Originally Posted by blidgepump
Either you are a movie producer who smells a script in the making or a great ad man.
I must have read where he quoted the other person.
As far as Texas "shredding" an Iowa under the right conditions, if by the "right conditions" he means Iowa is being expended as a target and Texas has somehow been fitted with torpedos, then I guess it's plausible.
Even at close range, Iowa is going to make swiss cheese out of Texas, sure, Texas might get some licks in, but I see no way Texas doesn't sink or simply become unable to defend herself.
For TBM3fan:
I sure hope that guy knows Ford trucks better than he knows Battleships (of which is nothing but garbage). Yes, the armor belt (3 Bulkheads inboard of the shell plating) starts at 12.1" of face hardened Class A armor bolte to 1 1/2" thick STS structural bulkheads. The Class A runs from 2nd deck down to a bit below 3rd deck. Then Class B armor starts there at 12.1" thick down to 1 5/8" thick at the 3rd bottom flat. These armor bulkheads run from frame 50 to frame 166, for a total of 464 feet on each side.
As for the Texas taking out an Iowa, though she was a good ship and pounded shell shock into the Germans inside a huge concrete blockhouse, an Iowa would have to be a standing target and I don't think the Texas could carry enough ammo to take her down.
And if the Iowa were active, it would take a few salvos to take the Texas down. Interestingly the Iowa wasn't even able to sink the Nevada but that was only a few rounds allowed to fire on her.
Now if this guy is really an expert on Ford trucks, get his butt over to my house and put in a decent set of window switches for my 2006 F-150. And without charge. Just his repair and installation will be apology enough to being so ill-informed of Battleship construction.
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.
I think you might have the two mixed up. The one with your name is the one saying the Texas could take on the Iowa in the right conditions. He claims that since the armor belt is set at an incline then any shell that can penetrate the outer hull would cause trouble. It is his belief that this would allow water to flood into the void between the outer hull and the armor belt and act as a saddle tank causing a list and slowing her down considerably. Could even be a 5" shell if lucky enough. Then that being the case the Texas could then shred the Iowa. Of course, he makes the assumption that a 14" shell has the same range as a 16" shell.
He then goes into how much armor a shell can penetrate depending on the distance. Once again implying that the Iowa Class was, at best, an average battleship that wasn't that much better than earlier classes.
Number Dummy, or Bill, is simply trying to quote from Jane's about armor thicknesses throughout the Iowa. That is all he really has to counter the other fellows claim concerning the Iowa Class.
Rusty_S quotes:
Right, the Iowa does have that powerful look to her, but her armor wasnt even capable of defending herself from her own guns. They went with thinner armor to keep her speed up since she was being built as a fast battleship.
The big problem I have is the way how they designed the belt armor. The belt armor was designed to be within the hull so she could traverse the panama canal. To get the angled belt armor on the exterior would mean she would have to be about 30 feet wider to be stable and she would have been too wide. The hull was designed to decap armor piercing round, which all armor hull plate was capable of. But the decapped round would have a harder time penetrating the angled belt armor. This is where I have an issue with it. Once the round has been decapped and stopped by the belt armor the Iowa class will now take on water between her hull and the reverse angled belt armor which will act as a saddle tank and cause her to list. This would effecively reduce her range of fire from 23 miles to as little as 13 miles max.
It was desided that Japanese warships with their poor quality sighting systems would take more hits before they could even get a hit on an Iowa class. But when you place her up against a war ship with the same capabilities targeting wise, well now you start running into a draw.
Armor wise this is where it becomes tricky, the Iowa with her reverse angled belt armor had a high deflection rate of incoming rounds so after her hull decapped the armor piercing round the angled belt armor of 12.1" above waterline and 1.45" below water line would have a better chance of surviving. Problem is though since the belt armor is reverse angled this means once the hull was pierced the Iowa class would start to take on water in this saddle tank created by the belt armor. This list would effectively reduce Iowa`s range of 23 miles down to just 13 miles. The same range that Texas could throw her 14inch shells.
Texas on the other hand was designed with slightly angled 12" thich belt armor but the design called for an upgrade by 1" on all armors before the armor was installed so her belt armor could in reality be really 13". We do not know for sure the exact dimensions of the belt armor only what the orignal design plans called for. Besides this if it was 12" belt armor or 13" the belt armor still had an energy absorbing backing to the belt armor which allowed the belt armor to punch higher than plain 12" belt armor. At the time of construction the idea was the backing to the belt armor would not add as much weight to the ship as going with 14" class A belt armor but it would allow the hull to act in a way simmilar to 14" class A belt armor. just like the Iowa`s angled belt armor allowed the 12.1" belt armor to act like 13.1" belt armor above the waterline and Iowa`s 1.45" belt armor to act llike 2.45" belt armor below the waterline.
