Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Modernized Iowa Class versus Essex WWII Carrier Class

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
    Should have sent it in anyway.

    And don't forget the book where the CSA is rearmed with AK-47's.

    Hey great books by Harry Turtledove..!

    And like you said about them having the handheld stingers and .50 cal weapons, I don't think a essex would stand any chance! And all of the 5inch guns with new air-search firecontrol systems.
    Last edited by Master Chief; 24 Jul 07,, 23:50.
    "Peace through Power" Late Ronald Reagan

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
      The Vulcan/Phalanx CIWS can elevate to 85 degrees and down 15 degrees.

      The most amazing thing I saw of them was on one of New Jersey's gunnery trials where they had different aircraft make passes at or alongside the ship. The CIWS is not to open fire on anything that is NOT coming at us (a problem we had in earlier tests in the 70's). A jet aircraft came in about 30 degrees off our Port bow to cross over the ship as if on a standard strafing or bombing run.

      I was standing on 05 level just forward of both forward CIWS mounts 21 and 22 and right between them.

      Mount 22 (Port) acquired and opened fire (actually just recycling dummy rounds much to the relief of the pilots). As the plane crossed over the main deck, Mount 21 (stbd) swung around and douoble teamed the plane.

      If this was for real, the next order would be, "Sweepers. Man your brooms. Clean sweepdown fore and aft of all bits and pieces of aircraft".
      So there is a cone above the ship that is not protected. Thus a WW2 divebomber attack can penetrate the defenses, or simply drop bombs form higher than the CIWS max altitude.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by zraver View Post
        So there is a cone above the ship that is not protected. Thus a WW2 divebomber attack can penetrate the defenses, or simply drop bombs form higher than the CIWS max altitude.
        Not true. The gun mounts can traverse a full 360 degrees. The only open cone would be directly above each gun mount. But then the other three mounts would zap the plane.
        Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
          What I meant was, a 1943-1945 USN air attack would have consisted of hundreds of aircraft.

          I don't think that even a pair of Iowas working together had enough CIWS ammo to deal with such a huge scale attack.
          Hundreds of aircraft? From how many carriers?

          You are also forgetting that the standard method of attack was one dive bomber at a time. Two at a time rarely of torpedo planes at a very long ship.

          The only reason that both Japanese torpedo planes and dive bombers attacked at the same time at Pearl Harbor is because they got mixed up on their flare signals. One flare was for torpedo planes to go in first. So the dive bombers started gaining altitude to stay out of the way of the torpedo planes. But the command pilot of the torpedo planes didn't see the flare and was not herding his group into position.

          So the attack commander fired a second flare.

          Well, the torpedo planes saw that one and thought it was only one flare and went in to their low level approaches.

          But the dive bombers thought it was a second flare to signal that they should go in first.

          They were almost as much a danger to each other than our anti-aircraft fire.
          Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
            The most amazing thing I saw of them was on one of New Jersey's gunnery trials where they had different aircraft make passes at or alongside the ship. The CIWS is not to open fire on anything that is NOT coming at us (a problem we had in earlier tests in the 70's). A jet aircraft came in about 30 degrees off our Port bow to cross over the ship as if on a standard strafing or bombing run.

            I was standing on 05 level just forward of both forward CIWS mounts 21 and 22 and right between them.

            Mount 22 (Port) acquired and opened fire (actually just recycling dummy rounds much to the relief of the pilots). As the plane crossed over the main deck, Mount 21 (stbd) swung around and douoble teamed the plane.

            If this was for real, the next order would be, "Sweepers. Man your brooms. Clean sweepdown fore and aft of all bits and pieces of aircraft".

            I worked in CIWS control room shortly after the gunnery sea trials and one of the EW's came up and said, "Did you see the jet we almost shot down?" The EW said one of the jets flying by was unauthorized and they called out a warning to it a couple of times, and finally they reminded the jet that they had live ammo in the CIWS. I remember the CIWS being locked onto the jet and it finally left. It was live ammo because I remember the constant reminders on the 1MC that the rounds had depleated uranium and the spent casings were not to be picked up by unauthorized personnel.

            Oh yeah, cRusty that was last century.....

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
              Hundreds of aircraft? From how many carriers?
              Well, we're talking about Essex-class carriers, so it doesn't have to be all that many.

              Even one Essex has a complement of 90-100 aircraft each, with every last one of them being "attack" type aircraft, able to put heavy ordnance on the target, so you're talking about a sizeable strike even by a single CV.

              Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
              You are also forgetting that the standard method of attack was one dive bomber at a time. Two at a time rarely of torpedo planes at a very long ship.
              Well, yes.
              But my point is, if I'm flinging a hundred aircraft at a ship (any ship) with only CIWS, it's eventually going to run out of 20mm, whether it shoots them down 1 at a time or 20 at a time. They do carry quite a bit, 8000 rds per mount, if I recall correctly. But how long would it take to reload a mount once it's gone dry?

              And at nearly 900 ft long, an Iowa qualifies as long enough for 2 torpedos planes, right?

              The 5"/38's will do yeoman's service certainly, but you're simply not going to be able to knock down enough to keep from getting hit.

              I guess it's possible for an 80's Iowa to beat back a single Essex air group, but I wouldn't want to be on the Iowa when it happened.
              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
                Not true. The gun mounts can traverse a full 360 degrees. The only open cone would be directly above each gun mount. But then the other three mounts would zap the plane.
                maybe at low level but the cone expands the higher you go while still staying above the ship plus how high can the CIWS reach? 3000' 4000' max? USN divebomber pilots might not be that accurate at that hieght (how high were they dropping in WW2?) but it only takes 1 or 2 big bombs in the right spot and the ship is dead in the water

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  but it only takes 1 or 2 big bombs in the right spot and the ship is dead in the water
                  Disagree.... there's a ton of redundancy in the engineering spaces so it would take a lot of well placed hits to stop a BB dead in the water. You have 8 boilers, 4 main engines, 4 screws and 2 rudders. You can cross connect any boiler to any main engine to keep it going.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by RAL's_pal? View Post
                    I worked in CIWS control room shortly after the gunnery sea trials and one of the EW's came up and said, "Did you see the jet we almost shot down?" The EW said one of the jets flying by was unauthorized and they called out a warning to it a couple of times, and finally they reminded the jet that they had live ammo in the CIWS. I remember the CIWS being locked onto the jet and it finally left. It was live ammo because I remember the constant reminders on the 1MC that the rounds had depleated uranium and the spent casings were not to be picked up by unauthorized personnel.....
                    That must have been a later gunnery trial. I know for a fact that on the one I refer to they used dummy ammunition and merely recycled it through the magazine.

                    Also, the .43 caliber DU penetrators are encased in a 20mm plastic Sabot with a 20mm aluminum pusher plug behind it. The DU itself is very low radiation hazard but dust from it (zipping through a target) is toxic and has been banned for use over land. The casings do not pick up any radiation.

                    Also, they cannot be picked up off the deck. As the gun fires, the empty casings are put back into the drum maqazine. When the magazine is reloaded, a special loading tool is attached that feeds belted ammunition into the drum and puts the empty cases into the belt links. A very interesting operation to watch.

                    Reloading is done quickly ONCE the gunners mates figure out how to properly install the loading tool. I have seen them trying to install one with a ball pein hammer.

                    I walked away on that one.
                    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I'd be willing to bet a cup of coffee that your CIWS recollections are from the USS Misery trials....

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by RAL's_pal? View Post
                        I'd be willing to bet a cup of coffee that your CIWS recollections are from the USS Misery trials....
                        I was on CIWS gunnery trials of both New Jersey and Missouri. The tests with dummy ammo but real airplanes was on New Jersey. Also the live fire tests on towed target sleeves.

                        The Missouri trials I was on didn't shoot at any targets. Just spit a few thousand rounds of DU out into the ocean for confirmation of weapon operability. (say THAT fast five times while eating a Ritz cracker).

                        I take my coffee with milk and one Sweet and Low.
                        Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Goalkeeper upgrade

                          Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
                          The sub-bases were even designed to take the 30mm Goal Keeper should it be adopted by the Navy. Just in case.
                          Was there any issues with using the deck below for the bottom half of the unit? I assume the extra weight of a Goalkeeper on levels 4 and 5 would not be noticeable on a ship that size.
                          A Millennium would be a nice bolt on replacement, but at least you'd be under cover while rearming the Goalkeeper.
                          We distinguish ourselves from our enemies by our treatment of our enemies. - John McCain

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
                            Just spit a few thousand rounds of DU out into the ocean for confirmation of weapon operability.
                            That's funny, the Jersey trial I was on they "Just spit a few thousand rounds of DU out into the ocean for confirmation of weapon operability."
                            Since I didn't make the Misery trials, I have nothing to confuse it with.....

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by RAL's_pal? View Post
                              That's funny, the Jersey trial I was on they "Just spit a few thousand rounds of DU out into the ocean for confirmation of weapon operability."
                              Since I didn't make the Misery trials, I have nothing to confuse it with.....
                              I was on three sea trials with New Jersey. I missed her first one but she couldn't do her stuff because she caught the tail end of a Hurricane out of Mexico. The second one was where she did her speed runs, high speed turns and initial gun firing when SECNAV Lehman came aboard. On THAT trial we only spit wasted ammo out for demonstration. The next trial I was on was when the CIWS with dummy rounds acquired and "fired" upon live aircraft. The third one I was on was with Dahlgren as they tested the overpressure (muzzle blast) of the 16-inch guns with surrounding structures. That is also when we fired both the 5"/38's and the CIWS at towed target sleeves.

                              Also, on that trial, Dahlgren loaded up colored dye shells to fire just aft of a target sled on the surface. The dyes were Orange, Yellow and Green. But it was a hazy day and the yellow was filtered out. So when the waterspouts came up, they were a very patriotic Red, White and Blue.

                              That is, if memory serves.
                              Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Cheating?

                                How about gas - or should that be Gas? Just an unpleasent thought. I assume the ships are sealed. Wind direction could help a few WWII crop sprayers do vile things before they were worth the intercept.

                                I remember the "vs." threads a few years back on the tank thread. I consider it more informative to go cost vs cost (no spying allowed. I'm sure the old lags are quite sick of me labouring that point). I suggested that, say an M1A costing, for the sake of argument £1000 would be defeated by T34s even if the former ran out of ammo and they rammed it to a standstill and laid siege. If in modern cash a T34 cost £10. That's 400 blokes at the very least, for the same cash, let alone 100 tanks.

                                Sooo ... for the cost of an upgraded, retro-fitted Iwowa, just HOW many WWII Essex etc.:)
                                Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X