|
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:
|
I am just going to put my 2 cents in here
The Iowa BBs are a ruggedly beautiful ship I admit and are cans of whoop *cough*. They however do not have the speed of todays warships. They are more vulnerable to today's torpedos. And lets just face it today's missiles will tear right through their armor (as has already been stated). Again as has already been stated the costs to retrofit these old girls will be exorbitant. Adding armor will make a slow ship even slower. The power plants in the ladies would need a further overhaul, nuclear perhaps, just to give it the aircraft carriers range. Practicly the only thing I would use a Iowa BB for is to give the enemy something else to shoot at other than my aircraft carriers, and the good ol off shore bombardment for chits and giggles.:har: I love them as much as I love Uboats (WW2) but the practicality is not there anymore same as the WW2 Uboats. We are in a different era now Just like muzzle loaders have no place in today's ground warfare the BBs have no place in the naval warfare of today. Eventually aircraft carriers will go the same way. |
Batttleships are more useful than ever
I must join my voice in support of the battleships. Many nonsense arguments have been said about them, for instance their high costs or their vulnerability against air attacks. Yes an Iowa requires more men than any modern destroyer but they can supply a devastating fire support against any sea or land target. Should I remember that a 16 inch shell is much cheaper than any missile?
Regarding the so called vulnerability of the battleships I must repeat that's greatly exagerated. Any ship sent alone without a proper escort and air support is vulnerable! Don't tell me about the Bismarck or the Yamato, they are the perfect demonstration of what I've said just before! In fact a battleship with an upgraded computerized fire control and modern radar is a formidable opponent and impossible to sink if he has air support! An Iowa can take much more damage than any modern ship because they are designed to withstand brutal poundings! An Iowa can sail at full speed even in bad seas and provide a useful support to any carrier battlegroup! They can deploy helicopters to detect and attack any menacing sub. In fact if we analyse the battleships lost during the WW2 they have been sunk at anchor by sneaking subs (Royal Oak), torpedoed at anchor (Tarento) destroyed by planes due to inadequate AA defenses and lack of air support (Yamato/Musashi) or sunk by overwhelming forces and crippled by the lack of steering (Bismarck) The Iowa's battleships have fought during WW2, Corean War to Gulf Wars without problems, providing escort, fire support, bombarding targets with supreme efficiency. Of course they are old but they are still able to sail and fight! The US Navy should reconsider their return to the active service.:know: |
Quote:They however do not have the speed of todays warships. They are more vulnerable to today's torpedos. And lets just face it today's missiles will tear right through their armor (as has already been stated).
:arrgh!:An Iowa could sail at 32.5 knots, that's faster than an Arleigh Burke destroyer! And in all type of weather! Just seeing the tin can modern ships during the Falkland's war destroyed by Exocet's missiles prove that an Iowa is better armored. No, the Roma's fate is not a proof because an Iowa has much better AA's weaponry. More vulnerable to today's torpedos!? Are you joking?The Iowa-class torpedo defense was virtually the same as the South Dakota 's. Each side of the ship was protected below the waterline by two tanks mounted outside the belt armor, and separated by a bulkhead. These tanks were initially planned to be empty, but in practice were filled with water or fuel oil. The armored belt tapered to a thickness of 4 inches (100 mm) below the waterline. Behind the armored belt there was a void, and then another bulkhead. The outer hull was intended to detonate a torpedo, with the outer two compartments absorbing the shock and with any splinters or debris being stopped by the armored belt and the empty compartment behind it. Just tell me wich better system is in use today? The great mistake after WW2 has been the wrong conclusion that the age of the battleships was over, in fact they are more needed today! And the once powerful aircraft carrier should be always protected by a battleship. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Don't get me wrong; I agree that the battleship is not remotely cost-effective in today's market, or particularly useful. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I see it is also capable of carrying a nuclear warhead. That will certainly ruin their day. But remember I'm quibbling over a detail. I agree there is no place for a battleship in today's naval war. |
so what ^
do non of you remember the fact that during the bikini atoll tests first world war era ships with armor designed only to take at most a 14"in shell took two nukes and if they could have been re boarded they could have easily been repaired with modern technology iowa could eat a nuke with its tougher armor and one of those tests was an underwater hit so iowa could eat a modern torp based on this and besides the bismarck had about equal amounts of armour and she took an hour of sustained gunfire to go down from multiple battleships and cruisers
|
The problem with the Iowas is that we should have the testicles to fire up the Enola Gay instead. Victory, no dead Americans, no HUGE waste of money, no more problems(except for enemies domestic). :D
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:02 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.