Like wise the 3" deck armor on the Texas was designed just like Iowa`s 4.75" deck. The idea was to ignite the fuse on the armor piercing projectile and have it detonate sooner below deck to allow the heavier deck armor below deck protect against shrapnel. Problem is though even Iowa`s 4.75" deck couldnt stop a plunging shell, it was never designed to. Bismarck`s 3" deck armor was never designed to stop a shell either but to arm it and have it hopefully detonate above the tough armor deck below deck. In the case of Texas all her vital area`s like the Iowa was protected by thick class A armor plate which means while the Texas`s bow and stern would take damage, so would Iowa since her belt armor like the Texas`s only cover the vitals amidship.
The 5inch guns were not useable underway in heavy seas. With seas calm enough to keep the Texas from pitching the 5inch guns were useable every single time.
In my opinion, both would get black eyes but it will be a draw in the end. The Iowa would take some hits she would list, Texas would take some hits as well. But the design of the two would allow them to survive each other. The only way Iowa could potentially take real damage is if the 14inch or even the 5inch guns were doing waterline shots which had a very high chance of shreading Iowa`s 1.45" thick belt armor below the waterline. Typically in naval combat waterline shots are done but its on a case to case basis.
I have to stress that I am not saying the Iowa is a bad ship, I just dont think the Iowa is as great as everyone seems to make it out to be. Lots of people get on the bandwagon saying Iowa would have sunk the Yamato, I would have to disagree cause with the design of the Yamato the Iowa would exhaust all her main and secondary armament and would leave the scene with the Yamato still afloat. The Yamato had a hell of a lot of sealable compartments meaning you have to pretty much put huge holes in every square inch of her hull to counter the compartment design of the Yamato.
Its like the Bismarck, the Yamato would be a total wreck above deck but she would still be floating and it would be up to the crew if they want to scuttle her or keep her afloat.Maybe the veteran can help me understand this document I found. It is a penetration chart which if I am reading it right, indicates the AP shell Texas used was able to penetrate through 7" thick deck armor at 37,900 yards and could go through 18" thick deck armor at 11,500 yards. I might not be reading it right but I got a lot of old tech documents from when the battleship was new and most of it I cant make heads or tails of.
Update - I think I might have just realized how to read it, the inch description on the curve part is the thickness of hull armor the shell can penetrate and the inch listed with the distance is the deck armor thickness. Which means at 37,900 yards 7" hull armor can be pierced, and at 11,500 yards 18" thick hull armor can be pierced. Then at 36,000 yards the shell can pierce a 8" thick armor deck and at 13,500 yards the shell can pierce a 2" thick armor deck. Makes sense considering at the shorter range of 13,500 the shell will be hitting at a high angle resulting in a higher chance to be deflected by armor thicker than 2". Not bad for a 14" gun in my opinion, this tells me Texas could have really shreaded the Iowa armor at the right ranges.The armor deck of 6" is basically what I was saying, the difference is the Class A armor for the deck is 4.75" and that is sandwhiched atop of 1.25" STS which comes to a total of 6".
The only thing that I dont agree with is on Janes specs on the Texas, I have copies of orignal documents from the construction and so far no verification on if the last minute changes were done or not. Texas had last minute changes calling for an additional 1" of armor everywheres upon her launch where her orignal design called for 12" belt armor in the orignal plans pre construction.
In the end it doesnt really matter cause its all speculation since finding the real specifications would require altering the warship to get the specs.
Its not that I think battleships were underbuilt. Its that I think the Iowa class was built just as good as all the other battleships. Theres some people I come across that act like the Iowa was a superbattleship that nothing could hurt her and nothing could sink her. With this recently located 1939 shell penetration chart for the Texas and her 14inch/45cal main guns, they could easily punch through Iowa`s 6" deck at maximum range. Like wise at mid range the same 14inch shells could punch through Iowa`s 12.1" belt armor at 26,000 yards.
I know Iowa had bigger guns and was a larger warship with a faster speed. But with that weight and speed comes a drawback. She consumed oil at twice the rate more efficient battleships did meaning her weight was mostly reserves for fuel oil cause she had to carry twice as much to meet the Navy`s combat radius. When you look at it like this, Iowa`s engines made 3 times the power Texas`s engines did, Iowa carried 2 times the fuel oil as Texas did, but Iowa couldnt travel the same distance on a full tank of fuel oil as Texas could at the most economical speed.
Iowa consumed 160 lbs per mile of oil at her most economical speed, Texas consumed just 90 lbs per mile of oil at her most economical speed. The speed difference for the two ships was just 3 knots. Texas`s most economical speed was 12 knots where Iowa`s was 15 knots.
So in closing I am not saying battleships in all are bad designs or underbuilt. I am just saying Iowa in my opinion is underbuilt based off the hype she gets from all these internet sources. Everywheres on the internet I see Iowa vs Yamato vs Bismarck and every one of those the speculation puts Iowa on top even though the Yamato would be a pain to sink considering she had hundreds of sealable compartments. From basic calculations it would take more ammunition than the Iowa carried of 16inch/50cal shells to sink Yamato.
