Which ship class would have been 'the best' for 80's reactivation?

[Ming777]

Actually, the Iowa had 190mm of armor versus 150 mm of the Richelieu. The armor belt itself is slanted, providing 13.5 inches of grade b armor to deal with.

As for the roma, it only had a maximum of 150 mm deckarmor over the megazines; it was around 100 mm over machinery and 90 along the sides of the ship. As well, they were surrendering, so their combat readiness and damage control was far from optimal. As well, Italian Steel was not exactly the best quality of armor.

Remember this: The tomahawk has a range of 2500 kilos, the Granit/shipwreck has a range of at most 625 kilometers. The sandbox is 550 km. The Iowa has 32 tomahawk, each with either 450kg of high explosive or submunition,which are deadly against a ship with 76mm armor only around its reactor, although they are subsonic; a Kirov has 20 shipwrecks, each with 750kg of HE that move at a maximum of mach 2.5.

 

[Gridley]

Ah yes, 5" of armor steel is no better than tissue paper. Right. We're lucky the Cold War didn't go hot, or a single regiment of Backfires would have sunk the entire USN.

I guess the US really wasted its money, since nothing will stop the Uber Soviet ASMs.

Out of curiosity, xchen08 and Archdevil, do you also believe that a single Type 65 would sink a CVN? Or is the Instakill special weapon trait unique to the Kh-22?

 

[CalBear]

What is the obsession with WWII armor here?

Soviet AShM's generally were programmed to perform a radical 'pop-up' manouvre to throw off last ditch CIWS defences and penetrate the deck of their targets.

Iowas did not even have the thickest deck armor in WWII (Richeleu and Yamato had more - that high speed of the Iowa had to come from somewhere), against a Shipwreck (SS-N-19) or Sandbox (SS-N-12 with a 950 kg semi-armor-piercing warhead) it might as well be made of tissue paper. Almost a tonne of explosives hitting the ship at mach 2+ equals mission kill in the real world.

And if it actually does hit directly at the belt, it hits in in the worst possible way: straight on, instead of at a large angle as the belt was made for. Iowa's immune zone against its own guns certainly did not include point blank range, which is the equivalent angle a seaskimming AShM will hit at. And that missile will hit at a higher speed and carry many times the explosive payload of a 16" shell. Let's just hope there isn't a magazine behind the belt in that case.

As inspiration, we can look at the Italian BB Roma, which was attacked by Fritz-X guided bombs during WWII. Only two were enough to sink her. As an indication of the effectiveness of her armor: one of the bombs went through the ship and exploded under her keel. Modern Soviet AShMs will hit harder (they are powered by ramjets, not just gravity) and have an explosive several times that of their WWII predecessor.

The difficulty with the ASM is that it simply isn't designed to deal with a BB, especially on as well protected as the Iowas. The Iowas overall were the best protected warships ever floated (granted, this is because the IJN armor was of such vastly differing quality that the massive plates on the Yamatos fail to perform at the level one would expect based on mere size), with the South Dakotas running a virtual 1A to the BB 61s. It isn't just the initial deck plate, although the deck plate and its properties are a critical element in the entire protective package, it is the overall armor scheme that matters. It is this package that separate the BB 61s from the rest of the pack.

Modern ASM are not designed to deal with heavy armor, they are designed to defeat one-three inches of armor or limited amounts of Kelvar (the President class CVN have about 500 tons of Kelvar over the reactor spaces and other hyper critical areas, the exact amount is carefully kept secret but 500 tons is a reasonable estimation). Kelvar is a glorious thing, but it has serious limitations as is the case for any armor type. 500 tons (or 1,500 tons) of Kelvar isn't even in the same country as the 20,000-25,000 tons of plate that covers a BB 61, and is present on the decks below the main armored deck.

Could the Soviets have developed a weapon to defeat the armor scheme of a battleship? Of course.

Is it likely? Not if there were only the four Iowas, the ROI is way too small to justify the expense.

I would recommend that anyone with even a passing interest in naval armor pay a visit to Nathan Okun's site. It is linked at NavWeps.com, and is a treasure trove of information.

BTW: The Soviets expected that it would take at least a half dozen of their biggest ship killers to take out a CVN, and the expectation was that the actual killer would be fire. Carriers are just chock full of things that burn, including jet fuel in vast qualties (sufficent to "maintain intensive flight operations for up to 12 days") that simply don't exist on a surface combatant.

