Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
By far the most famous escort carriers were those that made up Taffy 3. In the Battle off Samar, part of the Leyte Gulf campaign, they suddenly found themselves taking fire from Admiral Kurita's entire naval group, including the battleship Yamato.
The saga of Taffy 3 at Samar is surely one of the most amazing in the history of naval warfare, most certainly the greatest mismatch of the war in the Pacific, in which a woefully overmatched force inflicted heavy casualties on a superior force and caused it to withdraw. As a former tincan sailor, the deeds of the 3 destroyers and 4 destroyer escorts that day instilled a sense of pride in having served on such a ship. Once again we can play what if. What if Kurita had not been checked but instead continued onward? What havoc might his battleships and cruisers done on our supply and troop ships?
I'm not diminishing anything. I just think that the expense of modernization and maintenance of battleships was not justified and did not significantly increase the Navy's already impressive capabilities. I like battleships as much as the next guy but our resources are not unlimited.
The modernization of the Iowa's during the Cold War had nothing to do with enhancing the navies capabilities and everything to do with a show of force so to speak. The U.S. strategy at the time was to engage the Soviets in a weapons race that we knew their fragile economy simply couldn't sustain.
While programs like SDI were pipe dreams on our end, it struck real fear into the Soviets. Unfortunately SDI only existed in concept and we couldn't exactly show it off. So it fell to other programs to provide the visual punch needed. One of those was the refit of the Iowa's. There is nothing quite like seeing the image of a battlewagon underway with it's guns bristling in the sun and firing broadsides.
So, were the Iowa's needed, not at all. As you stated they provided a capability that could be replicated easily with other weapons systems. However, what nothing else could do was give the image of power that those ships could project.
Just remember 6/3,if you are not a snipe you are just a passenger!!!!
Passenger? We were not even supposed to talk to snipes unless absolutely required. While snipes were considered to be somewhat above the deck apes, it was considered to be demeaning to associate with them. Just kidding, on my first ship my best friend was an I C Electrician.
Unfortunately SDI only existed in concept and we couldn't exactly show it off.
Heh-heh-heh! Speaking as one who was employed by a defense contractor at the time, we were doing our absolute best to 'show it off.' ["Can you say 'Brilliant Pebbles?' I knew you could!"]
The thing is, we came very close to making it work!
Heh-heh-heh! Speaking as one who was employed by a defense contractor at the time, we were doing our absolute best to 'show it off.' ["Can you say 'Brilliant Pebbles?' I knew you could!"]
The thing is, we came very close to making it work!
I always get a chuckle when I recall the conversation of Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavick. Gorbachev proposed eliminating ALL nuclear weapons and delivery systems...as long as the U.S. abandoned SDI. Whether or not we ever got it to work, it sure had them scared and served it's purpose.
I always get a chuckle when I recall the conversation of Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavick. Gorbachev proposed eliminating ALL nuclear weapons and delivery systems...as long as the U.S. abandoned SDI. Whether or not we ever got it to work, it sure had them scared and served it's purpose.
Actually it didn't - and therein lies the irony and tragedy of it all. We COULD have reached an agreement where both sides reduced their nuclear stockpiles to only a 100 nukes each. But Reagan insisted on keeping SDI ... and nothing meaningful was accomplished. Yeah, it scared the USSR, but that is not what led to its collapse. It fell apart for internal reasons.
Passenger? We were not even supposed to talk to snipes unless absolutely required. While snipes were considered to be somewhat above the deck apes, it was considered to be demeaning to associate with them. Just kidding, on my first ship my best friend was an I C Electrician.
I have made a VERY good living for the past 30 years based upon the 6 that I spent in "the pit".One of the better decisions I backed into in my life.Go Navy!!!
Actually it didn't - and therein lies the irony and tragedy of it all. We COULD have reached an agreement where both sides reduced their nuclear stockpiles to only a 100 nukes each. But Reagan insisted on keeping SDI ... and nothing meaningful was accomplished. Yeah, it scared the USSR, but that is not what led to its collapse. It fell apart for internal reasons.
I didn't mean to imply that the collapse of the Soviet Union had anything to do with SDI. However, it was a part of it. The USSR fell apart from within, but that failure was accelerated by two factors:
1. The price of oil collapsed (maybe we have our buddies in the Kingdom of Saud to thank for that...) which greatly hurt Soviet export revenues putting a strain on their economy.
2. The Soviets felt they had to match Americas military developments and capabilities. We went on a spending spree and put great pressure on their already weakened economy to try and keep up.
These economic hardships are what led directly to Gorbachev's policies to stimulate the economy and that led to a domino effect ending in the collapse.
As for the meeting, I do think Reagan blundered. He could have agreed to Gorbachev's demand that SDI remain laboratory bound for 10 years and achieved a major disarmament. However, there were various back and forths.
The original Soviet proposal was to eliminate all intermediate weapons (INF's) from Europe and also eliminate 50% of all other strategic weapons (including ICBM's), not counting weapons held by Britain and France. In exchange the U.S. would not pursue SDI for 10 years.
The Americans countered with the proposal to eliminate all balistic missiles in 10 years, but still pursue SDI.
The Soviets then countered with the proposal to eliminate ALL nuclear weapons within 10 years under the agreement that SDI be restricted to laboratory testing only during that period.
The negotiations ended at that point as Reagan felt that there was no way to ever insure that the weapons were actually eliminated. He was also quite right that once such weapons had been built, they are easily built again. His folly was not realizing that keeping SDI in the lab for 10 years really wasn't a restriction as the technology was just beginning to be developed.
Even though the negotiations did not achieve what they could have, it did prove how far each side was willing to go and also opened up the Soviets to discussing human rights issues. This meeting did eventually culminate in the INF Treaty a year later.
I thnk the most graceful & beautiful Big Gun ships of WWII were the Alaska Class "Battlecruisers" which are sometimes referred to as lightly-armored battleships.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We were not even supposed to talk to snipes unless absolutely required.
Just kidding, on my first ship my best friend was an I C Electrician. 
) which greatly hurt Soviet export revenues putting a strain on their economy.