When you look at it, Iowa has for the most part the same composition and the same thickness armor that battleships from 50 years earlier had. The only difference is the belt armor was angled to provide higher deflection rate making it act like thicker armor. Her deck armor was 4.75" backed by a 1.25" STS layer. Well a single 1939 spec 14inch/45cal AP shell would punch through Iowa`s 6" overall thickness deck at 36,000 yards easily. For such a new warship that is hyped up to be the end all of battleships the absololute most powerful and strongest armored one but yet a 14inch shell from 36,000 yards would tear through Iowa`s deck like paper. The 14inch shell at 36,000 hards could punch through 8" thick deck armor. So Iowa was new and shiney and clean but compromises were made in her armor to keep up speed which in my opinion makes her no different than battleships built at the turn of the century to when she was built in the 1940`s.
Besides all that the Battle Report, where would one find the five volumes for that book?
The other question I have is would the local library have tape reel copies of shipboard news papers? I know the name of most of the news papers printed aboard ship but a online search didnt bring up anything else and I would like to find all I can. The ones I currently have ranges from 1920 to 1936, and while their interesting, I am looking more for the ones printed during the 1940`s and if possible during the 1910`s.
Warranty on Ford Parts..... Mr. L,
I appreciate a great mechanic as well as the next poor soul stranded by the side of the highway.
Should the Ford man arrive at your residence and he successfully address your window regulator switch issue, it would be an honor for me to introduce him to my 2001 Ford F-350 door lock switches..... on our "crew cab".
One problem I see what that guy's comparison of Texas and Iowa is the range. I'm pretty sure Texas and New York never had their mounts modernized, and equally pretty sure they couldn't elevate beyond 15 degrees.....so their range is what....20k yards? Certainly not 36k.
Iowa stands off just out of range of Texas' guns but within a great range for her to obtain hits and just obliterates Texas. Why anyone would even think this is remotely a fair fight is beyond me.
Sorry. He is 30+ years Ford "parts" and not repair.
"-------The big problem I have is the way how they designed the belt armor. The belt armor was designed to be within the hull so she could traverse the panama canal. To get the angled belt armor on the exterior would mean she would have to be about 30 feet wider to be stable and she would have been too wide.-------"
I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of his sea stories. Those paragraphs were enough. The armor was designed as an interior Armored Box in order to meet the London Treaty weight limitations of a standard displacement of 45,000 tonnes.
It would take me another book to write about where weight was reduced here, there, everywhere to meet treaty limits. Bulkhead 36 is an example (chapter 27 of my book on LBNSY).
That's all for now. Gotta fix dinner.
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.
I was just reading through the BB Texas thread and watching the youtube movie's about the dry berth plans.
I can't help but think that the other museum BBs will one end up in the condition that Texas is in which leads to a quesiton:
Are there plans to dry berth any of the other BBs? I understand that the money will be a factor but long term I would have thought that the dry berths would pay for themselves. Out of the water I would think that a BB's life expectancy for any given refurb would be doubled?
Makes for a better look at the ship. I imagine standing on the bottom of a dry dock looking up at an Iowa class would show just how massive these things were (nearly 50% was under water?).
Does a dry berth for the Iowa even get mentioned?
There are no dry berths left on the west coast nor any place to build one. Thanks to political pressure to build the country's largest container ship terminal, the only drydocks left big enough to take a Battleship or an Aircraft Carrier are up in Bremerton, Washington.
We do plan on a drydocking of Iowa within the next 5 years, but dry berthing is completely out of the question. It would take up too much real estate for condos that eventually slide off into the ocean anyway.
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.
Shame, Norfolk, Newport News and Philadelphia still have theirs. And Philly's is in service on a regular basis. (Pretty sure the other two are as well).
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
I could imagine the beuracracy involved but ff it could be done would the people down at the Pacific Battleship centre prefer to dry berth her (ie dig out a spot somewhere) or do they want the Iowa in the water?
I'm more looking at what's better for the Ship. Would it be better having the Iowa 'high and dry' and out of the water or would sitting out of the water on chocks long term damage the ship?
She looks better in the water and rigged up with all her weapons showing as if she's ready to take on the bad guys again.
The Main Channel in San Pedro is mostly sea water. But some fresh water does get in from the Cerritos wetlands. Also Long Beach will be diverting the Los Angeles River outflow from the public beaches to the west side of Pier J where they can control flotsam and pollution better.
The breakwater (that some narrow minded surf lovers want taken down) protects the outer harbor from major contaminants and Tsunamis.
So the ship is actually in the best possible place in Southern California.
Well, second best. I would have liked to have taken her up the San Gabriel River channel in Newport Beach but would have to reroute Pacific Coast Highway and a couple of other bridges. Let my imagination get the best of me there for a moment.
Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.
NBC Nightly news story about the Iowa. After the video plays, wait a bit, a second video on the Iowa might play. Or you might have to click in the box with the picture of the battleship to play it.
Why is it that whichever battleship they are doing a news report on, that ship is the nations mightiest ship?
USS Iowa, the last battleship, filled with memories as it arrives at new home - The Daily Nightly
Funny they always call them the mightiest ships, yet we don't use them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
70Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: