Iowa Class Battleships and the 16" gun

I rather enjoyed my visit to the Texas, wandering around below decks with my 7 year old daughter was good fun. Interesting to see that they stored the projos point down on the Texas, when you take a step up to the 16"ers they had to store them point up.

NS
 
NavyShooter said:
I rather enjoyed my visit to the Texas, wandering around below decks with my 7 year old daughter was good fun. Interesting to see that they stored the projos point down on the Texas, when you take a step up to the 16"ers they had to store them point up.

NS
Click to expand...

You should have seen all the softball sized dents in the floor from when the transport eyelets would fail and the shells would drop!. I imagine a change of shorts would have been necessary afterwards. I remember them telling us that there were only 3 or 4 ships that stored them point down, the Texas being one. That boat is just packed full of history.
 
LOL,

The neat thing about projectiles....particularly explosive ones....they generally have a spin-arming system built in (mechanical with stuff that old!) that will not enable the fuse until the shell has actually spun a number of times...and I have a feeling that they didn't fuse those projos when they were pointed down like that....chances are the fuse was screwed into the nose at some point further up the line.

NS
 
The debate about the utility of battleships is as old as they are, and there probably isn't much more that could be said, especially now that the Iowa class has been out of service for so long. The debate about the utility of naval gun fire support, however, and the form it might take, goes on.

A good source if you're interested in knowing a lot more about the Iowa's 16 inch/50 caliber (406mm/50) Mark 7 gun.

USA 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7
 
Not worth huge expenditures on a target that is so easy to hit with air power or missiles that has no real deterrence value.

Large rail guns like the 80cm are a case in point.
 
Of course you should note that the ships Mitchell sank were dead in the water and NOT firing back.
Thankfuly we did NOT follow Mitchell's advice (taken from the Italian General Douhet, that "the bomber will always get through" and we didn't need a high seas Navy, OR fighter aircraft!
 
It all gets back to the old cost/benefits discussion. Naval gunfire support can be very useful in some situations, but how much more useful is it versus airstrikes, especially given that a good slice of air resources must be diverted to protecting the gunnery platform itself.

During WW2 it was conclusively proven that battleships could not survive against air attack unless an air superiority cap had been established for them. The sitting duck scenario at Pearl Harbor is'nt a fair example, but the Prince of Wales/Repulse sinkings and the death rides of the Yamato and Musashi and other Japanese battleships certainly are.
 
From another forum: http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?114533-Battleships-sunk-in-World-War-2&

WDW]Megaraptor

06-20-2007, 12:03 AM
This post was inspired by a thread about a month ago on battleships sunk by air attack while in the open ocean. Anyways, here are the stats

EDIT: Updated minor navy info.

Battleships in service during WW2:

Royal Navy - 21 total
5 Queen Elizabeth class
5 Revenge class
2 Repulse class
1 Hood class
2 Nelson class
5 King George V class
1 Vanguard class

United States Navy - 27 total
2 New York class
2 Nevada class
2 Pennsylvania class
3 New Mexico class
2 Tennessee class
4 Colorado class
2 North Carolina class
4 South Dakota class
4 Iowa class
2 Alaska class

Kriegsmarine - 9 total
2 Deutschland class
2 Bismarck class
2 Scharnhorst class
3 Deutschland class (Panzerschiffe)

French Navy - 10 total
3 Courbet class
3 Bretagne class
2 Dunkerque class
2 Richelieu class

Italian Navy - 7 total
2 Cavour class
2 Andrea Doria class
3 Littorio class

Imperial Japanese Navy - 12 total
4 Kongo class
2 Fuso class
2 Ise class
2 Nagato class
2 Yamato class

Soviet Navy - 4 total
1 Revenge class on loan from the Royal Navy
3 Gangut class

Danish Navy - 1 total
1 Niels Juel class - http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/ reports that this battleship was sunk in Eckenforde by air bombing on May 3, 1945 but I can't find any more info.

Greek Navy - 2 total
2 Battleships, the Kilkis (formerly USS Mississippi, BB-23) and the Limnos (formerly USS Idaho, BB-24), both Mississippi class battleships.

Royal Dutch Navy - 1 total
Operated some coastal defense battleships such as HNLMS De Zeven Provincien.

Norwegian Navy - 2 total
2 Eidsvold class

Finnish Navy - 2 total
2 Vainamoinen class

Battleships sunk during WW2:

Sunk by air attack, in open water:
HMS Repulse, sunk by Japanese aircraft off Malaya, December 10 1941 with loss of 436 crew.

HMS Prince of Wales, sunk by Japanese aircraft off Malaya, December 10 1941 with loss of 327 crew.

Italian battleship Roma, sunk by Luftwaffe Fritz-X glider bombs on September 9, 1943 with loss of 1,353 crew.

INS Hiei, sunk by US Navy and USAF aircraft off of Guadalcanal, November 13, 1942 with loss of 188 crew.

INS Musashi, sunk by US Navy aircraft during the Battle of Leyte Gulf on October 24, 1944 with loss of over 1,000 crew.

INS Yamato, sunk by US air attacks off of Okinawa April 7, 1945 with loss of 2,475 men.

Greek battleship Kilkis, sunk by Germany Ju-87 bombers in the Salamis Channel on April 23, 1941.

Greek battleship Limnos, sunk by Germany Ju-87 bombers in the Salamis Channel on April 23, 1941.

HNLMS De Zeven Provincien was sunk by Japanese bombers off of Surabaya, February 18, 1942. Raised by the Japanese and used as a floating battery, then sunk by allied bombers in 1943.

Sunk by air attack, in port:
USS Oklahoma, sunk by Japanese aircraft in Pearl Harbor, December 7 1941, with loss of 415 crew. Raised and re-fitted, but eventually scrapped.

USS Arizona, sunk by Japanese aircraft in Pearl Harbor, December 7 1941, with loss of 1,177 crew.

USS California, sunk by Japanese aircraft in Pearl Harbor, December 7 1941 with loss of 98 crew. Raised, repaired and returned to duty.

USS West Virginia, sunk by Japanese aircraft in Pearl Harbor, December 7 1941 with loss of 106 crew. Raised, repaired and returned to duty.

German battleship Schleswig-Holstein, sunk by RAF bombers in Gotenhaven Harbor December 19 1944.

German pocket battleship Admiral Hipper, sunk by RAF bombers in Kiel, April 9 1945 with loss of 32 crew.

Italian battleship Conte di Cavour, sunk by RN aircraft in Taranto, November 11 1940. Raised but never returned to active duty.

INS Haruna, sunk by USAF bombers in Kure July 28, 1945 with loss of 65 crew.

INS Ise, sunk by USAF bombers in Kure July 28, 1945.

Danish battleship Niels Juel, sunk in Eckenforde by allied bombing May 3, 1945.

Soviet battleship Marat, sunk by German Ju-87 dive bombers in Kronsdadt September 23, 1941, used as a stationary artillery battery.

Sunk in surface combat:
HMS Hood, sunk by German battleship Bismarck in the Battle of the Denmark Straight with loss of 1,415 crew.

German battlecruiser Scharnhorst sunk by HMS Duke of York and cruisers HMS Belfast, HMS Jamaica and HMS Norfolk off of Norway on December 26, 1943 with loss of 1,803 crew.

French battleship Bretagne, sunk by Royal Navy warships at Mers-el-Kebir with loss of 977 crew.

INS Kirishima, sunk by USS Washington off of Guadalcanal November 15, 1942.

INS Fuso, sunk by destroyer USS Melvin in the Battle of Leyte Gulf on October 25, 1944 with loss of around 1,400 crew.

INS Yamashiro, sunk by six US battleships in the Battle of Leyte Gulf on October 25, 1944.

HNoMSA Eidsvold, sunk by German destroyers in Narvik harbor, April 9, 1940 with loss of 175 crew.

HNoMSA Norge, sunk by German destroyers in Narvik harbor, April 9 1940, with loss of 101 crew.

Sunk by combination of surface and air attack:
German battleship Bismarck, sunk by combination of RN torpedo bombers, battleships and destroyers on May 27, 1941 with the loss of around 2,200 crew.

German battleship Tirpitz, attacked over several months by a combination of RN mini-sub attacks, RN aircraft, RAF bombers and finally sunk by RAF bombers in Tromso Harbor, Norway, November 12, 1944 with loss of 1,204 crew.

Sunk by submarine:
HMS Royal Oak, sunk by U-47 in Scapa Flow Naval Base, October 14 1939, with loss of 833 crew.

HMS Barham, sunk by U-331 off of Solum, November 25 1941 with loss of 862 crew.

INS Kongo, sunk by USS Sealion off of Formosa, November 21 1944 with loss of 1,250 crew.

Sunk by other:
HMS Queen Elizabeth, sunk by Italian frogmen in Alexandria harbor, Egypt December 18th 1941 with loss of 9 crew. Raised, repaired and returned to duty.

HMS Valiant, sunk by Italian frogmen in Alexandria harbor, Egypt December 18th 1941. Raised, repaired and returned to duty.

German battleship Schlesien, sunk by mine and Soviet bomber attack and then scuttled near Swinemunde in the Baltic, May 5 1945.

INS Mutsu, mysteriously exploded in Oshima bay on June 8, 1943 with the loss of over 1,100 men. No cause has ever been proven although the Japanese blamed sabotage.

Finnish battleship Ilmarinen, sunk in minefield after shelling Estonian coastal islands September 13, 1941 with loss of 271 crew.

Battleships sunk by country:
Imperial Japanese Navy: 10
Royal Navy: 7
Kriegsmarine: 6
United States Navy: 4
Italian Navy: 2
Norwegian Navy: 2
Greek Navy: 2
French Navy: 1
Finnish Navy: 1
Danish Navy: 1
Royal Dutch Navy: 1
Soviet Navy: 1

Total number of battleships serving: 96

Sunk by air attack, in port: 11
Sunk by air attack, in open water: 9
Sunk in surface combat: 8
Sunk by submarine: 3
Sunk by combination of surface and air attack: 2
Sunk by other: 5
Total sunk: 38

Battleships sunk as percentage of total battleship force:

Norwegian Navy: 2/2, 100%
Greek Navy: 2/2, 100%
Danish Navy: 1/1, 100%
Royal Dutch Navy: 1/1, 100%
Imperial Japanese Navy: 10/12, 83%
Kriegsmarine: 6/9, 66%
Finnish Navy: 1/2, 50%
Royal Navy: 7/20, 35%
Italian Navy: 2/7, 29%
Soviet Navy: 1/4, 25%
United States Navy: 4/27, 15%
French Navy: 1/10, 10%

Sources:
http://www.forcez-survivors.org.uk/
http://www.battleships-cruisers.co.uk/
http://www.history.navy.mil/
http://www.nps.gov/archive/usar/PHcas.html
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/russ_dr.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_ships
 
It would be interesting to see how well the last era of BB armour design would stand up to the anti-ship missile. I suspect very well. I would say in this time of reduced threats a modern battle ship biggest threat would be the under keel torpedo.

Most of the equipment to make BB guns is long gone, although it could be done again. A modern battle ship could operate with significantly fewer crew. It would have less guns and also carry cruise missiles. It would also act as AD command centre for the task force and provide signiifcant AD resources.

In such a scenario only the Chinese and perhaps the Russians would have to air/missile resources needed to defeat it with conventieal means and at massive costs to themselves. The only other option is peel off the escorts and attack with several subs.

US policy since mid-late WWII was to marry BB and Aircraft carriers together in the same task force if I recall correctly. The BB was to protect the carrier and provide shore bombardment.
 
Colin said:
It would be interesting to see how well the last era of BB armour design would stand up to the anti-ship missile. I suspect very well. I would say in this time of reduced threats a modern battle ship biggest threat would be the under keel torpedo.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you. Unless carrying a nuclear warhead, most anti-ship missiles carry a blast fragmentation warhead, sometimes with a semi-armor piercing cap. Unless they struck a vulnerable spot, even the largest of these, like the Soviet era P-500 Bazalt (NATO SS-N-12 'Sandbox') or P-700 Granit (NATO SS-N-19 'Shipwreck') would be unlikely to put an Iowa out of action without multiple hits. (And here we're talking an explosive charge weight of between 337 and 450 kg). Sure, they'd wreck the topsides and destroy electronics, but a buttoned up Iowa would probably remain battleworthy. A 650mm Type 65-76 torpedo under the keel, however, would be a very different story.
 
Warhead of SSN's

CV32 said:
I'd agree with you. Unless carrying a nuclear warhead, most anti-ship missiles carry a blast fragmentation warhead, sometimes with a semi-armor piercing cap. Unless they struck a vulnerable spot, even the largest of these, like the Soviet era P-500 Bazalt (NATO SS-N-12 'Sandbox') or P-700 Granit (NATO SS-N-19 'Shipwreck') would be unlikely to put an Iowa out of action without multiple hits. (And here we're talking an explosive charge weight of between 337 and 450 kg). Sure, they'd wreck the topsides and destroy electronics, but a buttoned up Iowa would probably remain battleworthy. A 650mm Type 65-76 torpedo under the keel, however, would be a very different story.
Click to expand...

Years ago, before the USSR fell, I read that the SS-N-3 Shaddock missile had a enormous warhead, in the form of a shaped charge. I think these kind of reports were based upon speculation. I do not know if it was ever confirmed that the Reds used large shaped charges in their anti-ship cruise missiles.