 

[Archdevil]

Actually, the Iowa had 190mm of armor versus 150 mm of the Richelieu. The armor belt itself is slanted, providing 13.5 inches of grade b armor to deal with.

According to my figures, it's 6" deck armor for Iowa versus 5.9-6.7" for Richeleu.

As for the roma, it only had a maximum of 150 mm deckarmor over the megazines; it was around 100 mm over machinery and 90 along the sides of the ship. As well, they were surrendering, so their combat readiness and damage control was far from optimal. As well, Italian Steel was not exactly the best quality of armor.

The point is not that Roma had inferior protection to Iowa, the point is that even a primitive guided glide bomb in all aspects inferior to modern AShMs went through the ship!

The difficulty with the ASM is that it simply isn't designed to deal with a BB, especially on as well protected as the Iowas. The Iowas overall were the best protected warships ever floated

Richeleu for example is generally regarded as slightly better protected thanks to better deck armor. Also, European armor at the time was slightly better than American thanks to more advanced hardening techniques (at least for the British and Germans, not completely sure about the French).

(granted, this is because the IJN armor was of such vastly differing quality that the massive plates on the Yamatos fail to perform at the level one would expect based on mere size),

Yamato more than compensated for that inferior quality with sheer thickness. It was just at an ineffecient use of tonnage and Iowa's superior speed, range, guns (especially AAA) and firecontrol made her the superior battleship.

It isn't just the initial deck plate, although the deck plate and its properties are a critical element in the entire protective package, it is the overall armor scheme that matters.

Iowa made some clear trade-offs to achieve her high speed of 33 knots. Its torpedo protection scheme for example was inferior to that of the preceding North Carolinas. Also, the design of her belt was clearly the result of design compromises; for the follow-up Montanas the belt would again be external.

Modern ASM are not designed to deal with heavy armor, they are designed to defeat one-three inches of armor or limited amounts of Kelvar

SS-N-12 Bazalt carries a 950 semi-armor piercing HE warhead. I somehow doubt the Soviets only intended that to be used for only 3 inches of armor.

(the President class CVN have about 500 tons of Kelvar over the reactor spaces and other hyper critical areas, the exact amount is carefully kept secret but 500 tons is a reasonable estimation). Kelvar is a glorious thing, but it has serious limitations as is the case for any armor type.

Kevlar is only (somewhat) effective against shrapnel. And maybe as a (temporary) barrier during fires.

500 tons (or 1,500 tons) of Kelvar isn't even in the same country as the 20,000-25,000 tons of plate that covers a BB 61, and is present on the decks below the main armored deck.

Could the Soviets have developed a weapon to defeat the armor scheme of a battleship? Of course.

Indeed: SS-N-12 & SS-N-19 are clear examples.

Is it likely? Not if there were only the four Iowas, the ROI is way too small to justify the expense.

The carrier killers were also useful as BB killers, so the Soviets saved themselves some development costs.

BTW: The Soviets expected that it would take at least a half dozen of their biggest ship killers to take out a CVN, and the expectation was that the actual killer would be fire. Carriers are just chock full of things that burn, including jet fuel in vast qualties (sufficent to "maintain intensive flight operations for up to 12 days") that simply don't exist on a surface combatant.

I highly doubt that if there's a big hole in the center of a flight deck (courtesy of ~1 tonne of HE arriving at Mach 2+) the carrier is conducting a lot of flight operations.

They would probably have fired half a dozen to ensure a hit.

 

[Wolfman]

So it's a one hit mission kill on a carrier?

 

[xchen08]

Ah yes, 5" of armor steel is no better than tissue paper. Right. We're lucky the Cold War didn't go hot, or a single regiment of Backfires would have sunk the entire USN.

I guess the US really wasted its money, since nothing will stop the Uber Soviet ASMs.

A single regiment of Backfires certainly would have sunk the entire USN if the USN had been stupid enough to build battleships and relied on armor to protect from ASMs. Thankfully, the USN wasn't idiotic enough to still think steel armor was effective protection against modern missiles, and instead invested in fighter squadrons and defensive missiles to stop the Backfires from launching and kill their missiles before impact.

Out of curiosity, xchen08 and Archdevil, do you also believe that a single Type 65 would sink a CVN? Or is the Instakill special weapon trait unique to the Kh-22

Out of curiosity, do you still believe that the Iowa can survive a missile that could instakill a CVN? And do you still think a few inches of 40 years out of date steel armor would protect against a 30-70 inch shaped charge?

