Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • So after all the info provided by Sniper and Co

    It seems the only way an Exocet is gonna sink a BB or a Carrier is if (in case of Carrier) there is a parked strike force on the deck, in which case the crew are bloody idiots and deserve what happenes to them, or if it penetrates all the way to the magazine, which would be bad luck.

    BTW the Iowa explosion, in the 1980's how badly was the ship damaged?
    "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

    Comment


    • Originally posted by sparten
      BTW the Iowa explosion, in the 1980's how badly was the ship damaged?
      Well the turret itself was pretty much trashed. No surprise there, the explosion came from within.
      Fast, efficient damage control and a LOT of bravery prevented an even larger tragedy. AFAIK, because of this, the rest of the ship was damaged not a whit.

      If she would have been in a warzone, she could have carried on with her mission.

      I would like to have seen a "modern" ship shrug off the same internal explosion.
      Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

      Comment


      • If a Tico had been subjected to the same explosive force inside it's forward turret the bow would've probably broken off.

        Comment


        • BB's have a good war record do they not.
          None were sunk at Jutland. The Brits only ever lost Barnam and HMS POW in WWII. The Japanese lost many more (but their ships were more like Battlecruisers anyway.).

          Sniper may be on to something.
          "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

          Comment


          • Whats a Sparten?

            Sure you didn't mean Spartan?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by M21Sniper
              If a Tico had been subjected to the same explosive force inside it's forward turret the bow would've probably broken off.
              "probably"?
              The entire hull forward of the superstructure would have disintegrated and what was left of the ship would have swallowed up enough water through the gaping hole in about 2 seconds to sink like a rock
              Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

              Comment


              • "It seems the only way an Exocet is gonna sink a BB"

                You couldn't sink an Iowa BB with Exocets.

                Not 1, not one hundred and 1. ;)

                Comment


                • (M21)
                  It took more hits than that to sink an obsolete unarmored LPD in B-52 2,000lb JDAM testing just six months ago.

                  (GG)
                  Yes, and like all SinkEx they were told to target non critical areas. If you look at the video they all hit the aft quarter of the ship. What’s in the aft quarter? Ballast tanks.

                  (M21)
                  Someone is way off with their estimates, especially when one considers what it actually did take to sink the only ships with comparable protection to the Iowas that were lost....the Yamatos.

                  (GG)
                  And did you read the sentence that I wrote. It said mission kill, not sink.

                  (M21)
                  I don't think bomb carrying tactical fighters can get anywhere near release range against a USN BBBG, so i think it's quite irrelevant.

                  (GG)
                  But you do think they can get close to a carrier battle group and sink a Nimitz because the F-14s are gone. Want to explain that

                  Comment


                  • "(GG)
                    Yes, and like all SinkEx they were told to target non critical areas. If you look at the video they all hit the aft quarter of the ship. What’s in the aft quarter? Ballast tanks."

                    JDAMs do not possess that level of accuracy(30m CEP). In the sake of fairness, the reason it took so many hits is because there were no munitions or fuel onboard.

                    "(GG)
                    And did you read the sentence that I wrote. It said mission kill, not sink."

                    There are varying levels of 'mission killed'.

                    If you mean temporarily knocking out the electronics, sure.

                    If you mean knocking out the propulsion system or the manual reversions for the Mk7 gun or the manual gun laying systems, no way. All the important things in an Iowa are encased in the heavily armored steel citadel, and are isolated by several decks or steel walled compartments.

                    "(GG)
                    But you do think they can get close to a carrier battle group and sink a Nimitz because the F-14s are gone. Want to explain that"


                    Sure, i think a large enemy strike group could get into AShM range of a CVBG that lacks the F-14.
                    I don't think planes dropping bombs can get into strike range of a BBBG even if the task force's sole protection is SM-2.

                    Unlike a BB, a Carrier is still vulnerable to small AShMs because of the vulnerability planes on the deck pose to a carrier's safety.

                    Just one 5" Zuni rocket gutted the Oriskany. Imagine an Exocet hitting that flight deck of birds ready to launch a strike.

                    Comment


                    • Atomic blast survivors/JDAM accuracy

                      Originally posted by M21Sniper
                      The following says it all about the protection level and ability to withstand damage of all 20th century US battleships:

                      USS New York(launched Oct, 1912): " Here she prepared to serve as target ship in Operation Crossroads, the Bikini atomic tests, sailing 4 March 1946 for the West Coast. She left San Francisco 1 May, and after calls in Pearl Harbor and Kwajalein, reached Bikini 15 June. Surviving the surface blast 1 July and the underwater explosion 25 July, she was taken into Kwajalein and decommissioned there 29 August 1946. Later towed to Pearl Harbor, she was studied during the next two years, and on 8 July 1948 was towed out to sea some 40 miles and there sunk after an eight-hour pounding by ships and planes carrying out full-scale battle maneuvers with new weapons."

                      http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...k/bb34-ny.html

                      Survived two nuclear blasts, and took EIGHT HOURS of continuous air and naval combined arms POUNDING before she succombed and went down.

                      That is absolutely awe inspiring survivability.

                      The Iowas are substantially better protected(and oh yeah, armed) than the New York Class battleships. And much faster. With longer range.

                      During the 1980s reactivation the four Iowas even recieved some additional spall lining ballistic protection in mission critical areas.

                      Exocet my eye... ;)

                      You make it sound like surviving the Atomic test was a big feat.

                      Able test:

                      5 ships sank :IJN SAKAWA., USS Lamson DD-367, USS Anderson DD-411,
                      USS Carlisle APA-69, USS Gilliam APA-57. Lamson capsized and took a few days to sink.

                      Baker test:

                      USS Saratoga CV-3 (took 7 1/2 hours), IJN Nagato (Took 5 days) USS Arkansas
                      Submarines Apogon, Pilotfish, Skipjack, LSM-60, LCT-1175, ARDC-13, YO-160, LCM-4 and LCVP-10


                      1 of 2 Carriers survived. (The Saratoga took 7 1/2 hours to sink)

                      3 of 5 BBs survived. of the 2 that sank Nagato took 5 days

                      3 of 4 Cruisers

                      11 of 13 Destroyers

                      5 of 8 Submarines

                      17 of 19 APAs


                      For a list of all ships in Operation Crosswinds see:
                      http://www.bikiniatoll.com/Ships.html


                      I see you gave "worse case" INS imput only accuracy for JDAM. GPS accuracy is 13 meters and PIP have a 3 meter accuracy. They dropped JDAMs into JDAM craters to disable the Baghdad runways. Nothing says lovin like a 40ft crater.
                      Last edited by Gun Grape; 23 Jun 05,, 01:19.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by M21Sniper
                        DC fires:

                        So therefore, all the things i stated were consistent with standard FO and DC procedures.

                        Just to refresh your memory:

                        Original quote:

                        “”which is the whole reason the FO gives his range and direction to the targetted grid when issuing a RFF. That way the FDC can identify if a RFF is safe or not.

                        Now you give an example of calling creeping fires/DC with NGF as an example of

                        “So therefore, all the things i stated were consistent with standard FO and DC procedures”.

                        You found the one time any position is given in a CFF except for a Shift mission. And it stills doesn’t jive with your “Consistant with standard procedures” Because in creeping fires from NGF you give the troops that will be in the DC areas position, vice the observers position.

                        " (1) The observer reports DANGER CLOSE followed by a cardinal direction and a distance in meters from the target to the nearest friendly position. The observer also designates the place where the first salvo is to impact. The first salvo can be either offset or directed at the target.”

                        Care to restate your case? May also note that the 6-30 also says” Naval gunfire ships are not normally assigned FPFs.”


                        (M21)
                        “That's exactly how we were trained to do it for all DC fire missions, and for all training fire missions when working with USAFAC trainees.”

                        (GG)
                        That also explains why you were not awarded the MOS 13F.

                        (M21)
                        how you can call for adjusted fire right on top of your own position if neccesary, which is further supported below:

                        From FM 7-13:

                        "c. The Protection of his Unit as the Rounds are Impacting. If in well-prepared defensive positions with overhead cover, an FPF could be adjusted very close (Just beyond bursting range). If required, the CO could even call for artillery fires right on his company position using proximity or time fuses for air bursts."

                        In an FPF mission specific authority for the mission belongs to the on-scene unit commander or on scene FO/FIST-V or team, no higher command approval is required for a FPF DC fire.

                        (G G)
                        Not sure what FM 7-13 is. Could find no reference to it:

                        To start we weren’t discussing FPFs but you made that leap. We were discussing a DC RFF not a FPF.


