![]() |
Quote:
|
Welcome to SubSim Seahawk14 :sunny:
|
Quote:
|
The overall view: about one minute later, of the Fort, the Golden Gate and The USS Iowa and Me...somewhere up there under the flag:up: Three famous warships in one day ...is a VERY good day! IMHO:yeah:https://vonnscottbair.files.wordpres...2007.jpg?w=652
|
Iowa and her sisters are no good in todays way of warfare at sea or tomorrows warfare at sea. I guess it would cost to much to get them rebuild so they meet current and future needs.
Todays warship have almost the same firepower. If USA or other countries would go back to things like battleship they have to be built from scratch like the person described in my link posted in my former post. But what do I know... Have one of her sister standing on a shefl "BB 62 USS New Jersey" scale 1:350 On my wish list The Mighty Mo Markus |
Quote:
|
I smoked a joint in the captain's chairs of both Iowa and Wisconsin when we were in drydock next to them in Philly in 77. Went aboard Missouri and New Jersey in SF during the first two Fleet Weeks there as well. So, I've been aboard all 4 Iowa class BBs.
|
Quote:
Sorry for this late answer. Not guns, but missiles like the RGM-84 or the french Exocet. They can of course be fooled, which a dumb shell can't. A missile have countermeasures which a shell haven't, a missile can travel up to 80-90 nm a shell can't a.s.o Well even a shell can today be shot down by modern air defence(I know the Swedish Bofors 40 mm radarguidede gun can.) In WWII a warship needed some shots to get "in range" of the target. Today a modern warship need only 2-4 shots to be "in range" of the target. My thoughts what is easiest to engage for a warship? A missile or a shell from a 16" or a 20" ? Markus |
I'll put it another way and in a hypothetical scenario....modern guided missile warship v Iowa:
Modern warship fires missiles at approaching Iowa who in turn responds with Tomahawk (which more than likely have a far greater range than the missiles from the modern warship) and or Harpoon. CIWS engage both sets of missiles, any getting through to Iowa fail to penetrate thick armour protection but any getting through to modern warship are probably catastrophic therefore game over. Moving on...Iowa gets within 16" main armament range (21nm)and fires a broadside of nine shells...game over. |
Quote:
And if all their LRASM, TASM and RGM-84 have been used and no hit they have to use their guns and here Iowa is the big winner-I guess she would be. Markus |
Quote:
I don't think it's a question of a "modern guided missile warship v Iowa", but rather several modern ships v Iowa. A group of ships would likely have more survivability than Iowa. I question whether the armor would be worth much against modern missile hits. I suspect a few hits would leave a BB operationally 'dead in the water'. |
USS New Jersey
Quote:
|
I kind of regret the reference to Franklin's quote. I know the Iowa class is more viable than pikes and bows, but I assume the DOD had their reasons for taking them out of commission. |
Given what the people en masse deem to be news. The US is a country of nitwits just wanting enough lolly to be entertained one more night.
AS much as I love the big ships I can't see one ever being viable again unless we need a big target to float around. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:50 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.