Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 56

Thread: Modernized Iowa Class versus Essex WWII Carrier Class

  1. #31
    Military Professional dundonrl's Avatar
    Join Date
    23 Mar 07
    Posts
    697
    well.. not sure how the older CIWS would do, but the new block 1B, with infared camera and LLTV cameras would do much better against a slow moving target such as a WW2 torpedo bomber or dive bomber.. (just lock the camera on the incoming aircraft and let it do it's work)

    What I've recently though of, take an Arleigh Burke back in time, loaded with ESSM in it's vertical launchers and use it too take out the incoming Japanese aircraft.. wonder if any of them( *** planes) would have survived?

    96 missile cells, and 4 missiles in each cell = 384 missiles total...

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    19 Aug 04
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,195

    On the clock

    I s'pose a nip in time would save etc

    Sorry, but to slant the issue would have been short-sighted of me. Given the rules it would have been szu awful of me to go all kamikaze. Not wanting to appaear at all yellow or surprise anyone I would feel ashamed by my highly inflamatory fly by words.

    Beat that for rotten puns. There are most likely guys on Pacific Islands who should be told!
    Where's the bloody gin? An army marches on its liver, not its ruddy stomach.

  3. #33
    Staff Emeritus
    Military Professional
    Contrary by Nature.
    zraver's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Oct 06
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,934
    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.
    To much wind a battleship is fast and it doesn't matter its a dead calm its still an effectice wind and so dispersal would be amajor problem no real way to introduce it into the ship.

  4. #34
    Regular Rick DeBay's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jul 07
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    88

    Iowa center of buoyancy

    Quote Originally Posted by Rick DeBay View Post
    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.
    ...I assume the extra weight of a Goalkeeper on levels 4 and 5 would not be noticeable on a ship that size.
    BTW, what was the center of buoyancy/gravity on an Iowa? Also, where was the waterline with respect to the decks? Was it about even with the third deck? Any issues with it becoming top heavy?

  5. #35
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    What was the range on WWII aerial torpedoes? Seems like that's the key, how far out the bombers could release their weapons. The Vulcan is a great close in system, but it is, after all, a 20 mm weapon. Not really good for long range fire. I wonder how long 900 rounds would last against a strike from 90 aircraft? Rusty said it was 18 seconds worth of firing time, so maybe half second bursts would give you 36 shots per gun, two guns on a side gives 72 shots, assuming 100% accuracy. So if they concentrated on one side, which they would do in order to capsize the ship anyway, they could possibly empty the guns. Leaving 3 twin 5"/45s, pretty effective AA guns themselves. I wonder how many planes an Essex could launch at a time? If they couldn't launch the whole air wing, the Iowa might have time to reload between strikes.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  6. #36
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote Originally Posted by dundonrl View Post
    96 missile cells, and 4 missiles in each cell = 384 missiles total...
    Since when can you put 4 STANDARDS in one tube?
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  7. #37
    Global Moderator
    Devil's Advocate
    ArmchairGeneral's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 06
    Location
    Boston, MA.
    Posts
    4,668
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    Since when can you put 4 STANDARDS in one tube?
    Evolved Sea Sparrows, not Standards.
    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

  8. #38
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Rick DeBay View Post
    BTW, what was the center of buoyancy/gravity on an Iowa? Also, where was the waterline with respect to the decks? Was it about even with the third deck? Any issues with it becoming top heavy?
    Oh dear! I would have to dig very deep into my stuff to find the calculations done by Jim Kaping and Isaac Cavalier in the Scientific Design Section to find the CG of the ship.

    Waterline at full load was just above third deck. This meant that the armor belt at torpedo bulkhead 3 would still be about 7 feet above an incoming torpedo.

    At first I was overly concerned with too much topside weight when designing the new deckhouses, armored compartments, etc. We had problems with other ships of being too top heavy.

    Then Kaping reminded me that the battleship could probably take a 45 degree roll and even with decks awash (provided all hatches are battened down) would still right herself.

    I felt better then and added a bit more armor here and there when the budget allowed it.

    Fortunately, I never had to ride one heeling over 45 degrees.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  9. #39
    Banned Shipwreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jan 06
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    Oh dear! I would have to dig very deep into my stuff to find the calculations done by Jim Kaping and Isaac Cavalier in the Scientific Design Section to find the CG of the ship.
    Vertical Center of Gravity (VCG) for USS New Jersey (BB-62), before and after 1982 reactivation :

    * Baseline VCG : 34.7 feet
    * Modernized VCG : 35.5 feet

  10. #40
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote Originally Posted by Shipwreck View Post
    Vertical Center of Gravity (VCG) for USS New Jersey (BB-62), before and after 1982 reactivation :

    * Baseline VCG : 34.7 feet
    * Modernized VCG : 35.5 feet
    That sounds about right. Just less than a foot below full load waterline.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  11. #41
    In Memoriam/OAF-Old Aggravating Fart Senior Contributor Shamus's Avatar
    Join Date
    13 Apr 07
    Location
    Sebastian,Florida
    Posts
    4,059
    Quote Originally Posted by The Chap View Post
    Beat that for rotten puns. There are most likely guys on Pacific Islands who should be told!
    Careful you're not shot down in flames
    "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." Thomas Jefferson

  12. #42
    New Member
    Join Date
    23 Jul 07
    Posts
    4
    Not that I get my facts from movies, but I have never been able to find anything to the contrary. In the movie Under Siege, they say the Missouri is carrying 40,000 rounds for the CIWS. Does anyone know if that is correct?
    The same hammer that shatters the glass forges the steel.
    -Russian Proverb

  13. #43
    Defense Professional RustyBattleship's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 06
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Posts
    6,042
    Quote Originally Posted by talshiar View Post
    Not that I get my facts from movies, but I have never been able to find anything to the contrary. In the movie Under Siege, they say the Missouri is carrying 40,000 rounds for the CIWS. Does anyone know if that is correct?
    Well, I designed the armored magazines for them and, if memory serves, they were to hold at least 10,000 rounds each. So, 4 X 10,000 = 40,000. So it is probably right.
    Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

  14. #44
    Dirty Kiwi Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    10 Nov 04
    Location
    Wellington, Te Ika a Maui, Aotearoa
    Posts
    19,746
    Quote Originally Posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    Well, I designed the armored magazines for them
    Goddamnit I love this forum
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility

    Gottfried Leibniz

  15. #45
    Defense Professional Dreadnought's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 May 05
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA.
    Posts
    14,728
    Was just browsing the elevator "system" yesterday for getting the ammo up to the CIWS mounts on I believe the 05 level. Still there but plated or hatched over the vertical tram ways.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 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
  •