Was Reactivating the Iowas in the 80s a Good Idea?

[Albany Rifles]

All weapons requirements are based on a perceived need or shortfall.

The BBs were great paltforms for NGFS. They also gave a capability to slug it out on the batteline.

The question becomes, though, where is the shortfall or need? We aren't going to do the big invasion with NGFS as we used to. If fire support is needed we would use PGMs. JDAMs and cruise missiles can fill that requirment without putting sailors at risk. (There's your most important political trade off!)

They filled a gap in the 1980s when the technology wasn't there for PGMs. But now you don't need a BB to launch Tomahawks when you can just as effectively launch them from and SSN/SSGN or a JDAM from a Bone.

I was an Army guy, not a Navy guy. If I had gone Navy it would have been as surface warfare. However, I can not see any jusification for them today.

But they do make great museums!)

[Gun Grape]

It was a bad idea to bring them back in the 1980s.

They were brought back because of the Kirovs. The Kirovs were also the reason we have Tico Cruisers instead of Tico Destroyers

And a quick fix for Lehmans (spit) grand idea of a 600 ship Navy.

The only bennie that they had were the the Tomahawk box launchers. At the time, capable of carrying more tomahawks than any other ship. Until VLS came along.

The Iowas were not good for NGFS. But they were the excuse used to stop further design work on the programs in the pipeline. Bringing them back set NGFS behind 10-20 yrs. We cancelled the programs that we were already working on. And didn't start any new ones.

If we didn't bring the battleships back, the 8"/55 Mk 71mount would most likely have been brought into production and equipped Tico cruisers as originally designed and most likely retrofitted to Sprucans and incorporated in the Burkes as well.

Instead the navy decided that we didn't need to do that and NGF programs got cut with the Battleships as a prime reason. The old save money short term, we will figure out something later.

[Dreadnought]

The Iowas were not good for NGFS.

*Cant agree with you there Grape, far too many men have claimed different including but not limited to USMC and throughout different conflicts as well.

The old save money short term, we will figure out something later.

*Until the railgun system becomes much smaller in size and weight they wont have anything even comparible to the 16"/50's. The fives will do for what they want now but when the rail system comes online it will change the face of NGFS forever.

[Albany Rifles]

I always wondered about the what happenned to the 8"/55 idea. I remember reading about it in Proceeding sin the late 1970s and wondered why we never saw them.

Thanks for the data dump.

[Dreadnought]

I always wondered about the what happenned to the 8"/55 idea. I remember reading about it in Proceeding sin the late 1970s and wondered why we never saw them.

Thanks for the data dump.

Well, It found its way into the USN aboard the Des Moines class heavy cruisers that served during the Cuban missle crisis.

Main battery armament:

Main Battery:
Guns: 8 inch/55 caliber in three triple turrets
Gun Barrel: Mk 16 Mod 0
Muzzle Velocity: 2,800 ft/sec
Crew: 45 (turret)
Weight: 451 tons (turret)
Rate of fire: 10 rpgpm (rounds per gun per minute)
Projectiles: High capacity (shore bombardment): 260 pounds, Armor Piercing: 335 pounds
Range: 30,100 yards (AP) at 41 degrees 31,350 yards (HC) at 45 degrees
Notes: These guns were the first 8" guns to use cased (semi-fixed) ammunition instead of bag/shell loading. They were also the world's first automatic 8" gun. These guns could be loaded at any elevation from -5 to +41 degrees. The gun houses on all three turrets are quite spacious due to the fact they were designed with room for the installation of optical rangefinders, which were omitted from final plans

*Didn't know if there was a program in place for you ground pounders. Ever heard of one? I will say that from being aboard and seeing Des Moines set up in the Philly reserve they were quite impressive for the technology of the day. They also had their teething problems and a fatal accident such as what happend aboard the Iowa. However Newport News (Salem & Des Moines sister ship) split her gun like a bannana peel Turret #2 Center gun. Ironic.

[Gun Grape]

The Iowas were not good for NGFS.

*Cant agree with you there Grape, far too many men have claimed different including but not limited to USMC and throughout different conflicts as well.

Instead of listening to individuals, try reading official Marine Corps histories and AARs. The 5" gun was the preferred weapon for NGF support. And the 8" the most accurate. For battleship support the 14" was preferred.

P.X. Kelly claimed that the guns from the Jersey saved his rifle platoon. But He wasn't in country when Jersey was on station.

*Until the railgun system becomes much smaller in size and weight they wont have anything even comparible to the 16"/50's. The fives will do for what they want now but when the rail system comes online it will change the face of NGFS forever.

And just what do you think the railgun will do to naval fire Support in regards to supporting Marines in an amphibious assault?

[Gun Grape]

Well, It found its way into the USN aboard the Des Moines class heavy cruisers that served during the Cuban missle crisis.
............

They also had their teething problems and a fatal accident such as what happend aboard the Iowa. However Newport News (Salem & Des Moines sister ship) split her gun like a bannana peel Turret #2 Center gun. Ironic.

Wrong system. I specified the Mk. 71 MCLWG. Which served aboard USS Hull and was suppose to be installed on Ticos.

[DocHayes]

Can somebody explain whats so great about the Railgun? Pardon if my observation is a little elementary, but is it not basically a 5" solid metal slug fired by a giant magnet that can reach 200miles? Why is that better than putting gunpowder behind it?

[DocHayes]

Can somebody explain whats so great about the Railgun? Pardon if my observation is a little elementary, but is it not basically a 5" solid metal slug fired by a giant magnet that can reach 200miles? Why is that better than putting gunpowder behind it?

I just googled it, so I see the potential behind it.

[Dreadnought]

Instead of listening to individuals, try reading official Marine Corps histories and AARs. The 5" gun was the preferred weapon for NGF support. And the 8" the most accurate. For battleship support the 14" was preferred.

P.X. Kelly claimed that the guns from the Jersey saved his rifle platoon. But He wasn't in country when Jersey was on station.




And just what do you think the railgun will do to naval fire Support in regards to supporting Marines in an amphibious assault?

Gunny, I dont doubt your experience nor knowledge but if you would like I can start posting quotes from US marines as well as other countries militarys that either spotted for them or was there to observe during other conflicts.

*As far as I know the last leading authority on this would be Master Chief Steven Skelley. He was the very last to conduct naval gunfire from Spot 2 (Aft) onboard USS Wisconsin during the Gulf War and aboard USS Iowa during the time she had her accident. He termed the destruction in gunnery venacular as "A Beautiful shoot" during the Gulf War and he had over 3000 rounds over 8 years to his credit and from what is told he was an expert on Naval gunfire. To my knowledge there is nobody here that has more experience with naval gunfire then that bar none and with all respect due.

[Dreadnought]

And just what do you think the railgun will do to naval fire Support in regards to supporting Marines in an amphibious assault?


How about smaller ships and greater numbers of ships with more powerful guns, longer range and no propellant to worry about. Less cost to the USN and less work to the crews. Not to mention whatever programs become of the gun to further enhance asssitance to the US military not necessarily the marine corps but others as well. Theres atleast 4-5 plus's in what I just wrote.

One must remember Gunny that when they bring them out of mothballs for gunfire support (from whatever years they serve) the money came from the USN maintenence and operating funds. Not the Marine Corps so cost effectivness was always a major concern and the rail gun after completion could offset those costs once a proven shipboard design is implemented. Who knows in the future you guys might even get them taylor made to your own designs.

[Dreadnought]

P.X. Kelly claimed that the guns from the Jersey saved his rifle platoon. But He wasn't in country when Jersey was on station.


Gunny, IMO its quite obvious how critical those guns were to Marines during Vietnam. Capt. J. Edward Snyder was presented numerous mounted AK-47's from Marines that were allowed to come aboard from shore to eat, use showers medical,dental etc. He had recieved so many AK-47's in gratitude for New Jerseys actions that he started giving them to his officers. All rendered neutered ofcoarse. I dont know of P.X. Kelly but there are numerous accounts of men that where there and their stories never published and were very thankfull to have her at their backs time and time again. This is not to say the other ships that were there did not do their fair share of the work for they most certainly did.

[Dreadnought]

What I find amusing is that ever since Billy Mitchell, Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Prince Of Wales and Repulse the critics swore the reign of these ships was over time and time again for as long as I can remember and for as long as I have been alive would shout it too the highest heavens even at the mention of the word battleship but yet even 50 years later they would reach for something whose reign supposedly had ended 50 years earlier to go into battle with. Imagine that. This dont look so good for all of those critics now does it? But it does speak volumes for the men that took all too good of care of the battlewagons while they slumbered, the politics about them raged and the world continued to turn and seek conflict. Part of being a critic is allowing for the possibilities of the the word "if" in the future. Obviously those critics failed that part more then just once.

[Johnny W]

Instead of listening to individuals, try reading official Marine Corps histories and AARs. The 5" gun was the preferred weapon for NGF support. And the 8" the most accurate. For battleship support the 14" was preferred.

P.X. Kelly claimed that the guns from the Jersey saved his rifle platoon. But He wasn't in country when Jersey was on station.




And just what do you think the railgun will do to naval fire Support in regards to supporting Marines in an amphibious assault?

Was the 14 inch gun really preferred, or was it a case of the ships that carried the 14 inch guns being more experienced at NGFS missions? Most of the 16 inch gun battleships in World War II spent most of their time operating with the carriers, and didn't get as much practice at it as the older ships did.

[Gun Grape]

Gunny, I dont doubt your experience nor knowledge but if you would like I can start posting quotes from US marines as well as other countries militarys that either spotted for them or was there to observe during other conflicts.

*As far as I know the last leading authority on this would be Master Chief Steven Skelley. He was the very last to conduct naval gunfire from Spot 2 (Aft) onboard USS Wisconsin during the Gulf War and aboard USS Iowa during the time she had her accident. He termed the destruction in gunnery venacular as "A Beautiful shoot" during the Gulf War and he had over 3000 rounds over 8 years to his credit and from what is told he was an expert on Naval gunfire. To my knowledge there is nobody here that has more experience with naval gunfire then that bar none and with all respect due.

Not to start an argument, but I don't think the Master chief, as the senior shooter aboard the Wisconsin would say anything else.

Its not a unbiased opinion..

I was the Battery Gunnery Sgt of G 2/10 once upon a time and with over 20 years and 10s of thousands of rounds fired I will tell you they were the best Gunners in the world.

But then again, every Battery gunny and Chief of Smoke in the world would tell you the same about his battery.

And don't forget I'm one of those that has spotted for them. We have a long thread about it mostly between me and M21.

Gunny, IMO its quite obvious how critical those guns were to Marines during Vietnam. Capt. J. Edward Snyder was presented numerous mounted AK-47's from Marines that were allowed to come aboard from shore to eat, use showers medical,dental etc. He had recieved so many AK-47's in gratitude for New Jerseys actions that he started giving them to his officers. All rendered neutered ofcoarse. I dont know of P.X. Kelly but there are numerous accounts of men that where there and their stories never published and were very thankfull to have her at their backs time and time again. This is not to say the other ships that were there did not do their fair share of the work for they most certainly did.

And you will find, that the support that they received was mostly from the 5/38s.

If you allow me to come aboard for a shower and a hot meal I'd give you a AK also. Its part of the traditions of the navy and Marines. You always bring a gift to hang in the Officers mess, Chiefs mess or the ships "I love me" wall.

I won't argue that they were not decent ships during their time. But they were not the uberweapons that people try to make them out to be.