History, Politics And Current Affairs

Opinions expressed here are personal views of contributors and do not necessarily represent the companies, organizations or governments they work for. Nor do they necessarily represent those of the Board Administration.
It is currently Sat Feb 24, 2018 1:29 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5826
Posted here for your enjoyment....

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/iowa-class-battleship-the-warship-the-navy-wishes-it-could-24049

Quote:
Iowa-Class Battleship: The Warship the Navy Wishes It Could Bring Back from the Dead
Kyle Mizokami
January 12, 2018

The Iowa-class battleships will remain museum pieces for the foreseeable future. Still, if the will and the funding were there, there are some very interesting things that could be done with them that would neatly patch holes in the U.S. Navy’s force structure—particularly the ability to fight and sink enemy ships. While a comeback is unlikely, it’s always nice to dream.

Battleships captivate the imagination. Before they were displaced by aircraft carriers, battleships were symbols of great-power status. Some of the most iconic were the American Iowa class, the last battleships ever built by the United States. Powerful in appearance, yet with sleek lines filled in with haze gray, the Iowa class served in World War II and were unretired three more times to serve as the U.S. Navy’s big guns. If we brought them back today, what would they look like?
Big grey steel ships?

The National Defense Authorization Act for 1996, generally known as the defense budget, had a unique provision hidden inside the text: the text directed the Navy to keep at least of the four Iowa-class ships on the Naval Register in good condition, retain the logistical support to maintain battleships on active duty and keep those ships on the Register until the secretary of the navy certified that existing naval gunfire support equaled or exceeded the firepower of two battleships. Iowa and Wisconsin were finally stricken from the Register in 2006 after the secretary of the navy, citing the upcoming thirty-two Zumwalt-class destroyers, certified they were no longer needed.

Now, eleven years later, the Navy is only getting three of the thirty-two Zumwalt destroyers, and the long-range attack projectile specifically designed for the Zumwalt’s two 155-millimeter guns is being cancelled due to exorbitant costs. The Navy is again facing a naval gunfire shortfall, in addition to an antiship shortfall. Could the Iowas make yet another comeback, bolstered with new and powerful weapons?
No.

In laying the groundwork for battleship modernizations, there four things that must happen for any successful update. The Iowa-class battleships were designed in the late 1930s, and a lot has happened in the last eighty years. First, the ships must be highly automated. The ships originally sailed with crews of up to 2,700 personnel, later reduced to 1,800. The U.S. Navy is no longer a draftee service, and personnel costs in the all-volunteer Navy are major expenses. Prime candidates for automation are older mechanical systems, such as the three sixteen-inch gun turrets, each of which has a crew of over a hundred, and the power plant and engineering.

Second, the battleships would return to the field just as firepower is transitioning from being gunpowder-based to electricity-based. The ship will need all the power it can get to power the new generation of weapons systems that will go onboard. A nuclear power plant would provide power in the megawatts range, while requiring fewer crew to operate it. An alternative is the electric drive system that powers the Zumwalt class, albeit on a larger scale, delivering even greater power.
Nuclear power. He must be in a state that allows recreational chemicals

Third, the battleships need to be able to sink ships at ranges of at least two hundred miles and hit land targets at eight hundred to a thousand miles. At 887 feet long, the battlewagons will be prime targets for land- and sea-based antiship missiles and must have a reasonable chance of operating from beyond their ranges. While the effective range of antiship missiles will only continue to grow, a long-distance striking capability will still be useful against other targets, including island garrisons, air bases and enemy ships.
Rectal extract some numbers, decide that they would be good, and post them as fact. Check.

Fourth, the battleships will be purely offensive weapons designed to attack targets on land and at sea. They will not have advanced radar systems aboard, nor will they equip the Standard family of missiles, nor will they jump on the ballistic-missile defense bandwagon. In order to justify their existence, they must be able to contribute as much offensive firepower as possible.
So you're proposing putting in VLS, that is compatible with current boxes, and not putting in Standards???

A reactivated battleship would not replace a carrier—the two would operate separately but symbiotically. A guided-missile battleship’s long-range firepower would suppress enemy air defenses, allowing carrier aircraft a freer hand over enemy territory. In return, carriers would provide antisubmarine and antiair cover for the battleship.

Our upgrade for the Iowa-class battleships would turn them from battleships (BBs) to guided missile battleships (BBGs). We’ll start by funding development of a sixteen-inch hypervelocity guided projectile along the lines of the HVP round currently being developed by BAE Systems. That round, for the 127-millimeter Mk. 45 gun on all Navy cruisers and destroyers and the 155-millimeter gun on the Zumwalt destroyers, will have a range of exceeding a hundred miles. How far a sixteen-inch hypervelocity shell could reach is unknown, but performance matching the 155-millimeter version doesn’t seem unreasonable.
Must be taking the good stuff. Ordinary recreational chemicals shouldn't have this effect.

Taking a cue from the Pentagon, making the ship’s main battery more efficient means that we can cut it. The aft sixteen-inch gun turret has to go, in order to give the ship a long-range strike capability. In its place we will put a field of 320 to 470 Mk. 41 variant vertical-launch systems that will accommodate a purely offensive loadout: Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles with a two-hundred-plus-mile range and Tactical Tomahawk missiles with a thousand-mile range. Even longer-range missiles would be welcome additions to the BBG’s new arsenal, and could even be stored in deck-mounted armored box launchers if necessary.
Or it's just a symptom of a mind that can't distinguish between fact and fiction.

The remaining five-inch gun turrets on the Iowa-classes’ port and starboard sides are obsolete. The solution: ripping out the turrets and replacing them with a pair of railguns. Four railguns would increase the battleship’s firepower against land targets, helping make up for the loss of the aft sixteen-inch turret.
If the technology doesn't exist, make some up. The readers will never know.

The BBGs would not be totally defenseless: the upgrade of the early 1980s saw four Phalanx CIWS guns installed. In their place we could install newer SeaRAM point defense missile launchers, or even defensive laser weapons in the hundred-kilowatt range, fed power from the nuclear reactors.
Hey, there's something that would actually work. The first part, that is.

The BBGs will retain their helicopter landing pad. The battlewagons will rely on cruiser and destroyer escorts to fend of air and subsurface threats, and P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, MQ-4 Triton drones and other unmanned aircraft, and submarines and unmanned underwater vehicles for targeting data. One outside possibility is the battleships being equipped with TERN tailsitter drones capable taking off and landing vertically, providing an organic, long-distance scouting capability not unlike the Vought OS2U Kingfisher seaplanes that equipped the Iowas in the 1940s.

The result of this conversion is a BBG that could sink any enemy surface action group protecting an enemy island or coastline, then strike antiaccess/area-denial targets such as antiship ballistic missiles, surface-to-air missile batteries, radars, air bases and and other enemy targets. Once it was safe enough to close within a hundred miles of the enemy coast, sixteen-inch guns with hypervelocity shells would come into play, destroying a half-dozen targets at a time with precision.
Wish fulfillment mode - ON.

The Iowa-class battleships will remain museum pieces for the foreseeable future. Still, if the will and the funding were there, there are some very interesting things that could be done with them that would neatly patch holes in the U.S. Navy’s force structure—particularly the ability to fight and sink enemy ships. While a comeback is unlikely, it’s always nice to dream.
Something tells me that he doesn't have the slightest idea of what he's talking about. Dreaming doesn't seem to be working. May I suggest research?

Kyle Mizokami is a defense and national-security writer based in San Francisco who has appeared in the Diplomat, Foreign Policy, War is Boring and the Daily Beast. In 2009 he cofounded the defense and security blog Japan Security Watch. You can follow him on Twitter: @KyleMizokami.
All credibility is lost. Time to trawl the internet, find something somebody else wrote at least a decade back, then discuss as if it were new.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/heres-who-would-win-between-the-2-most-powerful-battleships-24071

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4772
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
Now, assuming that there was a valid requirement for a ship with six 16-inch guns, a couple of vapourware railguns, several hundred cruise missiles, heavy armour, and a nuclear-electric drivetrain - spoiler alert, there isn't - why in the name of all that is holy would you recycle anything other than the wardroom silver off of four SEVENTY-FIVE YEAR OLD WAR RELICS?

The entire argument is literally equivalent to demanding that the USAF take to the skies in modernised P-47s, or that the Army drag M4 medium tanks out of museums for its' armoured divisions. Yet why is it that those two are recognised as clearly insane, yet turning the IOWA class into anything other than razor blades isn't?

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7619
Location: BM-9, BB-30
Because the mere mention of Iowas turns otherwise reasonable people into Battleship Benny.

You might - might! - be able to make a case for bringing back the Strike Cruiser concept, given that forces seem to be driving cruiser design up and out of the 10,000-ton sweet spot, and the next sweet spot is 24,000-ish-tons, aka Kirov. We do not, however, need 40,000 ton ships.

Also it's interesting to note that if we have railguns, we probably don't need 16" rifles, although Big Number Syndrome is probably in play too.

Although I think we can sum the whole thing up in six seconds. Kermit?

Thank you, Kermit.

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:39 am
Posts: 380
Location: UK
That's not Mr Sparks is it?

_________________
Andy L

"Never trust anything you have to sign for. Look what happened to Neville Chamberlain...."
(Albert Arkright, as reported by Gerald Whiley)

"Leave Us . . . We Are DECORATING!" (Miss Quill, as recounted by Katherine Kelly)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 11127
RLBH wrote:
The entire argument is literally equivalent to demanding that the USAF take to the skies in modernised P-47s


Well, actually people are making that argument; essentially aircraft like the A-28 and the AT-6 etc are modernized versions of the P-47. The big difference of course is that, in its day, the P-47 was a very capable front-line aircraft capable of looking after itself in the high-threat environment that existed then while the A-28 etc . . . . aren't.

Quote:
or that the Army drag M4 medium tanks out of museums for its' armoured divisions.


I have a feeling if the name "M4 Medium" was replaced by Panther or Tiger, I think people would make that argument . . . . .

Quote:
Yet turning the IOWA class into anything other than razor blades isn't?


I think a lot of it is the romance attached to the battleships combined with their overt firepower. After all they are studded with guns and have heavy armor that everybody can see. And, they really do look good. It's hard for non-professionals to accept that a ship that looks so good and so powerful is really fit for nothing other than conversions into razor blades. Also, people have no idea of what is involved in converting ships, especially battleships, and how much it costs to do so.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:00 am
Posts: 13710
Location: At the computer, or tablet.
I saw this on Twitter and I too had a desire to share in the recreational chemicals this gentleman has been imbibing.

I mean thinking that it is practical to install nuclear reactors in a ship designed in the '40s. In fact never mind that installing them in a ship that HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT. Nuclear reactors are not plug and play! :D

_________________
Adrian Carton de Wiart, VC wrote:
Frankly I had enjoyed the war...and why do people want peace if the war is so much fun?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:56 pm
Posts: 3352
Location: Kingdom of Gammaraybia
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Quote:
Yet turning the IOWA class into anything other than razor blades isn't?

I think a lot of it is the romance attached to the battleships combined with their overt firepower. After all they are studded with guns and have heavy armor that everybody can see. And, they really do look good. It's hard for non-professionals to accept that a ship that looks so good and so powerful is really fit for nothing other than conversions into razor blades. Also, people have no idea of what is involved in converting ships, especially battleships, and how much it costs to do so.

Talk of Iowa Class reactivation as a means of invoking the romance of these warships in the service of promoting some other naval warfare agenda is a persuasion tool which has long since run out of steam.

After 2001, when the possibility of Iowa Class reactivation became even more unlikely than it was prior to 9/11, the value of these ships as a means of sparking useful and passionate naval discussion began to seriously wane. By 2006, their value for that particular purpose was nil.

As Admiral Mullen said in 2006 when Iowa and Wisconsin were struck from the NVR, these ships do have a useful role and mission in today's world, and that is to promote the history and traditions of the US Navy.

As for the value of gun-fired ordnance in today's naval warfare scene, that is a question which is still very much open for debate and which can only be addressed by solid argument and analysis based strictly on its own merits.

_________________
An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 10:18 am
Posts: 7044
Location: Where the grass is green and the girls are pretty
Scott Brim wrote:
Francis Urquhart wrote:
Quote:
Yet turning the IOWA class into anything other than razor blades isn't?

I think a lot of it is the romance attached to the battleships combined with their overt firepower. After all they are studded with guns and have heavy armor that everybody can see. And, they really do look good. It's hard for non-professionals to accept that a ship that looks so good and so powerful is really fit for nothing other than conversions into razor blades. Also, people have no idea of what is involved in converting ships, especially battleships, and how much it costs to do so.

Talk of Iowa Class reactivation as a means of invoking the romance of these warships in the service of promoting some other naval warfare agenda is a persuasion tool which has long since run out of steam.

After 2001, when the possibility of Iowa Class reactivation became even more unlikely than it was prior to 9/11, the value of these ships as a means of sparking useful and passionate naval discussion began to seriously wane. By 2006, their value for that particular purpose was nil.

As Admiral Mullen said in 2006 when Iowa and Wisconsin were struck from the NVR, these ships do have a useful role and mission in today's world, and that is to promote the history and traditions of the US Navy.

As for the value of gun-fired ordnance in today's naval warfare scene, that is a question which is still very much open for debate and which can only be addressed by solid argument and analysis based strictly on its own merits.


In 2001, the usual suspects suggested reactivating the Iowas to fight terrorists, and the justifications presented were downright painful to read.

