Conventional Cruise Missiles vs. WWII Battleships

[vmetal76]

So my roommate and I were watching "Under Siege" last night in which Tommy Lee Jones hijacks the USS Missouri and is thwarted by Steven Segal. Anyway, a discussion erupted about the sturdiness of the USS Missouri. My roomate's view is that a modern cruise missile could easily sink the Missouri. My view is that the Missouri, just like many of the late WWII battleships were so heavily armored that it would take a fairly large number of conventional cruise missiles to sink the Missouri. And I'm not talking about a lucky hit where a cruise missile flies down the smokestack and blows up the boiler. I'm talking just regular hits against the outer armor of the ship.

How many conventional Tomahawk cruise missiles would it take?

How many conventional Harpoon ASM's would it take?

Any input? Thanks.


PS: I am not a terrorist planning on blowing up the USS Missouri. This is just to settle a debate between two guys sitting on the couch and watching movies.

[Rick DeBay]

Originally Posted by vmetal76

My roomate's view is that a modern cruise missile could easily sink the Missouri. My view is that...it would take a fairly large number of conventional cruise missiles to sink the Missouri.

I don't even think a large number of these missiles could give you a mission kill (mission being defined as aimed firing of the main armament). You could sure as hell perforate the superstructure pretty well, and even blow the bow off. But it was designed for such occurrences (it'd cruise REALLY SLOW though :-)

Seriously, unless the warhead is designed to penetrate armor, it'll break up on impact with the main armor belt, and maybe even with the hull (which is twice as thick as current armor, don't Burke's have 3/4 inch hull plating?). Even the dreaded Moskit in a plunge from altitude wouldn't have enough of a punch even if it's semi-armor piercing warhead was replaced with a hardened one.

Best bet would be a missile with a BIG shaped charge. An AS-4 Kitchen would certainly be enough, Russia claims it'll put a 5 meter hole 12 meters deep in any target.
Anything smaller that survived to impact on the armored belt would have to cross an eight foot void behind the belt before there was anything to damage. You'd have better luck hitting the armor deck, there's much less of a void between it and vulnerable machinery. You wouldn't let any water in (which leads to sinking) but you'd start fires which might eventually put it out of action.

[vmetal76]

Originally Posted by Rick DeBay

I don't even think a large number of these missiles could give you a mission kill (mission being defined as aimed firing of the main armament). You could sure as hell perforate the superstructure pretty well, and even blow the bow off. But it was designed for such occurrences (it'd cruise REALLY SLOW though :-)

Seriously, unless the warhead is designed to penetrate armor, it'll break up on impact with the main armor belt, and maybe even with the hull (which is twice as thick as current armor, don't Burke's have 3/4 inch hull plating?). Even the dreaded Moskit in a plunge from altitude wouldn't have enough of a punch even if it's semi-armor piercing warhead was replaced with a hardened one.

Best bet would be a missile with a BIG shaped charge. An AS-4 Kitchen would certainly be enough, Russia claims it'll put a 5 meter hole 12 meters deep in any target.
Anything smaller that survived to impact on the armored belt would have to cross an eight foot void behind the belt before there was anything to damage. You'd have better luck hitting the armor deck, there's much less of a void between it and vulnerable machinery. You wouldn't let any water in (which leads to sinking) but you'd start fires which might eventually put it out of action.

OK - we're getting somewhere. The debate was about why didn't the US military just sink the Missouri in "Under Siege" with missiles. So the main constraints are that we have to use American off-the-shelf armament. Thus, lets try to figure out if this could be done with either the Tomahawk cruise missile or the Harpoon ASM.

[Rick DeBay]

Originally Posted by vmetal76

The debate was about why didn't the US military just sink the Missouri in "Under Siege" with missiles. So the main constraints are that we have to use American off-the-shelf armament. Thus, lets try to figure out if this could be done with either the Tomahawk cruise missile or the Harpoon ASM.

Or neither. The threat is nuclear missiles on a deactivated warship (yeah right).
Approach from outside the range of the Phalanx CIWS, and drop some laser guided bombs on the Tomahawk launchers.

[glyn]

Two birds with one stone, so to speak! Neither of you have completed your public profiles or introduced yourself to the membership. Please do so, so that we can see who has come among us.

