Should the US reactivate battleships?

[Bishie2]

Just wondering what are your guys opinions. Should the United States reactivate the battleships that are museum ships such as the BB 61 Iowa, BB 63 Missouri, and BB 64 Wisconsin. With the rising threat from ISIS and North Korea I think that our battleships in the United States should be reactivated as a show of force and as a fear factor. there is one account from the gulf war that the Battleship Wisconsin had a group of Iraqi solders in the gulf war surrender to her RQ-2 Pioneer UAV because they saw the power that the UAV brought in the form. Of Wisconsin's 16 in guns when she fired on another trench line earlier. So in the end what do you think the United States should do reactivate battleships as a show of force or leave them how they are now as museum ships. I personally think they should be reactivated id love to here what your guys option is thanks. -Bishie2 :Kaleun_Salute:

[Buddahaid]

No. They are very outdated both physically and strategically.

[Platapus]

They were only good for shore bombardment and you can do more cheaper and further with rockets and missiles.

Battleships were cool, but ultimately never what the Navy thought they would be. I feel pretty confident we will never have a Jutland nor a War Plan Orange environment.

[Rockstar]

drones are cheaper.

[Sailor Steve]

I love battleships. In the day when they represented a government's power and influence they were indeed important, both as weapons and as symbols. Very expensive symbols. The problem was they were like Greek Heroes. Very impressive, and when one died the whole nation mourned.

The smaller ships were more like soldiers. Lots of them, and they carried the brunt of the battles. Battleships were mainly good for fighting each other, and not much else.

Shore bombardment was their final use. Which is more useful for that purpose, one battleship or a dozen destroyers, or a hundred airplanes?

I love battleships, but I don't see much use for them anymore.

[THE_MASK]

The best capital ship imo would be the imperial star destroyer .

[Nippelspanner]

With the rising threat from ISIS and North Korea I think that our battleships in the United States should be reactivated as a show of force and as a fear factor.

You're not thinking this through at all, you just focus on the superficial benefits, neglecting the issues this proposal has in tow.

First of all, reactivating them would require extensive repairs, refit, the training of crews and thorough shakedown cruises - which might take years, approval of congress - and billions of dollars.

For what?
To throw a few 16" rounds onto some beach, which can be done faster, better and ultimately cheaper by multiple other means, be it ships, subs or planes? And who says a show of force is even useful in this scenario?
I don't think America needs to prove much when it comes to military might, do you?
And do you think NK doesn't know that either?
Meanwhile ISIS is falling apart anyways and why fear an old BB that can't reach you in-lands anyways, when the real terror lurks somewhere above, able to strike anywhere, anytime, precise as a scalpel?

And let's say there's going to be war with NK and one of their Diesel subs will have a lucky day, killing the close-to-shore Missouri that's busy shelling some unworthy targets, only to play the good old "America, fantastic, yeah!" song?
What a devastating blow that would be - and I'm not even talking loss of life, I'm talking about the death of a symbol.
Sailor Steve said it best when he compared BBs to Greek heroes.

Again, think it through, it makes no sense at all. In 2017, no one's gonna be impressed by a rusty 16" gun platform with a few tomahawks anymore, not even NK.

[STEED]

I think that our battleships in the United States should be reactivated as a show of force and as a fear factor.

More like a laugh factor, the Second World War was the final proof the age of the Battleship was over. And I am sure American's rather see their Battleships stay put for visitors to visit and take photos.

[vienna]

In modern naval warfare, no ship is immune to an air attack whether it is by a manned aircraft, a missile, or a drone, and the larger the vessel, the greater a target it would be; agility and low profile are the new norms. Consider what the reaction in the US would be if NK, Iran, or even terrorists were to lob a few well-aimed missiles or drones at a US carrier and sink it...

For an example, look back at the Falklands War and what happened to the ARA General Belgrano...




