Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

recomissioning Iowa class BB's

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Dazed View Post
    I believe it's artillery and CAS and a host of others. The fire support of the 16" gun seams like a specious argument. Lets bring back the tiger tank and put anti armor missiles on it. BB's are awesome museum ships, but that's it.
    I guess Admiral Gorshkov had a different opinion than yours..

    To Quote Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov,1985- Quote after watching the Iowa in a NATO exercise; "You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
      If you want to improve NSFS then spend more on the Rail Gun, bring back the Naval MLRS . . .
      Maybe you could park a couple of M270's on the flight deck of the Independence-class LCS and call it good?
      "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by dundonrl View Post
        I guess Admiral Gorshkov had a different opinion than yours..

        To Quote Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov,1985- Quote after watching the Iowa in a NATO exercise; "You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."
        Yep, it's not really about what OUR Navy might think of the Battleships, it's what the rest of the world thinks. What country in the ME was it that one of the BB's visited, and their leaders were so impressed that they offered to pay the operational costs if we'd base her there?

        IMO that sentiment is shared among many of our potential enemies around the world. THAT is why you have say, one or two in operation and the others as "museums" and you rotate them in and out of service.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by dundonrl View Post
          I guess Admiral Gorshkov had a different opinion than yours..

          To Quote Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov,1985- Quote after watching the Iowa in a NATO exercise; "You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."
          I'm just a curious layman. So the the US government and senior USN leadership wasted billions of dollars on early detection, attack subs, carrier battle groups when they could of sent an Iowa class battleship. This battleship by the nature of its design is impervious to kinetic energy and is able to close to within 16 miles and destroy any Soviet surface force with its 16" guns and it unguided ballistic shells. Imagine if the Japanese had built two larger BB's they would have won the Pacific in WW2

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Dazed View Post
            Imagine if the Japanese had built two larger BB's they would have won the Pacific in WW2
            I'm assuming that's sarcasm . . .

            Overall, the Yamato and the Musashi were not as well-balanced as the Iowa-class BB's were; sure, they had great big 18" guns, but they didn't have very good fire control, they weren't nearly as fast as the Iowa-class BB's were, and they had about half the range of the Iowa's. Yes, they were extremely well-armed and armored but, as with the German heavy tanks of the late-War period, they were more defensive weapons than offensive; they couldn't get too far from the Empire without running out of fuel, and they weren't able to get anywhere very fast (the Yamato had a stated top speed of 27 knots, but this was very hard to achieve in actual practice and would've cut way down on her already-limited range); it's probably a good thing for the Japanese that their Empire wasn't all that big by 1944.

            P.S. I'm sure most of you are already aware of this BB website, but it seems to give a fairly accurate assessment of the world's battleships and their strengths and weaknesses: http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
            "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by dundonrl View Post
              I guess Admiral Gorshkov had a different opinion than yours..

              To Quote Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov,1985- Quote after watching the Iowa in a NATO exercise; "You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."
              I would challenge anyone to find a Russian source, or in fact a source not affiliated with the Bring back the battleships groups, for this "Quote" . I have never found one. Adm Gorshkov was the proponent of a strong attack sub fleet. I don't think that at the end of his career, he would have said that his Navy had no defense against the battleships. The exercise was Ocean Safari 85. It was notable, not for the Iowa but for the actions of the USS America. She being able to slip past everyone and conducting Air Ops in the fjords of Norway undetected.

              As a side note, at the time, only 2 Battleships were in commissioned, and the other 2 hadn't been funded or even put in a budget request. He was dead before all 4 were in service.

              This "quote" has always seemed to me in the same league as the bogus quote about the NJ leaving Vietnam waters early at the demands of the North Viet government to get them to the negotiation table.
              Ro the bogus one about the CMC wanting the BBs put back in service.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Pacfanweb View Post
                Yep, it's not really about what OUR Navy might think of the Battleships, it's what the rest of the world thinks.
                Wrong. Its how a weapon system fits in our operations. We operate what works for us in accordance with our doctrine. Not what other countries think is cool or frightening.

                What country in the ME was it that one of the BB's visited, and their leaders were so impressed that they offered to pay the operational costs if we'd base her there?
                You tell me. With a source. Cause the country is never mentioned. Maybe we can sell one of them to that country and they can operate it. If they think its so impressive.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by blidgepump
                  Whoa !
                  If a suicide boat ( AKA USS Cole event ) were to approach a BB of the IOWA class, would a similar charge used on the USS Cole have been repelled by the armor belt of the IOWA's?
                  If an enemy fired the same round used to disable a HUMVEE would it do the same damage to an M-1 tank? Both are apple and orange comparisons.

                  The Cole hit was a failure of ROEs.

                  How many escort ships does a Flt II/IIa Burke need to protect it against a P-700/P-800 ASM? How many does a Iowa need?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Yes sarcasm. The Iowa may have been the best for their time 1940's. If a heavily armored ship and a big gun with a range of 20 miles is such an effective weapons, why is there no continuation of this class of ship?
                    For the Soviet Admiral, I think something was lost in translation, 1000 lb warhead travelling at or above the speed of sound fired more than twenty miles away is going to leave a mark. Like I say awesome museum pieces. The best field trip in grade school was the Battleship Massachusetts.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Gun Grape

                      I just posted when I saw your replies. Yes exactly what I wanted to say.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                        I would challenge anyone to find a Russian source, or in fact a source not affiliated with the Bring back the battleships groups, for this "Quote" . I have never found one. Adm Gorshkov was the proponent of a strong attack sub fleet. I don't think that at the end of his career, he would have said that his Navy had no defense against the battleships. The exercise was Ocean Safari 85. It was notable, not for the Iowa but for the actions of the USS America. She being able to slip past everyone and conducting Air Ops in the fjords of Norway undetected.

