Another USS Iowa question.

[STUCKER868]

In the cold war database I noticed that the USS Iowa (66-0) version is listed as only having 2x460/50 for the mount? All the other ships in the class say 3x460/50. Anyone know what this means?
Thanks in advance.

S.

[navwarcol]

Had noticed this also. Really it could be considered as having 9, because each gun was individually aimed and fired (of course each 3 set had to aim on the same bearing at least)but Iowa did have 3 turrets each of 3 guns also.

[thewood1]

I thought towards the end of its career they decommissioned one turret for manpower reasons. No source, but I remember the discussion around the time of the turret explosion.

[navwarcol]

Yes, I think in the modern db it would reflect that decommissioning but in the CWDB .. all of those years it had all three.

[ed72n]

Perhaps this might be because of the incident that occurred in the 1980's(?) when there was a powder bag explosion during the loading of one of the guns that potentially could have put the entire ship in jeopardy. If I recall, there was a lot of controversy in the incident investigation whether or not it was sabotage. I believe that the turret involved was permanently out of commission afterwards.

[.Sirius]

Hi guys the reason for the 2 turret version is that this was a proposed Amphib Conversion for Vietnam

Amphibious battleship

[jdkbph]

None of those schemes ever made it off the drawing board though. I didn't think there were any what-ifs like that in the database...?

Besides, I don't see any facilities or weapons added to the class (CWDB, Iowa, 1966 - 0) to account for the missing turret.

I think you're right that this was not done to represent the damage to turret 2 from the 1989 explosion, but I don't think it's an attempt to model the what-if conversions either. I'm wondering now if it's just a plain old mistake.

I do know someone who would know for sure though....

JD

[mrfeizhu]

After the turret explosion the ship just used 2 turrets, the cost was the main reason why it was not repaired.

[jdkbph]

Yeah but that was in 1989. This DB entry covers the years 1966 - ??

JD

[mrfeizhu]

the Iowa was not in service in 1960s. the new jersey was activated for a short time during Vietnam war, all four battle ships were activated in the Reagan years.

[navwarcol]

The CWDB covers 1946-1970s... the Iowa was active in the Korean War 1951-52, so should have a version where it is full.

[thewood1]

It does. As stated above, its only 1966 and on that is in contention.

[STUCKER868]

But the turret explosion was a accident and it could have been repaired. The database includes the Montana class which never really existed as completed ships! If the Montana's can be assumed, why not the repaired turret. What if someone wanted t make a Vietnam scenario where the Soviets get involved... The Iowa's would probably have been re-commissioned and would have had three working turrets then.
I would prefer the turret included in the DB.

[STUCKER868]

Of course the Japanese already tried this idea...http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-021.htm

ORIGINAL: .Sirius

Hi guys the reason for the 2 turret version is that this was a proposed Amphib Conversion for Vietnam

Amphibious battleship

[strykerpsg]

Thanks for the links. I really like the Harrier/VLS version. Would've been a BA ship, with enough armor and firepower to hold it's own unescorted. Matched with an Aegis destroyer and/or cruiser.....unstoppable.

[Russian Heel]

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

Besides, I don't see any facilities or weapons added to the class (CWDB, Iowa, 1966 - 0) to account for the missing turret.

Well, that's not true. It has 600 troop capacity and 200 cargo capacity and larger aircraft capacity as well as carries aviation fuel and a smaller crew.

[.Sirius]

Hi guys, I have added over the years many proposed ship conversions to the Cold War Database , I only add the ones that were actually proposed or had some good line drawings from sources, ie soviet carriers for the 1950s, proposed conversion of the USS Albany in the late 1970s, CVA-01 UK Super Carrier from the 1960s etc, the thing with the command DB you can do this, even in the scenarios you create you can alter the sensor, weapons fits on the platform for your own user scenario

[Dimitris]

What, you mean my proposal for the Space Battleship Yamato is hopeless? [:D]

[strykerpsg]

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

What, you mean my proposal for the Space Battleship Yamato is hopeless? [:D]

LOL, woot, woot, nerd alert....kidding!

[.Sirius]

lol D, got the DVD could be a good build

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

What, you mean my proposal for the Space Battleship Yamato is hopeless? [:D]