<O>

[Jimbuna]

About five years or so ago I would have said yes to reactivation but the military world has changed dramatically since WWII so for all of the reasons already mentioned above I'd say let them lie gracefully to be admired for what they once were.

[Bilge_Rat]

The only advantage with Battleships would be shore bombardment, but BBs are a blunt instrument, much like the WW2 Heavy Bombers.

Now with Precision Guided Munitions, both Laser and GPS guided, one Bomb or shell can take out a target that in WW2 would have required massive area bombing in the hope that one would actually hit the target.

So yes, BBs are obsolete.

Even though no longer part of the fleet, the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin are still in reserve and could potentially be brought back in service, if required.


Although the navy firmly believes in the capabilities of the DD(X) destroyer program, members of the United States Congress remain skeptical about the efficiency of the new destroyers when compared to the battleships.[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate#cite_no te-GAO_2-15) Partially as a consequence, Congress passed Pub. L. 109-364, the National Defense Authorization Act 2007, requiring the battleships be kept and maintained in a state of readiness should they ever be needed again.[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate#cite_no te-Congress_68-29) Congress has ordered that the following measures be implemented to ensure that, if need be, Iowa and Wisconsin can be returned to active duty:


Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;
The battleships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;
Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;
The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the navy in the event of a national emergency.[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate#cite_no te-Congress_68-29)

These four conditions closely mirror the original three conditions that the Nation Defense Authorization Act of 1996 laid out for the maintenance of Iowa and Wisconsin while they were in the Mothball Fleet.[ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate#cite_no te-FAS_Iowa-4)

Here are some of the issues if they were re-activated:


In response, the navy has pointed to the cost of reactivating the two Iowa-class battleships to their decommissioned capability. The navy estimates costs in excess of $500 million,[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate#cite_no te-26)[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate#cite_no te-27) but this does not include an additional $110 million needed to replenish the gunpowder for the 16-inch (406 mm) guns because a survey found the powder to be unsafe. In terms of schedule, the Navy's program management office estimates that reactivation would take 20 to 40 months, given the loss of corporate memory and the shipyard industrial base.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate#cite_no te-GAO_1-2)

Reactivating the battleships would require a wide range of battleship modernization improvements, according to the navy's program management office. At a minimum, these modernization improvements include command and control, communications, computers, and intelligence equipment; environmental protection (including ozone-depleting substances); a plastic-waste processor; pulper/shredder and wastewater alterations; firefighting/fire safety and women-at-sea alterations; a modernized sensor suite (air and surface search radar); and new combat and self-defense systems.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate#cite_no te-GAO_1-2) The navy's program management office also identified other issues that would strongly discourage the Navy from reactivating and modernizing the battleships. For example, personnel needed to operate the battleships would be extensive, and the skills needed may not be available or easily reconstituted.[28] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate#cite_no te-28) Other issues include the age and unreliability of the battleships' propulsion systems and the fact that the navy no longer maintains the capability to manufacture their 16-inch (410 mm) gun system components and ordnance.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate#cite_no te-GAO_1-2)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate

[Bilge_Rat]

and since we are talking about Battleships, a photo:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/NavalGuadalcanalWashington.jpg

USS Washington firing her main battery at the IJN Kirishima, November 15, 1942.

One of the few BB vs BB battles of WW2.

[Aktungbby]

Just wondering what are your guys opinions. Should the United States reactivate the battleships that are museum ships such as the BB 61 Iowa, BB 63 Missouri, and BB 64 Wisconsin. -Bishie2 :Kaleun_Salute:Absolutely! "If ya got it flaunt it!"... but lets go visual on the concept!:Kaleun_Applaud: https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/f6/c9/7d/f6c97d5e66517f82a3313f6aedeaeda0.jpg (This was the only occasion that all four Iowa Class BB's were steaming in formation(1954). Arguably; two years later...the most powerful surface armada the world ever saw: Mk 23 Atomic shells)....and upgrade the ammo slightly; talk about 'Katie! bar the door!' here!:O: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2419375&postcount=39 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2419375&postcount=39) I love battleships. In the day when they represented a government's power and influence they were indeed important, both as weapons and as symbols. Very expensive symbols. The problem was they were like Greek Heroes. Very impressive, and when one died the whole nation mourned.

The smaller ships were more like soldiers. Lots of them, and they carried the brunt of the battles. Battleships were mainly good for fighting each other, and not much else.

Shore bombardment was their final use. Which is more useful for that purpose, one battleship or a dozen destroyers, or a hundred airplanes?

I love battleships, but I don't see much use for them anymore.Precisely, and it's still all about showtime; actual shooting usually turns out quite dismally....for both sides as at Jutland for example. As per my post title: the Kaiser won the shooting match tactically but lost the battle and the war at sea strategically...as did Yamamoto at Pearl Harbor.

In modern naval warfare, no ship is immune to an air attack whether it is by a manned aircraft, a missile, or a drone, and the larger the vessel, the greater a target it would be; agility and low profile are the new norms. Consider what the reaction in the US would be if NK, Iran, or even terrorists were to lob a few well-aimed missiles or drones at a US carrier and sink it...

For an example, look back at the Falklands War and what happened to the ARA General Belgrano...<O> Actually that was very old torpedo against a very old American cruiser but your point actually says it all: everything is vulnerable; thus the very fast Iowa class BB's (33 knots!!!) may and should be reactivated with sufficient escorts and at least one outta-sight carrier group ready to pounce as we practice "innocent passage' right through the South China Sea the the way the Chinks like to skirt Alaska in the Bearing Strait. The only advantage with Battleships would be shore bombardment, but BBs are a blunt instrument, much like the WW2 Heavy Bombers.

Now with Precision Guided Munitions, both Laser and GPS guided, one Bomb or shell can take out a target that in WW2 would have required massive area bombing in the hope that one would actually hit the target.

So yes, BBs are obsolete.

Even though no longer part of the fleet, the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin are still in reserve and could potentially be brought back in service, if required.



Here are some of the issues if they were re-activated:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate The navy estimates costs in excess of $500 million,[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate#cite_no te-26)[27] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_naval_gunfire_support_debate#cite_no te-27) but this does not include an additional $110 million needed to replenish the gunpowder for the 16-inch (406 mm) guns because a survey found the powder to be unsafe. Precisely why it should not be done with the 16 inch guns beyond a few 'Show' rounds'; and USS Iowa's turret two is still inoperable, I believe, after the infamous fatal explosion anyway. For example, a full charge for the 16"/50 (40.64 cm) Mark 7 (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm) during the World War II period consisted of six propellant bags whose total propellant weight was 660.0 lbs. (299.4 kg) of SPD and 4.463 lbs. (2.1 kg) of gunpowder. Some references show this charge weight as 660.0 lbs. (299.4 kg) while others show it as 664.463 lbs. (301.4 kg). With the post-war adoption of the cooler burning propellant, the six bag full charge weight for this gun changed to 655.0 lbs. (297.108 kg) and 4.463 lbs. (2.1 kg) of gunpowder. Again, some references show this charge weight as 655.0 lbs. (297.108 kg) while others show it as 659.463 lbs. (299.2 kg). With the atomic shellshttp://www.kbismarck.org/photos/mk23.jpgMk. 23 nuclear naval shells with an estimated yield of 15 to 20 kilotons.... widely advertised to our 'potential threats'....Fatboy of N. Korea in particular, together with tomahawk missiles, aegis weapons and the escorts, the mission is no longer prolonged shore-bombardment ala Lebanon but massive shows of force. The platform is still good but the gunnery and mission has changed.:salute: And if we paint the Iowa's white, Teddy R. would think it was 'just Bully"!:D 'Cause 'nuthin good goes outta style'...BBY https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Tr_great_white_fleet_from_photo_nh100349_USS_Conne cticut_1907.jpg
1907: the Great White Fleet circumnavigates the globe.:Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet)

[Platapus]

Originally posted in the "I never knew that" thread

"The Mark 7 Naval Gun 16" 50 Calibre that was used on the Iowa class Battle ships was used against a surface ship only once in combat.

16 Feb 44, the USS Iowa fired a salvo at the Japanese Destroyer Nowaki at about 35,000 yards, but did not sink her. All other Mark 7 Shots were either training or land bombardment.

(Fischer, Brad D.; Jurens, W. J. (2006). "Fast Battleship Gunnery during World War II: A Gunnery Revolution, Part II". Warship International. Vol. XLIII no. 1.)

During WWII, the accuracy of the Mk 7 rifle at range was pretty poor.

At 30,000 yards, there was a 2.7% chance of hitting a broadside target and only 1.4% chance of hitting a end-on target. As modernized in the 1980s, each turret carried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, which made it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Together with the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, these improvements made these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever made. For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

So even with the projectile tracking radar and our advanced FCS computers, we are still looking at no better than 150 yard accuracy. That's not so good when considering that even the HC (High capacity) Mark 14 projectile carried only a bursting charge of 153 pounds, in which half of that would be absorbed in fragmenting the projectile casing, leaves very little boom 150 yards away. The projectiles for the Mk 7 gun were still primarily big blocks of iron intended on slamming into the target assuming the target is big enough and does not move much.

There have been experimentation using sub-munitions, but they have not been too successful and too expensive

So let's look at the Mk 7 Gun operations.

Ammo and propellant is big and heavy. Normal battleship projectile load (and associated propellant) was about 130 rounds per gun barrel.

Which is probably enough considering the the life of the barrel was about 300 rounds and those barrels are not cheap nor easy to make.

Accuracy, even with today's electronics and the luxury of wasting a few rounds to get the trajectory right is still a best of 150 yards, with a 153 pound bursting charge. This means that you have to hit the target to really do any significant damage. Let's hope that our target is not much bigger than 200 yards and does not move. So what sort of targets would be appropriate?

Certainly not specific buildings. No, this is a weapon system for targeting small towns. Since there is a lack of large enemy fortifications, this would be a great terror weapon if you want to indiscriminately slaughter citizens, which is bad press. In Viet Nam, it was used a few times to create helicopter landing areas in the jungle, but there were better ways of doing that.

Shooting long distances with unguided munitions is a concept long dead.

Even old unguided rockets are better than a Mk 7 Rifle.

A SCUD-D (1980's technology), which is about as basic as you can get for TBM has a CEP of 50 meters, range of over 700,000 yards, explosive payload of about 2,000 pounds.

Pretty sure we have rockets and missiles that can do better than a SCUD-D

Battleships and the 16 inch rifle are, sadly, obsolete. Especially in today's OOTW environment where there are few stationary targets and a non-existent FEBA.

I would think that a better case could be made to reactivate (actually re-manufacture) Gato class WWII submarines. They would have more use than a WWII BB, in my opinion.

Battleships are cool, but then so are Trebuchets. :03:

I would not want to fight a war with either of them.

[Sailor Steve]

During WWII, the accuracy of the Mk 7 rifle at range was pretty poor.
At 30,000 yards, there was a 2.7% chance of hitting a broadside target and only 1.4% chance of hitting a end-on target.
Many years ago I had that exact discussion on another forum. I had pointed out that naval gunnery overall had an average 7% accuracy, with 2% at extreme ranges and about 12% at 5,000 yards. During the discussion one member was overly honest about his days in the army: "I was in the artillery, and I can guarantee you we hit the ground at least 98% of the time."

Of course an island is a much bigger target than a ship, so if your shooting at an island with nothing but enemy troops on it you've got a great chance of doing some serious damage, which is where the battleships finally found their niche. Not much of that these days.