_________________
"The double tap is a myth. Shoot the threat until it goes away. Only then will his soul find peace." -- Dalai Lama


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 1:23 pm
Posts: 765
[/quote] In 2001, the usual suspects suggested reactivating the Iowas to fight terrorists, and the justifications presented were downright painful to read.[/quote]

By way of evidence, dare I quote a small amount of text from a site which may have a thing for the 'Gavin'.... http://www.combatreform.org/battleships.htm

PART 1: The Prelude

On November 12, 2009 the unthinkable happened.

A third world country launched a nuclear-tipped missile at its neighbor; Pakistan's supposedly "moderate" Islamic ruling council without warning, struck at Indian troop concentrations to stop what was thought to be an impending invasion. India then retaliated with its own nuclear weapons, killing millions of Muslims and creating a call to arms throughout the world to exterminate India.

The U.S. rushed an aircraft carrier battle group to the scene. However, thousands of miles away, Communist China began massing troops adjacent to the straits of Taiwan after that country declared their independence. Another CBG was sent towards Taiwan but with strict orders not to enter the confined waters of the straits. Satellite imagery flashed into the targeting screens of the Chinese Strategic Missile force headquarters and buttons were pushed. Back at Washington D.C. phones rang of the reported ballistic missiles being launched. "Would China start nuclear war over Taiwan? All we did was move a carrier group towards it. The radar screens answered our questions. The Chinese missile arcs were coming down far closer than the continental U.S. (CONUS). Everyone drew a sigh of relief. A computer screen operator burst our euphoria bubble; "Sir the Chinese missiles are coming down on our aircraft carriers." The senior watch commander said to alert them. "Its too late sir, they have already struck, there were too many for our missiles to stop them. The Nimitz vanished from our screens 3 minutes ago, the Carl Vinson is on fire and abandoning ship."

The President called in on the red phone asking for details of the national tragedy. The senior naval commander picked up the phone. "No, Sir. We cannot get any more carriers there. No, Sir we cannot go through the Panama Canal with a carrier. The Army and Air Force will have to go to bat for us. Yes, Sir, thank-you, Sir".

Then the light came on.

The war game simulation was over. Participants at the Naval War College were stunned. It had happened so fast as they were fixated on their hunt for terror leaders in Afghanistan, they didn't see it coming, either the Pakistani nuclear strike or that the Red Chinese had aircraft carrier-killing ballistic missiles. "Where did they get such accuracy?"

As Admiral Jeremiah Simpson walked away he remarked to marine General Scott; "From us of course. Not only are they putting men in space to do ocean surveillance, they buy imagery from anyone who has satellites and in need of some quick cash. Jeff, we have 4 countries right now developing weapons of mass destruction deep underground and we can't get at them, the Indians are putting their missiles into hardened silos for a 'second-strike' capability even if Pakistan should launch a surprise attack". Scott was stunned. "We can't get them with air strikes?". Simpson shook his head. "We cannot get them for sure. The planet earth is still a very big place to hide things in. Its the Cuban missile crisis all over again, except this time its not Cuba with the missiles its Pakistan, India, Iran, North Korea, the genies are out and we can't get them...if we send in swarms of attack planes with men and they get shot down, we have a hostage crisis...or worse public trials like Gary Powers and the U2....". Scott scratched his head. "What about those cruise missiles you guys shoot off at a million dollars a pop?". Simpson stopped and faced Scott squarely. "We cannot shoot enough of them at one time to get them all. The Tomahawk only carries a tiny warhead and can't go deep. The only sure answer is to send in ground troops."

Scott was really alert now.

"But we learned when former Secretary of Defense MacNamara visited Cuba that Soviet submarines had nuclear torpedoes ready to wipe out our Navy invasion fleet with all our marines in '62. Its too risky to mass vulnerable surface ships packed with marines against even third world navies with diesel-electric submarines and CNN to alert them we are on the way". Simpson agreed and added; "Think about North Korea. We know where those hard targets are, but we don't have a way to take them out without getting ground troops in there which we can't do without setting off a bloody war on their home turf in the mountains...and then it would be too late because they could launch against the West coast. Did you know a North Korean ballistic missile landed awhile back in Alaska?" Scott was dumbfounded. Simpson continued. "Digging in nuke missiles isn't the only way to avoid our targeting; there is C3D2. Ever hear of that? Scott shook his head. Camouflage, Cover, Concealment Deception and Deceit. The North Koreans are real good at letting us think we know where there stuff is and most of it is just plywood decoys. We know where they are, but we can't effectively hit the ones that are real. We need to hit everything, but we'll go broke using million dollar missiles even if we had enough of them. What do we do?" [1]

A scientist from across the room heard the general officers conversation.

"Gentlemen, I think I have your answer...I'm Doctor Gerald Mitscher".

A short man with a stocky build born of his days as a former Army infantry officer but now a defense theorist, Mitscher knew what he was talking about.

"The most efficient way to project ordnance is the gun. An armored platform with its own modest air cover could venture into a third world country's littoral waters even if diesel-electric submarines and terrorists in boats are lurking. Once in position, the mere threat could force the rogues to the bargaining table or lull them into complacency before we strike and catch them off guard. Right now we have 25 mile range and an ability to penetrate 60 feet of concrete with our 16 inch guns. If we developed scramjet rounds that fired from Iowa-class battleship 16" guns we could simultaneously strike targets as far as 500 miles inland and hit hard and deep enough to get enemy hard targets that are development facilities or actual launchers of WMD's without risking an American pilot's or Soldier's life if we are in that twilight between war and peace where we could surgically eliminate a rogue's WMDs without causing full-scale war. If we have to go to war to topple a rogue nation-state we darn well better be sure we get their WMDs before we land troops as the Cuban thing teaches us. We have identified most rogue nation-state WMD facilities, the question is how to hit them effectively. Mentally knowing is not enough, we have to be able to PHYSICALLY take them out, and I dare say low-yield nuclear weapons that penetrate; resorting to nuclear war to prevent nuclear war is madness and disaster for world opinion of the U.S. What I suggest is we go back and re-run your wargame simulation except this time you have an Iowa class battleship with 1500 regular and scramjet rounds, a 'BBG' on station in the Indian ocean when the rogue nuclear nation considers nuking their neighbor. See what happens."

Simpson was cynical. "This is another technofantasy".

Mitscher was adamant; "No, sir the South Africans already had land-based 155mm scramjet rounds ready. For sale to whoever has the cash". [2]

The wargame simulation was replayed and this time no nuclear exchange took place because both sides knew that they could lose their nuclear edge in a few seconds if the U.S. chose to destroy their nuclear arsenals and take away their "nuclear stat


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 5:56 pm
Posts: 3352
Location: Kingdom of Gammaraybia
Jimlad2 wrote:
Quote:
In 2001, the usual suspects suggested reactivating the Iowas to fight terrorists, and the justifications presented were downright painful to read.
By way of evidence, dare I quote a small amount of text from a site which may have a thing for the 'Gavin'.... http://www.combatreform.org/battleships.htm

Yes, there are people who take this kind of nonsense seriously. It's the same sort of thinking that pushes railguns, lasers, the battleforce communications network (etc. etc.) as revolutionary game changers for naval warfare.

On the other hand, I once asked a general question of a circle of retired Navy men if they had any thoughts as to how the US Navy could defeat the PLAN in the South China Sea if a major conflict broke out there in the late 2020's or early 2030's.

The consensus opinion was that it was basically daft to think the USN could prevail in that kind of a conflict at sea against the kind of combined naval and air forces China will likely be fielding by then.

My response was this: Even if the USN couldn't win the initial combat engagements, would the nation's military and civilian leaders choose to put up enough of a fight to make the Chinese think twice before expanding the conflict beyond the boundaries of the South China Sea?

So if the conflict begins in the South China Sea, how much of one's reserve of ammunition and fuel are you willing to expend before the inevitable withdrawal occurs? How would having railgun and laser technology at one's disposal affect the decision as to whether and when to make a strategic withdrawal from the weapons engagement zone?

EDIT: I've used the term 'strategic withdrawal' rather than 'tactical withdrawal' because the weapons engagement zone in a war occurring in the South China Sea would cover such a large geographic area.

_________________
An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 5826
Doubling down on the stooopid....

Quote:
Here's Who Would Win Between Nazi Germany's Bismarck and the Navy's Last Battleship

Kyle Mizokami
January 15, 2018

The larger context of the battle—the U.S. Navy being forced to take on the German Navy—would have had serious repercussions for the Pacific theater. Germany was, after all, considered the primary threat, with Japan second and Italy third. A more powerful German Navy (or weaker Royal Navy) would have had second order consequences for the Pacific, delaying the Solomons campaign, including the invasion of Guadalcanal, the Battle of the Coral Sea, and even the Battle of Midway.

Despite the vast scope of the Second World War, the navies of the United States and Nazi Germany fought few, if any, direct surface engagements. By the time of America’s entry into the war the Royal Navy had already sunk or neutralized the lion’s share of Hitler’s Kriegsmarine, with only Hitler’s U-boats remaining a substantial German threat.

But what if the UK’s Royal Navy hadn’t been as successful as it was, and the U.S. was forced to hunt down the German Navy’s major surface combatants? What if the Iowa-class fast battleships had been sortied into the Atlantic to square off against their counterparts, the Bismarck-class battleships?
OK so far

The Bismarck-class battleships were the largest surface ships built by Germany before and during the Second World War. Germany had been prohibited by the Treaty of Versailles to build warships over 10,000 tons, but the Anglo-German Naval Treaty of 1935 implicitly allowed them—though the German Navy was not to exceed thirty five percent the size of the Royal Navy.

With that restriction out of the way, Germany immediately began construction on the Bismarck-class battleships. Two ships, the Bismarck and Tirpitz, were planned. The ships were 821 feet long and displaced up to 50,000 tons fully loaded. Twelve high-pressure boilers powered three turbines, giving the ship a top speed of 30.1 knots. Three FuMo-23 search radars could detect surface targets at more than thirteen miles.

The Bismarck class had eight fifteen-inch guns, each capable of hurling an armor piercing, capped round up to 21.75 miles. The 1,764-pound killer shell traveled at 2,960 feet per second out the bore, faster than the bullet of a high-powered rifle. At 11 miles, it could penetrate 16.5 inches of armor, or roughly to the horizon at sea level, although it could theoretically hit targets much further.

Both battleships were heavily protected, with 12.5 inches of steel at the main belt, 8.7 inch armored bulkheads, and 14.1 inches of armor on the main gun turrets. The eight guns were installed in four turrets of two guns each. This spread the battleship’s main armament out among more protected turrets, increasing their survivability in a gunfight.
I see he's read the book titled "How to boost your word count by using sentences instead of tables"

Overall, the Bismarck class was an impressive combination of firepower, speed, and protection.

The Iowa-class battleships were the most powerful battleships built for the U.S. Navy. Four ships: Iowa, New Jersey, Missouri, and Wisconsin were built. Each was approximately 861 feet long and weighed 52,000 tons. Eight water boilers connected to General Electric steam turbines propelled the battleships along at a speedy 32.5-knot maximum speed.

Iowa had nine sixteen-inch guns. Each Mark 7 gun could launch a 2,700 pound armor piercing shell 11.36 miles to penetrate 20 inches of steel plate—and even farther to a lesser penetration. In addition to search radar, the Iowas had Mk 13 fire control radars, allowing them to engage targets at extreme ranges and at night. The Mk 13 had a theoretical range out to 45 miles, and could even spot where the Iowa’s errant rounds landed, making aiming corrections much easier.

The Iowas too were heavily armored, with 12.1 inches at the main belt, 11.3-inch bulkheads, and an amazing 19.7 inches of armor on the main turrets. The ship’s vital combat information center and ammunition magazines were buried deep in their armored hulls.
Numbers and more numbers. Totally missed that the Mark 7 is meaningless without the 16"/50 before it.

Now, on to the battle. It’s 1942, and the new American battleship Iowa has been rushed into service to hunt the Bismarck. Bismarck, her sister ship Tirpitz, and other large German combatants have made the Atlantic too dangerous to send convoys across, something the United Kingdom desperately needs.
Bismark was sunk in 1941. Must be thinking about Tirpitz. I suppose Iowa could have been commissioned before 2/22/43, but not by much, as previously discussed.

A fast battleship designed to operate alongside aircraft carriers, Iowa can cover a lot of ocean. Operating alone, she detects Bismarck—also operating alone. The duel is on.
Standard setup. Finding someone in the North Atlantic without air search is not that easy.

Despite the Bismarck’s well-trained crew, good design and powerful weapons ( :lol: :lol: :lol: , Iowa has one technological innovation the German battlewagon doesn’t: radar-directed main guns. Iowa can fire much more accurately at longer distance targets. This allows Iowa to “out-stick” the Bismarck, which must close to within visual range for its fire control systems and procedures to work effectively. While Bismarck would avoid a nighttime duel, Iowa would welcome it—and its 2.5-knot advantage in speed means it can force a night battle if it wants to, chasing Bismarck down before sunrise.
2.5 knots is really fast, isn't it? Like a bit slower than walking speed. A fast stroll, quicker than an amble.

Iowa’s combination of the Mk 13 fire control radar and Mk 7 shells means it can fire first, hit first, and hurt first. While Bismarck’s armor protection and distributed firepower could help ensure it lasts long enough above the waves to damage Iowa, it’s unlikely could save itself, damaging the American battleship enough to make it break off the attack.
And there's the Mark 7 again. Obviously knows about as much about Navy equipment as my toaster. I can't find the 16" Mark 7 shells, but the MArk 8 shells from the 16" Mark 7 gun should work.

Iowa wins.

The larger context of the battle—the U.S. Navy being forced to take on the German Navy—would have had serious repercussions for the Pacific theater. Germany was, after all, considered the primary threat, with Japan second and Italy third. A more powerful German Navy (or weaker Royal Navy) would have had second order consequences for the Pacific, delaying the Solomons campaign, including the invasion of Guadalcanal, the Battle of the Coral Sea, and even the Battle of Midway.
And the strategic grasp of a hamster. Since it was Atlantic First anyway....

U.S. Navy planners in the Pacific, still overestimating the value of battleships, could have been less daring in their absence and fought a holding action until late 1942 or 1943. Different from historical how????Had things been different we might think of America’s initial war against the Axis as taking place in the Atlantic and not the Pacific, the Marines hitting the beach in Iceland Germany invaded Iceland without taking Britain first? :D and not Guadalcanal, and the cataclysmic battle between the battleships Bismarck and Iowa.

Someone either had a 1000 word article with a deadline to the editor, or got into the stash of recreational chemicals again. Or both.

That's it for this source from me. While there's plenty more articles from him to chose from, it's like shooting fish in a small barrel. With a RPG.

_________________
(English doesn't) just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.--James D. Nicoll


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:37 pm
Posts: 7619
Location: BM-9, BB-30
KDahm wrote:
While there's plenty more articles from him to chose from, it's like shooting fish in a small barrel. With a RPG.

I think the terminology needed is "shooting fish in the barrel of circular swimming". :twisted:

_________________
RLBH wrote:
I'm sorry, but I prefer to carpet-shark my enemies. Much more mayhem, though it must be admitted that the laser-guided shark is cheaper.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:10 pm
Posts: 440
RLBH wrote:
Now, assuming that there was a valid requirement for a ship with six 16-inch guns, a couple of vapourware railguns, several hundred cruise missiles, heavy armour, and a nuclear-electric drivetrain - spoiler alert, there isn't - why in the name of all that is holy would you recycle anything other than the wardroom silver off of four SEVENTY-FIVE YEAR OLD WAR RELICS?

The entire argument is literally equivalent to demanding that the USAF take to the skies in modernised P-47s, or that the Army drag M4 medium tanks out of museums for its' armoured divisions. Yet why is it that those two are recognised as clearly insane, yet turning the IOWA class into anything other than razor blades isn't?


This being said, was the Reagan-era reactivation of the Iowas a waste of money?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 11127
MikeD wrote:
This being said, was the Reagan-era reactivation of the Iowas a waste of money?

No, because the need was to get Tomahawk to sea as quickly as possible in a hull as seaworthy as possible to handle the far North Atlantic. Those Iowa conversions were about as austere as they got. The price ceiling was set so that each conversion should cost less than an FFG-7 class frigate. On that basis we got a decent battery of Tomahawks at sea quickly. The ships though weren't good for much else. They really were bare-bones conversion. At one point, it was even discussed leaving the 16 inch guns mothballed thus cutting the cost and the crew requirements. In retrospect we should have done that.

Now, we have a situation where we have more Tomahawk missiles than we can shake a stick at and they're in much more capable platforms. So there's no reason why we should bring the Iowas back again.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 8:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:10 pm
Posts: 440
Francis Urquhart wrote:
No, because the need was to get Tomahawk to sea as quickly as possible in a hull as seaworthy as possible to handle the far North Atlantic. Those Iowa conversions were about as austere as they got. The price ceiling was set so that each conversion should cost less than an FFG-7 class frigate. On that basis we got a decent battery of Tomahawks at sea quickly. The ships though weren't good for much else. They really were bare-bones conversion. At one point, it was even discussed leaving the 16 inch guns mothballed thus cutting the cost and the crew requirements. In retrospect we should have done that.

Now, we have a situation where we have more Tomahawk missiles than we can shake a stick at and they're in much more capable platforms. So there's no reason why we should bring the Iowas back again.


It's interesting in former SECNAV Lehman's book, he discusses the situation off Beirut in '83, specifically the retaliatory strike against Syrian gun positions where we lost an A-7 and an A-6, with the A-6 crew KIA and POW respectively. How he was livid that it was undertaken as a Vietnam-style daytime Alpha strike vs a night attack by the A-6s; and even more specifically how he had been wanting New Jersey out there to strike the Syrian positions instead of an airstrike.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2015 4:10 pm
Posts: 440
KDahm wrote:

Taking a cue from the Pentagon, making the ship’s main battery more efficient means that we can cut it. The aft sixteen-inch gun turret has to go, in order to give the ship a long-range strike capability. In its place we will put a field of 320 to 470 Mk. 41 variant vertical-launch systems that will accommodate a purely offensive loadout: Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles with a two-hundred-plus-mile range and Tactical Tomahawk missiles with a thousand-mile range. Even longer-range missiles would be welcome additions to the BBG’s new arsenal, and could even be stored in deck-mounted armored box launchers if necessary.
Or it's just a symptom of a mind that can't distinguish between fact and fiction.



Wasn't removal of the #3 turret briefly considered during the last reactivation of New Jersey, then dropped as an idea?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:54 pm 
Offline
Legendary Overlord
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:17 am
Posts: 5092
Francis Urquhart wrote:
MikeD wrote:
This being said, was the Reagan-era reactivation of the Iowas a waste of money?

No, because the need was to get Tomahawk to sea as quickly as possible in a hull as seaworthy as possible to handle the far North Atlantic. Those Iowa conversions were about as austere as they got. The price ceiling was set so that each conversion should cost less than an FFG-7 class frigate. On that basis we got a decent battery of Tomahawks at sea quickly. The ships though weren't good for much else. They really were bare-bones conversion. At one point, it was even discussed leaving the 16 inch guns mothballed thus cutting the cost and the crew requirements. In retrospect we should have done that.

Now, we have a situation where we have more Tomahawk missiles than we can shake a stick at and they're in much more capable platforms. So there's no reason why we should bring the Iowas back again.


Agree except for the guns comment. They were very effective when paired with the RPV for shore bombardment. In the Gulf War they tied down and then took out 4 Iraqi divisions.

They were magnificent ships and my brief time aboard was memorable. But the time has long passed for even dreaming about bringing them back, especially re-engining with Nuclear power and fitting railguns!!

That nut is into some real interesting recreational pharmaceuticals!!

_________________
Maybe the problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 10:55 am
Posts: 4772
Location: D88 by night, D20 by day
MikeD wrote:
KDahm wrote:

Taking a cue from the Pentagon, making the ship’s main battery more efficient means that we can cut it. The aft sixteen-inch gun turret has to go, in order to give the ship a long-range strike capability. In its place we will put a field of 320 to 470 Mk. 41 variant vertical-launch systems that will accommodate a purely offensive loadout: Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles with a two-hundred-plus-mile range and Tactical Tomahawk missiles with a thousand-mile range. Even longer-range missiles would be welcome additions to the BBG’s new arsenal, and could even be stored in deck-mounted armored box launchers if necessary.
Or it's just a symptom of a mind that can't distinguish between fact and fiction.



Wasn't removal of the #3 turret briefly considered during the last reactivation of New Jersey, then dropped as an idea?

Removing a turret is an idea that keeps coming back. My favourite incarnation was the 'commando ship' concept that would have replaced it with a hangar for a dozen or so helicopters, berthing for Marines, and davits for landing craft. It was supposed to be a one-ship amphibious task force.

_________________
If the BBC told me that it was dark outside at two o'clock in the morning on a stormy day in December, I would feel obliged to check their facts.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:01 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:55 am
Posts: 17982
Location: Chicagoland
Quote:
Here's Who Would Win Between Nazi Germany's Bismarck and the Navy's Last Battleship


Light weight with a faint grasp of the obvious. But we could have done the same with a SoDak or an NC. In TIPOTS, didn't we sink him with Standards?

_________________
- Dennis

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."
-Sir Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 12:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 11127
Nightwatch2 wrote:
Agree except for the guns comment. They were very effective when paired with the RPV for shore bombardment. In the Gulf War they tied down and then took out 4 Iraqi divisions.


This is true of course. However, when the rebuild was being formulated, the cost constraint overrode everything else. the job had to be done under the cost of a new FFG-7 or they wouldn't be funded at all. Essentially, anything that required major structural changes was unaffordable. Little story by the way; when the midships structure for 40mm quads was removed we found that the boat handling equipment that those guns replaced was still there; it hadn't been removed, just built-over. So, installing boat handling equipment was replaced by clean and renovate boat handling equipment. That freed up cash to do other things.

The choice was between renovating and returning the 16 inch guns to service or rebuilding and modernizing the command systems and that was heavily debated. What decided the issue was purely political; renovating the Admirals quarters and rebuilding the command facilities were thought to open the project up to accusations of "creating another Admiral's Barge". so the 16inch guns got the nod,. Actually, some command systems modernization was slipped in using money saved else where but those ships had nothing like the facilities they could have had.

I've often wondered what would have happened if that decision had gone the other way. Perhaps, if they'd had those command facilities, they would have lasted in the active fleet a bit longer or the 16 inch explosion on Iowa wouldn't have happened and that would have allowed them to stick around a bit.

_________________
Nations do not survive by setting examples for others.
Nations survive by making examples of others


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 124 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group