[gunnut]

Can a Harpoon or a Tomahawk even penetrate the armor belt of the Iowa class? As I understand it, a battleship should have enough armor to protect herself from the equivalent of her own weapons. That means the Iowa class should have enough armor against 16" shells. I don't think a Harpoon or a Tomahawk possess the power of a 16" shell.

[vmetal76]

Originally Posted by Rick DeBay

Or neither. The threat is nuclear missiles on a deactivated warship (yeah right).
Approach from outside the range of the Phalanx CIWS, and drop some laser guided bombs on the Tomahawk launchers.

Forget laser guided bombs. Can it be done with conventional Tomahawks or Harpoons? That's what the whole debate was about.

[TopHatter]

Somebody else mentioned this I think but I'll expand on it.

If you want to crack open the crunchy chocolaty shell of a battleship to get at the creamy nougat center, you need armor-piercing weapons.

A sufficiently sized cruise missile could definitely cause serious problems, such as the Russian Shipwreck.

But we're talking about American Tomahawks (the TASM variant) and Harpoons.

I'm thinking you could turn the Missouri into a flaming wreck with enough of them.

Particularly if it's sitting "anchored" (in the middle of the Pacific Ocean no less ) without all of it's active defenses operating.

So why didn't the Navy just use cruise missiles in Under Siege?

Because the screenwriters needed to present a credible threat to our heros that could be recalled back to base once Tommy Lee Jones was dispatched with knife to head.

Back in the movie world, you could say that there weren't enough TASM equipped ships to sufficiently do the job. Harpoons, sure. But that dinky little 500lb warhead is something that battleships can typically eat for breakfast and not break stride (USS South Dakota took a direct hit on top of her No. 2 turret, killing several men topside but only scratching the paint of the turret.)
Or whatever.

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Back in the movie world, you could say that there weren't enough TASM equipped ships to sufficiently do the job. Harpoons, sure. But that dinky little 500lb warhead is something that battleships can typically eat for breakfast and not break stride (USS South Dakota took a direct hit on top of her No. 2 turret, killing several men topside but only scratching the paint of the turret.)
Or whatever.

With enough dinky little 500 lb warheads you should be able to get mission kill, make the ship unable to launch the nukes. We were able to smash the Hiei up pretty well with 5" guns and smaller anti-aircraft weapons in Guadalcanal. Can't sink a battleship with such weapons, but I doubt the ABLs for the Tomahawks could take too much fire.

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by Armchair General

With enough dinky little 500 lb warheads you should be able to get mission kill, make the ship unable to launch the nukes. We were able to smash the Hiei up pretty well with 5" guns and smaller anti-aircraft weapons in Guadalcanal. Can't sink a battleship with such weapons, but I doubt the ABLs for the Tomahawks could take too much fire.

True enough, that would pretty much suffice (assuming you could do a proper BDA) but in the case of potential nukes I guess you pour on the ordnance until the coroners throw up their hands and ask for a vacuum cleaner.

(and the original question was Can cruise missiles sink the Missouri? )

Small plot hole: 2 TLAM-N's have been launched, the rest were on the sub that was destroyed by 16-inch gunfire. Good so far?

Most of the terrorists are dead, if swaggering Steven and his scratch crew of strippers, launderers and whoever else were keeping a running body count. (passenger complement of a CH-46? 25 or so)

The ship's missile fire control (Of course! The FIRE CONTROL!) is back in friendly hands. Not to mention smashed into a million pieces.

There is still at the very least, several hundred Missouri sailors still alive. (They were operating on a "skeleton crew" or whatever)

So why is the Navy still so anxious to destroy the Missouri?

Yes, there are still conventional Tomahawks and Harpoons (just in case you want to keep redecorating Observation Island with anti-ship missiles ) but how are you going to launch them?


Why not hold off for a few minutes and see if maybe you can keep your battleship (oh yeah, and her crew) instead of blasting it into a blazing derelict?

Why did Steven have to cry like a little girl and beg the admiral to call off his bombers after the two nukes were destroyed?

Ah well, at the battleships got one movie before they were put away.

It's a shame that it had to be a Seagal movie.