[em2nought]

We should be fighting with nukes, better that Islam is wiped of the face of the earth than one US soldier needlessly give their lives, or end up being taken care of by the VA for the rest of it. :salute:

[Nippelspanner]

We should be fighting with nukes, better that Islam is wiped of the face of the earth than one US soldier needlessly give their lives, or end up being taken care of by the VA for the rest of it. :salute:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/94/a1/ed/94a1ed276ab700ff307f6c3cdd2c57ca.jpg

[Platapus]

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/94/a1/ed/94a1ed276ab700ff307f6c3cdd2c57ca.jpg

I don't think one is enough

https://s15-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimage s%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcRZf6eXhAKRxqywJdxt9XvvoJSEpCzo tofJFuTrwJ_yyf54xu0XZQ&sp=16e8f440ec88084c3393b4a1a3fdb6a3&anticache=749064

[Rockin Robbins]

You can kill mosquitoes with explosives too. I remember in one James Bond movie, James had left his car and the bad guy came snooping around after something in the car. On the window was a sticker "this automobile is electionically protected." The bad guy snickered took out his tools and the car and he blew up. Nuclear weapons are like that.

As far as the battleships go, any garden variety DDG has more firepower than any WWII battleship today. And they hit what they shoot at. Put a dozen DDGs off the coast of any nation and they can destroy with precision any target within several hundred miles. What's the range of those battleship popguns?

[Julhelm]

Battleships were hopelessly outmoded the moment Billy Mitchell sank one.

All that armor really did was prolong the inevitable. In the case of Bismarck and Yamato, they were so heavily armored that allies had to use extreme firepower to bring them under, needlessly slaughtering thousands of sailors. The Iowa's armor protection is comparatively weak and pretty much any modern SSM would mission-kill it outright.

[vienna]

The vulnerability of any vessel to more modern technology is obvious. Look at the USS Stark: attacked by an Iraqi fighter from about 15-20 miles away and hit by two Exocet missiles; only one exploded; if the second one had detonated, the Stark probably would have been sunk. Now, the Stark could do about 30 knots, tops; but, much like the Lamborghini outrunning a Boomer question in another thread, in a speed contest with a locked-in missile, no ship is going to win that race...

...and consider the vulnerability of warships to low tech threats: the USS Cole was severely damaged and almost destroyed by a couple of guys in what wasn't much more than an explosive packed dinghy...




<O>

[Sailor Steve]

Battleships were hopelessly outmoded the moment Billy Mitchell sank one.
Quite true, though it took Pearl Harbor and the sinking of HMS Prince Of Wales before the lesson set in.

The Iowa's armor protection is comparatively weak and pretty much any modern SSM would mission-kill it outright. Here I only partly agree. "Mission-kill" is a tricky concept. If the mission is to deliver heavy artillery to a target, then no, the average SSM will not stop that. "Comparatively weak" is the problem. The armor on any battleship is designed to withstand its own shells at prescribed ranges, since the designers don't consider themselves to have adequate access to the other guy's firepower. This requires that the battle be kept to a range that balances the ship's own strengths and weaknesses. No anti-ship missile is what we would consider "armor-piercing". Yes, such a hit on a battleship has a fair chance of knocking out certain electronics, but it's not going to be catastrophic to such a ship.

USS Stark
Unarmored. No defense against that sort of thing at all.

USS ColeAgain, completely unarmored. One-half inch of steel isn't going to stop a destroyer's 5" HC round, and it's not going to stop a boat full of explosives. That same attack would have had on effect on a battleship whatsoever.

Bismarck was disabled by dozens of armor-piercing rounds travelling at more than twice the speed of an anti-ship missile, with hardened heads specifically designed to get through that armor. Plus several torpedoes. Plus the scuttling.

Yamato and Musashi were attacked by dozens of bombs designed to get though light armor, coming straight down onto decks which were only lightly armored. The big killer there was the multiple torpedoes. Building anti-torpedo armor is difficult. It may be proof against one tin fish, but once it has done that job it is useless against a second hitting in the same place.

In all those cases the ships took a whole lot of killing. All that said, though, the torpedo is the bane of the battleships, and there are lots of submarines and lots of planes with lots of torpedoes out there.

In the end it would still be impractical to bring back the battleships, and a huge waste of money for a ship with such limited parameters.

[Rockstar]

I know after the Cole incident there were a boat load procedural changes which encouraged a much more rapid response to such threats. Before the incident one could say we werent really thinking about or all that prepared for such things. We are now though.

[Julhelm]

Quite true, though it took Pearl Harbor and the sinking of HMS Prince Of Wales before the lesson set in.

Here I only partly agree. "Mission-kill" is a tricky concept. If the mission is to deliver heavy artillery to a target, then no, the average SSM will not stop that. "Comparatively weak" is the problem. The armor on any battleship is designed to withstand its own shells at prescribed ranges, since the designers don't consider themselves to have adequate access to the other guy's firepower. This requires that the battle be kept to a range that balances the ship's own strengths and weaknesses. No anti-ship missile is what we would consider "armor-piercing". Yes, such a hit on a battleship has a fair chance of knocking out certain electronics, but it's not going to be catastrophic to such a ship.
Only the citadel is armored, but directors and sensor arrays are very vulnerable and if damaged would definitely mission kill a battleship. But something like SS-N-12 or SS-N-19 which were designed to kill US carriers would most likely defeat the Iowa's armor protection.

Bismarck was disabled by dozens of armor-piercing rounds travelling at more than twice the speed of an anti-ship missile, with hardened heads specifically designed to get through that armor. Plus several torpedoes. Plus the scuttling.
That is totally incorrect. Bismarck was effectively mission-killed by a single hit to the bow section which caused major flooding and a fuel leak. By the time the torpedo bombers attacked it, it had already aborted its mission to break out into the Atlantic.

[Sailor Steve]

Only the citadel is armored, but directors and sensor arrays are very vulnerable and if damaged would definitely mission kill a battleship. But something like SS-N-12 or SS-N-19 which were designed to kill US carriers would most likely defeat the Iowa's armor protection.
Carriers aren't armored at all, that I'm aware of. Your other points are good ones.


That is totally incorrect. Bismarck was effectively mission-killed by a single hit to the bow section which caused major flooding and a fuel leak. By the time the torpedo bombers attacked it, it had already aborted its mission to break out into the Atlantic.
Also an excellent point. I'm forced to agree.

[Kaye T. Bai]

I don't think one is enough.
Make that a triple facepalm.
The Iowa's armor protection is comparatively weak and pretty much any modern SSM would mission-kill it outright.

I was wondering about this as I've heard claims to the opposite, that the Iowa-class BBs are practically invulnerable against SSMs precisely because of armor.

[ikalugin]

Some points:

- not the entirety of the Iowa class has been armoured to the same standard.
Iowa without the front/aft areas of hull or superstructure may still float but it would be mission killed.

- the armoured citadel has been desighned to protect inside a narrow safe area.
This was done because protecting that fast BB against it's own guns at all ranges was not feasable.

- this safe area is defined by munition's velocity and angle of fall.
That is because those are functions of engagement range.

- it is not hard to modify AShMs' angle of fall or to attack the weakpoints.
This means that you can bypass Iowa's protection and that is without going nuclear.

However with heavy AShMs you dont need to do that, because at their speeds (600m/s+) and mass (500kgs+) they would penetrate Iowa's belt in horizontal flight, so you don't need, say, go into a speed dive to plunge through the deck armour even if it is the standard flight trajectory (ie for the Kh22N).


So, in my opinion, modern BBs are dumb. The last gun orientated warship US has built - Zumwalt was born as a white elephant.

[Nippelspanner]

The last gun orientated warship US has built - Zumwalt was born as a white elephant.
It's an abomination, haha.