Dreadnaught (Texas) vs. Most Modern (Iowa) Battleships

Lezt

Junior Member
hope you had a good flight, and you'll soon be back here :)



I feel I'll read them more than just twice I've done so far.

Would you also comment on
  1. Japanese heavy (14" -- 18") APC shells optimized for undewater hits (it's embarrassing but I don't understand their description in the leftmost column of p. 175 of Campbel's WW2 Naval Weapons :-( one of the problems is I've never seen them!
  2. Italian Battleships
please


hah! that's what I had in mind while ranting :)
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/dr...ern-iowa-battleships.t7857/page-5#post-363418


Thx, I finished the first leg, 4 more hrs to go.

Re. Japanese projectiles underwater pen.

This is a good read:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The 2 main things is fuze time which is longer as it starts when the shell hits the water causing contemporary shells to detonate outside the armor. Japanese shells have longer fuse times which caused them to over pen light targets like taffy3 and explode on the other side of the ship.

2nd thing is the wind screen. Most of the shells are technically apcbc, the ballistic cap, gives good aerodynamic performance and it will cause the shell to tumble and increase drag and unlikely to hit the armor nose first.Japanese ballistic caps, breaks away when hitting water, to show the typical hardened cap and supposingly the body of the shell is more profiled for hydrodynamic performance.

Against a battle line, it is not wrong.. By doing so will make the target bb about 25-30% bigger to hit but u have poor performance against... Destroyers, cruisers... And softer skin stuff. Like taffy3
 

Lezt

Junior Member
@Jura,

I am not a particular fan of Italian BBs and therefore have not looked that deeply into them. They are fine looking ships which had in its essence an identity issue.

A part of an issue is that they operated in the med. and herein lies the biggest irony.

1) they have an inclined belt like the Yamato and Iowa, that is designed to take plunging fire, which given the land locked nature of the med, is not likely to encounter or sustain for a good duration of the battle.
2) The land locked nature of the med is also automatically mean that it is easy for FAC to attack these ships and land based aircraft. but, their torpedo protection system is fundimentally flawed and didn't work well. AND that they have good anti-destroyer / cruiser secondary but which are woefully inadequate for FAC defense. with triple gun 6" turrets, they are great against destroyers and would bring the hurt on them. But that only mean that you can target 2 incoming FAC independently from a broadside and that given the RPM is like 5-6, would mean pretty much that the FAC will get from detection range to launch range fairly quickly.

I know, I said that US 5"/38 was a bad surface action gun vs destroyers, cruisers and FAC. but lets look at the FAC as an example. assuming 5 FAC is steaming 45 knots from 30 km to 5 km to launch torpedoes (Allies have no long lances ;)) (the US knows this and fixed it with the 5"/54 which shoot out to ~22 km.

The littorio 6" will start shooting at 20 km, it will take the FAC, ~11 minutes to launch torpedoes. that would be 396 shells fired at two targets at a time.

With the US 5"38 one the iowa will start shooting at 16 km, for 8 minutes, @15 RPM (or 18) it would have dished out, 1,200 rounds with the 5 turrets targeting 5 independent target.

ww2 light gun hits are around 0.5% to 1%, Jura, you might have some more accruate information. but say it is 1%, the littoral would have sunk 3-4 FAC on a good day, if the retargeting of another FAC is quick after the sinking of the first FAC; at a bad day, it would have sunk 2., meaning the BB will be getting anywhere between 4-12 torpedos closing in at 5 km, or under 4 minutes. i.e. it is not easy to evade those torps. If we assume that it takes 2 hits from the 5" to sink the FAC as the shell is lighter, then the Iowa would have sunk upwards of 6 FAC, since we only have 5 in this calc, it is likely that the FAC flotilla is annihilated before launching torpedoes.

AA wise, the 6" were crap, as the british 5.25, yamato's 6.1" have shown, due to their training speed.

Thus, these BB have an identity crisis, they were not designed to be operated in the med, and as history have shown, are constantly being torpedoed by a single FAC/destroyer that slipped by and suffered massive floodings due to the failure of the torpedo protection system.
 
@Jura,

I am not a particular fan of Italian BBs and ...

... and it seems we'll disagree here, Lezt :) first of all, what do you mean by:

Thus, these BB have an identity crisis, they were not designed to be operated in the med, and as history have shown, are constantly being torpedoed by a single FAC/destroyer that slipped by and suffered massive floodings due to the failure of the torpedo protection system.

?
at first I thought my memory failed me, and while this still might happen!, I checked Stille's "Italian Battleships Of WW2" for Italian Battleships being hit by ship-launched torpedoes but didn't find any such an instance; since I did a quick search I'll put here "details" of successful torpedo attacks against them:
  1. notoriously known Taranto Raid;
  2. March 28, 1941: the Vittorio Veneto, by one airplane-launched torp (two shafts out, flooding)
  3. December 13, 1941: the Vittorio Veneto, by one submarine-launched torp (took in about 2000 tons of water);
  4. June 15, 1942: the Littorio, by one airplane-launched torp (took in about 1500 tons of water).
minor thing:
...
ww2 light gun hits are around 0.5% to 1%, Jura, you might have some more accruate information. ...
sorry I don't, I just calculated the percentage during the Battle of Calabria, remember? :)
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/ww...cussion-pics-videos.t6728/page-16#post-266925
 
Last edited:

Lezt

Junior Member
... and it seems we'll disagree here, Lezt :) first of all, what do you mean by:

?
at first I thought my memory failed me, and while this still might happen!, I checked Stille's "Italian Battleships Of WW2" for Italian Battleships being hit by ship-launched torpedoes but didn't find any such an instance; since I did a quick search I'll put here "details" of successful torpedo attacks against them:
  1. notoriously known Taranto Raid;
  2. March 28, 1941: the Vittorio Veneto, by one airplane-launched torp (two shafts out, flooding)
  3. December 13, 1941: the Vittorio Veneto, by one submarine-launched torp (took in about 2000 tons of water);
  4. June 15, 1942: the Littorio, by one airplane-launched torp (took in about 1500 tons of water).
Jura, I think you are correct, Italian BBs are not my forte and I am not as sharp with them then I am with other nations.

the Regia Marina did retire their BBs at the first sign of damage and did not get caught up with destroyers and FACs. Infact, Cunningham regretted the fact that his destroyers never caught up to the Italian BBs.

sorry I don't, I just calculated the percentage during the Battle of Calabria, remember? :)
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/ww-ii-historical-thread-discussion-pics-videos.t6728/page-16#post-266925

Here are some better rates from the Bismark Forum: roughly 250:1 for smaller guns.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Italian theatre;
........
16 battle actions summarizing 13224 shells of 4”–15” guns obtained 43 hits and 7 near misses and 8708 shells to sink 10 merchants + 2DD + TB+ Sub

Battleship fired 813 shells produced one hit and 5 near miss
Cruiser fired 8941 shells produced 37 hits
Destroyer fired 3677shells produced 5 hits and 2 near misses.

Italian warships fired 4856 shells and got 19 hits and two near misses.255:1
British warships fired 8364 shells and got 23 hits and five near misses.363:1
French warships fired 220 shells and got one hit. 220:1
Unfortunately the British are not forthcoming with much of their ammo expenditure info so some of their best battles have to be left out. Which is probably for the better since they would just skew the data. Most of these best battles were ambushes set up with Enigma information and exploiting the lack of Italian Radar to ambush at close quarters at night by Radar equipped RN warships. You can see the effects since these actions usually start when the Italians finally detect the British ships at just a few kms range.
.....
Japanese vs Allies.
......
In surface battles From after Pearl Harbor to march 1943, the allies had only sunk 9 major Japanese warships [DD on up] plus the BB Hiei, while they had lost 37 in exchange. Even including other actions [air/sub], the Japanese had sunk 77 Allied warships [546,000 tons], while they had lost 46 major warships in return [305,000 tons]. Looks like 7181 IJN shells registered 234 hits or 31:1. In response the Americans fired 4006 shells getting 59 hits 68:1 hit rate. IJN Long Lance seemed to have been most effective registering 20 hits on 326 torps launched or 16:1 hit rate. USN appeared to have launched about 25 Torps with 3 hits or 8:1 hit rate.


........
From the summer 1943 on the USN fired 11835 shells getting roughly 36 hits for a rate of 328:1 hit rate. There do not appear to be much reliable info on hits rates for IJN. The bulk of the American shells were launched using radar, suggesting its hit rate is an order of magnitude lower than direct sight. Looks like IJN best response was launched 169 Long Lance getting about 14 hits for a 12:1 hit rate. Americans in response launched 191 torps getting 24 hits for about 8:1 hit rate.

German vs RN/allies
..........
So in summery 4768 German shells from 5-15” guns registered about 47 hits or about 101:1. Breaking this down further we see 34 hits from BB/CA primary batteries shooting 1398 shells or 41:1 rate, and the smaller guns got 13 hits on 3370 shells expended or 259:1. So enough info to suggest that the bigger guns generally do much better.

The British in seven documented cases reportedly fired 8077 shells and got 377 hits for an astonishing rate of 21:1. That is until we look closer as most of those hits were the Bismarck, which would not sink [340 hits out of 2871 shells fired 8:1]. If those are removed the figures group average become 33 hits on 5206 shells fired or about 158:1.
[/QUOTE]
 
Jura, I think you are correct, Italian BBs are not my forte and I am not as sharp with them then I am with other nations.

the Regia Marina did retire their BBs at the first sign of damage and did not get caught up with destroyers and FACs. Infact, Cunningham regretted the fact that his destroyers never caught up to the Italian BBs.

thank you; later I checked my files and now I think in my preceding post I enumerated all the successful torpedo-attacks against WW2 Italian Battleships; be sure to let me know if I missed any

now I'll go back to your previous

...

1) they have an inclined belt like the Yamato and Iowa, that is designed to take plunging fire,

I agree (from what I figured, the belt of the Vittorio Venetos was designed to survive 15" APC hits from 16 km up: 70 mm for decapping, 250 mm empty space, 280 mm @11deg main belt with special backing)

which given the land locked nature of the med, is not likely to encounter or sustain for a good duration of the battle.

I think the Italians counted on very good visibility over the Med, and it was actually the case during for example the Battle of Calabria (I know the Vittorio Venetos weren't there) and the Battle of Matapan when the Vittorio Veneto was firing from "an excessive" range, and might've been hit if the British Battleships had engaged her ... or maybe you meant the deck armor was too thin for this tactics (now I'll just imprecisely say it about 5" "on average")?

2) The land locked nature of the med is also automatically mean that it is easy for FAC to attack these ships and land based aircraft. but, their torpedo protection system is fundimentally flawed and didn't work well.

I agree about the anti-torpedo system; I've read it actually "concentrated" the shock-wave (on the concave part, behind that Pugliese's cylinder)!


AND that they have good anti-destroyer / cruiser secondary but which are woefully inadequate for FAC defense. with triple gun 6" turrets, they are great against destroyers and would bring the hurt on them. But that only mean that you can target 2 incoming FAC independently from a broadside and that given the RPM is like 5-6, would mean pretty much that the FAC will get from detection range to launch range fairly quickly.

...

while you might be right, such an attack didn't occur :)


now back to

Here are some better rates from the Bismark Forum: roughly 250:1 for smaller guns.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

could you please point me to the page where this data is in that thread? thanks
 
Last edited:

Lezt

Junior Member
thank you; later I checked my files and now I think in my preceding post I enumerated all the successful torpedo-attacks against WW2 Italian Battleships; be sure to let me know if I missed any

now I'll go back to your previous



I agree (from what I figured, the belt of the Vittorio Venetos was designed to survive 15" APC hits from 16 km up: 70 mm for decapping, 250 mm empty space, 280 mm @11deg main belt with special backing)


I think the Italians counted on very good visibility over the Med, and it was actually the case during for example the Battle of Calabria (I know the Vittorio Venetos weren't there) and the Battle of Matapan when the Vittorio Veneto was firing from "an excessive" range, and might've been hit if the British Battleships had engaged her ... or maybe you meant the deck armor was too thin for this tactics (now I'll just imprecisely say it about 5" "on average")?
Long range plunging fire is a viable strategy, but the coastline heavily negates that. Say we have a typical hit rate of 1%; say we need 10 hits to seriously disable/destroy an enemy battleship. that's 500 shells fired, at 2 RPM for 9 guns, that's 54 minutes of pure firing, and if other navel battles in WW2 is a guide, it will take them several hours to get into positon and several hours to disengage fully; so say the BB is detected for 4 hours, that's a long time for land based aircraft to make attack runs. it is only 1000km from Alexandria to Rome. And we know how effective land based aircraft from Malaysia was to the POW and Repulse. For comparison, the maneuver that Bismark completed during her sinking is not possible in the Med. as it was larger than the entire Med. What I meant really was that, since aircraft will show up fairly quickly, the BB are unlikely to inflict meaningful damage before needing to head off to safety.
I agree about the anti-torpedo system; I've read it actually "concentrated" the shock-wave (on the concave part, behind that Pugliese's cylinder)!