                        As a side note, at the time, only 2 Battleships were in commissioned, and the other 2 hadn't been funded or even put in a budget request. He was dead before all 4 were in service.

                        This "quote" has always seemed to me in the same league as the bogus quote about the NJ leaving Vietnam waters early at the demands of the North Viet government to get them to the negotiation table.
                        Ro the bogus one about the CMC wanting the BBs put back in service.
                        False, in 1985 USS Missouri was already in the Long Beach Naval Yard in the process of being reactivated, having been towed there in 1984 and recommissioned 1986. Wisconsin was already included in reactivation plans by then and the Soviets knew it. I've notice that over the years you've made a lot of misleading statements in these "bring back the battleship" threads, statements usually refuted when Rusty Battleship joins in on these discussions. I'm not an advocate for bringing them back, but I wish I could have seen one at sea. I was a very young soldier in the Army when Missouri and Wisconsin decommissioned, I didn't enlist in the Coast Guard until several years after. I don't like seeing misleading posts. JMO

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Tom24 View Post
                          False, in 1985 USS Missouri was already in the Long Beach Naval Yard in the process of being reactivated, having been towed there in 1984 and recommissioned 1986. Wisconsin was already included in reactivation plans by then and the Soviets knew it. I've notice that over the years you've made a lot of misleading statements in these "bring back the battleship" threads, statements usually refuted when Rusty Battleship joins in on these discussions. I'm not an advocate for bringing them back, but I wish I could have seen one at sea. I was a very young soldier in the Army when Missouri and Wisconsin decommissioned, I didn't enlist in the Coast Guard until several years after. I don't like seeing misleading posts. JMO
                          There was a plan, but funding wasn't put in place. Just as there was a plan to build 720 F-22s. There was a plan to build the MX missile. Funding for modernization was contingent on the price tag for the first 2.

                          If at any time you think I am intentionally making misleading statements feel free to let me know. Ill be happy to clarify any point. Or if I did make a mistake, I'll be more than happy to correct it. I have no problem admitting and correcting mistakes. Many of the things concerning BB is going off memory and at times I'll unintentionally slip up on a date or fact. I'm not infallible but I can promise that I have never, and never will intentionally misquote facts or post wrong information
                          Last edited by Gun Grape; 29 Jan 16,, 06:36. Reason: spelling errors corrected, see I do make mistakes

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Stitch View Post
                            Maybe you could park a couple of M270's on the flight deck of the Independence-class LCS and call it good?
                            No. The difference between the M-270 and the navy version is how the missile gets its firing location information.

                            On the ground the fire control system on the launcher knows its position based on a GPS receiver in the vehicle. That info is sent to the missile prior to launch. Easy stuff in that the launcher is stationary on all three axis. (Lat/Long/Ele) and depending on how many sats the receiver is able to see the missile can get starting point location down to 1 meter of accuracy.

                            A GPS guided missile on a navy ship must acquire that information after launch for better accuracy. The ship is moving on all three axis (+pitch) when the missile is fired, It knows pretty close what its starting point was and what angle it was fired at. But not enough info to determine which way it has to maneuver to hit the target. A Navy MLRS has to acquire all that information after launch for precision.
                            They were working on it but the success rate of adequate number of satellites acquired in time to make a accurate firing solution wasn't where it needed to be.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              This is the thing how many ships have been sunk by shell fire since the second world war compared to say torpedoes( at least 3), mines a couple, anti ship missiles more, mines and weapons delivered by aircraft more. Look at Operation Praying Mantis. Ships used missiles to suppress the air threat and sink other vessels. All capabilities the Soviets had. Your force detects it target 1.) do you shoot it long distance with a weapon that can target and make a mid course correction with high accuracy, or 2.) Put on body armor that is resistant to percussion blast and the laws of physics close to with 20 miles and lob unguided shells bracketing with a 40 year old targeting system. How many battleships were sunk by battleships say compared to aircraft. How well does a BB do against a modern submarine force.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Dazed View Post
                                This is the thing how many ships have been sunk by shell fire since the second world war compared to say torpedoes( at least 3), mines a couple, anti ship missiles more, mines and weapons delivered by aircraft more. Look at Operation Praying Mantis. Ships used missiles to suppress the air threat and sink other vessels. All capabilities the Soviets had. Your force detects it target 1.) do you shoot it long distance with a weapon that can target and make a mid course correction with high accuracy, or 2.) Put on body armor that is resistant to percussion blast and the laws of physics close to with 20 miles and lob unguided shells bracketing with a 40 year old targeting system. How many battleships were sunk by battleships say compared to aircraft. How well does a BB do against a modern submarine force.
                                The Navy knew this when the cancelled the 2 Iowas that were laid down after Pearl Harbor and did not build the Montana class. Those ships already authorized in 1939. The Battleships time as the most important ship in a fleet was done.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X