SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   Sub & Naval Discussions: World Naval News, Books, & Films (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=186)
-   -   Whats with the iowa? (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=214758)

Jimbuna 08-02-14 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc (Post 2229849)
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

What vessels today have a gun the equal of a 16" or armour protection even approaching that of an Iowa class?

Ishmael 08-26-14 09:59 AM

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.

mapuc 08-26-14 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna (Post 2229955)
What vessels today have a gun the equal of a 16" or armour protection even approaching that of an Iowa class?


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

Jimbuna 08-27-14 07:19 AM

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.

mapuc 08-27-14 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna (Post 2236807)
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.

How could I forget TASM who has a range of 250 nm which is far longer than RGM-84E and why not armed Iowa with the new ASM LRASM which has a range of ca 500 nm.

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

TorpX 08-27-14 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimbuna (Post 2236807)
I'll put it another way and in a hypothetical scenario....modern guided missile warship v Iowa:

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'.

This reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's advocating the use of pikes and bows in the Revolutionary War, supposing them to have worthwhile advantages. Of course, the Continental Army never adopted this suggestion; probably because they had more sense.


Aktungbby 08-31-14 08:25 PM

USS New Jersey
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TorpX (Post 2237040)
this reminds me of Benjamin Franklin's advocating the use of pikes and bows in the Revolutionary War, supposing them to have worthwhile advantages. Of course, the Continental Army never adopted this suggestion; probably because they had more sense.

Quote:

Jimbuna: What vessels today have a gun the equal of a 16" or armour protection even approaching that of an Iowa class?

The Druze militia didn't appreciate this 'ol' pike' off Beruit which killed one of their generals; half the job of a BB is to be a "threat in being" such as Bismark and Tirpitz; tying up much of the enemy's attention and resources. As Von C. says: "whenever possible increase firepower"...these still fill the bill and inspire 'shock and awe'... ever a favorite American tactic! PHOTO: USS New Jersey off Lebanon 1984...Personally I'd like to resurrect The Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri and New Jersey, paint them Teddy Roosevelt white and send 'em to the South China Sea just to see which Chinese frigate captains are feelin' 'bully' on Sino expansionism; suitably cruise-missile equipped and a carrier group or two just over the horizon for an ambush as needed. A little old-school OOOMPH in the RIMPAC exercise IMHO Nothing Lord Nelson couldn't tackle!:salute: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ut%2C_1984.jpg4

TorpX 08-31-14 10:01 PM

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.

If they were to be upgraded, and possibly have improved armor, so as to be missile resistant, they could perhaps be formidable ships again. (Less clear to me is how valuable the guns would be. Also, wonder if it might end up being torpedo bait.)

BUT, in the present era, with our Great Leader Obama, and a Nitwit Congress, can we even afford such projects?



Buddahaid 08-31-14 10:43 PM

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.

Aktungbby 09-01-14 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aktungbby (Post 2238215)
half the job of a BB is to be a "threat in being" such as Bismark and Tirpitz; tying up much of the enemy's attention and resources. ; suitably cruise-missile equipped and a carrier group or two just over the horizon for an ambush as needed. A little old-school OOOMPH in the RIMPAC exercise IMHO Nothing Lord Nelson couldn't tackle!



Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid (Post 2238231)
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.

Precisely! Luring the Persian fleet into at Salamis, to the old lure and bait cruiser tactics of Hipper vs. Beatty in WWI leading to Jutland; and the pre-Pearl Harbor picket island Pacific plans of Yamamoto and Kimmel culminating in Midway...nothing new really, just the biggest bang platforms ever invented with air cover to wipe out whatever ventures forth to assert its ambitions ...probably resulting in the battle of Taiwan...:hmmm:


desertstriker 09-01-14 01:48 PM

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.

Drax 03-08-15 02:56 PM

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:

Drax 03-08-15 03:55 PM

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.

ETR3(SS) 03-08-15 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drax (Post 2295003)
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?

Modern torpedoes detonate under the hull, they don't impact the side. So all that engineering to nullify a torpedo is, in fact, null and void.

desertstriker 03-08-15 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS) (Post 2295082)
Modern torpedoes detonate under the hull, they don't impact the side. So all that engineering to nullify a torpedo is, in fact, null and void.

:agree:

Sailor Steve 03-09-15 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by desertstriker (Post 2238463)
They are more vulnerable to today's torpedos.

Yes they are.

Quote:

And lets just face it today's missiles will tear right through their armor (as has already been stated).
Which missiles are those? Data - speed and armor-piercing ability? Every missile I've read about is no more powerful than the typical high-explosive shell, with no function for countering armor at all. Of course I'm sure there is technology I haven't heard of.

Don't get me wrong; I agree that the battleship is not remotely cost-effective in today's market, or particularly useful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETR3(SS) (Post 2295082)
Modern torpedoes detonate under the hull, they don't impact the side. So all that engineering to nullify a torpedo is, in fact, null and void.

And there's the real problem.

desertstriker 03-09-15 02:02 AM

Quote:

"Which missiles are those? Data - speed and armor-piercing ability? Every missile I've read about is no more powerful than the typical high-explosive shell, with no function for countering armor at all. Of course I'm sure there is technology I haven't heard of.

Don't get me wrong; I agree that the battleship is not remotely cost-effective in today's market, or particularly useful."
Primarily cruise missiles. though that doesn't help narrow it down since there are different variants that is of little help. The new generation of the "TASM" from what I heard from some naval friends could punch a hole through the Iowa's armor and utterly destroy it with a magazine hit.

Sailor Steve 03-09-15 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by desertstriker (Post 2295144)
The new generation of the "TASM" from what I heard from some naval friends could punch a hole through the Iowa's armor and utterly destroy it with a magazine hit.

I just now looked at the stats for those missiles, and I fail to see how it would do that. The armor was designed to be proof against shells moving at better than mach 2. Even then the standard HC/HE shell didn't have a chance of penetrating 12" of face-hardened armor. It took a specialized armor-piercing cap. The cruise missile - even the TSAM - has no such hardened head and is moving less than 600 mph - mach 0.8. It's the equivalent of a fast kamikaze, and there is no way it could reach the magazines.

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.

shotbywolf 07-28-15 11:22 PM

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

em2nought 07-29-15 12:37 AM

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.