                        From FM 7-10 The Infantry Rifle Company

                        Chap 5

                        (1) The CO and the company FSO plan the exact locations for any FPF. An FPF is a barrier of fire planned on the most dangerous enemy avenue of approach to provide immediate close protection for defending soldiers during an enemy assault. It must be integrated with the direct-fire plan (particularly any machine gun FPLs) and the company obstacle plan. It is adjusted as close as possible to friendly soldiers WITHOUT ENDANGERING THEM. Once the FPF is called for by codeword over the radio or by pyrotechnic signal, it is fired continuously until the CO orders it stopped or the firing unit is out of ammunition. The company has an FPF from its mortar section and may have FPFs from the battalion mortars or supporting artillery.

                        (2) A target list of indirect fire targets planned by the CO and company FSO is sent to the battalion FSO. The battalion FSO consolidates and coordinates the company fire plans and returns the consolidated list to the CO or company FSO. The target list is then distributed to the platoon leaders and their FOs. This is an example of top-down fire planning.

                        If you dig around in any of the 6 or 7 series, you will see under Fire Support Planning that the Company gets its plan approved prior to implementing. A Co would be better served if he allocated any artillery he may get to EAs. If a weapon is assigned a FPF then he is always laid on that data. So firing a EA (Priority tgt) would take longer than if that was the mission assigned. Leave the FPFs to organic support. Fight with fires further out.

                        Regardless a "fire on my position" request which is closer than a FPF, will always go up the chain. No Battery FDO is going to be the approving authority for that. And remember its called a REQUEST for fire. You don't always get what you ask for.

                        An FPF that requires the defender to take cover/seek shelter isn't worth a crap.
                        If you are getting DC fire from an arty/NGF tube, your people must take cover. This means that when you need them most your Auto weapons and mortars cannot shoot.
                        Last edited by Gun Grape; 23 Jun 05,, 02:42.

                        Comment


                        • Battleship lore

                          Originally posted by M21Sniper
                          "

                          The Iraqis on the recieving end seemed to disagree given their penchant for surrendering to the battleships UAVs.


                          The North Vietnamese also seem to disagree considering that they pulled out of the Paris peace talks until the Jersey was removed from the coast. Nope, they didn't pull out over B-52s, or airpower, or the 5 carriers sitting offshore. They pulled out of the peace talks over one single ship. The battleship USS New Jersey.
                          The Iraqis surrendered to the UAV after the end of the war. A Bn of Iraqi soldiers surrendered to 2 CNN reporters also. I don't think either of us would suggest drafting CNN as soldiers.

                          The NV deligation halted the peace talks because of the size of the table and various other reasons over the years. The only one I've heard the NJ story from was an article from Ollie North. Bottom line, the NJ didn't leave the gun line and did her 6 months on station. Not as he states"Our leaders, as they did so often in that war, made the wrong choice and sent her home"

                          Comment


                          • " You make it sound like surviving the Atomic test was a big feat."



                            Surviving that?

                            No big deal. No big deal at all.

                            And btw, the New York didn't just survive, she was intact.

                            Test: Able
                            Time: 22:00:34 30 June 1946 (GMT)
                            09:00:34 1 July 1946 (local)
                            Location: Bikini Atoll lagoon, Marshall Islands
                            Test Height and Type: Airburst, Altitude 520 ft (160 m)
                            Yield: 23 Kt

                            Test: Baker
                            Time: 21:35:00 24 July 1946 (GMT)
                            08:35:00 23 July 1946 (local)
                            Location: Bikini Atoll lagoon, Marshall Islands
                            Test Height and Type: Sub-surface burst, Depth -90 ft (-27.5 m)
                            Yield: 23 Kt

                            Nope, no big deal.

                            A Tico or Burke would go down in minutes....if that.

                            You also managed to somehow ignore the fact that after surviving two atomic bomb tests(the first of which she was aimpoint for), the 27,000 Ton USS New York was towed out to sea and attacked for 8 hours by a full scale combined arms offensive before she sunk.

                            In comparison, the Iowas displacing 57,000+ tons are twice the size, with a better armored scheme, and with thicker armor plating throughout.

                            "I see you gave "worse case" INS imput only accuracy for JDAM. GPS accuracy is 13 meters and PIP have a 3 meter accuracy. They dropped JDAMs into JDAM craters to disable the Baghdad runways. Nothing says lovin like a 40ft crater."