while you might be right, such an attack didn't occur :)
Yes, but FAC is the small part, the secondaries are ineffective against aircraft as well, the 90mm was a good AA gun, there is just not enough of them and that they broke down too much.
now back to



could you please point me to the page where this data is in that thread? thanks

The whole thread is a worthwhile read. but the post is by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
» Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:34 am
 
LOL! I thought this Thread could only deal with Naval History ... I was wrong!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As usual, the cable news networks were waiting with baited breath last night for what was touted as a foreign policy speech, with details, by Donald Trump on the deck of the Battleship USS Iowa. Well, that didn’t happen. Instead we got the usual mix of talking points, although he did briefly mention that he wants to recommission the ship he was standing on. Would that even be feasible?

Trump’s latest whimsy comes around 9:30 into this video:

It’s a question I get asked all the time actually. Could any of the Iowa Class Battleships be returned to service once again
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The fact of the matter is that there was, and still is to some degree, a meandering
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the Iowa Class’s last retirement, that being the need for naval gunfire support to support Marine beach landings and other amphibious operations. This is primarily why the Iowa Class Battleships were not made into museums or broken-up following their retirement in the early 1990s. Instead they were mothballed, a state the Iowa and the Wisconsin remained in until they were finally stricken from the Naval Register in the late mid 2000s.

There have been various concepts over the last four decades that would see the Iowas turned into everything from jump-jet aircraft carriers to missile slinging arsenal ships with huge vertical launch cell farms, to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
super-battleships. The removal of the ships many five-inch guns could make room for new capabilities and reduce the crew complement by at least a couple hundred sailors, which is a good thing considering these ships sailed with a crew of over 1,500 during the 1980s and early 1990s. Some have
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Regardless of whichever concept would come to fruition, the cost to operate, upgrade and sustain these ships have always trumped (excuse the pun) their potential utility, at least in the 21st century U.S. Navy’s eyes.

Yet in an age where seemingly anything with a microprocessor seems vulnerable to hacking, electronic and cycber attack, the Iowa Class represents the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Additionally, their armor, which ranges between seven and 20 inches of steel depending on the area, could resist cruise missile attacks that would punch right through current destroyer and cruiser designs.

With all this in mind, there are uses for these old ships, and as such there is a chance that the they could make a return to service. A very, very small chance. It would require industry to spin up production on parts that simply aren’t used anywhere anymore, although in a day of CNC machines and rapid prototyping technology, this hurdle may be a lower one than it once was.

The knowledge-base of how to operate and maintain these old ships on the other hand is something that can’t be solved with leading-edge manufacturing techniques. It’s been close to 25 years since these ships last sailed in fighting condition, and with every day that passes the “brain-drain” of how to maintain and operate them increases.

Still, these ships – primarily the Iowa and Wisconsin – are stored in such a way that best preserves their potential return to the service,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
These measures stipulate that:

  1. Iowa and Wisconsin must not be altered in any way that would impair their military utility;
  2. The battleships must be preserved in their present condition through the continued use of cathodic protection, dehumidification systems, and any other preservation methods as needed;
  3. Spare parts and unique equipment such as the 16-inch (410 mm) gun barrels and projectiles be preserved in adequate numbers to support Iowa and Wisconsin, if reactivated;
  4. The navy must prepare plans for the rapid reactivation of Iowa and Wisconsin should they be returned to the navy in the event of a national emergency.
So the answer is yes, at least the Iowa and Wisconsin could be called back up to project American power around the globe once again, and the New Jersey and Missouri could act as a parts bin for them. Theoretically. They would require a total refit, including new command, control, communications, and self defenses, as well as totally revamped running and environmental systems. And all of that comes before adding new offensive capabilities. In all, it would be a challenging task that would cost many hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars per ship, but it is technically possible.

Just who knows if it would actually be politically possible.

As for whether or not it’s a smart thing to do, that’s a huge question that remains.
source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


any comments?
 
Long range plunging fire is a viable strategy, but the coastline heavily negates that. ... inflict meaningful damage before needing to head off to safety.

now I see! I agree, I'll add some loose comments:
  • while the Italians relied on the land-based aviation (their reasoning was around "Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier Italia" and for example killed an excellent aircraft-carrier project in 1928 -- tell me in case you were interested in it), this too often failed, and a single British aircraft carrier in the battle-group repeatedly proved to be more useful than that huge "unsinkable carrier"
  • the distances in the Med area are indeed small, recently I was kinda surprised to see it's just 78 nautical miles from Pola, where the main base of Austro-Hungarian Navy was, to Ancona, Italy which was bombarded on the day the hostilities started between those two countries in WW1; it takes 8 hours at 10 knots according to
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
    but they of course needed to be quick (practically all their valuable ships were taking part in this); I've read the reality 17 knots max. as ironically the Viribus Unitis was slowing down the rest :) (also funny is at that time 20 knots would be "a sprint" -- this speed was not meant for the battle-line maneuvers anyway: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/th...del-main-gun-turrets.t7810/page-4#post-363568)
Yes, but FAC is the small part, the secondaries are ineffective against aircraft as well, the 90mm was a good AA gun, there is just not enough of them and that they broke down too much.
I think the FAC threat would've been very real in "an alternative scenario" of September of 1943 (am retyping from Stille's book):
Should an armistice not be reached, the fleet was ready to conduct a final attack on Allied landings on the Italian mainland. This would have been a near suicidal operation as the battle fleet would have to transit over 500 miles from La Spezia with no air cover to face a superior Allied fleet.
I believe the Nelson and Rodney were around, plus the old enemies: the Warspite, Valiant, etc.


The whole thread is a worthwhile read.

sure, and this could be a problem, as my thoughts would most likely veer LOL

but the post is by
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
» Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:34 am
got it
 
Last edited:

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
LOL! I thought this Thread could only deal with Naval History ... I was wrong!
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


source:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


any comments?
Well, it's not a crazy idea at all...even though some in the press and the liberals think so.

When the vessels were set up to be museum ships, Acts of Congress stipulated that at least two, the Iowa and the Wisocnisn, be maintained in a manner which would allow this very type of thing at a later date.

So, it is actually US law that they be stored in such a way so as to be available for military use if necessary.

The US modernized these vessels with missiles, CIWS, helicopters landing, etc. once...they could do it again if there was the will and the money. The first leads to the second.

The current modernization set them up with:

9 x 16" fguns
12 x 5" guns (6 x 2)
4 x 20mm Phalanx CIWS
16 x Harpoon missiles (4 x 4)
32 x Tomoahwk cruise missiles (8 x 4)

If they did modernize them again...would they add VLS instead of the Box (for the Tomahawk missiles) and Quad (for the Harpoon missiles) launchers? That has long been debated. There is certainly enough room for it.

If I were doing it, and had the time and the money, I would put three double 155mm rail guns in place of the existing 16" guns. (This of course would necessitate a new electrical system and new propulsion...but heck, if you are going all the way in...you might as well go all the way in).

I would keep the four Phalanx CIWS, upgrading to the latest model.

I would replace four of the twin five inch guns with two SeaRAM launchers and two RAM launchers. I would replace the other two with newer, DP Mk 38 5: guns.

I would add PVLS along the sides, with up to 120 cells. Load them with Tomahawk IV missiles and LRASMs.

Keep the provision to land and service both Seahawks and the new COD Ospreys.

This would make for one heck of a vessel...and two of them would be outstanding.

Think of it:

6 x 155mm Rail Guns
2 x 127mm DP naval guns
4 x 20mm Phalanx 20mm CIWS
2 x 21 Cell RAM launchers
2 x 11 Cell SeaRAM launchers
120 x PVLS Cells w:
- 32 x LRASM
- 88 x Tomahawk IV Cruise Missiles

Now, to get all of that, with all the modern sensors and C&C necessary, it would probably necessitate a 3-4 year refit that would cost probably a couple of billion dollars each. But oh what vessels they would be!

Can you imagine? One of these monsters either supporting an Amphibious group, along with at least one Zumwalt?

Or better yet, set up a hunter killer SAG, with one of these, a Zumwalt, a Tico, four Burkes,, four Freedom class ASW FFs, two Virginia SSNs and two Virginia SSGN variants. My goodness!

I am going to do some art work this weekend depicting the upgrade/modernization that I just described.
 

montyp165

Junior Member
I'd find it a lot easier to start with a new-build vessel with all the aforementioned equipment instead of modifying the Iowas, since a new build would have much more modern infrastructure components for high-power electrical systems and more advanced materials for protection including MBT-type composite armour.
 
Top