How or why you regard that as similar to the hits on the Roma is a bit mind-boggling. USS Savannah was hit in #3 turret roof with the explosion passing all the way through the turret, through the magazine and out the bottom. It was the ingress of flooding seawater which extinguished the magazine fires and saved the ship. But I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion of the minutia of these incidents since that isn't the point anyway. The point is, a large missile can, with one or two hits, disable or even in the right circumstances destroy a battleship. And Granit is an uglier mother than FX-1400.
Quote:
|
Granite is a leathal missle there is no doubt. But stating that all of those Granits will make the kill or even 16 of the 20 (as some mentioned) is doubtfull.
|
Why is that doubtful? What makes it so? You keep stating it is doubtful, but there is nothing concrete that makes this so. Even if we account for a 10% dud rate (technical failure of whatever kind) which is probably realistic, that leaves 18 potential hits. Let's say another 10% get decoyed or in the unlikely event intercepted that still leaves 16 inbound. Let us recall this is exactly the sort of threat that hundreds of billions of dollars were invested in Aegis for.
Quote:
|
Stating that an Iowa couldn't defend hereself against a Kirov is a non-factual statement. Nor the possibility of her winning the engagmnent.
|
Again I ask, why is this so. Merely stating it is so over and over does not make it so. You keep going on about how different the ships are. You could not be more right. An Iowa, as configured in 1991 is not designed to defend against even conventional air attack, let alone against multiple inbound supersonic 5 ton missiles with HEAT warheads. The Iowa is not designed to seek out her own targets at long range. Other assets are supposed to be there to do that for her. But in our hypothetical the Iowa is alone and on her own, providing her own defense and her own target information, a job for which she is not equipped but a Kirov is.