[Master Chief]

I would say send in the 688's Put as many Mk-48ADCAPS into the sides of that ship as you can. I know the battleship has torpedo blisters to protect it but not against a few modern day torps. The battleship has no ASW weapons at least it did not in the movie! And one more thing, I don't think it would be that easy to take over a battleship with nuks on board. Hell the marines on board would have chewed them up! Those boys were always looking to get into to it. My best friend Ken was a marine aboard the USS Long Beach CGN-9 and he even ate in the mess with his weapon!

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by Master Chief

I would say send in the 688's Put as many Mk-48ADCAPS into the sides of that ship as you can. I know the battleship has torpedo blisters to protect it but not against a few modern day torps. The battleship has no ASW weapons at least it did not in the movie!

That would be the best way to sink it, although modern day torpedoes really aren't much more powerful than WWII era ones. There's only so much explosive you can put in a 21" tube. The Mk 48 actually has less explosive than our WWII era torps, although it's probably safe to assume it's a more powerful explosive. Nothing we have today can match the 1000 lb warhead of the "Long Lance" 24" torpedoes Japan had. It would take a lot of torpedoes probably, judging from the record of the Musashi and Yamato. Of course, the Shinano, their half-sister, went down from 4 well aimed shots, due to bad damage control, so you never know.

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by Master Chief

I would say send in the 688's Put as many Mk-48ADCAPS into the sides of that ship as you can. I know the battleship has torpedo blisters to protect it but not against a few modern day torps. The battleship has no ASW weapons at least it did not in the movie!

Agreed, assuming that a sub was close enough...though the Mark 48's be exploding under the keel

Originally Posted by Master Chief

And one more thing, I don't think it would be that easy to take over a battleship with nuks on board. Hell the marines on board would have chewed them up! Those boys were always looking to get into to it. My best friend Ken was a marine aboard the USS Long Beach CGN-9 and he even ate in the mess with his weapon!

Exactly correct.

The creators of Under Siege talked quite a bit with the real XO of the Missouri at that time and asked him how a takeover would be possible.

The XO said that hitting the ship during a major "event" would be ideal, as would having a man on the inside, especially a high-ranking one.

He wasn't amused that they chose the XO

The movie had to "dumb things down" quite a bit to make the plot happen.

Ergo, I don't really believe that the MARDET would secure their patrols simply beacause the XO said so. Their commander probably would have gone straight to the CO and told him that his XO had gone off the deep end.

I gues anything is possible in a Hollywood movie.

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Of course, the Shinano, their half-sister, went down from 4 well aimed shots, due to bad damage control, so you never know.

Bad damage control was definitely a factor, though there were more factors than that, as well as some interesting specifics about that bad damage control.

For one thing, the ship wasn't even complete. Her watertight integrity potential was virtually non-existant by most accounts.

It was also concluded that her anti-torpedo blisters were defective.

She had a green crew who'd believed she was practically unsinkable but given little training at that point.

There a lot of civilians aboard. Instant panic.

Here's a rather interesting report written by the USN in 1946 on the sinkings of Yamato, Musashi, Shinano and Taiho. Enjoy!

[Rick DeBay]

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Here's a rather interesting report written by the USN in 1946 on the sinkings of Yamato, Musashi, Shinano and Taiho. Enjoy!

You're correct, quite an interesting read. It also contradicts TV dramatizations of the sinking. The episode of Dogfights dealing with the Yamato shows a blazing wreck, but there were few bomb hits, and one fire below decks, which didn't contribute to the loss. Of course, a show detailing flooding and counter flooding would have been awfully boring.

With a decent torpedo side protection system, the Yamato and her sister ships would have been able to put up a much better fight, possibly even escaping at night fall.

[vmetal76]

Originally Posted by Rick DeBay

You're correct, quite an interesting read. It also contradicts TV dramatizations of the sinking. The episode of Dogfights dealing with the Yamato shows a blazing wreck, but there were few bomb hits, and one fire below decks, which didn't contribute to the loss. Of course, a show detailing flooding and counter flooding would have been awfully boring.

With a decent torpedo side protection system, the Yamato and her sister ships would have been able to put up a much better fight, possibly even escaping at night fall.

I don't think that "escape" was one of Yamato's final mission objectives. The ship was on a suicide mission -to die honorably in battle rather be disgraced in a humiliating defeat or surrender.