To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 47854
47853  |  47855
Subject: 
Re: Lego seems to be copying Mega Blocks
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate
Followup-To: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 24 May 2004 11:37:21 GMT
Viewed: 
2524 times
  
In lugnet.general, Steve Hickman wrote:
  
   True. But the Soviets (and now the Russians) might disagree; the Kirov and her sisters? are sometimes classed as “battleships” or “battlecruisers.” We in the US more often call them “very heavy cruisers” or “command ships.”

all best

LFB

Well actually, Russian/Soviet classifications of warships were slightly skewed to gain a ‘numerical’ superiority over the United States Navy. By announcing the construction of a battleship/battlecruiser, they could claim a superiority in warship tonnage and class to the American fleet. The Kirov class ships are equipped with 130mm (about 5.1 inch) guns, which by the WWI through Cold War rating system qualifies them as Heavy Cruisers.

But this is the US naval classification system (or perhaps Jane’s)--and it is therefore that also used by those of us operating in retrospect. Remember that German battleships and battlecruisers in WWI (and in WWII--Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in particular) mounted weapons of 11” bore or even smaller. Not all, of course, and the trend was towards larger calibres, but the notation of “battleship” is a relative one and not absolute. It had more to do with role than with the specific qualities possessed, and those that persisted after WWII were still coined “battleships” only because they started life that way (not that there was a role for them anyways); reclassing them as “fire support vessels” or somesuch would have been a severe insult to good Navy men (like my father, who served aboard Missouri). By the standards of the anti-ship combat role, the Kirovs were in the 1980s more “battleship” in the classic sense than the Iowas ever actually got to be.

   In addition, the Kirovs primary weapon systems are anti-ship and cruise missiles, which signifies them as guided missile ships. A battleship on the otherhand, requires at least 12 inch guns to be classed as such. While the Iowas did receive vertical launch systems with tomahawks and harpoon anti-ship missiles at the end of their lifespans, it was still their large 16 inch guns that qualified them as battleships. Finally, the Kirovs do not meet battlecruiser standards again because of their relative small gun size and heavier armor than a true battlecruiser. The last true battlecruiser was the Alaska class, of which two were completed.

But if you look at the various proposals for completion of the Iowa-class BB Kentucky, some of which if memory serves did eliminate the HG altogether, they still refer to it as “BB” (though with suffixes at times). It wasn’t until the mid-1960s that the guided missile was really placed in that other category. The same (again, if memory serves) held true for various completion scenarios for Hawaii, the third of the Alaskas. Weren’t the Alaskas reclassed as “large cruisers” at some point in their careers anyways?

   Er, sorry about that. The short answer is that, no, there are no battleships left. They proved too costly for modern nations to maintain, especially with the availability of long range strike missiles and aircraft. And the Kirov class is defined by the U.S. Navy as a Heavy Guided Missile Cruiser.

I was simply pointing out that what you define as a “battleship” depends on who’s doing the defining and when; in part to make the case that the demise of the “battleship” category has as much to do with the end of the line-of-battle as it does with the demise of the heavy gun, if not more, and the termination of the battleship’s “key number” status for making comparisons in favor of the attack carrier. I doubt anyone would deny that in surface naval combat, a WWII-vintage battleship would not last long against the latest generation of surface combatants (even destroyers!), and even if it did, the weapons systems supposedly defining the “battleship” would not be the reason.

all best

LFB

(XFUT -> .ot.debate)



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Lego seems to be copying Mega Blocks
 
(...) Very true. But, even the Germans considered the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst something called 'Pocket Battleships.' This was a peculiar way to present a ship that was greatly outclassed by BBs and BCs. The Germans could thus claim Naval equality (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Lego seems to be copying Mega Blocks
 
(...) Well actually, Russian/Soviet classifications of warships were slightly skewed to gain a 'numerical' superiority over the United States Navy. By announcing the construction of a battleship/battlecruiser, they could claim a superiority in (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.general, FTX)

24 Messages in This Thread:






Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR