Subject: Re: Carrier Class Gateway

From: Ben Yalow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 22:06:57 -0400

At 05:00 PM 4/26/01 -0700, Peter Deutsch wrote:
>
>
>"Willis, Scott L" wrote:
>> 
>> Why Waste time with calculations, It's an American Ship!  Swing the 16" guns
>> and blow the Bridge. Bush can call it routine and not apologize for it.
>
>Errr, actually carriers don't have 16" guns, the battleships did. There
>*were* smaller caliber turrents on the older (e.g. WWII Essex class)
>carriers for antiaircraft work, and the newer carriers have such things
>as Phalanx for the same reason, but definitely not something as big as
>16". Now, sending off a flight of F-15s with laser guided weapons on the
>other hand...

Actually, while the Essex class carried some smaller guns (5", and then lots
of smaller caliber), the largest guns on US carriers were on Lexington
(CV-2), and Saratoga (CV-3).  Since they were originally laid down as battle
cruisers, and later converted to carriers, they still had 8 8" guns.

>					- peterd

Ben
-----
Ben Yalow                                    [email-masked]

---

From: Betsy Brennan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:10:59 -0400

I'm sure this is a stupid question (and I will probably get flamed for this email),
but what does this have to do with the IETF?

---

From: Gene Gaines <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:46:17 -0400

Betsy,

I agree.

Please take the off-topic nonsense off the IETF list.

You are wasting my time.

Gene Gaines
[email-masked]
Sterling, Virginia USA

--

---

From: "Jose Manuel Arronte Garcia" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:57:18 -0500

Meeee toooooooooo!

M.

---

From: Amara Nwankpa <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001 12:57:02 +0000

> > Ben Yalow                                    [email-masked]

sounds interesting to me. :)

Amara