Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 56

Thread: Modernized Iowa Class versus Essex WWII Carrier Class

  1. #16
    Military Professional Master Chief's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Nov 06
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    201
    Quote 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, at 23:50.
    "Peace through Power" Late Ronald Reagan

  2. #17
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,912
    Quote 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.

  3. #18
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote 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.

  4. #19
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote 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.

  5. #20
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    22 Jan 06
    Posts
    1,808
    Quote 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.....

  6. #21
    Global Moderator
    Comrade Commissar
    TopHatter's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Sep 03
    Posts
    16,238
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.

  7. #22
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,912
    Quote 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

  8. #23
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    22 Jan 06
    Posts
    1,808
    Quote 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.

  9. #24
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote 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.

  10. #25
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    22 Jan 06
    Posts
    1,808
    I'd be willing to bet a cup of coffee that your CIWS recollections are from the USS Misery trials....

  11. #26
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote 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.

  12. #27
    Regular Rick DeBay's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jul 07
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    88

    Goalkeeper upgrade

    Quote 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.

  13. #28
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    22 Jan 06
    Posts
    1,808
    Quote 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.....

  14. #29
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote 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.

  15. #30
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    19 Aug 04
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,195

    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. World Navies Listing (updated 3/29/05)
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 26 Apr 05,, 19:08
  2. World Navies(Completed)
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03 Apr 05,, 06:27
  3. World Navies
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 31 Mar 05,, 22:57
  4. World Navies Edited and Updated
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 26 Mar 05,, 02:02
  5. Greatly Revised Rankings
    By rickusn in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 20 Mar 05,, 10:51

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •