Favorite Battleship Part 2: Uberships!
Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid
Favorite Battleship Part 2: Uberships!
OK, while the other poll is still going strong, I thought it best to run another one--out of the following battleships that DO NOT appear in UV, (and many didn't appear in WW2 AT ALL) which ones do people like the most?
"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
So far I'm surprised how many votes the Iowas have gotten when there are so many other sexy ships around...could it be that more than one person in here has served on one of them????
"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
And wouldn't the Montanas have been the real 'pinnacle' of the dreadnought age, owing to its combination of armor, firepower, accuracy, and AA capability?
(I would just love it if we had sent the USS New Hampshire to the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm...
)
(I would just love it if we had sent the USS New Hampshire to the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm...
) "They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
-
pasternakski
- Posts: 5567
- Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2002 7:42 pm
Iowa Speed
I believe the Iowa Class speed was a few knots higher than 31 And yes, I served on board the USS IOWA. As FDR said, "Talk softly, and carry a Big Stick" USS Iowa, BB-61 - The Big Stick
D*mn right about the fire control radar. A modernized version for the 5" guns, in '89, was still more accurate than an Aegis class cruiser.
(former) FC3(SW) Batch
And yes, I served on board the USS IOWA. As FDR said, "Talk softly, and carry a Big Stick" USS Iowa, BB-61 - The Big StickD*mn right about the fire control radar. A modernized version for the 5" guns, in '89, was still more accurate than an Aegis class cruiser.
(former) FC3(SW) Batch
Later,
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa
FC3(SW) Batch
USS Iowa
-
Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Re: Iowa Speed
Uhhhh, wasn't that Uncle Teddy Roosevelt?Originally posted by mbatch729
..."Talk softly, and carry a Big Stick"...
Battleship top speed
Well when I served on the USS New Jersey BB-62 (Iowa class) we did a speed trial and hit 39.8 knots at max speed.
You shoulda seen the rooster tail on that baby...!
Granted it was in '89 and I suspect the boilers might have been upgraded since WWII but that's still **** fast for such a monster!
You shoulda seen the rooster tail on that baby...!
Granted it was in '89 and I suspect the boilers might have been upgraded since WWII but that's still **** fast for such a monster!
"May your sword be wet as a woman in her prime."
Hi to all those who served on the Iowa class battleships!
I met a fellow who served on I think it was the New Jersey.
He worked, at least for a time, not sure if it was his
regular assignment, in one of the turrets loading powder
during firing of the main guns. He said it was the hardest
he ever worked in his life.
We need to get those giants back in service ASAP, we need their
fire support and general destructive capabilities for the
various wars we are going to be fighting all over the world
against these countries that are aiding and supporting Osama
and his bunch.
Nothing else can do what a battleship can. Namely, laying down
utterly devastating firepower on demand in large quantities from
shore to far inland, with super fast time-on-target ability.
39.8 knots? Wow! That is scorching fast!
I met a fellow who served on I think it was the New Jersey.
He worked, at least for a time, not sure if it was his
regular assignment, in one of the turrets loading powder
during firing of the main guns. He said it was the hardest
he ever worked in his life.
We need to get those giants back in service ASAP, we need their
fire support and general destructive capabilities for the
various wars we are going to be fighting all over the world
against these countries that are aiding and supporting Osama
and his bunch.
Nothing else can do what a battleship can. Namely, laying down
utterly devastating firepower on demand in large quantities from
shore to far inland, with super fast time-on-target ability.
39.8 knots? Wow! That is scorching fast!
I had a lot of discussions like this with the TAO on midwatch and such about how cost effective a BB is versus a carrier air group.
Also keep in mind we had 32 tomahawk and 16 Harpoon missles on board.
Yeah, that's firepower baby!
We could run for one month on what it cost to keep a carrier going for 1 day.
Also keep in mind we had 32 tomahawk and 16 Harpoon missles on board.
Yeah, that's firepower baby!
We could run for one month on what it cost to keep a carrier going for 1 day.
"May your sword be wet as a woman in her prime."
Re: Battleship top speed
Originally posted by m0ngoose
Well when I served on the USS New Jersey BB-62 (Iowa class) we did a speed trial and hit 39.8 knots at max speed.
You shoulda seen the rooster tail on that baby...!
Granted it was in '89 and I suspect the boilers might have been upgraded since WWII but that's still **** fast for such a monster!
I don't believe that for a second.
Designed top speed was 32.5 kts. 40 kts? Few knots, maybe.
One article on this: http://www.warships1.com/W-Tech/tech-029.htm
Another source: http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_bo ... ssouri.htm - No mention of new boilers there.
I don't doubt you believe that you were going 39.8 knots, but unless you've got a source that backs you up, I'm forced to put the claim with the 60-kt Nimitz claims.
I love it when a plan comes together.
-
Admiral DadMan
- Posts: 3399
- Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
- Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Originally posted by m0ngoose
I had a lot of discussions like this with the TAO on midwatch and such about how cost effective a BB is versus a carrier air group.
Lots of impartial people there, I imagine.
Also keep in mind we had 32 tomahawk and 16 Harpoon missles on board.
Yeah, that's firepower baby!
Not really, compared to the VLS Ticos that were entering the fleet at the same time as the modernized BBs. Hell, the Iowa's missile complement could be carried by a Spruance-class destroyer. Its not that impressive.
The Spruance could also defend itself against undersea threats, which the Iowa couldn't, and had a better AAW defenses. All this on about a quarter of the crew.
Not to mention that a 5" gun is a better shore bombardment weapon anyway. Who did most of the useful work on D-Day?.... that's right, the destroyers that got in close.
And be less effective than a destroyer that cost less to operate.
We could run for one month on what it cost to keep a carrier going for 1 day.
If enemy troops don't want to get bombarded by a battleship, they just have to move inland about 20 miles.
The battleships were reactivated in the 80s because Reagan wanted everything that could fight ready to go. They were expensive to modernize, operate, man, and weren't as effective as modern vessels, and there's a good reason that they'll never fight again.
Heck, its great they won't fight again. Now we all get to enjoy them as museums.
I love it when a plan comes together.
I think that the battleships remain, as they were in their own age, most important *symbols* of national power. Destroyers might cost much less to build and man, but they simply do not such elicit such emotional reactions from the public as Mighty Mo and others. In Japan they're still bemoaning the loss of Yamato, but does anyone care about Yukikaze?
Congress understands the power-projecting image of battleships, and I think that's why there is a certain reluctance to scrap them--or to make them entirely "museum-ready," in that their controls are pretty much welded in place, like for instance BB-59, now sitting in Fall River, MA.
Also, I understand from reading Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" that battleships nowadays would be basically invulnerable to anti-ship missiles? They are made to punch through the thin hulls of contemporary warships, and would basically bounce off of serious armor plating. Also, I understand that as part of Surface-Action-Groups, Iowas would not have had to worry about their air defense or underwater defense, that was what the picket destroyers and frigates for, as well as the Aegis cruiser that always accompanied these groups. And in addition, they were shown during the Bikini tests to be pretty much impervious to tactical nuke blasts--as long as they were buttoned up, only the upper works were trashed. Finally, I've read that there was a Phase III refurbishment planned which would have replaced the rear turret with more Tomahawk launchers or possibly SAM's, but they decided it wasn't worth it due to the cost.
Congress understands the power-projecting image of battleships, and I think that's why there is a certain reluctance to scrap them--or to make them entirely "museum-ready," in that their controls are pretty much welded in place, like for instance BB-59, now sitting in Fall River, MA.
Also, I understand from reading Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" that battleships nowadays would be basically invulnerable to anti-ship missiles? They are made to punch through the thin hulls of contemporary warships, and would basically bounce off of serious armor plating. Also, I understand that as part of Surface-Action-Groups, Iowas would not have had to worry about their air defense or underwater defense, that was what the picket destroyers and frigates for, as well as the Aegis cruiser that always accompanied these groups. And in addition, they were shown during the Bikini tests to be pretty much impervious to tactical nuke blasts--as long as they were buttoned up, only the upper works were trashed. Finally, I've read that there was a Phase III refurbishment planned which would have replaced the rear turret with more Tomahawk launchers or possibly SAM's, but they decided it wasn't worth it due to the cost.
"They couldn't hit an elephant from this dist--"
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
--John Sedgwick, failing to reduce suppression during the Battle of the Wilderness, U.S. Civil War.
Originally posted by rlc27
Congress understands the power-projecting image of battleships, and I think that's why there is a certain reluctance to scrap them--or to make them entirely "museum-ready," in that their controls are pretty much welded in place, like for instance BB-59, now sitting in Fall River, MA.
They may be "in reserve", but those ships will never see service again. Keeping big expensive ships around for the sake of having big ships is stupid.
Also, I understand from reading Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" that battleships nowadays would be basically invulnerable to anti-ship missiles? They are made to punch through the thin hulls of contemporary warships, and would basically bounce off of serious armor plating.
Clancy's not the best source for naval matters.
An ASM, while not penetrated the deck, would play hell with the electronics needed to fight the ship. A deaf, dumb, and blind ships is mission-killed. Hell, its worse, because you have to get the broken thing back home.The BBs are HORRIBLY vulnerable to submarines. One heavy torpedo under the keel of a BB? Broken.
Also, I understand that as part of Surface-Action-Groups, Iowas would not have had to worry about their air defense or underwater defense, that was what the picket destroyers and frigates for, as well as the Aegis cruiser that always accompanied these groups.
The 16" guns on the Iowa are too short ranged for ship to ship combat. A rapid-fire 5" gun makes for better fire support (hell, a platoon of mortars makes for better fire support).
So, guns aside. We have the missile firepower of a destroyer. To utilize this ship with massive operating costs (compared to lighter units), we need to escort it with destroyers and cruisers? Doesn't it make more sense to have, say, another couple destroyers for the price of one old battleship that's expensive to man?
And in addition, they were shown during the Bikini tests to be pretty much impervious to tactical nuke blasts--as long as they were buttoned up, only the upper works were trashed.
And with the trashed upper works goes all the radios, radars, and bits of electronics to fight today's naval battles.
Finally, I've read that there was a Phase III refurbishment planned which would have replaced the rear turret with more Tomahawk launchers or possibly SAM's, but they decided it wasn't worth it due to the cost.
Exactly. The things aren't worth the cost. There is nothing useful on the BBs that can't be done nowadays better by smaller and cheaper ships.
Look in the dictionary under "Obsolete" and there will be a picture of a battleship.
I love it when a plan comes together.
I voted Iowa BB.. to me it is the 2nd sexiest ship ever built, behind the USS Constitution. Not because of what it can do in 2003, but because of what it DID do between 1944-1994.
I have always thought the Iowa class had some of the most attractive "Lines" and Bow rake of any surface ship ever made, there was something distinctly "Feminine" about the ships, they made you want to address the class as "Her" or "She", very handsome ships.
These ships were built to counter the IJN 18" Heavies, but never really got the chance. And basically spent their 50 year carerrs as bombardment ships in WWII, Korea,Viet nam, lebanon and the persian gulf (Yes, even the BGM-109's were used as bombardment in a sense). The very fact that 19 year old kids shipped out in 91 on an Iowa that their GRANDFATHERS shipped out on 50 years earlier is awesome, and is likely to NEVER be repeated again in history.
these ships were flagships from the start, and were intended to take care of themselves in a fight, but to also allow flags to conduct entire fleets from. As a flagship, the Iowas were great, and nothing showes the flag in foriegn ports like a BB, heck, I am not sure an CVN shows as much visible power as an Iowa. We all know a CVN is the most powerful weapon on earth, but you can't SEE it, those 16" guns say "DONT MESS WITH ME" in very clear language.
I agree with Xpav, in that their usefullness is outweighed by their liability today, but we can't take away from the accomplishment these 4 ships made to History, AND to the safety and security of the United States over 50 years. If only 1 in 100 USN ships would perform to the standard the Iowa class set, we would be very fortunate indeed.
I have a reference book that lists some Iowa data, as of 1984 there were still 21 brand new 16" rifles for the Iowa ships in storage, and almost 1 year of combat stores for the guns in storage. thats a LOT of shells! IF we ever needed to bring them out.. there are STILL repair parts for them in storage!
Only real combat value I could see , is if you wished to raid a port.. float the BB into port and let it raise pure, unholy hell! lol. It would be magnificent! image 2 Iowas floating in Vladivostock in 2003! all those Kara's, Sverdlovs, and Kirovs.. unable to do more than reply with puny 5" guns.. their SSM's worthless at extreme close range. What a way to go out! lol.
a Big SALUTE to the 4 old gals.. possibly the best "Bang for the buck" the USN has ever gotten from a class of ships. Glad they are memorials, and not razor blades, they deserved to be respectfully retired and not cut up.
I have always thought the Iowa class had some of the most attractive "Lines" and Bow rake of any surface ship ever made, there was something distinctly "Feminine" about the ships, they made you want to address the class as "Her" or "She", very handsome ships.
These ships were built to counter the IJN 18" Heavies, but never really got the chance. And basically spent their 50 year carerrs as bombardment ships in WWII, Korea,Viet nam, lebanon and the persian gulf (Yes, even the BGM-109's were used as bombardment in a sense). The very fact that 19 year old kids shipped out in 91 on an Iowa that their GRANDFATHERS shipped out on 50 years earlier is awesome, and is likely to NEVER be repeated again in history.
these ships were flagships from the start, and were intended to take care of themselves in a fight, but to also allow flags to conduct entire fleets from. As a flagship, the Iowas were great, and nothing showes the flag in foriegn ports like a BB, heck, I am not sure an CVN shows as much visible power as an Iowa. We all know a CVN is the most powerful weapon on earth, but you can't SEE it, those 16" guns say "DONT MESS WITH ME" in very clear language.
I agree with Xpav, in that their usefullness is outweighed by their liability today, but we can't take away from the accomplishment these 4 ships made to History, AND to the safety and security of the United States over 50 years. If only 1 in 100 USN ships would perform to the standard the Iowa class set, we would be very fortunate indeed.
I have a reference book that lists some Iowa data, as of 1984 there were still 21 brand new 16" rifles for the Iowa ships in storage, and almost 1 year of combat stores for the guns in storage. thats a LOT of shells! IF we ever needed to bring them out.. there are STILL repair parts for them in storage!
Only real combat value I could see , is if you wished to raid a port.. float the BB into port and let it raise pure, unholy hell! lol. It would be magnificent! image 2 Iowas floating in Vladivostock in 2003! all those Kara's, Sverdlovs, and Kirovs.. unable to do more than reply with puny 5" guns.. their SSM's worthless at extreme close range. What a way to go out! lol.
a Big SALUTE to the 4 old gals.. possibly the best "Bang for the buck" the USN has ever gotten from a class of ships. Glad they are memorials, and not razor blades, they deserved to be respectfully retired and not cut up.
Robert
Fly, die.. rinse and repeat
Fly, die.. rinse and repeat
Naval Gunfire Support
Originally posted by XPav
Snip...
The 16" guns on the Iowa are too short ranged for ship to ship combat. A rapid-fire 5" gun makes for better fire support (hell, a platoon of mortars makes for better fire support).
So, guns aside. We have the missile firepower of a destroyer. To utilize this ship with massive operating costs (compared to lighter units), we need to escort it with destroyers and cruisers? Doesn't it make more sense to have, say, another couple destroyers for the price of one old battleship that's expensive to man?
And with the trashed upper works goes all the radios, radars, and bits of electronics to fight today's naval battles.
Exactly. The things aren't worth the cost. There is nothing useful on the BBs that can't be done nowadays better by smaller and cheaper ships.
Look in the dictionary under "Obsolete" and there will be a picture of a battleship.
XPav,
Before you insert more of your foot in your mouth
I suggest you check out the United States Naval Fire Support Associaton web site at: http://www.usnfsa.org/
You might want to read some of the articles posted there which are written by experts and not armchair generals
Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.