Capitol gunships aren't on a cost to return issue feasible. Thats the big problem with them. Now an armoured capital ship with a large missile battery and a helo hanger, that also happened to have a large heavy gun secondary battery might be at some future point possible. Not really likely but in theory it could happen.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Was Reactivating the Iowas in the 80s a Good Idea?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by SnowLeopard View PostWhich is rather my point there. Why did they put 8 submarine reactors into Enterprise? Why didn't they design new reactors and put those in instead?“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
-
Originally posted by Maxor View PostGrape my next question is would Iowas with a light electronics upgrade really be considered a modernized battleship in your opinion because it wouldn't be in mine.
Something with a big armour belt and a fairly armoured superstructure (at least up to withstanding 6 in. guns). With a few VLS systems, a internal reactor propultion system, a slightly reduced big gun battery. Modern electronics and integral UAV and helo hanger. You'd have a very formidable ship. I don't know if it would really be worth it on a cost to effect ratio but I can tell you that something that was in theory as hard to sink and get to stop fighting as a battleship would cause alot of countries to think about the missileboat semi-brown water navies. It probably wouldn't carry that much heavier of a missile battery than the tico's but It also could shrug off a few shipwreck missiles. To do that and be able to bombard someones coastal cities while being fairly invulnerable is also a huge plus. (though honestly keeping torpeado's out of the propultion and steering systems is problematic.)
She was designed to withstand a gun fight, and shells coming down at a angle not a top down attack from a missile. Also you wouldn't need to sink her to put her out of action. A few ICM rounds in the superstructure would take out her radar, comm and fire control. Which is just as good as being sunk.
And we don't lob rounds ashore anymore. The 16in, except during something like ODS would be a weapon of last resort, against the ROEs.
A great ship in her day. But those days are past.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Johnny W View PostMaybe they did get a little better at it, I haven't seen anything in writing one way or the other. But the fast battleships still didn't do shore bombardment as much as the older battleships did, because their primary mission was providing escort for the Carriers. The older ships just got a lot more practice at it. I read that Pennsylvania fired nearly twice as many rounds from her main gun as North Carolina did, and North Carolina was the first of the fast battleships to go into service. This happened because Pennsylvania was in the shore bombardment group while NC was escorting the Carriers.
*John, I have done alot of reading on the subject as of late. For a clearer view of the shore bombardment diffaculties I would recommend reading this document in Full. Its not available on the internet (It was before) but is available from the Naval Resources Center
"Operational expierence of the fast battleships WWII, Korea, Vietnam" by John C. Reilly. Its a very good read and breaks down each ships assesment. How improvments could be made and how the ship performed.
Now to give a clearer answer about accuracy. Shore bombardment is a science and a learning experience all in one. All things aboard must click (Gunnery,CEC,Navagation etc) in order to be successfull when you must use spotters via plane or ground instead of your surface search radars or height finding radar. It was trial and error for the most part not withstanding the fact that Shore bombardment fire control was not available at the time.
*Little known fact, The very first ship to get such a Fire Control system was a heavy cruiser (CA) of the Des Moines class the Salem (CA-139) during the Korean War however she didnt serve the theater she was retained in the Med for that period of time. You will note though that New Jersey did turn in an impressive record for gunnery in Vietnam which according to many would have only improved had she made her second tour. Also you might look at their performance during the opening of the Gulf War.
In either case I strongly recommend the first document in order for you to understand just how many factors are imployed outside the guns themselves.
New Jerseys record for Vietnam cruise.
GUN DAMAGE ASSESSMENT, (1968 -1969 Combined)
MAIN BATTERY
Structures destroyed - 439
Structures damaged - 259
Bunkers destroyed - 596
Bunkers damaged - 250
Artillery sites neutralized - 19
Automatic weapons, AA, and mortar sites silenced - 35
Secondary explosions - 130
Roads interdicted - 26
Meters of trenchline rendered unusable - 1,925
Cave and tunnel complexes destroyed - 75
Enemy killed in action (confirmed) - 136
Enemy killed in action (probable) - 17
Troop movements stopped - 12
SECONDARY BATTERY
Structures destroyed - 56
Structures damaged - 92
Bunkers destroyed - 59
Bunkers damaged - 73
Artillery sites neutralized - 2
Mortar sites silenced - 6
Waterborne Logistic Craft (WBLC) destroyed (Sea Dragon) - 9
Secondary explosions - 46
Enemy killed in action (confirmed) - 10
Enemy killed in action (probable) - 7Last edited by Dreadnought; 10 Jul 09,, 18:06.Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post*John, I have done alot of reading on the subject as of late. For a clearer view of the shore bombardment diffaculties I would recommend reading this document in Full. Its not available on the internet (It was before) but is available from the Naval Resources Center
"Operational expierence of the fast battleships WWII, Korea, Vietnam" by John C. Reilly. Its a very good read and breaks down each ships assesment. How improvments could be made and how the ship performed.
Now to give a clearer answer about accuracy. Shore bombardment is a science and a learning experience all in one. All things aboard must click (Gunnery,CEC,Navagation etc) in order to be successfull when you must use spotters via plane or ground instead of your surface search radars or height finding radar. It was trial and error for the most part not withstanding the fact that Shore bombardment fire control was not available at the time.
*Little known fact, The very first ship to get such a Fire Control system was a heavy cruiser (CA) of the Des Moines class the Salem (CA-139) during the Korean War however she didnt serve the theater she was retained in the Med for that period of time. You will note though that New Jersey did turn in an impressive record for gunnery in Vietnam which according to many would have only improved had she made her second tour. Also you might look at their performance during the opening of the Gulf War.
In either case I strongly recommend the first document in order for you to understand just how many factors are imployed outside the guns themselves.
New Jerseys record for Vietnam cruise.
GUN DAMAGE ASSESSMENT, (1968 -1969 Combined)
MAIN BATTERY
Structures destroyed - 439
Structures damaged - 259
Bunkers destroyed - 596
Bunkers damaged - 250
Artillery sites neutralized - 19
Automatic weapons, AA, and mortar sites silenced - 35
Secondary explosions - 130
Roads interdicted - 26
Meters of trenchline rendered unusable - 1,925
Cave and tunnel complexes destroyed - 75
Enemy killed in action (confirmed) - 136
Enemy killed in action (probable) - 17
Troop movements stopped - 12
SECONDARY BATTERY
Structures destroyed - 56
Structures damaged - 92
Bunkers destroyed - 59
Bunkers damaged - 73
Artillery sites neutralized - 2
Mortar sites silenced - 6
Waterborne Logistic Craft (WBLC) destroyed (Sea Dragon) - 9
Secondary explosions - 46
Enemy killed in action (confirmed) - 10
Enemy killed in action (probable) - 7
I did read it, at least I think I did. There were a few copies of it floating around the Iowa late 1989 or early 1990. Of course, it was many years ago, and I would be lying if I said I remembered much of it. :)
I agree with what you said. In fact, it seems to me that you said (a bit more eloquently) the same thing I did. That a big part of the reason the older ships performed better at shore bombardment during WWII was simply that they got more practice at it. Of course, there are other factors, but IMO thats the one that matters most.
Comment
-
Read my book about the reactivations.
FINALLY Amazon conceded (today, Wednesday 22 July) that MS Word and Adobe Acrobat can be problematic when it comes to selecting page sizes, margins and picture quality.
It will be on Create Space as a Print on Demand paperback in 7x10 format of 534 pages. Cost will be $39.00 plus shipping.
For the past several weeks I have been going crazy trying to convert from Word to Acrobat so as to upload it in PDF. In Word, it will NOT resize exactly to 7x10 as I want but makes it a little bigger.
When converting to a PDF, Adobe makes pages 384 to 534 slightly less than 7x10 and pages 1 to 383 are in 8 1/2 x 11 (so I have to crop them and hope to keep within marging requirements).
I must thank Amazon for their courtesy in reformatting the book to meet their printing requirements. I was not able to do it but they have the computer experts who can.
I'm never going to do this again. It took me 11 years of research, collecting memorabilia, collecting interviews, resizing MS Excel, resizing photos and drawings, creating new drawings just for the book, developing maps of the Naval Complex just for the book (unfortunately they were intended for a larger size and may be almost unreadable), confirming statements made by a couple of co-workers who survived the attack on Pearl Harbor, analyzing a statement supposedly said by the Russian top Admiral about the Battleships (I think it was taken out of context but even the Russians believed it and said "enough is enough").
Anyway, after I approve the Proof copy, the book will be available next month. I think.Attached FilesAble to leap tall tales in a single groan.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ytlas View PostI'd hold the congrats for at least a month.
There's still Murphy's Law.Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Comment
Comment