 

[CalBear]

All I can say is that I strongly recommend the Okun site. All armor is not created equal.

According to my figures, it's 6" deck armor for Iowa versus 5.9-6.7" for Richeleu.



The point is not that Roma had inferior protection to Iowa, the point is that even a primitive guided glide bomb in all aspects inferior to modern AShMs went through the ship!



Richeleu for example is generally regarded as slightly better protected thanks to better deck armor. Also, European armor at the time was slightly better than American thanks to more advanced hardening techniques (at least for the British and Germans, not completely sure about the French).


Yamato more than compensated for that inferior quality with sheer thickness. It was just at an ineffecient use of tonnage and Iowa's superior speed, range, guns (especially AAA) and firecontrol made her the superior battleship.


Iowa made some clear trade-offs to achieve her high speed of 33 knots. Its torpedo protection scheme for example was inferior to that of the preceding North Carolinas. Also, the design of her belt was clearly the result of design compromises; for the follow-up Montanas the belt would again be external.


SS-N-12 Bazalt carries a 950 semi-armor piercing HE warhead. I somehow doubt the Soviets only intended that to be used for only 3 inches of armor.

Kevlar is only (somewhat) effective against shrapnel. And maybe as a (temporary) barrier during fires.

Indeed: SS-N-12 & SS-N-19 are clear examples.

The carrier killers were also useful as BB killers, so the Soviets saved themselves some development costs.


I highly doubt that if there's a big hole in the center of a flight deck (courtesy of ~1 tonne of HE arriving at Mach 2+) the carrier is conducting a lot of flight operations.

They would probably have fired half a dozen to ensure a hit.

 

[Atomo]

Woah

Wow, never expected this kinda passion over a simple multiple choice question. Based on the requirement (mandated by the elected officials of the time) to carry 32 Tomahawks I think the Iowas were the only way to go. I REALLY like the Des Moines class but they don't have the space for all those ABLs and the associated electrics and electronics. I don't like the idea of losing a whole turret full of guns just to make the mandated missles all fit within the weight/size/center of gravity constraints of the hull.

Why do I like the Des Moines so much? The rapid fire 8" guns. They are just so cool. I could imagine if they went forward with modernizing the Des Moines that combustable case ammo might have come around (like the rounds for the Abrams tank) to add that extra bit of coolness.

Watching the arguments go back and forth about the Iowas and the Alaskas makes me think that had one been around and the other not and vice versa we would have ended up with basically the same package and same impact in the 1980's. That's me being general about it but if it had been the Alaskas that were refitted, would things really be that different? Be honest now.

 

[jlckansas]

Doing some research I have found the term shaped explosives to be used to describe the warhead in Air to air and SAM missles, claymore mines, and land mines that are anti personnel. None of these are armor piercing rounds using the Munroe effect, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munroe_effect. Shaped explosives in the term of the Russian anti ship missiles, IMO since they are semi armor piercing, mean that upon penetration of the deck or hull of a modern ship it forces the explosives outward in a cylindrical fashion.
This would make sense if you are trying to knock a CVN out of action, since it would just be penetrating the deck or hull of a CVN and there is not the armor a BB would have.

 

[Archdevil]

So it's a one hit mission kill on a carrier?

A small boat with homemade explosives was enough to do a mission kill on USS Cole. Actually sinking ships generally requires a lot of effort, out of control fires or large amounts of ammo going up.

A mission kill doesn't require much. Modern electronics is notoriously fragile.
There is a reason the Iowa's were never fitted with SAM misslies: their systems could not even witstand Iowas firing her own main guns, let alone enemy missiles impacting at high velocity.

As an example, the USS Forrestal fire certainly took out a carrier. It was started by a single light Zuni rocket, which is basically a light firecracker compared to dedicated AShMs.

This was not just an unfortunate accident either: two years later, another misfiring Zuni rocket took out USS Enterprise for two months in dock.

 

[Riain]

The SAP warheads on Soviet AShMs were there to get past the bit of armour and go deep into a hull 40 metres across. In effect the missile had to get through 20 metres of armour, structural members and other shit to get to the good stuff like magazines, fuel bunkers and vital machinery. So mach 2-3 and a huge SAP warhead was the minimum needed to do a reasonable job.

