Edit: I wrote something in response to this, but disregard. This is the submarine thread! Let's get back to submarines. Jokes involving submarines are fair game.I think it had very little to do with immigration. It was more a generational thing related to WW2. My parents grew up with WW1 as their immediate history, and it left that sense of "the trenches" and wars being these long protracted standoff affairs where the front really never moved. When the blitzkrieg folded Poland in a matter of days there was less inclination to recognize that the Germans had adopted a revolutionary form of warfare than there was to just blame it on some inherent flaw in the Poles.
Edit: I wrote something in response to this, but disregard. This is the submarine thread! Let's get back to submarines. Jokes involving submarines are fair game.
Jokes involving submarines are fair game.
Missile strikes don't sink a ship as fast as a torpedo, but even the non nuclear ones will clear the decks. They make it very hard to get out and over the side, from what I understand.
Depends on the warhead size. (Yes I realize this is stating the obvious.) Harpoons, Exocets, Tomahawks, and such don't have the large warheads that some of the bigger Russian ones apparently do. You might recall that a Perry-class frigate USS Stark took two Exocet hits, and while one of them failed to detonate, the one that did explode didn't obliterate the ship and crew.
Was it the British who made Frigates out of aluminum and the exocet hit in in the Falklands war.
Depends on the warhead size. (Yes I realize this is stating the obvious.) Harpoons, Exocets, Tomahawks, and such don't have the large warheads that some of the bigger Russian ones apparently do. You might recall that a Perry-class frigate USS Stark took two Exocet hits, and while one of them failed to detonate, the one that did explode didn't obliterate the ship and crew.
Was it the British who made Frigates out of aluminum and the exocet hit in in the Falklands war.
Granit has starting mass of 7 tonnes and 750 kg warhead, but lacks hypersonic speed. Zircon has 300-400 kg warhead and speed up to 8 mach.I think a conventional Tomahawk warhead is like three times the size of an Exocet warhead, but maybe I'm overestimating how hard a missile strike would be. FWIW a Tomahawk has a heavier warhead than the Mk48 torpedo that was the standard in my day, but there's no beating that under the keel detonation for kill power. Kinda surprising that the classic "torpedo bomber" aircraft apparently went out of style, considering.
Well, those sound like they would hurt pretty bad.Granit has starting mass of 7 tonnes and 750 kg warhead, but lacks hypersonic speed. Zircon has 300-400 kg warhead and speed up to 8 mach.
Granit has starting mass of 7 tonnes and 750 kg warhead, but lacks hypersonic speed. Zircon has 300-400 kg warhead and speed up to 8 mach.
From what I read, Granit (several tonnes at 1.5-2 machs) can sink medium-sized ship without warhead too. But it's easier to intercept.A mach 8 speed is going to do critical damage to a ship, even without a warhead.
From what I read, Granit (several tonnes at 1.5-2 machs) can sink medium-sized ship without warhead too. But it's easier to intercept.
Granit is a late Soviet technology, not very modern but quite capable. Missiles can attack in group and coordinate actions between each others.Easier to intercept is an issue. A warhead the size you describe will do critical to fatal damage to most ships. Assuming the missile actually hits. But at the same time, the chances of defensive measures stopping that missile will be much greater. A higher speed missile is harder to hit with defensive fire.
The unknown factor in the effectiveness of these missiles is how good their targeting systems are. A miss is a miss, no matter how big your warhead or fast your missile.
Were you onboard when she ran aground?That one. After the modifications we were effectively the class, with the John Marshall. One of a kind, in the Pacific while they got the Atlantic and Med. I'd actually be in that picture if it weren't for the fact that I was under the waterline, as usual.
Were you onboard when she ran aground?