Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

[Anon]

Hey Marine....i hope you're enjoying this debate/discussion/ whatever as much as i am.

I havn't been involved in a discussion about fire support at this detailed a level since before the end of the Cold War.

I hope the other kiddies are paying attention.

[sparten]

Originally Posted by Praxus

Whats a Sparten?

Sure you didn't mean Spartan?

Yes I do indeed. Sparten, comes from a misspelled entry in a programme for a play on the Battle of Thermopylae (which I was in) a few years ago. The mistake did not go unnoticed and I was called Spar10 or simply 10 for ages afterwords.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"
You also managed to somehow ignore the fact that after surviving two atomic bomb tests(the first of which she was aimpoint for), the 27,000 Ton USS New York was towed out to sea and attacked for 8 hours by a full scale combined arms offensive before she sunk.

.

I didn't forget that, She was used to test new torpedos. To get a full understanding of what type of "pounding" she took we would have to have access to the instructions to the ships and what weapons they fired. Was it 5/38s only and targeting the superstructure type questions. And what size bombs they dropped. 250 lb practice - 1000 lg? It was intended that she be used to test torpedos. I don't think they would have wanted her sunk prematurely. We still do the same on SinkEx ops. Choose target points on ships so that everyone in the battlegroup gets to play.

BTW the Nevada was the aimpoint for the Able shot. And was missed by about 2 thous yds. Gilliam(APA-57), was only 47 yards from actual "ground zero" and sank like a rock.
Can't blame the AF. The bomb fell like a 55 gal drum

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key...1946-05-13.htm

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"The NV deligation halted the peace talks because of the size of the table and various other reasons over the years. The only one I've heard the NJ story from was an article from Ollie North. Bottom line, the NJ didn't leave the gun line and did her 6 months on station. Not as he states"Our leaders, as they did so often in that war, made the wrong choice and sent her home""

If you'd like to know the origins of that story i'll tell you.

Dr. Stearnman(your buddy) was an aide to Dr. Kissenger at the peacetalks. Dr. Kissenger allegedly told Dr. Stearnman that was the case.

I cannot validate the authenticity of any of that except to tell you it was an email response from USNFSA when i asked for background on that rumor.

I do agree that there appears to be no historical record of that having happened.

It sounds great though.

Now why does it not suprise me that the head of USNFSA would be the source of such an unverifiable story?

[rickusn]

"Can't blame the AF. "

Never could, dont and never will.

They are wearing the original teflon coating. LOL

Loaned some to President Reagan Im told.

Not that he needed it IMHO or even used it to my knowledge.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Hey Marine....i hope you're enjoying this debate/discussion/ whatever as much as i am.

I havn't been involved in a discussion about fire support at this detailed a level since before the end of the Cold War.

I hope the other kiddies are paying attention.

Yes I am. And to think some may think we are arguing. I've never thought so.
This also gives me an excuse to dig through my footlockers looking for FMs. Alot of memories in those things I had forgot about. Good times and Good people and a few bad times and bad people.

[Gun Grape]

(M21Sniper)

"Figure 7-2. FPF dimensions.

The authority to call for the FPF is given to the leader (normally the CO or platoon leader) in whose area the FPF is located. The FPF has the highest priority of any target assigned to a fire support means. The FPF is only fired when required to repel the enemy's assault. Premature firing wastes ammunition and allows the enemy to avoid the impact area."


(G G)
Ok where and what is this FM 7-13?

In your FM 7-10 that paragraph above the one you quoted:
The company FSO will--

* Report the desired location of the FPF to the supporting FDC.

Key word here is DESIRED. This is where a FPF will be submitted for approval. The supporting battery FDO will shoot any DC FPF request up the FSE chain to the Bn/Bde/Div for approval.
If approved then we go to #2. If not, the Company FSO will be advised how close the task force Cdr/FSC will allow.


* Adjust indirect fire on the desired location, by weapon.
* Transmit the call to fire FPF to the supporting FDC.

Then when the FPF is called they have already gotten approval.

The original was about calling rounds in on your own position, which a FPF isn't.
A FPF is suppose to keep them out of your position.

The "VT on me" call requires someone with more "Juice" on his collar than that lonely 1st lt FDO to approve. That ones going to the big man, MEB/MEF commander for us. Bde/Div for you guys. The "good news" if you were in that kind of situation being that they would have already been advised, most likely listening to the chatter and their response time from the request to them approving will probably be at the same time. They know that its their call, will be monitoring the net of the guy getting overrun and as soon as he request on the COF net they will approve via the FSE net.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by rickusn

"Can't blame the AF. "

Never could, dont and never will.

They are wearing the original teflon coating. LOL

Loaned some to President Reagan Im told.

Not that he needed it IMHO or even used it to my knowledge.

They are the baby of the DOD bunch. Can't pick on the youngest.

Reagan was also teflon coated. He got away with a few things that Clinton or Bush 2 could only dream of.

And I'm not Reagan Bashing. one of my favorite Prez.

[rickusn]

"And I'm not Reagan Bashing. one of my favorite Prez."

That was my point. LOL

As for the "baby". Being born full-grown I dont think counts as being a "baby". LOL

Dont get me wrong I love those guys.

The USN is extremely envious of the USAF PR department though. LOL

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I hope the other kiddies are paying attention.

Of course we are "Dad"

[raptor1992]

right. i doubt that there's any chance the USN is gonna bring back to battlewagons

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by raptor1992

right. i doubt that there's any chance the USN is gonna bring back to battlewagons

Sadly, you're probably right. It would take immense quantities of political power and a good deal of money and effort as well.
We battleship proponents have not enough of the first quality, and therefore none of the second and third

[raptor1992]

but bb62 and bb63 are museum ships so they won't get scrapped. at least that's good.

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by raptor1992

but bb62 and bb63 are museum ships so they won't get scrapped. at least that's good.

This is actually the flip side of the coin.

There will NEVER be a scrapping of ANY battleship. Just as their reactivation is only a bleak glimmer of hope (and bleak is an understatement), so too can I say with complete conviction that no remaining battleship, from USS North Carolina to USS Wisconsin (actually Missouri is younger, but that's a different story) would ever be allowed, much less attempted.

And be damned to the people that would even think about trying it.

[raptor1992]

nice. why aren't the congress thinking what we're thinking? battleship have lot's of firepower and is very useful in combat.