Jump to content
High Exposure

Bring Back the Iowa Class!

Recommended Posts

I love the old Battleships of WWII. The idea of bringing them back makes my heart soar like an eagle.

Could America Send its Old Battleships Back Out to War?

C2723DC2-D3A1-4942-BC30-35B2DFB17268_zps

I know they are not suited to the modern battlefields we are currently facing, but man, they are badass.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last time the Navy got the Iowas out of mothballs during the Reagan 80's they had to find a Firing Officer to command the 3 gun turrets, so they made use of a little known clause in fine print on discharge papers and got a 50+ year old guy pressed into service (conscripted) so he could train his replacement!  Those 16" .50 caliber rifles can fire a 2,800 pound HE shell almost 30 miles.  By varying the amount of powder bags and rifle angle, three salvos could be fired at a target in such a way as to have 27 shells all land in approx. a football field AT THE SAME TIME!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Smokin .50 said:

The last time the Navy got the Iowas out of mothballs during the Reagan 80's they had to find a Firing Officer to command the 3 gun turrets, so they made use of a little known clause in fine print on discharge papers and got a 50+ year old guy pressed into service (conscripted) so he could train his replacement!  Those 16" .50 caliber rifles can fire a 2,800 pound HE shell almost 30 miles.  By varying the amount of powder bags and rifle angle, three salvos could be fired at a target in such a way as to have 27 shells all land in approx. a football field AT THE SAME TIME!

Yes. The accuracy of these guns were amazing.This from a test in 1987 :

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php

"As modernized in the 1980s, each turret carried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, which made it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Together with the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, these improvements made these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever made. 

For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret.The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fighter jet with long range air to surface missiles killed the battleship... that and high altitude precision bombers.  As far as effectiveness... a ship 1/4 the size can pack on cruise missiles and be every bit as lethal.  They are totally awesome, but big limitations.  Heck, where the hell do you land the chopper??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, tiresmoke said:

The fighter jet with long range air to surface missiles killed the battleship... that and high altitude precision bombers.  As far as effectiveness... a ship 1/4 the size can pack on cruise missiles and be every bit as lethal.  They are totally awesome, but big limitations.  Heck, where the hell do you land the chopper??

Time and time again we fall away from KISS and the law of Murphy. It always becomes costly that gamble 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The battleship is designed to slug it out, ship to ship, with guns.  When you have a destroyer that can shoot missiles at a battleship from 600+ miles away... whats the point of a battleship?  Instead of a ship with 2000 crewmen and ~20 mile guns, you have a ship with more long range capabilities with a compliment of like 150.  I would sure as hell take 10 destroyers full of cruise missiles over one battleship!!  Cheaper to operate, longer range capabilities, steal capabilities, less crew... better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I understand it (remember, I'm a submariner, so I'm limited what I know about the surface navy), the cruise missle killed the big iron. A monkey can put a Tomahawk or Harpoon missle on target, and you can carry a metric assload of them on various different types of platforms (including submarines). 

The range on a cruise missle is MUCH greater, too. 

The sheer shock and awe from a battleship, however, will likely never be matched. Extremely impressive. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, tiresmoke said:

The battleship is designed to slug it out, ship to ship, with guns.  When you have a destroyer that can shoot missiles at a battleship from 600+ miles away... whats the point of a battleship?  Instead of a ship with 2000 crewmen and ~20 mile guns, you have a ship with more long range capabilities with a compliment of like 150.  I would sure as hell take 10 destroyers full of cruise missiles over one battleship!!  Cheaper to operate, longer range capabilities, steal capabilities, less crew... better!

Idk bud. Circuits don't bode well with emp.

Powder and a projectile. Timeless 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiresmoke said:

a modern battleship would be just as susceptible to emp

Not every system.  Missiles, sure.  The 16" .50 caliber rifles?  NOPE!  You might lose radar on the turrets and be forced to go "old school manual", but you'd still pack a punch.

If Mad Dog thinks he needs an Iowa Class Battleship, he'll get one.  He's the SECDEF :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tiresmoke said:

The battleship is designed to slug it out, ship to ship, with guns.  When you have a destroyer that can shoot missiles at a battleship from 600+ miles away... whats the point of a battleship?  Instead of a ship with 2000 crewmen and ~20 mile guns, you have a ship with more long range capabilities with a compliment of like 150.  I would sure as hell take 10 destroyers full of cruise missiles over one battleship!!  Cheaper to operate, longer range capabilities, steal capabilities, less crew... better!

Who invited this guy? Party pooper!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

 

I know you are 100% right. They are just badass. How about we just do this:

FAA26C8C-DCE2-4AD3-9C93-EB1897935952_zps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tiresmoke said:

The fighter jet with long range air to surface missiles killed the battleship... that and high altitude precision bombers.  As far as effectiveness... a ship 1/4 the size can pack on cruise missiles and be every bit as lethal.  They are totally awesome, but big limitations.  Heck, where the hell do you land the chopper??

 

6 hours ago, Zeke said:

Time and time again we fall away from KISS and the law of Murphy. It always becomes costly that gamble 

One of the reasons the battleship was brought back in Vietnam was the high loss of aircraft hitting targets that could be in range of those 16 inchers.

As Zeke said, emp or ew has no effect on naval gun fire or artillery when you're using manual gunnery.

I watched the 82nd do an artillery raid in training once.  The guns and crews are flown to a location, fire a mission, and then fly out.  They had their Battery Computer System, state of the art at the time.  However, there was one guy with a plotting board strapped to his ruck.

Fort Sill stopped teaching manual gunnery for a short time.  They quickly realized their mistake.  You can do manual gunnery on any large flat surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2017 at 1:55 PM, Smokin .50 said:

The last time the Navy got the Iowas out of mothballs during the Reagan 80's they had to find a Firing Officer to command the 3 gun turrets, so they made use of a little known clause in fine print on discharge papers and got a 50+ year old guy pressed into service (conscripted) so he could train his replacement!  Those 16" .50 caliber rifles can fire a 2,800 pound HE shell almost 30 miles.  By varying the amount of powder bags and rifle angle, three salvos could be fired at a target in such a way as to have 27 shells all land in approx. a football field AT THE SAME TIME!

A friend's uncle who was a 60 something bosun had retired about 20 years before.  He spent most of his time on Iowa class. He was brought back to teach new sailors how to run the deck.

Brought back as a consultant not a petty officer.

Commissioned Officers are in for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, tiresmoke said:

  Heck, where the hell do you land the chopper??

THATS where you land the chopper. 

 

If a picture of an Iowa class firing all guns at once doesn't give every red blooded American male a raging erection, I don't know what will...

Even as a submariner....I'll be in my bunk...

IMG_8719.JPG

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAHAH yeah I know i'm really a lousy party crasher here.  I do enjoy the debate though!  It would take us between 2-3 years to build a new battleship, based on past experience.  In that time, how many bombers and half ton bombs would we build?  If it takes 2000 seamen to run a battleship, you could conceivably have 2000 planes with a couple bombs each.  You have three years to train your pilots, build the planes, and ordinance.  In the end you either have one big ship, or thousands of planes and skilled pilots.

Having said that, I would pay good money to be on a battleship when they fired a full salvo!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just got back from vacation in Hawaii and spent a day in Pearl Harbor.  Toured the Missouri.  Breathtaking.  I can only imagine what it was like during battle.  

Awe inspiring?  How about seeing your great-uncle's name engraved on the ships roster...  I lost it right there.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mustang69 said:

I just got back from vacation in Hawaii and spent a day in Pearl Harbor.  Toured the Missouri....Awe inspiring?  How about seeing your great-uncle's name engraved on the ships roster...  I lost it right there.

Wow, that's a powerful story. Thanks for sharing that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...