13-08-2005 07:14									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

You don't need a modified targeting system - all you need is a system where you can enter current position and target position.

	13-08-2005 08:11									#92
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by BlackCat 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.

During WW2 they used mechanical calculators to compute the firing solution. Yes they were able to use forward observers, particularily when attacking land targets. The accuracy wasn't as good as can be had today for a number of reasons: the mechanical calculators weren't as precise as today's digital computers, the radio triangulation equipment wasn't as accurate, they didn't have sophisticated tools to measure wind currents along the path to the target, the consistency of the powder was a little more variable, and they had no way of adjusting for wear in the gun tube.

	13-08-2005 09:54									#93
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by PLATO 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... 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.

I already covered how its going to hit the deck armor, so its going to at a minimum go through the initial 1.5 inch steel plate on the battleship's initial deck level, there is a noticable space between this layer of armor and the main one. At the time this was originally, this was a sensisble move because it could sucessfully detonate gravity bombs before they could reach the main level of armor, avoiding their sucessful penetration. However, against modern anti-ship missiles the scheme is flawed because it means the missile will explode inside the initial layer of armor, trapping most of its fuel in the relatively confined space. Since neither shells nor bombs had very volitile jet fuel inside. As shown in the case of the Stark, the fuel fire started by the missile would reach about 1500 degrees in one minute.
http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/museum/STARK/Stark3.htm

This fire can eventually go further up in temperature to 2200 degrees, which is hot enough to melt steel. This means the fire can potentially melt all the deck armor in the area above it, and even melt the main armor belt and splinter belt armor. Any equipment or electronics in the area could also end up destroyed by the heat, including any connecting wires going through the ship. In other words an anti-ship missile can definately do a substancial amount of damage.

Its also worth noting that the deck armor can only take a 1600 pound armor piercing round in its "immune zone" portion of the deck, there is a substancial portion of the deck where it lacks such capability.

	13-08-2005 12:32									#94
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Couldn't you radiation shield most of the ship?

no. And the nuke tests on the battleship probably didn't accound for the very high temps either. Sure the blast won't penetrate. But you still have superheated air going throughout the ship. I seriously doubt anyone could survive that. Yes general quarters would be set. Iirc Zircle zebra is used to shut down ventilation systems in GQ. But ventilation shafts and dampers aren't going to withstand a nuclear blast.

and to talk about the CBR mentioned above. I'll add that there's a difference between nuclear contamination and radiation. Something most people don't realize. Navy ships are equipped with washdown systems that can wash down hazardous things like biological/chemical/ and nuclear contamination. But when a nuclear missile detonates anywhere near the ship. You are going to get hit with massive amounts of neutron and gamma radiation (the alpha and beta will be shielded). the steel of the ship may shield some of the gamma out. But most of that neutron radiation will penetrate the ship except areas under the water line- though if the water is pushed away- even they will be affected. Water is the best neutron shield (actually other materials are used in primary/secondary shielding as well- but water is still used to shield neutrons).

I'm not exactly sure how much radiation is released in a nuclear blast. I don't claim to be an expert on bombs. I do know nuclear reactors can release around 500 Rem/hour while operating outside the primary shield (but within the secondary shield). This is why you can't go into reactor compartments when they are operating. I'd imagine a nuclear blast releases more than that. though it will be instantaneious (again, I'm not counting the fallout) and not a continuous radation release as with a nuclear reactor.

	13-08-2005 15:28									#95
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Dis no. And the nuke tests on the battleship probably didn't accound for the very high temps either. Sure the blast won't penetrate. But you still have superheated air going throughout the ship. I seriously doubt anyone could survive that. Yes general quarters would be set. Iirc Zircle zebra is used to shut down ventilation systems in GQ. But ventilation shafts and dampers aren't going to withstand a nuclear blast. and to talk about the CBR mentioned above. I'll add that there's a difference between nuclear contamination and radiation. Something most people don't realize. Navy ships are equipped with washdown systems that can wash down hazardous things like biological/chemical/ and nuclear contamination. But when a nuclear missile detonates anywhere near the ship. You are going to get hit with massive amounts of neutron and gamma radiation (the alpha and beta will be shielded). the steel of the ship may shield some of the gamma out. But most of that neutron radiation will penetrate the ship except areas under the water line- though if the water is pushed away- even they will be affected. Water is the best neutron shield (actually other materials are used in primary/secondary shielding as well- but water is still used to shield neutrons). I'm not exactly sure how much radiation is released in a nuclear blast. I don't claim to be an expert on bombs. I do know nuclear reactors can release around 500 Rem/hour while operating outside the primary shield (but within the secondary shield). This is why you can't go into reactor compartments when they are operating. I'd imagine a nuclear blast releases more than that. though it will be instantaneious (again, I'm not counting the fallout) and not a continuous radation release as with a nuclear reactor.

So the superheated air kills the crew rather than the radiation. That makes sense.

	13-08-2005 20:43									#96
	Tired of ads?

Big f*cking deal...

There's enough of these museums and stuff dotted all over the US - if you can get to SF quit whining and go and see the Missouri in Pearl Harbour...

	13-08-2005 21:23									#97
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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

My pleasure

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

Oliver Hazard Perry class ships don't have armor. No modern US warships do with the excetion of carrier flight decks. What the missile penetrated was 1/4" in hull plating, which you could also do with a .50cal.

quote: 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.

No. The missle that actually detonated penetrated 1/4" inch of hull plating, and then I gave you another 1/2" to acount for whatever interior bulkheads it would have had to get through to go into the crew berthing (which is none, as the crew berthing is against the hull, but I am trying to give your the benefit of the doubt.). So in grand total BOTH missiles penetrated less than an inch of normal steel, not armor, one simply didn't detonate.

Now back to the battleshop. which has armor 500% more substanial at its weakest point.

This really isn't a matter of debate, it is simply how it is.

	13-08-2005 21:23									#98
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Steel armor doesn't stop radiation as well as lead shielding, plus a nuke is going to be detonated in the air, so the radiation will strike the ship from an angle not protected by armor anyway.

	13-08-2005 21:32									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: I already covered how its going to hit the deck armor

I already told you that it wouldn't. The popup manuever is not, repeat NOT, so that it will hit the deck. It is to give it enough altitude to allow the terminal spiral manuever that plays havoc with point defense cannons.

Why would anyone design a missle that would hit the deck when no modern warships have armor? And the only exception to the rule, carriers, has its only armor on the deck! The missile is designed to skim the surface and hit the ship as close to the waterline as possible.

What do you think the missile does, aproach the ship at altitude as a perfect target for defensive missiles and point defense cannons and then drop vertically on the target? I wish they did that, as we would never have to worry about such a weapon being a threat.

	13-08-2005 21:38									#100
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Patroklos is absolutely correct, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to substantially automate the Iowa. It is also largely proof against all modern anti-shipping missiles. During the 1960’s and 1970’s there was considerable examination of this factor, and the Navy determined that under modern warfare conditions, anything short of a direct nuclear hit would leave the ship operational. Actually they were worried about a nuclear tipped Soviet torpedo, that’s about the only sure way to kill one. None of the modern anti-shipping missiles are designed to deal with a target like the Iowa. That’s the Navy’s estimation.

Also, there is a problem with cascade radiation in the armor. Steel is LOUSY radiation shielding, as instead of simply absorbing the radiation, the iron nuclei release there own lethal radiation under the right circumstance. The estimation is that the crew would die several days after an airburst. At that time they were not talking about super-heated air, I suspect that the armor belt would stop enough direct radiation to prevent that. It will definitely protect against the initial blast damage. You coujld survive to operate the ship for a couple of days before dying.

However, Mordoch is also correct. They determined that the best strategy for the Soviets would be to airburst one of their larger missiles (at the time the Styx was mentioned, we are talking the 1960’s you know), roughly equivalent to the Chinese Silkworm missiles – which are VERY improved versions of the Styx. That would shred all the comm and radar gear, turning the ship into essentially a gun platform. It would hardly be harmless, but it’s lethality would be decreased by a degree of magnitude. Hence the Phalanx, to protect all that soft gear.

As a gun platform the Iowa class is unmatched. The problem when engaging in fire support is accuracy, destructive capability, and ammunition supply. While the modern ships and their guns will exceed the Iowa in accuracy, they cannot match it in the other two categories. I’ll never forget when someone mentioned that the Soviets 30mm gatling system (Phalanx equivalent, though inferior) might develop the ability to actually hit an incoming 16” shell. At which point the reply was “So what.” It would still land and detonate.

The Iowa can fire nine 2500 pound shells per salvo, at a rate of two or three rounds per minute per tube (I’m doing this from memory). They cannot be intercepted, and can destroy an area the size of a football field. They made concrete penetrating rounds that will let them destroy almost any modern exposed defensive construction. They also made a round with 600 bomblets (the so-called cluster bomb which is standard anti-personnel – why make a big hole when you can instead saturate an even larger area with lots of little pieces of shrapnel). That means a minimum of 10,800 bomblets a minute – and the rounds are much cheaper than the Army’s MLRS missles.

The simple problem is expense, and doctrine. They are extremely expensive to operate, and remember, they are fuel oil guzzlers, too. The Marines love the behemoths, and they were devastatingly effective in supporting the Marine push through the fortified areas along the Kuwait-Saudi border along the Red Sea (Desert Storm). If the modern US military is deploying soldiers in armored Humvees and Stykers, both of which are inferior vehicles, do you think they are going to keep a battleship in service just to keep the Marines happy?

	14-08-2005 00:49									#101
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

the shells are very powerful indeed. They are still badass, even today. but they also have limited range. When most of our targets are far inland, it doesn't make sense.

	14-08-2005 01:08									#102
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Twenty miles or so, if memory serves me. While alot of conflicts do occur far inland, find me a decade in the twentieth century where the US has not had a conflict where the ability to bombard within 20 miles of the coast with de facto immunity from counterattack did not have value. Admittedly, in some of the interwar periods you didn't NEED a battleship to do the shelling, but you still have had a conflict every decade in the twentieth century where there were coastal zones involved.

	14-08-2005 01:11									#103
	Increase Your PM Length

but what about the 21st century .

Iraq, afghanistan. Battleships would be useless.

	14-08-2005 01:15									#104
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MOBIUS Big f*cking deal... There's enough of these museums and stuff dotted all over the US - if you can get to SF quit whining and go and see the Missouri in Pearl Harbour...

If you're going to be an ass, why not just avoid the thread in the first place?

	14-08-2005 01:16									#105
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Steel armor doesn't stop radiation as well as lead shielding, plus a nuke is going to be detonated in the air, so the radiation will strike the ship from an angle not protected by armor anyway.

I was suggesting lining the interior of the armor with lead.

	14-08-2005 01:17									#106
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc However, Mordoch is also correct. They determined that the best strategy for the Soviets would be to airburst one of their larger missiles (at the time the Styx was mentioned, we are talking the 1960’s you know), roughly equivalent to the Chinese Silkworm missiles – which are VERY improved versions of the Styx. That would shred all the comm and radar gear, turning the ship into essentially a gun platform. It would hardly be harmless, but it’s lethality would be decreased by a degree of magnitude. Hence the Phalanx, to protect all that soft gear.

Wouldn't it still be useful as a VTOL carrier?

	14-08-2005 01:18									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker I was suggesting lining the interior of the armor with lead.

you know, battleships are among the fastest ships the navy had. Or they used to be.

That would not be the case with lead. You'd have to put in larger boilers and turbines. Larger reduction gears. Then you'd need a larger ship. Then you need more shielding, requiring bigger engines. You know the rest.

And reduction gears are not cheap. They are designed to last the life of the ship. They are custom built in weather controlled environments.

	14-08-2005 01:41									#108
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Dis you know, battleships are among the fastest ships the navy had. Or they used to be.

Neg. Iowa classes were fast, but they were the exception, not the rule.

