Big Battleship!

[TrailerParkJawa]

Well what about the USS Cole ? A speedboat packed with explosives exploded next to it. A hole over 14 feet wide was blown and the ship almost sank .

On the other hand the Iowa would just have laughed at such an assault.

Yes, the IOWA would have laughed but I dont think anyone pro or anti battleship would dispute that. Any smaller warship would have been seriously damaged by a raft carrying so much explosives.

I dont think it is fair to compare a ship being hit at anchor.
I think the fact that the COLE did not sink it is a testiment (did I spell that right? ) to the crew and its struggle to save their ship. Also the Cole did recieve engineering lessons learned by the Falklands and Stark incident.

SeaSkimmer could probably has a better idea than me.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well what about the USS Cole? A speedboat packed with explosives exploded next to it. A hole over 14 feet wide was blown and the ship almost sank.

On the other hand the Iowa would just have laughed at such an assault.

Bullshit plain and simple. The bomb was massive shaped charge; it would have blown clear though the Iowa's belt without a sweat. Cole never came close to sinking. Total water shipped was around 700 tons, a fraction of her reserve buoyancy.


The USN expected an Iowa to require six Exocet or 2000 pound GP bombs to be destroyed. On the other hand, the 2/3s as big Russian Missile cruiser Kirvo was expected to need five Harpoons to be destroyed. Five Harpoons have twice the HE in them as six Exocets.

I guess Im a bit of a pessimist. Until I see an Aegis cruiser stop 4 or 5 inbound missles, Im skeptical. I do agree though a full carrier group is a hard nut to crack. I tend to think about the most likely scenarios. A small group of warships in the Gulf for example.

The design requirement was for one ship to be able to defeat 32-supersonic targets both flying low and at altitude. In tests against QF-100 target drone doing mach 1.1, all sixteen inbounds were destroyed.

[TrailerParkJawa]

The design requirement was for one ship to be able to defeat 32-supersonic targets both flying low and at altitude. In tests against QF-100 target drone doing mach 1.1, all sixteen inbounds were destroyed.

Tests are under ideal situations. Until I see the Aegies cruiser stop an ASM in combat, I consider it unproven. Dont get me wrong, Im not saying we wasted our taxpayer dollars on the Aegis cruisers, I just only believe a weapons systems claims until they are proven in combat.

The one time an Aegis cruiser shot down an enemy aircraft, it turned out to be a Airliner full of Iranian pilgrams. They combonation of man/system failed that day under combat. Just goes to show how important training is.

Obviously, Im not actually hoping that some of our sailors will get shot at. I dont want anyone getting hurt.

Hey, if you have a link to info on the tests, could you provide it? I would enjoy reading it.

Here is a link I found to show some of what SeaSkimmer is saying about how modern warships can take a beating. ( even if it is a mission kill the ship is still afloat )

http://sinkex.uss-buchanan-ddg14.org/

Says on the site the ship was hit by 3 Hellfires from helicopters, 3 harpoon missles, and a 2400 pound bomb.

[Sea Skimmer]

The design requirement was for one ship to be able to defeat 32-supersonic targets both flying low and at altitude. In tests against QF-100 target drone doing mach 1.1, all sixteen inbounds were destroyed.

Tests are under ideal situations. Until I see the Aegies cruiser stop an ASM in combat, I consider it unproven. Dont get me wrong, Im not saying we wasted our taxpayer dollars on the Aegis cruisers, I just only believe a weapons systems claims until they are proven in combat.

The one time an Aegis cruiser shot down an enemy aircraft, it turned out to be a Airliner full of Iranian pilgrams. They combonation of man/system failed that day under combat. Just goes to show how important training is.

Obviously, Im not actually hoping that some of our sailors will get shot at. I dont want anyone getting hurt.

Hey, if you have a link to info on the tests, could you provide it? I would enjoy reading it.

Sorry I dont have a link, this is coming out a book I have on USN cruisers.

Ideal would be a stationary cruiser firing at targets flying in a straight line.
This was a Tico at 25 knots against targets flying evasive in ways most missiles cant thanks to the humans flying them by remote while chucking out chaff and with ECM going, two things no missile has.

[aerius]

A TOW-2A can penetrate 31 inches of armor. Iowans maximum is 2/3s of that. The after effects would of course not be lethal, even with dozens of strikes. However a turret penetrated by such a blast would be out of action.

The armor penetration of the M-72 LAW is about 15 inches, enough to penetration the Iowa's belt, deck, turret sides and roofs, bulkheads and communications tubes. Only the turret faces and three sides of the CT are safe.

The LAW-80 can penetrate about 20 inches, enough to punch though anything on the Iowa.

I'm however just using these as an example of the uselessness of the Iowa's armor; infantry anti tank weapons should never be in a position to hit an Iowa. Though attack helicopters would be a huge threat in the ships 1980s reactivation guise. A single modern helo could stand off outside the range of the ships defense and destroy every weapon and set the ship ablaze by exploding its harpoon canisters with one load of missiles.

A Silkworm with an 800-pound shaped charge could easily repeat the feat of a weapon 1/400th its warhead size. And it has hundreds of pounds of solid rocket fuel along with the jet to cause massive fires. The blast damage from the warhead makes everything worsen.

The penetration ratings are based on homogeneous armour, and are reduced for layered armour belts such as those used in the Iowa class BB. Those ships use 3 differant layers of armour on the main turrets, and all vital areas have at least a 2 layer armour scheme to make penetration harder. The armour has an outer case layer, the core layer, and a splinter layer to prevent spalling. Everything's angled too which makes the effective thickness greater than the specs, which are measured perpendicular to the armour face.

As for the 155mm shell, it may have more range than a 16/50, but how much damage can it cause? I doubt it could really damage anything larger than a PT boat. Using a 155 against ships is kinda like shooting a tank or APC with a m16, it'll take a ton of shots or a lucky hit to stop the target. I can easily pick up a 155 shell, while a 16/50 shell weighs more than a small car and is longer than I am tall, I wonder which'll do more damage.

I'm not saying the Iowa class ships are invincible, they aren't. Launch say, 20 missles at them all at once and they're screwed, or just use an underwater nuclear blast to snap the ships in half. Budget be damned, refit'em and use them as command ships. Surrounded by a fleet they'll be hard to hit, and even if they got hit they'll likely survive with only superficial to minor damage.[/url]

[Sea Skimmer]

The penetration ratings are based on homogeneous armour, and are reduced for layered armour belts such as those used in the Iowa class BB. Those ships use 3 differant layers of armour on the main turrets, and all vital areas have at least a 2 layer armour scheme to make penetration harder. The armour has an outer case layer, the core layer, and a splinter layer to prevent spalling. Everything's angled too which makes the effective thickness greater than the specs, which are measured perpendicular to the armour face.

Correct, however the differance in resistance is insufficent to matter. Splinter protection is not going to stop the blast of a shaped charge and in the case of turrets and the CT, to close to the main armor to make a differance. If you shoot a ATGW at say the belt, it wound;t matter even if there was no armor beucase the warhead jet would run out of steam before reaching anyhting important.

As for the 155mm shell, it may have more range than a 16/50, but how much damage can it cause? I doubt it could really damage anything larger than a PT boat. Using a 155 against ships is kinda like shooting a tank or APC with a m16, it'll take a ton of shots or a lucky hit to stop the target. I can easily pick up a 155 shell, while a 16/50 shell weighs more than a small car and is longer than I am tall, I wonder which'll do more damage.

Six inch and below shell fire sank more ships when all guns above it in WW2..

You might notice that Guns between 150 and 155mm where the most common main battey of cruisers with a majority, and mounted by scores of of battleships and battlecruisers as secondarys.

Many cruisers fell to 6 inch gunfire, and several battleships and battlecruisers suffered heavy damage from such fire.

One 16/50 gun might do more damage then a 155mm, but for the weight of a triple 16 inch turret you can have twenty automatic 155mm guns which will deliver about 65% more weight of shell. You can also engage multiple targets over a wide area with them at the same time.

You can also use such guns much closer to your own troops. 16/50 can't be used for anything like close support, and as a result is worthless for the most important of fire missions.

For wipe spread area damage, rockets have tube artillery beat already, the USN really should buy POLAR.