Iowa class BB, they don't build them like that today

With what ?

Arleigh Burke destroyers are nothing more than over sized escorts.

Again the only way an Iowa class BB can be sunk is by breaking it's keel.

 

Guess what? It was realized the best way to sink a battleship is to detonate under the keel letting the weight of the ship destroy itself. This was figured out in WWI. Maybe you should read up on history past the war of 1812.

16 inch guns could never even come within range of modern naval ships just as is 99% of the world.

Name ANY conflict since WWII where any battle was lost for lack of a battleship? There is none, not for over 6 decades.

Explain again your theory of how we won in Vietnam by the Iowa, since that is what you are claiming.

 

True. The Iowa would effectively be defenseless against the an Arleigh Burke. The Iowa could never even come with range. It would just get pounded. There woudl be no bridge, no radar, no communications, just a floating steel box with cannons no longer capable to aim.

Claiming that its validity is that it would a difficult worthless hulk to finally sink has no value, none.

Setting aside aircraft carriers and submarines, even in WWII destroyers were the true fighting ships and the most valuable.

 

You might want to attend a university and earn a BS in engineering maybe maritime engineering. The first thing you learn is "Archimedes Principle." Back during the day we were taught that in high school.

Most ships sink because of flooding, taking on water that weighs roughly 8.3 pounds per gallon which is 62.4 pounds per cubic foot. When the ships displacement reaches the point of displacing more weight than the water it's displacing, as our incompetent CnC Obama would say, "ships that go under water."

Warships are built in compartments, water tight compartments with water tight hatches. If a torpedo were to blow a hole in the hull and started flooding a compartment on the starboard side, you flood a compartment on the port side to prevent the ship from listing If the ship is listing to much it will capsize and as Obama would say, "ships that go under water."

Fires on ships are the biggest fears. You fight fires with water, a whole lot of water. What happens if you don't remove that water you're using to fight the fire ? You could end up sinking the ship. That's why battle damage control teams have water pumps to remove the water and return it from where it came from or you could sink the ship or as Obama would say, "ships that go under water." This happened many times during WW ll.

If the fire were to reach one of the ships ammunition magazines, big huge explosion and the ship is sent to Davy Jones Locker.





Pearl Harbor Battleships:


USS Arizona (BB-39) - sunk, total loss, lies at bottom of Pearl Harbor
USS Oklahoma (BB-37) - capsized, total loss
USS West Virginia (BB-4 - sunk, later raised, repaired and rejoined fleet July 1944
USS California (BB-44) - sunk, later raised, repaired and rejoined fleet May 1944
USS Nevada (BB-36) - heavily damaged, grounded, repaired and rejoined fleet December 1942
USS Pennsylvania (BB-3 - was in drydock - slightly damaged, repaired and rejoined fleet August 1942
USS Maryland (BB-46) - damaged, repaired and rejoined fleet February 1942
USS Tennessee (BB-43) - damaged, repaired and rejoined fleet March 1942.

Many in the surface warfare community see it differently. The Iowa's were also armed with anti ship cruise missiles and nukes.

You ever wonder what those pop guns you see on other navies warships are for ?

Under SALT the 16" gun nukes had to be removed but you still had the nuclear tipped Tomahawk's.

But the primary mission of the Iowa's was providing NSFS for the Marine Corps and conducting naval gun bombardment.

Why don't you list post WW ll naval battles where there weren't any battleships

Battleships were used at evey amphibious assault in the Pacific and Europe during WW ll.

No American battleship was sunk after December 7th 1941.

Ever hear of "Iron Bottom Bay" ? Some of the largest naval battles of WW ll were fought off of the Solomon Islands and these battles were warships trying to outgun each other. There's a reason why it's called "Iron Bottom Bay."

Inchon, the battleships were there we won that amphibious naval battle.

Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese demanded that we remove the USS New Jersey from the South China Sea or no peace talks. They didn't complain about the B-52 bombings. It's up for debate if we actually lost the Vietnam War.

The first Gulf War aka "Desert Storm" two Iowas class battleships were there and actually fired the first shots of the war. I'm pretty sure we won that little war.

 

They have Anti-Ship missiles.

They can destroy an Iowa Class Battleship at distances far beyond 16 inch cannon range.

AboveAlpha

 

Which anti-ship missile would that be ?

 

Arleigh Burke destroyers carry both Harpoon and Tomahawk Missiles.

An Iowa class would be easy prey.

AboveAlpha

 

Just to add some Tomahawks are fitted with a visual remote targeting system as a Sailor on the destroyer can take over the Tomahawks flight pattern when in range of another moving ship and guide it right into the ship wherever he wants.

AboveAlpha

 

The Iowa's also carried 16 Harpoons and 8 Tomahawks.

But both of the Harpoons and Tomahawk cruise missiles are sub-sonic, have small warheads and aren't capable penetrating the armor of the Iowa's. It is said if an Iowa class BB were to get hit by a cruise missile there would be some pissed off sailors who would have to be sent over the side of the ship with a paint brush and a bucket of battleship grey paint.

All of the Tomahawk cruise missiles aboard today's Arleigh Burke's are land attack, not anti-ship. But the Navy does have anti-ship Tomahawks but they are in storage at NWS around the country. But they are useless against a battleship.

The problem with the U.S. Navy is they made a wrong turn some time back and have neglected naval surface warfare while the Soviets/Russia and the chi-coms haven't. They have anti-ship missiles that are supersonic that skim 20 feet over the sea at over Mach 2.5. And the Soviets tactics is that they are fired in multi missile salvos. The cruise missile attack by Russian corvetts confirmed this not to many weeks ago in Syria. It was an eye opener for NATO and the U.S. Navy.

The ant-ship missile that the U.S. Navy fears the most is the Russian's SS-N-12 Sandbox SSM. Mach 2.5 with a 2.000 semi armor piercing warhead. (That's semi armor piercing not armor piercing) The SS-N-12 was designed for only one purpose, to sink U.S. Navy super carriers, not battleships. That's why the Soviet Union got their red diapers all soiled when Reagan activated the four Iowa's, the Soviet Union hadn't figured out how to sink an Iowa and still haven't.

 

I thought we were discussing a WWII/Korea Iowa class Battle Ship?

Of course a modern equipped Iowa class would win.

But what the destroyer would do is target the stern of the Iowa and destroy it's ability to steer.

Then they would hit operations and take out the guns.

It would be dead in the water and they would eventually continue to pound the deck to reach munitions storage and then boom!

AboveAlpha

 

Actually you're quite wrong. The Iowa's carried a significant load of anti-ship missiles themselves. The Bismark was hit 300 to 400 times, many at very close range without evidence of the main belt being penetrated. The armored citadel also has positive buoyancy. The Iowa's armor was just as good as Bismark if not better and also had extensive use of STS steel as well. Battleship shells would be supersonic with only a small percentage of the volume and weight devoted to an explosive charges. Cruise missile can't even come close to the sectional density required to breach the armor belt, even at Mach 2.

- - - Updated - - -

There was NO battleship loss in the WW1 attributed to breaking of the ships keel.

 

They don't need to breach the exterior armor.

They destroy the ships ability to maneuver and then pound the control room and continue to pound the deck till they reach the munitions storage vault.

AboveAlpha

 

How and with what? You have to breach the citadel to reach the ammunition and you can't. American homogenous armor was the best in the world. The barbettes, powder rooms and magazines would be very heavily protected. Plus the ship as modernized was quite capable of fighting back and her escorts aren't going to just sit there. It's really very silly to think that you can get past the armor belt with a cruise missile. Even the STS steel used in the non-armored spaces would test something like a Harpoon.

 

Even if the destroyer could not detonate the munitions storage room the Iowa class would be dead in the water.

It would not steer....it could not use it's analog fire control system....and the 16 inch guns would be destroyed anyways.

It would become a useless floating derelict.

AboveAlpha

 

The topic of the thread was the Iowa's armor. It was a new type of armor that was developed that no other battleship had.

Did you go to the OP and went to the link and looked at the photos of the armor protection ?

The Iowa's have a 12.1" armor belt, it's bulkheads are 11.3", the at the waterline and below 11.6" to 17.3" and the gun turrets 19.7" and the conning tower 17.5"

The Iowa's like most battleships are designed to take hits from the same size gun they are armed with and keep on fighting. But the Iowa's armor is able to take hits from the Yamato class BB's 18" guns firing the 3,219 lb. AP rounds and keep on fighting.

But like most threads on the PF Military Forum's they side drift, I have no problem with that.

So when I'm referring to the Iowa's I'm referring to the Iowa's that were modernized during the 1980's. They were converted from fuel oil burning ships to MDF. All the electronics were upgraded. There was talk of converting the Iowa's to nuclear power. (To expensive) Removing the stern 16" gun turret and adding a hanger and deploying eight AV-8 B attack aircraft on the ships.

By the time the Iowa's were deactivated a rocket assist round had been developed increasing it's gun range too 75 miles to 100 miles. Laser guided rounds have been developed. Testing was underway of using the Iowa's 16" guns for ASW, delivering a pattern of nine 1,900 lb projectiles like huge depth charges and using the 16" guns for enemy torpedo counter measure.

Another note, Iowa's having such a large fuel capacity that they always been used as oilers refueling it's escorts and other ships.

 

You avoiding reality here. You can't even answer with what weapon system you'd use. Like I said the ship also has substantial missile armament itself. You're really way out of your league. To penetrate armor you need sectional density and velocity. Battleship shells had very small explosive charges, well less than 10% in the best US and German rounds. It really behaves as a solid projectile. The Massachusetts actually penetrated the Jean Bart's barbettes without the shell exploding and it still caused a lot of damage with the AP round going at well past 2000 fps. Yet somehow you want to accomplish the same thing with an HE warhead. You'd even struggle with a shape charge in a missile and you really can't use that effectively because the guidance system would interfere. You're not going to use blast or overpressure on that kind of armor. You won't even dent it, especially with Class B armor.

 

As I have said....I was not discussing the Modernized Iowa class.

The side armor is too thick so the destroyer would hit all critical systems.

The Battle ship would simply be dead in the water.

AboveAlpha

 

Dead in the water how? Engineering spaces are not only within the citadel but are subdivided. Please name what weapon system you would use. And please, now you're changing the narrative with a WW2 BB vs a modern ship.

 

If we are talking about a modern Iowa class then it would win such an engagement.

But a WWII Iowa class would lose.

AboveAlpha

 

An Iowa would absorb the entire complement of missiles from a current US destroyer. Don't change the narrative now.

 

All of the critical systems are heavily armor protected. Are you aware the the Iowa's are tripled haul ? Three hauls have to be pentertrated.

Re: the screws and rudders.

 

When 2000 lbs Tomahawks come crashing into the 16 inch guns and destroy the targeting and fire control....what is the Iowa class going to do?

AboveAlpha

 

A Tomahawk will simply not penetrate the gun turret. I don't think you're quite getting this alpha. These ships were designed to take massive damage and are incredibly shock resistant. A TOMAHAWK CANNOT PENETRATE THE MAIN BELT ARMOR. It's not even close. It won't even dent it. What is it that you don't understand? BTW thanks to your POTUS, anti-ship Tomahawks have been retired. Gun directors are redundant, small and very well protected. I'm not sure why you're persisting in this because quite frankly you haven't a clue about what you're talking about here. You could pound the control tower with 20 of them and it won't do a thing.

 

Radar systems, communication and a direct hit on the actual cannons are not going to survive a 2000 lbs blast.

Taking out the rudder will but be survivable either.

AboveAlpha

 

You have no way of getting to the rudder. The fire control system is optical, does not require radar, is small, redundant and very damage resistant, Even if you have a Tomahawk you have only a 1000lb blast warhead. Hit any armored space with it and it will do NOTHING. YOU CANNOT penetrate armor with blast. In fact the warhead might not even detonate. Even World War 1 origin BB survived nuclear blasts quite nicely. You're really in way over your head here alpha.