	14-08-2005 09:06									#109
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Twenty miles or so, if memory serves me. While alot of conflicts do occur far inland, find me a decade in the twentieth century where the US has not had a conflict where the ability to bombard within 20 miles of the coast with de facto immunity from counterattack did not have value. Admittedly, in some of the interwar periods you didn't NEED a battleship to do the shelling, but you still have had a conflict every decade in the twentieth century where there were coastal zones involved.

26 miles.

	14-08-2005 10:06									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

On a tangent...
---------------------------------------------

Strange isn't it, that in something as cutting-edge tech-obsessed as the military, there is plenty of hardware in operational use at an age far exceeding their commercial equivalents.

The battleships were mothballed after over half a century of services. Today, the Air Force still operates B-52 bombers built in the 60s (and plans to continue for the forseeable future) while the Navy has 1960s aircraft carriers in active service.

Commercial aircraft and ships on the other hand generally become obsolete and replaced in around 20 years.

	14-08-2005 10:47									#111
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Smiley On a tangent... --------------------------------------------- Strange isn't it, that in something as cutting-edge tech-obsessed as the military, there is plenty of hardware in operational use at an age far exceeding their commercial equivalents. The battleships were mothballed after over half a century of services. Today, the Air Force still operates B-52 bombers built in the 60s (and plans to continue for the forseeable future) while the Navy has 1960s aircraft carriers in active service. Commercial aircraft and ships on the other hand generally become obsolete and replaced in around 20 years.

The Enterprise was laid down 2-1958 and launch 9/24/1960. In serv11/25/1961. The last B-52 came off the line in 6/62. So the youngest B-52 is 43 years old.

	14-08-2005 12:26									#112
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

good call. I served on the Enterprise. And I believe there are still 2 conventional carriers older than the Enterprise.

The Enterprise is scheduled for decomissioning in 2013. I came aboard in 1993, and they told us then the major overhaul and refuelling would last 20 years.

Here's an interesting little tidbit (or maybe only interesting to nuclear fanatics like myself). The original reactor cores of the Enterprise only lasted 5 years. But the last refuelling is expected to last 20 years. This shows the innovation and upgrades to nuclear reactor phsysics over the year. Take note that the reactors aren't bigger. The fuel rods are still placed in the same size reactor. It's just better distribution of uranium and boron and all that good stuff inside a reactor (which is probably classified- but I can't remember anyways )

	14-08-2005 15:23									#113
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

And I thought the sheer bored rigidness of the MBT thread was impossible to repeat. How wrong I was

	14-08-2005 15:38									#114
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker If you're going to be an ass, why not just avoid the thread in the first place?

Where would the fun be in that?

All I'm saying is that you got enough big ships you can visit dotted all round your country without adding another one...

After visiting Pearl Harbour you wouldn't want to see any other battleship anyway and considering SF is only a few hours away there's hardly any point in putting it there.

Plus you have the Alabama in Mobile Bay for all those poor Southerners who can't afford to make the trip to Hawai'i so that part of the US is catered for.

Besides they both have submarines with them as added attractions - are you going to find a spare sub for Iowa too?

And if you're into Aircraft Carriers there's always the Intrepid museum in New York - which also has a sub...

If you're in need of something older why not go see the massively overhyped Constitution in Boston?

I'm sure there's more besides dotted around the country - so who needs another one? Not SF for a start as it has enough attractions without added some old rusting second rate battleship attraction to the mix. So good for them telling Iowa where to go.

Have you even been to any of these ships I've mentioned - cos if you haven't it is hardly worth crying about not finding a home for this ship and then not visiting it if they did find it a home...

	14-08-2005 16:19									#115
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Uh, Dis - we used it in Desert Storm. Effectively. The Red Sea is a critical choke point for oil tankers (can you say Basra?), and the New Jersey is a 45,000 ton gorilla. It sits anywhere it wants to. Oil pipelines are very fragile, so as long as we have the Iowa, it is ridiculously easy to interdict coastal areas with relative safety. Many modern ships are substantially more fragile, and are much more likely to be destroyed in that kind of constricted combat zone. A mine, while doing damage, is NOT going to sink an Iowa class ship, and it would still be perfectly operative, just a couple of knots slower. We've already discussed modern anti-shipping missles.

If you look at Iran, (as another area of conflict) it has an extensive coastal area, and it is almost totally dependent on the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean for it's commerce. The ability to shell with relative impunity 26 miles up and down the coastline of Iran is not something to be sneered at. Designing an extended range munition for a 16" shell would be easy, and I'll bet that you could put 1000 pounds (times 9 per salvo) within 50 miles of the coast, if the Navy was so inclined.

Now when it comes to Afghanistan, or any of the other -stans in Central Asia, those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Kuci, you could put in VSTOL capability on the Iowa. They actually added some ASW helicopters on the largish read deck behind the last turret. However, it will still be very manpower intensive. In addition, unlike a carrier, the battleship does not have fire-proofed and specially armored (against shape-charged munitions) fuel and ordinance bunkers and delivery systems to get them from the protected areas to the aircraft. While you might convert the magazines and then one of the lift/barbette systems (that delivered the shells to the rear gun turret, for the sake of argument) you are talking a HUGE amount of expense. Add in the fact the fueling system, and the safety/damage-control aspects of that system, will have to be added in as a kludge.

The Naval Ship Design Bureau spends extensive time, effort, and expense designing that into American ships from the start. That is one of the reason US Ships could take more damage than any other Navy except possibly the Germans. You cannot design an "aftermarket" safety system into a ship, it is built into it from the keel up. So while you could put Harriers on the Iowa, the Navy would never do it.

	14-08-2005 16:43									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by shawnmmcc Uh, Dis - we used it in Desert Storm. Effectively. The Red Sea is a critical choke point for oil tankers (can you say Basra?), and the New Jersey is a 45,000 ton gorilla. It sits anywhere it wants to. Oil pipelines are very fragile, so as long as we have the Iowa, it is ridiculously easy to interdict coastal areas with relative safety.

Uh, shawn - the Iowa was decommissioned in 1990.

Perhaps you were referring to the Missouri which, if it weren't for a British ship would have been hit by an Iraq Silkworm, and we'd have been able to have seen just how unsinkable it was - IIRC the US anti-missile defences were too busy shooting up the Missouri to take it out and that is why you had to rely on us...

Which is another reason why the Missouri is a museum ship and the Iowa will be sold for scrap metal...

	14-08-2005 17:12									#117
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Perhaps you were referring to the Missouri which, if it weren't for a British ship would have been hit by an Iraq Silkworm, and we'd have been able to have seen just how unsinkable it was

Like most allied navies, you proved yourselves to be effective missile sponges.

Of course I would challenge you you produce any proof or a silkworn attack on the BB.

	14-08-2005 17:34									#118
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Patroklos Like most allied navies, you proved yourselves to be effective missile sponges.

None of our ships were hit during the Gulf Wars that I know of...

And if it weren't for the British ship shooting down the silkworm, the Missouri would have been hit - because as I said before the US ships were too busy engaging in friendly fire to shoot it down.

That must have been real embarrassing - the most powerful navy in the world screwing up and needing to be rescued by its allies.

No wonder you haven't heard about it...

quote: Of course I would challenge you you produce any proof or a silkworn attack on the BB.

I'm not inclined to lie when I make an easily verifiable statement - so either believe me or look it up yourself.

Clearly you're in need of urgent education, so I would suggest the latter course of action...

	14-08-2005 18:08									#119
	Got spare money?

I tend to think of them as a class - New Jersey, Missouri, Iowa, and the fourth which I'm too lazy to google right now.

I highly doubt the Silkworm was being fired with any fancy terminal maneuvers. This is Iraqis using Chinese weapons. However - and the thing has a huge warhead, I'd have to get my Jane's down but isn't it around a ton? - it is a slow missile and the Phalanx has an excellent chance of hitting it. Still, from a technical standpoint it would have been interesting, though I have no complaints about Brits helping us out. You fought in the Falklands and found out how to deal with a modern second tier anti-shipping environment (the Argentinians are not first tier, but they still had some decent hardware).

	14-08-2005 18:20									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Wisconsin is the fourth BB in the Iowa class.

Both The Wisconsin and Missouri saw action in GWI