On Jun 30, 11:33 am, "Michael Shirley" wrote:
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:50:16 -0700, Jack Linthicum

wrote:
On Jun 29, 2:30 pm, "a425couple" wrote:

I had a long discussion on this newsgroup with some Vietnam lifer who
claimed the recoiless rifles were not really weapons. A lot of
"unarmed" ships carried them as ballast in case someone tried to do
what eventually happened to the Cole.

Makes sense, although I'd rather have something like a couple of M2HBs or
flexible A/N M-3s on the bridge wings.

It's funny that you mention guns as ballast though. Back before WW-I and
WW-II, there were German operated ships controlled by the Etappe, (part of
the Abwehr) that was concerned with resupply and support for commerce
raiders. Those guns were intended for transfer to those ships as armament.

I wonder if anybody does anything like that now?

--
"Implications leading to ramifications leading to shenanigans"-- Admiral
Elmo Zumwalt, USN.

Too much visibility. That was one of the problems with the Pueblo her
MGs were so wrapped up in canvas and frozen from the sea spray that it
took too long to free them for action. With the RR you just pull it
out of the locker and burn some paint.