|
I have done ballistic testing inthe past with conventional armor. The warheads on all of soviet missles did their damage based on blast I believe or use a shaped charge. The problem for these types of warhead is the Iowas were not a single layer of protection. The main armor belt was internal at an angle. The outer hull (and upper decks) were Class two (non-hardened armor steel) 2 inches thick which would have detonated either type of warhead before the main belt. The angle of the belt would deflect the blast up and away from the ship's vitals. In the case of a shaped charge, the distance from the outer hull to the armor belt would have dissipated the energy stream so it would never have cut through the inner main belt. The same applies to the vertical attack. the Iowas were actually designed to withstand and survive direct hits from their own guns, including plunging fire through the decks. The Iowa heavy shells were 2700 pounds, but designed to penetrate armor before exploding. It is also forgotten that battleships were DESIGNED to be pounded and still fight. That was their purpose. Most of the outer ship was expendible and there lies the most crucial difference with modern naval design.
Kirov vs Iowa would have been no contest if the Iowa could close up. Since the Iowa was a lot faster than the Kirov, it is fair to say the Iowa would have been the hunter. I remember tactics being discussed in the 80's about this and one of the intentions was to send the Iowa forward to engage the Russian fleet. I believe the Russians developed the Kursk anti-ship submarines because they felt the Iowas would be able to bottle up their surface fleet at the narrows of the North Atlantic and keep them away from the Navy and the merchant ship convoys. Their existing anti-ship subs would not have survived without the support of their fleet.
|