                            Yeah, i was actually a bit unsure about the CEP so i looked it up and it states 3m for the latest versions in ideal conditions.
                            Last edited by Bill; 23 Jun 05,, 06:47.

                            Comment


                            • "You found the one time any position is given in a CFF except for a Shift mission. And it stills doesn’t jive with your “Consistant with standard procedures” Because in creeping fires from NGF you give the troops that will be in the DC areas position, vice the observers position."

                              I was talking about DC procedures.

                              "(GG)
                              That also explains why you were not awarded the MOS 13F. "

                              Never said i was a 13F. Never implied i was a 13F. I was trained in basic fire support procedures, and i spent 2 years plus developing that OJT as a member of a sniper team. I held a secondary MOS of 11C, and that's why i'm familiar with FDC and mortar firing point procedures. I've also been out for 15 years.
                              We're not exactly talking about finger painting here, we're into some of the finer intracacies of FO procedures.

                              In my unit we were trained to give direction and range to target on all DC RFFs.

                              "Care to restate your case? May also note that the 6-30 also says” Naval gunfire ships are not normally assigned FPFs.”"

                              Considering that i was quoting the DC procedures for NGFS and not FPF procedures, no, i feel my case is fine as is.

                              I brought up FPFs because you made the blanket statement that the authority to put fire on one's position always goes up the chain of command. I posted you a direct link to a US Army field manual that states that authority lies with the unit Commander with an FPF.

                              "Figure 7-2. FPF dimensions.

                              The authority to call for the FPF is given to the leader (normally the CO or platoon leader) in whose area the FPF is located. The FPF has the highest priority of any target assigned to a fire support means. The FPF is only fired when required to repel the enemy's assault. Premature firing wastes ammunition and allows the enemy to avoid the impact area."
                              http://www.armedforces.net/Detailed/770.html

                              Which is why i brought up FDFs at all.

                              "If you are getting DC fire from an arty/NGF tube, your people must take cover. This means that when you need them most your Auto weapons and mortars cannot shoot."

                              If i have fire raining down on my perimeter the only place i need me and any men whom i might have under my charge is in the bottom of our holes...keeping their asses alive.

                              They can shoot once 'steel death stop raining from sky.'

                              "(1) The CO and the company FSO plan the exact locations for any FPF. An FPF is a barrier of fire planned on the most dangerous enemy avenue of approach to provide immediate close protection for defending soldiers during an enemy assault. It must be integrated with the direct-fire plan (particularly any machine gun FPLs) and the company obstacle plan. It is adjusted as close as possible to friendly soldiers WITHOUT ENDANGERING THEM."

                              And the part of the manual i quoted clearly stated that if your men are in positions of overhead cover you can creep fire in to the minimum safe distance of the shells being fired.

                              Observe:

                              "From FM 7-13:

                              "c. The Protection of his Unit as the Rounds are Impacting. If in well-prepared defensive positions with overhead cover, an FPF could be adjusted very close (Just beyond bursting range). If required, the CO could even call for artillery fires right on his company position using proximity or time fuses for air bursts."

                              http://www.armedforces.net/Detailed/770.html

                              "The Iraqis surrendered to the UAV after the end of the war. A Bn of Iraqi soldiers surrendered to 2 CNN reporters also. I don't think either of us would suggest drafting CNN as soldiers."

                              Hmmm....draft CNN reporters?

                              That's a wickedly evil idea. ;)
                              Last edited by Bill; 23 Jun 05,, 06:48.

                              Comment


                              • "The NV deligation halted the peace talks because of the size of the table and various other reasons over the years. The only one I've heard the NJ story from was an article from Ollie North. Bottom line, the NJ didn't leave the gun line and did her 6 months on station. Not as he states"Our leaders, as they did so often in that war, made the wrong choice and sent her home""

                                If you'd like to know the origins of that story i'll tell you.

                                Dr. Stearnman(your buddy) was an aide to Dr. Kissenger at the peacetalks. Dr. Kissenger allegedly told Dr. Stearnman that was the case.

                                I cannot validate the authenticity of any of that except to tell you it was an email response from USNFSA when i asked for background on that rumor.

                                I do agree that there appears to be no historical record of that having happened.

                                It sounds great though. :)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X