 

[Riain]

As an example, the USS Forrestal fire certainly took out a carrier. It was started by a single light Zuni rocket, which is basically a light firecracker compared to dedicated AShMs.

This was not just an unfortunate accident either: two years later, another misfiring Zuni rocket took out USS Enterprise for two months in dock.

I don't think you can compare the 3 Vietnam carrier fires to an AShM attack. A carrier expecting an attack will flood the magazines and fuel bunkers with CO2, go to general quarters etc. This is not the sort of thing you do loitering off Vietnam for months on end secure in the knowledge that you are virtually immune from serious enemy attack, which I know the USN took good precaution against because they tasked RAN ships with overall responsibility for ESM.

 

[DD951]

(snip)

Trying to mount ASMs and land attack CMs onto a ship that is only useful as a shorebombardment platform was an idiotic waste of funds in the first place. Maybe not using a battleship base with all the history behind it could avoid that messup at least. Certainly, there is no particular reason to pack on just as many missiles, and there are still 2 more useless 5in turrets to remove. And why exactly would the Alaska refit need to serve as a flagship? The assault carriers that it would be operating with would and do serve perfectly well. At least with an Alaska, there wouldn't be any idiocy about building a BBBG around them as if they were still capital ships.

Actually, that was the entire rationale behind the reactivation & modernization of the Iowas in the 1980s- a political, not operational requirement for something that'd look big & impressive and could carry a lot of missiles to give the appearance of something that could counter the Soviet Kirov's as the centerpiece of a SAG- not sure if it was in Friedman's or something that I picked up from a Navweaps discussion, but at the time of their reactivation, there was serious talk of not bothering to reactivate the Iowa's main battery turrets since not having to man all those 16" guns would save a lot of manpower. Had one of the assorted 'strike cruiser' proposals of the 1970s had been built (think of a nuclear powered Ticonderoga on steroids with the lightweight 8" gun that had been experimented with in that decade), I'd say it'd be rather unlikely that the Iowas would have been reactivated in the 80s since the USN would already have an 'equivalent' of the Kirov. (Perhaps in the TL where the strike cruisers get built, one or two get an austere modernization, sort of an updated version of what New Jersey got for her Vietnam service, to act as part of an amphibious strike group, if Congress can be convinced to cough up the money without cutting something else in the defense budget to pay for it ITTL)

Perhaps a little OT now, but here's the comparative maneuverability data for WW2-era US warships taken from the appropriate volumes of Friedman's:

Alaska, according to the data tables in the back of the cruiser book had a tactical diameter of 1150 yards @ 20 kts & 915 yds. @ 30 kts

Battleships:

• Arkansas: (post-1920s rebuild): 630 yds @ 23 kts, 605 yds @ 15 kts
• Tennessee: (post-1943 rebuild) 610 yds @ 20 kts
• North Carolina: (model tests)- 620 yds @ 20 kts, 759 yds @ 27.5 kts; trials performance- 575 yds @ 14.5 kts, 683 yds @ 27.5 kts
• South Dakota: (model tests)- 700 yds @ 16 kts, 733 yds @ 26.5 kts
• Iowa: (model tests)- 760 yds @ 20 kts. 1430 @ 33 kts; (trials performance)- 814 yds @ 30 kts

As a further battleship comparison, Friedman's battleship book quotes a parts of a comparative study between North Carolina & HMS King George V done by the British Admiralty mid-war, which has the KGV having a tactical diameter of 930 yds @ 14.5 kts.

Carriers:

• Lexington: (model tests)- 1950 yds @ 33 kts (the worst of any US warship of WW2)
• Yorktown: 790 yds @ 30 kts
• Essex: 765 yds @ 30 kts
• Midway: 990 yds @ 30 kts
• Casablanca CVE: 450 yds @ 15 kts

Cruisers:

• Pensacola: 570 yds @ 20 kts
• Northampton: 750 yds @ 20 kts
• New Orleans: 567 yds @ 20 kts
• Atlanta: (model tests)- 870 @ 30 kts; (trial performance)- 675 yds @ 30 kts
• Cleveland: 565 yds @ 20 kts, 670 yds @ 30 kts
• Baltimore: 700 yds @ 20 kts, 780 @ 30 kts
• Des Moines: (model tests)- 750 yds @ 20 kts, 835 yds at 30 kts
• Worcester: (model tests)- 867 yds @ 20 kts, 833 yds @ 30 kts; (trials performance)- 730 yds @ 30 kts