But in any case, wouldn't a large shaped charge solve the Iowa problem?
 
A shaped charge warhead would punch a big hole.

But, a ship, particularly a battleship, closed down at condition Zulu, with all the watertight doors closed down is hard to kill.

Observe the USS Cole. A LARGE hole straight into the main engine room, and the ship was not lost to sea....and she would probably have only been at Damage Control Condition Yankee.

Depending on the placement of said shaped charge (if you got lucky and hit a magazine) things could go badly.

NS
 
NavyShooter said:
A shaped charge warhead would punch a big hole.

But, a ship, particularly a battleship, closed down at condition Zulu, with all the watertight doors closed down is hard to kill.

Observe the USS Cole. A LARGE hole straight into the main engine room, and the ship was not lost to sea....and she would probably have only been at Damage Control Condition Yankee.

Depending on the placement of said shaped charge (if you got lucky and hit a magazine) things could go badly.

NS
Click to expand...

Navy even if that shaped charge missile climbed and dove straight in, it probaly would not penetrate downward into the magazine. Remember they had bursting armoured decks(to decap and explode AP rounds)+main armour deck(to absorb much trauma+armoured splinter deck (to absorb anything getting through the first two). I believe this applique approach would defeat anything except the right heavy massed plunging naval projectile. A 2700 lb 16" AP or maybe the Musashi's 18.1" 3240lbers at range.

A sea skimmer with shaped charge, even a large one, would have to defeat side belt and then the barbettes themselves. I don't really see anything penetrating to the magazine from the side. The Shipwrecks I believe are for a US task group with nuclear detonation against lightly skinned modernwarships, even the Nimitz class carrier is lightly protected from such blast compared to an Iowa.
Look at Bikini atoll and see the results of air burst nukes against heavily armoured ships. Those underwater ones are the nasties against such targets.

You have first hand knowledge of a warship with it's ernormous subdivisions, FF equipment and damage control teams. A tin can can be hard to kill at times, with a well disiplined and trained crew, let alone the mass and number of subdivisons of these battlewagons.

My biggest fear in one would be several under keel detonations from antiship torpedos like the Mk48 or equivilant, or at worst nuclear armed ones. Those mk 48s would probaly shake her machinery up pretty good with those Boilers running full tilt at 875F and 1050 PSI. I may be wrong on the high pressure US naval boiler stats but anyone in one of the boiler rooms or engines room with that kind of lift under your arse would be in grave danger.:)
 
NavyShooter said:
A shaped charge warhead would punch a big hole.

But, a ship, particularly a battleship, closed down at condition Zulu, with all the watertight doors closed down is hard to kill.

Observe the USS Cole. A LARGE hole straight into the main engine room, and the ship was not lost to sea....and she would probably have only been at Damage Control Condition Yankee.

Depending on the placement of said shaped charge (if you got lucky and hit a magazine) things could go badly.

NS
Click to expand...

She was almost lost to sea, that night the shaft seals let go and they came close to losing her. I also think she was in yankee as she was fueling at the time I believe.
 
Keep in mind that the Bismarck absorbed literally hundreds of British shells, 8", 14" and 16" - plus about a dozen heavy torpedo hits - before finally sinking. (The RN fired over 2,800 shells at her, many at point-blank range. Missing at that distance was impossible.)

The Yamato took 8 aerial torpedoes and a dozen armour-piercing bombs.

These beasts were incredibly tough.
 
All the comments about how tough a battleship is, are probably quite true.
But they are still going to be bloody expensive to maintain, and if the sole purpose of one is to transport a 16 inch gun, what is the point?
Artillery still has far less range than cruise missiles, and the original shells are not GPS guided.
A far smaller ship carrying cruise missiles can hit at much greater range with greater accuracy for far less cost.

Enjoy the impressive size and glory, but dont expect them to return to service.
 
Missiles certainly have their advantages & one of them is the ability to shoot down other missiles. Ever try to shoot down a 2700 lb projectile? Besides, one big solar event & we are back to pre-electronic, shoot what you can see fun.
 
desporterizer said:
Missiles certainly have their advantages & one of them is the ability to shoot down other missiles. Ever try to shoot down a 2700 lb projectile? Besides, one big solar event & we are back to pre-electronic, shoot what you can see fun.
Click to expand...

This is something everyone seems to miss or down play. With microelectronics, they are deadly and fantastic when they work. They are also very fragile and as mentioned, one big solar event (we are now in that time period of nastly coronal activity), and all those micro wonders become very expensive lumps of inert mass. Barely anything is shielded worth a damb anymore as it's too cost prohibeted. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom