Iowa-class battleship vs. Kirov-class battlecruiser

Pointblank said:

Later in the service life of the Iowa class battleships, they carried UAV's.

Furthermore, it is highly unlikely the missiles would be able to penetrate the armour. Remember that the Iowa class battleships were designed in the age of dodging hundreds of heavy naval shells, heavy armour piercing aircraft bombs, and many torpedoes. Remember that the much less armoured German battleship Bismark was still afloat and was scuttled by its own crew even though the Bismark took a terrible pounding, but remained afloat, and the interior remained undamaged. The Iowa class battleships is built to take severe punishment. Ships built after the Korean War tend to be built much less lightly, and place more of a emphasis on intercepting the threat, rather than being able to absorb damage. At most, you would give a Iowa class battleship a very bloody nose, but it would still be able to steam away.

Click to expand...

It is not particularly true that the Bismark is less armored than the Iowas, the Bismark is designed to fight in the north Atlantic where with the heavy seas, the fight will mainly against the horizontal projectile. hence, the Bismark belt is 320 mm thick where the Iowa's is 305mm (12") thick. We also have to consider the quality of the armor, which in some estimates is 5% better than USN ones, while if we look at tanks, up to 30% better.

This close in nature of the Atlantic is also represented by the Bismark's guns which fires at a higher velocity at a flatter trajectory.

I will think that a modern anti ship cruise missile will likely sink the Iowa. the Vittorio Veneto with superior deck armour and weaker main belt than the Iowas were sunk by the Fritz-X of only a 320 kg warhead at 770 MPH compared to a SSN-22 Moskit with a 300 kg warhead at 1750 MPH. now if we talk multiples....

Lezt said:

It is not particularly true that the Bismark is less armored than the Iowas, the Bismark is designed to fight in the north Atlantic where with the heavy seas, the fight will mainly against the horizontal projectile. hence, the Bismark belt is 320 mm thick where the Iowa's is 305mm (12") thick. We also have to consider the quality of the armor, which in some estimates is 5% better than USN ones, while if we look at tanks, up to 30% better.

This close in nature of the Atlantic is also represented by the Bismark's guns which fires at a higher velocity at a flatter trajectory.

I will think that a modern anti ship cruise missile will likely sink the Iowa. the Vittorio Veneto with superior deck armour and weaker main belt than the Iowas were sunk by the Fritz-X of only a 320 kg warhead at 770 MPH compared to a SSN-22 Moskit with a 300 kg warhead at 1750 MPH. now if we talk multiples....

Click to expand...

I know the ships never battled but..But what make you make such statements? If the BBs were to battle today do you have any idea how the layered defense of a USN surface action group would work? Trust me the BB would not sail alone..There would be at least on LA class SSN. Two Arliegh Burke DDGs possibly a Tico and for sure two FFGs.(fodder)

Those BBs you mentioned that were sunk how good was there damage control? How well was the crew trainedf in it's warfighting ablity? What sort of defenses did it have?

And where's the Bismark now? In Davey Jones locker.(bottom of the Atlantic)

Where's the Iowa class BBs??..

Iowa - Iowa is currently berthed with the National Defense Reserve Fleet at Suisun Bay, near San Francisco, California, and is awaiting donation to a not-for-profit entity for use as a museum ship.

Missouri - Museum ship in Pearl Harbor HI


New Jersey - Museum ship in New Jersey


Wisconsin - Museum Ship in Norfolk VA

I wander what purpose would the BB serve in modern day warfare?
Having to spent all those resources guarding it and using it to bombard coastal areas seems like a big waste of resources for very little gain.
The ship will give its location away almost immediately, and no amount of defense is sufficient when the missiles really start flying.

The only scenario I can think of is a bully war when you are completely safe from retaliation and the damage/cost ratio of using cannon balls is cheaper than bombs or missiles.

bd popeye said:

I know the ships never battled but..But what make you make such statements? If the BBs were to battle today do you have any idea how the layered defense of a USN surface action group would work? Trust me the BB would not sail alone..There would be at least on LA class SSN. Two Arliegh Burke DDGs possibly a Tico and for sure two FFGs.(fodder)

Those BBs you mentioned that were sunk how good was there damage control? How well was the crew trainedf in it's warfighting ablity? What sort of defenses did it have?

And where's the Bismark now? In Davey Jones locker.(bottom of the Atlantic)

Where's the Iowa class BBs??..

Iowa - Iowa is currently berthed with the National Defense Reserve Fleet at Suisun Bay, near San Francisco, California, and is awaiting donation to a not-for-profit entity for use as a museum ship.

Missouri - Museum ship in Pearl Harbor HI

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

New Jersey - Museum ship in New Jersey

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wisconsin - Museum Ship in Norfolk VA

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

what part of my statement are you referring to? to that the the bismark's armor is not inferior to the Iowas? or the one about a modern cruise missile can sink a battle ship with heavy armor?

I think you are asking about the latter. My statement's purpose is to illustrate that a 300 kg warhead can sink a battleship with similar armor scheme as the Iowas. which is really responding to Pointblank's statement that a hit will give the Iowa a bloody nose; where I am quite certain the damage from a hit can probably mission kill her if not sink her.

of course this is all under the presumption that the anti ship missile can hit. F40racer's question is a direct ship comparison. if each belligerent is to bring it's own fleet, the comparison is rather pointless?

I don't think the Iowa's have faced what the Bismark had faced, nor the Yamato for the sake of discussion. if we substitute the the Iowa for the Bismark, the Alaska for the Prinz Eugen, would the task force been able to survive the British pursuit fleet of BB: KGV, Prince of Wales, 3 X revenge class. BC :Nelson, Hood, Repulse, Renown. CV: Ark Royal, Victorious. 4 cruisers, 9 light cruisers, 28 destroyers + allied forces?

or if we sub in Iowa for Yamato for operation Ten-Go, do you think the Iowa can survive US task force 58 with 5 fleet carrier 6 escort carrier, 6 battle ship.

The reason the Iowas are still afloat is not just because of her design and her build quality but also the industrial prowess of the USA to keep her escorted, protected and well scouted.

Well stated Letz.

I don't think the Iowa's have faced what the Bismark had faced

Click to expand...

100% correct. To the best of my knowledge the Iowas never had to "slug it out" with an enemy BB.

do you think the Iowa can survive US task force 58 with 5 fleet carrier 6 escort carrier, 6 battle ship.

Click to expand...

She'd be sunk like all the rest.

The reason the Iowas are still afloat is not just because of her design and her build quality but also the industrial prowess of the USA to keep her escorted, protected and well scouted.

Click to expand...

My point exactly. That's why they still exist. Magnificent vessels.

bd popeye said:

Well stated Letz.



100% correct. To the best of my knowledge the Iowas never had to "slug it out" with an enemy BB.



She'd be sunk like all the rest.



My point exactly. That's why they still exist. Magnificent vessels.

Click to expand...

It is unfortunate that the Iowas served mainly as cruise missile platforms during the Gulf War. However I think it was a fitting end for a ship that served in four major conflicts in a span of 50 years. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I read somewhere that they found some WWII era shells for the Iowa class main guns just before the Gulf War and that they were actually used in offshore bombardment. What a sight that must've been.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I read somewhere that they found some WWII era shells for the Iowa class main guns just before the Gulf War and that they were actually used in offshore bombardment. What a sight that must've been.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure but that ammo may have come from the Naval Magazine at Subic Bay. Also at Subic the USN had stored the massive 16 inch diameter gun barrels of the Iowa class BBs.

bd popeye said:

My point exactly. That's why they still exist. Magnificent vessels.

Click to expand...

It is a real pity that the UK scrapped most of her BBs - HMS Belfast as a museum ship is nothing compared to the Iowas, just imagine if they had kept some of the Queen Elizabeth, or the KGV or even the vanguard.

On the side note, I wish the US had kept the Nagato, I am sure some Japanese men would pit their life savings to buy it back, but now she lies at the bottom of the bikini atoll.

I will think that a modern anti ship cruise missile will likely sink the Iowa. the Vittorio Veneto with superior deck armour and weaker main belt than the Iowas were sunk by the Fritz-X of only a 320 kg warhead at 770 MPH compared to a SSN-22 Moskit with a 300 kg warhead at 1750 MPH. now if we talk multiples....[/QUOTE]

The Roma (VV Class) was sunk by a Fritz-X while on a surrender trip. Damage control and battle readiness precautions where probably not at their best. The US Navy claimed the Iowas would be extremly difficult to sink by SSM, but at the time they where asking for money to reactivate them...
The VV class is usually regarded as an inferior design in terms of the way it used it's armour. Iowas have a rather extreme all or nothing design, and a hit on the bow would probably mean she would take in a lot of water, but the turrets, machinery and command spaces are well protected. But no US ship has ever been tested against the kind of punishment german or japanese ships had tio endure. Remember that even the much lighter Schannorst proved very hard to sink...

AdeA said:

The Roma (VV Class) was sunk by a Fritz-X while on a surrender trip. Damage control and battle readiness precautions where probably not at their best. The US Navy claimed the Iowas would be extremly difficult to sink by SSM, but at the time they where asking for money to reactivate them...
The VV class is usually regarded as an inferior design in terms of the way it used it's armour. Iowas have a rather extreme all or nothing design, and a hit on the bow would probably mean she would take in a lot of water, but the turrets, machinery and command spaces are well protected. But no US ship has ever been tested against the kind of punishment german or japanese ships had tio endure. Remember that even the much lighter Schannorst proved very hard to sink...

Click to expand...

lets put it this way, sure, a BB may survive one or two SSM. But the Iowa is up against the Kirov one on one. so, instead of 1 or 2 SSM, you are looking at 20 SS-N-19 armed with either 750 kg warhead or 500 kt nuke traveling at mach ~2.

Can the Iowa be confident that it can take 5 SSM and keep fighting?, or do you think that she can still be operational after taking an air burst 500 kt nuke from above of the side? The Nagato survived the cross road air burst nuke test, but I highly doubt any sensors and external gears will still be working - mission killed at the least.