Destroyers:

• Clemson: 750 yds @ 25 kts
• Farragut: 850 yds @ 35.5 kts
• Somers: 1240 yds @ 20 kts, 860 yds @ 30 kts
• Bagley: 880 yds @ 30 kts
• Benson: 960 yds @ 30 kts
• Fletcher: 950 yds @ 30 kts
• Allen M. Sumner: 700 yds @ 30 kts (first US destroyer design to use twin rudders)
• John C. Butler DE (WGT-type): 395 yds @ 25 kts
• Mitscher DL (laid down 1949, product of study into large destroyer suited as fast TF escort or SAG element started in 1944): 540 yds @ 20 kts, 600 yds @ 30 kts.

Note: poor maneuverability was a constant complaint with US destroyers through the WW2 era, and was apparently the combination of a number of causes, including designs that turned out to be overweight as built or in service configuration, too-small single rudders, and stern forms optimized for speed, fuel economy, or the ability to drop depth charges or allow the ship to carry more weapons or fuel.

 

[Gridley]

Out of curiosity, do you still believe that the Iowa can survive a missile that could instakill a CVN? And do you still think a few inches of 40 years out of date steel armor would protect against a 30-70 inch shaped charge?

Well, since I don't believe the missile in question is going to 'instakill' (what the heck does that MEAN anyway? Are we talking HMS Hood? Or USS Helena?) a CVN, I have no problem believing the BB will survive.

"40 years out of date steel armor"... no really, do you have a clue what you're talking about? I guess you must think foxholes are out of date too, since they use centuries-old dirt.

BTW, for those who missed the post a few back about the varied uses of shaped charges: look up explosive welding. Shaped charge =/= HEAT. HEAT is a use of shaped charges.

Could a single (non-nuke) missile sink a CVN? Sure. A BB? Possibly. Is it likely? No. Could a single Kh-22 mission-kill a CVN? Sure. Is it likely? Yes, at least temporarily.

 

[xchen08]

Well, since I don't believe the missile in question is going to 'instakill' (what the heck does that MEAN anyway? Are we talking HMS Hood? Or USS Helena?) a CVN, I have no problem believing the BB will survive.

You can't read can you? Do you understand what hypotheticals are? Do you think a missile capable penetrating into the vitals of a supercarrier can be stopped by the deck armor of an Iowa? And if it can, why do you think the bit over an inch less deck protection of an Alaska can't.

"40 years out of date steel armor"... no really, do you have a clue what you're talking about? I guess you must think foxholes are out of date too, since they use centuries-old dirt.

So, let's look at that other major application of steel armor back in WWII, tanks. Guess they must still be using steel armor as well, right? Since steel armor clearly isn't obsolete against both shaped charges and kinetic penetrators and will stay in use for centuries like dirt.

BTW, for those who missed the post a few back about the varied uses of shaped charges: look up explosive welding. Shaped charge =/= HEAT. HEAT is a use of shaped charges.

Yup, HEAT is the use of a type of shaped charge in the anti-tank role. Still can't get your head wrapped around the anti-tank part, can you?

Could a single (non-nuke) missile sink a CVN? Sure. A BB? Possibly. Is it likely? No. Could a single Kh-22 mission-kill a CVN? Sure. Is it likely? Yes, at least temporarily.

What exactly do you think "mission sink" means? You just have no clue what you are talking about do you? A Kh-22/32 will most likely mission kill a BB even if the warhead doesn't go off simply from the impact of 5000 kilos at Mach 2.5 spilling burning fuel all over the deck and seeping into the insides.

 

[Gridley]

You can't read can you? Do you understand what hypotheticals are? Do you think a missile capable penetrating into the vitals of a supercarrier can be stopped by the deck armor of an Iowa? And if it can, why do you think the bit over an inch less deck protection of an Alaska can't.

I note you still haven't defined "instakill". I also note, once again, THAT I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR CLAIMS OF UBER SOVIET MISSILE CAPABILITY. How many times do I have to point out that we're working from different premises?

Yup, HEAT is the use of a type of shaped charge in the anti-tank role. Still can't get your head wrapped around the anti-tank part, can you?

Yes, and acronyms are always chosen for their technical accuracy. Let's try this: shaped charge =/= armor piercing. Can you accept that much? Or do you believe explosive welding is a myth?

What exactly do you think "mission sink" means? You just have no clue what you are talking about do you? A Kh-22/32 will most likely mission kill a BB even if the warhead doesn't go off simply from the impact of 5000 kilos at Mach 2.5 spilling burning fuel all over the deck and seeping into the insides.

Well, you haven't used the term "mission sink" before, and it seems rather redundant to me. You still haven't defined instakill. Do you plan to?

How, exactly, will a single penetration of, say, one turret of an Iowa incapacitate the other two turrets? A ship with 2/3 of her offensive capability and near-full maneuvering capability hasn't been mission killed.

And now you're asserting that the missile warhead isn't necessary. So the kamikaze's must have killed every ship they hit, since they were also lightly built high-velocity air vehicles spilling burning fuel everywhere. Here's a hint: they didn't.

Take a look at some historical examples of what it takes to mission-kill or sink a WWII-era battleship.

Oh, and one more note, since you seem easily confused: I'm not an Alaska advocate. My pick on this thread's OP was the Des Moines class, as I posted a little ways back.

 

[Ming777]

IIRC, a Zero kamikaze had struck the USS Missouri in the latter stages of WWII. That did cause a fire in a 40 mm AA-mount, and a permanent dent on the hull, but nothing else.

As for the turrets: They are covered in 19.7 inches of armor.

Anyways, the fact is the Des Moines and Iowa were far better candidates for reactivation. The Alaska were simply waste of resources that could have made more CVs or (not likely) finish the Kentucky, perhaps as a BBG.

 

[Bearcat]

Sigh... and another potentially worthwhile thread collapses in flames and personalized acrimony.

I starting to hate this place.

 

[xchen08]

I note you still haven't defined "instakill". I also note, once again, THAT I DON'T BELIEVE YOUR CLAIMS OF UBER SOVIET MISSILE CAPABILITY. How many times do I have to point out that we're working from different premises?

Ah, so inability to comprehend hypotheticals noted.

Yes, and acronyms are always chosen for their technical accuracy. Let's try this: shaped charge =/= armor piercing. Can you accept that much? Or do you believe explosive welding is a myth?

And if you think the acronym is inaccurate, demonstrate that it is not. It's not up to me to prove something is not what it says it is.

Well, you haven't used the term "mission sink" before, and it seems rather redundant to me. You still haven't defined instakill. Do you plan to?

How, exactly, will a single penetration of, say, one turret of an Iowa incapacitate the other two turrets? A ship with 2/3 of her offensive capability and near-full maneuvering capability hasn't been mission killed.

And now you're asserting that the missile warhead isn't necessary. So the kamikaze's must have killed every ship they hit, since they were also lightly built high-velocity air vehicles spilling burning fuel everywhere. Here's a hint: they didn't.

Take a look at some historical examples of what it takes to mission-kill or sink a WWII-era battleship.

You need to work on that confusion problem of yours. I never used "mission sink" because the term doesn't exist. You used it because you don't know what you are talking about. And I love how you still don't understand that warships today need a bit more to stay operational than an electro-mechanical fire control computer and a handful of bulky radars whose job can be replaced by optics at need. There's just a teensy bit more electronics on modern warships, and losing your radars now makes you entirely helpless. You do know of the problems the Navy in the 80s had with keeping things working through the shock of her own guns firing.

And I've got to love the sheer ignorance in comparing kamikazes to AShMs. You really want to claim a lightly built 3000kg aircraft moving at 600 km/h on the outside is even vaguely comparable to a 5000kg missile moving at 5 times the speed? Hey, I'll take it, since you've just gone ahead and proven that there should be no difference between the guns on the Alaska on those on the Iowa.

Oh, and one more note, since you seem easily confused: I'm not an Alaska advocate. My pick on this thread's OP was the Des Moines class, as I posted a little ways back.

You still haven't got that reading thing down, have you? A thorough survey of the Des Moines possibility was already given in post 6, completely overriding your pitiful efforts.

 

[Workable Goblin]

You need to work on that confusion problem of yours. I never used "mission sink" because the term doesn't exist.

Um, no. You were the one who used that first, not him.

You still haven't got that reading thing down, have you? A thorough survey of the Des Moines possibility was already given in post 6, completely overriding your pitiful efforts.

Now that's just rude. I think you should take a time out xchen, come back tomorrow or something.