Iowa Class vs Kirov Class

[Tin Man]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Which ship has the best seakeeping in rough weather ? Kirov without the shadow of a doubt !

I always heard that Soviet ships were poor at sea, the Kirov`s possibly the exception to the rule???

Good post Dreadnought. The Silkworms launched at the Missouri group were detected long before they whizzed past her. The AEGIS command ship responsible for co-ordinating missile defence (forgot her name), was alerted and a request was made by HMS Gloucester to engage them. There were friendly aircraft in the area so the request was denied. When permission was granted, Gloucester fired two Sea Dart`s at the track and destroyed it, an over the shoulder shot at that, but not before it came at the Mo` from astern. Looks like the Mo`s chaff did it`s job.
This is at least how I heard it. There was a big hissy fit afterwards between the RN and USN about allowing an ASM getting into the group in the first place. Afterwards, the USN did it`s own picketing I believe but I could be wrong about that.

The question of Harpoon damage to Kirov is subjective. On the one hand, Harpoon would have no trouble penetrating Kirov`s hull as Harpoon has a hardened nose. As FITZ says, the CIWS/Decoys of Kirov would find it easier to deal with the subsonic Harpoon although a multi-bearing attack would make things interesting. There is also the question of WHERE the Harpoons` hit and whether the warheads explode, as this is certainly not guaranteed. The damage control skills and fire fighting equipment of the Kirov would have to stand up too.
A lucky hit in the wrong place could dispatch Kirov very quickly, but the same applies to an IOWA, although less likely because of her armour.

In the end, I would say an IOWA could take far more hits than the Kirov, that`s for sure, on balance, I would rather be onboard the IOWA.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

The deployment of USS New Jersey off the coast of Beirut in 1983-84 was a MISERABLE (dare I say CRIMINAL ?) FIASCO !!!

Well we can also look at it as dare I say CRIMINAL that her critics would not say that her barrel wear was at 42% which could very possibly account for her inaccuracy. We are BOTH still very much awaiting the reports if ever released. Should prove for some interesting reads no?

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Jarret sprayed the side of Missouri with approximately 400-600 rounds very quickly.

USS Jarrett fired an estimated 4-5 rounds.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Being heavily armored Mo absorbed it with a few crew members injured.

One 20mm projectile apparently penetrated all the way through various medium steel bulkheads (none of these being ARMOR) and fell into the ocean. The others dented the weather bulkhead (which is NOT armor) without penetrating.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Had Missouri opened fire(with 2 CIWS instead of Jarrets 1) the very same might not be said for any of Jarret's crew who were in the open.

NONSENSE. See above.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Tin Man

I always heard that Soviet ships were poor at sea, the Kirov`s possibly the exception to the rule???

I don't know who possibly told you such a NONSENSE, but I am sure your sources don't have much seatime (if any at all).

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Well we can also look at it as dare I say CRIMINAL that her critics would not say that

I used the term CRIMINAL in the litteral sense, as in killed civilians AND US troops.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

her barrel wear was at 42% which could very possibly account for her inaccuracy.

BS.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

We are BOTH still very much awaiting the reports if ever released. Should prove for some interesting reads no?

I am NOT waiting for the reports.

[Dreadnought]

[quote=Shipwreck;461986]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Well we can also look at it as dare I say CRIMINAL that her critics would not say that

I used the term CRIMINAL in the litteral sense, as in killed civilians AND US troops.



BS.



I am NOT waiting for the reports.

Nobody is a fan of civies killed nor troops my friend. Politics my friend politics.

BS? So is stated in written form my friend.

I dont wish to wait for them either but I would like to know (outside of tounge in cheek) the why. Like before mentioned I know gentlemen that were there onboard and I dont take their word as law but I would like to see the "experts" findings as to the why to see if the truth is what I was told and if it will actually come out.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

USS Jarrett fired an estimated 4-5 rounds.



One 20mm projectile apparently penetrated all the way through various medium steel bulkheads (none of these being ARMOR) and fell into the ocean. The others dented the weather bulkhead (which is NOT armor) without penetrating.



NONSENSE. See above.

Ugggh I concede slight typo up there. My bust.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

BS? So is stated in written form my friend.

Says who ?

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Nobody is a fan of civies killed nor troops my friend. Politics my friend politics.

Secnav at the time should have been keel hauled !!!

[Tin Man]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

I don't know who possibly told you such a NONSENSE, but I am sure your sources don't have much seatime (if any at all).

Two friends with 30 years in, between them ...(RN). They reckon the Soviet ships they saw seemed to have poor sea keeping abilities, especially the heavy destroyers. I suppose everyone has their own opinion.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Says who ?

Bare with me here as I quote Muir's book. (Pg. 123 lower Pg 124 Top)

"Many analysts wondered if the 16" rounds and guns were supportable. One authority maintained, In fact, that the New Jersey had been retired from the Vietnam conflict because of a shortage of liners for the 16" rifle barrels.

In fact, ample numbers of the rifles were and are on hand.

Of the 36 aboard the battleships, a 1981 survey showed their wear to average 42%. That year 33 spare barrels-24 at Hawthorne, Nevada and 9 at Subic Bay were ready for immediate issue.
The Dahlgren range held an additional seven weapons-three in storage and four used in tests.

The Yuma proving grounds in Arizona had another barrel. If need be, The Watervliet Arsenal could even manufacture more. Although a registered National landmark,the "Big Gun Shop" there still has all the requisite equipment and atleast 13 liner forgings.

In the summer of 1984 , Long Beach Naval Shipyard got a chance to replace a 16" rifle, something that no yard had done in almost 30 years. While the New Jersey was being refitted an inspection showed that the middle (C) barrel of No.2 turret was suffering from flame wash.

Now I will only speculate that the inspection showing the "flame wash" was due to excessive wear and testing (possibly powder and or projectile) probably contributed to this.

I'll spare you the eye roll because I like you and glad to see your back.

What say you? Can you shed any light?

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Secnav at the time should have been keel hauled !!!

Question...Do you believe mechanical failure (shipboard) or do you believe political failure (government) for the results. Just interested in your opinion.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Tin Man

Two friends with 30 years in, between them ...(RN). They reckon the Soviet ships they saw seemed to have poor sea keeping abilities, especially the heavy destroyers. I suppose everyone has their own opinion.

Was told somewhat the very same also the berthing conditions sucked.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Tin Man

Two friends with 30 years in, between them ...(RN). They reckon the Soviet ships they saw seemed to have poor sea keeping abilities, especially the heavy destroyers. I suppose everyone has their own opinion.

It's got nothing to do with opinions.

Your armchair admirals, *with 30 years in, between them*, simply don't have a clue.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Bare with me here as I quote Muir's book. (Pg. 123 lower Pg 124 Top)

Where is it that Muir suggests that NJ's *barrel wear was at 42% (...) could very possibly account for her inaccuracy* ?

Since you started to quote Muir, would you mind telling the audience what the 2nd paragraph of page 31 says on the Iowas being such superior sea boats ?