12-08-2005 08:44									#61
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos Wrong, but you are unaquanted with shipboard firefighting so I can see why you would come to this conclusion. Fuel is one of the most destructive things about a missile hit, but it depends on where it is. In the Falklands and on the Stark, the fuel was so damaging because the missile pentetrated the skin and poured the fuel into the interior. Fuel burning on the weatherdecks would be bad, but would most likely not render the ship incabable of combat. And how much heat do you think it takes to melt through a foot, in most places two, of steal? Assuming of course they didn't activate their topside sprinklers... You find me a tank with 2 feet of armor anywhere. Of course it is possible to make a missile that could do it. It would probobly be very expensive and not worth it when most of the other combatants have no armor.

You appear to be making a major false assumption on how the ship's deck armor works. The initial layer of armor is a mere 1.5 inches of steel thick.
http://www.battleship.org/html/Arti...Class/Armor.htm

The second layer is a much more substancial 6 inches in some places, but you're already talking about the fire burning is a confined space where it traps the heat of the fuel fires. You're not talking about immediately running into 2 feet of armor where the antiship missile will hit.

As as the comparison to tank armor, modern tanks do not rely on simple solid steel armor plate like the battleships used to. They rely on sophisticated schemes like chobham armor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

The frontal armor of most modern main battletanks is significantly in excess of 1,000 mm of rolled steel armor. This is around 3 &1/3 feet of steel armor! This is the type of armor that modern anti-tank heat warheads have to defeat. When talking about an anti-ship missile, warhead designers have a larger missile to work with. I see a warhead design for the subsonic missiles being something along the lines of an initial smaller heat warhead at the tip of the missle to penetrate the initial deck armor, a second heat warhead to deal with the remaining significant armor, and a delayed fuse high explosive warhead set to explode inside the ship. Iowa Class Battleships are not even close to being as invulnerable to anti-ship missiles as you seem to think.

	12-08-2005 08:56									#62
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Of course 6" of armor makes even a Harpon useless.

The thing is the initial layer of armor is a mere 1.5 inches thick.

Even when talking about 6 inches of armor, one of the existing missiles the battleship could end up dealing with is the Moskit, which is a much larger supersonic missile which can hit the ship's deck armor going around mach 2.5. Things get much worse with any modifications made to existing anti-ship missile warheads to deal with the reactivated battleships.

	12-08-2005 09:42									#63
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Armor aside, how accurate are the guns? Would they still be politically acceptable in today's climate of minimizing civilian casualties?

	12-08-2005 10:31									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Smiley Armor aside, how accurate are the guns? Would they still be politically acceptable in today's climate of minimizing civilian casualties?

Not very at all by modern standards. Basicly they can be used in areas where civillians are evacuated and its just military personel left, otherwise you're looking at substancial civllians casualties from shots that go astray. The relative innacuracy of its 16 inch guns also means that the battleship has to be careful when providing friendly fire support, because it can end up causing friendly fire casualties as well.

	12-08-2005 12:58									#65
	Suffering from ads?

quote: [SIZE=1] This is patently false, even looking at a picture let alone stats tells you this.

Its possible that the Iowa armor scheme was dramatically different than the South Dakota's, but I know at least the South Dakota had light enough armor in the superstructure that both HE and AP shells mostly passed through doing little damage in one engagement.

quote: A bomb striking the unprotected ends of the ship could easily pass out the bottom without detonating

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-070.htm

While I'm still looking for an additonal source to absolutely confirm this, it looks like people's assumptions that the Iowa's deck armor existed throughout the ship in roughly equal strength is quite wrong.

quote: Despite the fact that horizontal protection was often spread over several layers, it remained concentrated over the vital spaces and thus was in keeping with the “all or nothing” idea. A bomb striking the unprotected ends of the ship could easily pass out the bottom without detonating.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-070.htm

In other words, the armor is most likely insufficient to stop anti-ship missiles at the ends of the ship. While this would probably not sink it, it could do massive damage that would be extremely expensive to repair.

	12-08-2005 16:45									#66
	Got spare money?

quote: In other words, the armor is most likely insufficient to stop anti-ship missiles at the ends of the ship. While this would probably not sink it, it could do massive damage that would be extremely expensive to repair.

The reason there is no armor there is because there is nothing to protect. in other words, a hit there would leave all weapon/sensors intact.

From your source...

quote: systems located outside the citadel such as the turrets, conning tower, fire control, directors, etc. are armored extensions of the citadel.

So yes, the superstructure is not only protected, but...

quote: With this in mind, the deck and side armor is designed to defeat the armor piercing shells fired by a ship mounting equal armament at these same ranges.

...able to defeat a 16 inch armor piercing shell. There is no offensive naval system with the penetration of a 16 inch AP shell, an few with the explosive power. You can modify all you want, but it will be for naught.

quote: The deck consists of three parts, the bomb deck, the main armor deck, and the splinter deck. The bomb deck is 1.5 inches STS plate, the main armor deck is 4.75 inches Class B armor laid on 1.25 inches STS plate and the splinter deck is 0.625 inches STS plate. The bomb deck is designed to detonate general purpose bombs on contact and arm armor piercing bombs so they will explode between the bomb deck and the main armor deck. Within the immune zone, the main armor deck is designed to defeat plunging shells which may penetrate the bomb deck. The splinter deck is designed to contain any fragments and pieces of armor which might be broken off from the main armor deck.

I don't know how much space you think exists between these layers of armor, but not much. And since the armor was designed this way to PREVENT damage and is a battle proven method, I don't see why you think this is a hinderance to DC efforts.

It hardy matters, 1.5" of armor would defeat a Exocet by itself.

	12-08-2005 16:57									#67
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos It hardy matters, 1.5" of armor would defeat a Exocet by itself.

I'll cover this when I have more time, but you're simply clueless. The lowest end estimates I've seen are that the Exocet can penetrate through that much armor, the higher ones go as much as 6 inches.

	12-08-2005 17:02									#68
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Well in the case of the USS Stark, it penetrated a grand total of 3/4" of normal hull plating before stopping.

As designed.

And we were having a reletively civil exchage, no need to get pissy.

	12-08-2005 17:06									#69
	Support Apolyton

I don't think that modern naval missles are specifically designed to penetrate armor as no modern vessels have armor. It's been assumed that it's impossible to sufficiently armor a ship to protect it from nuclear weapons. The tests in the pacific showed that battleships would still float after a near detonation of a nuclear bomb, but the raditation penetrating the hull was stilll enough to kill the crew.

	12-08-2005 17:13									#70
	Increase Your PM Length

Conventional and Nuclear players are not participating in the same game.

Nukes **** everything up.

	12-08-2005 19:08									#71
	Got spare money?

Couldn't you radiation shield most of the ship?

	12-08-2005 20:17									#72
	Support Apolyton

Do a degree. The Arleigh Burke clas has a Collective Protection System (CPS) that keeps all CBR contamination out of the ship. Eventually though we would have to leave the area.

However, we would be more than capable of continuing the fight for days before that.

Assuming we don't get destroyed in the blast of course.

We are the only current ship class with this protection.

	12-08-2005 20:48									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Mordoch I'll cover this when I have more time, but you're simply clueless. The lowest end estimates I've seen are that the Exocet can penetrate through that much armor, the higher ones go as much as 6 inches.

This is just simply wrong. Sorry, but the exocet is not designed to be an armour piercing weapon. It is designed to be a penetrating weapon, but that function totally fails when placed up against armour plating. The truth is that an exocet would leave nothing more than a black spot where it impacted on most areas of The Iowa class Battleships.

It is also true that the armour configuration for the Iowa class was completely redesigned from the armour on the South Dakota class.

You must remember that these ships were designed to defeat hits from 2500 pound armour piercing shells. The exocet has nowhere near that destructive capability. Not to mention the fact that the Battleships were designed to trade these kinds of blows for hours while in close combat.

	12-08-2005 20:54									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Smiley Armor aside, how accurate are the guns? Would they still be politically acceptable in today's climate of minimizing civilian casualties?

Their are two main changes in the fire control in the Iowa classes from their WWII-Vietnam era.

First, They were upgraded on targeting by the addition of an rpv (remotely piloted vehicle) for target identification and ranging.

Second, Computer systems were added to calculate gun placement for firing on these targets.

In Gulf War I, The Wisconsin and Missouri fired over a million pounds of ammunition from their 16 inch guns with incredible accuracy. Every fire support mission they were called upon to perfom resulted in complete accuracy and total destruction of the targets. Several of these were in close support of Marine units.

	13-08-2005 02:31									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove I don't think that modern naval missles are specifically designed to penetrate armor as no modern vessels have armor. It's been assumed that it's impossible to sufficiently armor a ship to protect it from nuclear weapons. The tests in the pacific showed that battleships would still float after a near detonation of a nuclear bomb, but the raditation penetrating the hull was stilll enough to kill the crew.

With the thickness of armor we are talking about here I think everybody not actually above deck would be substantially shielded from the radiation. I imagine the crew might survive much as an urban resident in a fallout shelter might survive a nuclear strike. Probably the real problem was that the blast wave and heat seriously compromise everything from bow to stern on the ship that was directly exposed to the nuclear detonation. That's a lot of repairs.

	13-08-2005 02:54									#76
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos Well in the case of the USS Stark, it penetrated a grand total of 3/4" of normal hull plating before stopping. As designed.

Could you clarify your point here, because the one Exocut that hit the ship's hull, appears to have done so entirely sucessfully.

quote: A lookout spotted the first Exocet just seconds before the missile struck, tearing a ten-by-fifteen-foot hole in the warship's steel hull on the port side before ripping through the crew's quarters.

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id344.htm

In other words it easily penetrated the ship's armor and expended the rest its force in the interior of the ship.

Actually, I think I just figured out where your confusion came from.

quote: At 2110, the second Exocet missile hit Stark in the same location as the first. The first missile which did not detonate, instead disintegrated, parts of which passed through the starboard side of the ship at frame 172. The warhead was found later on the second deck at frame 171. The second missile exploded about three feet inside the skin of the ship.

http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/museum/STARK/Stark3.htm

The missile that only penetrated 3/4 of the ship's normal hull plating absolutely did not work as designed. It simply failed to detonate. The other missile easily penetrated well into the ship's hull and did a large amount of damage.

	13-08-2005 04:36									#77
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos The reason there is no armor there is because there is nothing to protect. in other words, a hit there would leave all weapon/sensors intact. From your source... So yes, the superstructure is not only protected, but...

If you note carefully what exactly was armored, its EXCLUSIVELY the command and firecontrol portions of the battleship's guns. None of the sensors are armored. Basically what would happen is the essentially entirely exposed radar and communications dishes and antenae will get completely destroyed by a hit from an anti-ship missile in the right place. This would make weapons such as the ship's Harpoon Anti-ship missiles completely useless. While I suppose the Iowa could take advantage of the portible communications equipment available today so that they could still communicate to some degree with the outside world, the overall loss of communications would still severely impede its effective opperations. Its main guns would also completely lose the benefits of radar assistance when firing. While this may not be such a big deal given the Iowa is going to realistically need to almost completely rely on other escorting ships for protection anyways, this also means the ship is not entirely limited to visual range in targetting any naval vessals with its main guns.

	13-08-2005 04:56									#78
	Support Apolyton

Why couldn't the guns get targeting data from another ship?

	13-08-2005 06:00									#79
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Why couldn't the guns get targeting data from another ship?

If the ship's communication gear is shreded as well, I believe current US naval communications would be essentially confined to walkie talkie or cell phone type communication. In order to accurately hit an enemy ship with its main guns, the Iowa gunnery crew ideally needs both the target ship's exact current position, exact current heading, and as close to accurate a current speed estimate as possible among other things. If you're looking at communicating via walkie talkie, this information first has to be read off a screen by the ship with the still functioning radar, then coveyed to the fire control crew which has to actually manually imput all of this in their fire control computer which will try to calculate where the ship will be by the time the ship's shells reach their targets, as well as attempting to estimate the amount of time it took to actually receive that information and actually put it in the computer.

Now keep in mind that if the incoming ships knows its under fire, or about to be under fire, from a battleship, its not going to head in a straight line, but quite frequently vary its course a bit as it somewhat randomly zig zags in the direction it want to go, at just as fast a speed as possible. The problem is this delay to imput this information on the computer significantly adds to the already measurably significant delays for the ship's 16 inch shells to travel such as long distance. If ship has altered its heading at all during this period, those shells are going to miss for sure. Furthermore, any miscalations of the target's heading and speed are going to be magnified by this greater delay. While it might be possible to still hit the target, most targets for which hitting them beyond visual range matters are going to be trying to reach a range from which they can fire their anti-ship missiles or torpedoes and then immediately turn around to get away. This means the Iowa Class Battleship is going to have a limited amount of time during which it has a chance to hit its target.

Furthermore, I was assuming perfect reception above, but all the armor in a battleship could block reception in the fire control room. This would mean an additional substancial delay as someone has to be on the deck of the ship receiving the information which then needs to be conveyed down to the ship's fire control room. At a minimum it heavily reduces the effectiveness of the Iowa's guns in beyond the horizen combat.

	13-08-2005 06:05									#80
	Got spare money?

quote: If the ship's communication gear is shreded as well, I believe current US naval communications would be essentially confined to walkie talkie or cell phone type communication. In order to accurately hit an enemy ship with its main guns, the Iowa gunnery crew ideally needs both the target ship's exact current position, exact current heading, and as close to accurate a current speed estimate as possible among other things. If you're looking at communicating via walkie talkie, this information first has to be read off a screen by the ship with the still functioning radar, then coveyed to the fire control crew which has to actually manually imput all of this in their fire control computer which will try to calculate where the ship will be by the time the ship's shells reach their targets, as well as attempting to estimate the amount of time it took to actually receive that information and actually put it in the computer.

Or the computer can just be hooked up directly to this walkie-talkie or cell phone type communicator. Just build it into the gun.

	13-08-2005 06:06									#81
	Full PM-box? Change here!

On the Exocet's ability to penetrate steel armor, even former US Navy Secretary John Lehman, a proponent of keeping the two Iowas in active reserve, says that the Exocet is capable of penetrating through 2.75 inches of armor.
http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/mil...Aug01/ralph.htm

This means its going to penetrate the Iowa's initial deck layer for sure, and obviously this is with the current warhead which isn't designed with armor penetration as a priority.

	13-08-2005 06:18									#82
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Or the computer can just be hooked up directly to this walkie-talkie or cell phone type communicator. Just build it into the gun.

You're talking about some significant additional expenses in reactivating the ships since this system doesn't currently exist. You're probably talking about a custom designed military speced part that needs to directly interface and convey the precise data to the ship's targetting computer. There also is going to be a real risk of these remote communicator's or at least the port they go into getting destroyed by one of the incoming anti-ship missiles.

One of the most likely biggest expenses would be the following though. Current systems are almost certainly designed to provide a rather high bandwith and rather information intensive targetting data to other ships in the area which have large antenae or dishes to pick up the signals, especially since its probably designed to potentially give targetting data to hit incoming missiles or aircraft. You would need some significant reprogramming if not ouright redesign of these communications systems to provide a less data itensive stream of data to this portible communicator that the communicator could sucessfully pick up. Doing this for all the ships that you could see providing this data for the Iowa Battleship in combat could be expensive.

You could add this feature, but it would further raise questions of the cost effectiveness of doing this to the Iowa Class Battleships in the first place.

	13-08-2005 06:22									#83
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: You're talking about some significant additional expenses in reactivating the ships since this system doesn't currently exist. You're probably talking about a custom designed military speced part that needs to directly interface and convey the precise data to the ship's targetting computer.

If you've got cell phones you've got internet, if you've got internet it's relatively simple to hook two computers together.

	13-08-2005 06:38									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker If you've got cell phones you've got internet, if you've got internet it's relatively simple to hook two computers together.

The question is whether the other ship is designed to transmit its information on a cell phone frequency, otherwise this wouldn't work. Furthermore, actual cell phones are probably a bad idea to use for this communication because not only are there still many areas of the world without effective cell phone coverage, but in many locations the only available cell phone towers would be controlled by the country being attack who could easily shut them down. Now Satellite cell phone's might be an option, but there is a question if they have the exact capabiliites needed here or you would need a custom mod. Furthermore, some custom mods definately need to be made to ensure data integrity, you don't want the enemy to be able to spoof the signal and provide false targetting data. "Fire at the Aegis Destroyer next to you!"

I think when all these modfications are added up, you're not looking at that cheap a cost.

	13-08-2005 06:45									#85
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: The question is whether the other ship is designed to transmit its information on a cell phone frequency, otherwise this wouldn't work. Furthermore, actual cell phones are probably a bad idea to use for this communication because not only are there still many areas of the world without effective cell phone coverage, but in many locations the only available cell phone towers would be controlled by the country being attack who could easily shut them down.

Yes, yes, I wasn't suggesting that someone just plug in their cell phone, but clearly local communications with nearby ships could be maintained (and as you mentioned, through satellites global communcations as well). And I thought programs to encrypt and transmit exactly this sort of information already existed.

	13-08-2005 06:49									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Kuciwalker may sometimes get lost between his bathrooms, but in this case he is right.

A cannon ship whatever size don't need it's own way to measure a target - that can be fed from whatever source available. Calculations may be more complex, but can actually be done with paper and pencil - no advanced and costly systems are nessecary. Though, computers is nice because they can make the boring calculations quick.

I actually have an idea of the calcultions nessecary - I have served in an artillery battery,

	13-08-2005 06:57									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat Calculations may be more complex, but can actually be done with paper and pencil - no advanced and costly systems are nessecary. Though, computers is nice because they can make the boring calculations quick. I actually have an idea of the calcultions nessecary - I have served in an artillery battery,

You would want to avoid pencil calculations if all possible here though. When talking about a moving target that keeps on changing its heading, the additional delay is unacceptable.

	13-08-2005 07:00									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Handheld calculators can easily perform the required calculations.

And they can be programmed so that the actual user just has to punch in a few numbers anyway.

	13-08-2005 07:04									#89
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Mordoch You would want to avoid pencil calculations if all possible here though. When talking about a moving target that keeps on changing its heading, the additional delay is unacceptable.

Oh, and what did they do in WWII ? Do you really think that they only fired when the target was in sight and didn't move ? No, they where both able to move, concider the opponents movement and fire with these movevements included in shoot orders.

There are no complicated things in this, just a lot of calculations that computers make easy.

	13-08-2005 07:08									#90
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Each battleship has two turrets, right? So at a cost of about $200 you could provide both battleships with a backup targeting system consisting of a cheap graphing calculator with a small program to do the calculations on it.