Sometimes stupid loses

On 5/5/2011 10:16 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-05 05:41:17 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/4/2011 6:31 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 5/4/2011 3:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

Le Snip


You show me something that indicates that a battleship is not more
difficult to sink than a cruiser.


Obviously you would rather be argumentative than educated. Feel free to
wallow in your ignorance.

BTW learn something about which gun platforms are n current use by the
Navy and why.

I'm still waiting for you to show me something that indicates that a
battleship is not more difficult to sink than a cruiser.

You obviously have a closed mend. Anyway here's the last of the hints.

Why did Roosevelt, who could select any ship in the Navy, choose a
cruiser.

I don't believe FDR personally selected the Indianapolis.


I have no way of knowing that, either way, but he had been an assistant
secretary of the Navy. AFAIK he was a very strong willed individual and
I doubt if he would not have been involved in the choice.














Why were the atomic bombs shipped to Timian on a cruiser, rather than
a battleship.

While the Indianapolis completed its delivery mission, it proved
tragically vulnerable on the cruise from Tinian to the Philippines.

At Pearl Harbor, no cruisers were sunk. Of the 5 Battleships sunk, 3
were salvaged, refitted and returned to service, and one, "Oklahoma" was
salvaged, only to be lost while under tow.

After the Battle of Leyte Gulf, where 12 U.S. Battleships and 24
cruisers were used, no US battleships engaged enemy shipping in naval
gun fights.
The only engagement U.S. Battleships had at Leyte was at Surigao Strait
on Oct. 25, 1944. There 6 battleships, 4 heavy cruisers, 4 light
cruisers, 28 destroyers, and 38 PT boats commanded by Adm. Jesse
Oldendorf destroyed the Japanese "Southern Force". That included 2
Japanese battle ships, the "Yamashiro" and the "Fuso". This was the last
"Battleship-to-Battleship" naval engagement in history.
The 6 U.S. Battleships in Oldendorf's fleet were "West Virginia",
"Maryland", Mississippi", "Tennessee", California", and "Pennsylvania".
All but the "Mississippi" had been sunk or damaged at Pearl Harbor in
December 1941, then salvaged and repaired.

Another interesting note is, none of the new Iowa Class Battleships were
part of this engagement, they were with Halsey on his futile chase of
the Japanese decoy fleet and never fired a shot. They were used as
support artillery for landing operations, as they were in Korea, and
purely as off-shore gun batteries in Vietnam and cruise missile
platforms in the Persian Gulf.




--
Peter

In article ,
says...

On 5/5/2011 10:16 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-05 05:41:17 -0700, PeterN said:

On 5/4/2011 6:31 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 5/4/2011 3:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

Le Snip


You show me something that indicates that a battleship is not more
difficult to sink than a cruiser.


Obviously you would rather be argumentative than educated. Feel free to
wallow in your ignorance.

BTW learn something about which gun platforms are n current use by the
Navy and why.

I'm still waiting for you to show me something that indicates that a
battleship is not more difficult to sink than a cruiser.

You obviously have a closed mend. Anyway here's the last of the hints.

Why did Roosevelt, who could select any ship in the Navy, choose a
cruiser.

I don't believe FDR personally selected the Indianapolis.


I have no way of knowing that, either way, but he had been an assistant
secretary of the Navy. AFAIK he was a very strong willed individual and
I doubt if he would not have been involved in the choice.

More speculation.

On 5/5/2011 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 5/5/2011 10:16 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-05 05:41:17 -0700, said:

On 5/4/2011 6:31 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 5/4/2011 3:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

Le Snip


You show me something that indicates that a battleship is not more
difficult to sink than a cruiser.


Obviously you would rather be argumentative than educated. Feel free to
wallow in your ignorance.

BTW learn something about which gun platforms are n current use by the
Navy and why.

I'm still waiting for you to show me something that indicates that a
battleship is not more difficult to sink than a cruiser.

You obviously have a closed mend. Anyway here's the last of the hints.

Why did Roosevelt, who could select any ship in the Navy, choose a
cruiser.

I don't believe FDR personally selected the Indianapolis.


I have no way of knowing that, either way, but he had been an assistant
secretary of the Navy. AFAIK he was a very strong willed individual and
I doubt if he would not have been involved in the choice.

More speculation.

And so it es labeled. If you have a better idea state it or STFU

--
Peter

In article ,
says...

On 5/5/2011 4:56 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 5/5/2011 10:16 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2011-05-05 05:41:17 -0700, said:

On 5/4/2011 6:31 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 5/4/2011 3:15 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

Le Snip


You show me something that indicates that a battleship is not more
difficult to sink than a cruiser.


Obviously you would rather be argumentative than educated. Feel free to
wallow in your ignorance.

BTW learn something about which gun platforms are n current use by the
Navy and why.

I'm still waiting for you to show me something that indicates that a
battleship is not more difficult to sink than a cruiser.

You obviously have a closed mend. Anyway here's the last of the hints.

Why did Roosevelt, who could select any ship in the Navy, choose a
cruiser.

I don't believe FDR personally selected the Indianapolis.


I have no way of knowing that, either way, but he had been an assistant
secretary of the Navy. AFAIK he was a very strong willed individual and
I doubt if he would not have been involved in the choice.

More speculation.

And so it es labeled. If you have a better idea state it or STFU

Prove that a battleship is not harder to sink than a cruiser or STFU.