Hey should tell Congress all this. Convince them to use battleships again! Tell them
you served on the Wisconsin and play Navyfield now if they ask you why they should
listen to you, or what is this crazy guy doing here.

What you're saying makes a lot more sense than the sources I've read, unless I've
misunderstood what they were saying since some of it was technical jargon.

I guess what it boils down to is efficiency. Can a battleship perform it's job as
efficiently as a modern destroyer? The answer is a rather obvious "no".

> "the firing of the 16" guns did NOT have an adverse
> effect on shipboard systems"
>
> Hmm that's totally opposite of what I've read. Now I question
> all the info I've read. I read that since a battleship's maneuverability
> cannot compare to modern smaller ships that it would be a hindrance
> in a surface-to-surface ship battle (getting into and out of range of
> missiles). I read that firing the guns would mess up the modern
> electronics.

the difference between 33 knots for an iowa and 37 knots for an arleigh burke is not
very significant when it comes to positioning for battle, and believe it or not, the two
classes have about the same manuvering (turning) radius! (The burkes are smaller
and thus more agile, but the iowas rudder system was designed to dodge bombs,
something the burke would NEVER have to do.) But the burke uses a LOT less fuel!

The difference is also completely insignificant when considering the two ships as
missile targets. Anything worth shooting at either ship is not going to care about
manuvering. One does not DODGE a missile, one shoots it down.

And yeah, I know from firsthand experience, that the firing of 16" guns does not fark
up shipboard electronics. Now the blast DOES screw up radar and CIWS for a few
seconds, because the shockwave of compressed gas shows as a solid object to
most naval radar for a moment or two. Perhaps that's what your info source was
referring to. But the iowas tied into the same airborne radar that the carriers used
back then, so it wasn't really a limitation. (Now it MIGHT have caused a problem if
there was shore bombardment going on at exactly the same time as shooting down
incoming missiles, but that never happened.)

"the firing of the
16" guns did NOT have an adverse effect on shipboard systems"

Hmm that's totally opposite of what I've read. Now I question all the info I've read. I
read that since a battleship's maneuverability cannot compare to modern smaller
ships that it would be a hindrance in a surface-to-surface ship battle (getting into
and out of range of missiles). I read that firing the guns would mess up the modern
electronics. And I read that it's armor stood no chance against today's anti-ship
weapons.

That last one may be true. 1991 was 16 years ago, and we've made leaps and
bounds in weapons technology since then. Heck, some of that stuff from 1991 isn't
even precision guided! /sarcasm

What's the use anyway? They've been retired and they're never coming back. Old
relics of a bygone day when naval warfare was thought to be all about big guns. Of
course we all know that carriers are what ruled the oceans! But carriers don't have
the romantic, awe-inspiring air nor the impressive look of a mighty battleship.

EDIT: Yeah they're in a state of "preservation", just in case I remember hearing that
when I visited the Wisconsin. My guess is we'll never see them in action again.

Really nice pics in any case ;)

Slyv

Manuverability isn't really the issue, it's fuel endurance, and the modern destroyers
have more. And according to the navy doctrines as of 1991, there's nothing wrong
with an Iowa's survivability. Most modern weapon systems lack the ability to
actually penetrate the main armor belt and superstructure, and even the ones that
penetrate would be foiled by the extensive and excessive interior bracing and
baffling.

Having served aboard the USS Wisconsin as an electrician's mate during Desert
Storm, I can tell you that the electronics on board the modernized Iowa class ships
are as sophisticated as anything else in the fleet at that time, and the firing of the
16" guns did NOT have an adverse effect on shipboard systems. The recoil of the
main batteries are well distributed and stabilized and does not jar or appreciably
move the ship. (But they sure are loud. =)

I also know that all North Carolina class, South Dakota class, and Iowa class ships
that have become museums are maintained with a clause that allows the US Navy to
reclaim the ships should they become required for war again. While I cannot see
the North Carolina or the SoDaks EVER becoming subject to that clause, there are
large areas of the mothballed ships that are off limits to tour groups, and these
areas contain original equipment that could be restored to operating condition with
enough work.

But other than shore bombardment, there simply isn't a good USE for a battleship
anymore. Modern fleet doctrines involve NOT getting hit rather than sustaining a hit,
and this can be done cheaper and with less manpower by modern destroyers. Alas,
i know. =)

I'm not so sure about that Storm. My brother's ship, the Arleigh Burke, carries 64
tomahawks and is fast and small. That's perfect. Modified Iowas can carry
tomahawks too but they're too big to maneuver. Iowas do not carry the more
advanced electronics either. Their guns cause all sorts of problems to their modern
upgraded electronics as it is.

Yeah tomahawk for tomahawk an Iowa is just as strong as any other surface ship
(barring carriers). But when you factor in everything else they cannot compete. Two
of our Iowas are held in a reserve state (the Iowa and Wisconsin I believe?). They
can be battle-ready in about 6 months. That's just in case of an emergency.

The only way a battleship can remain competitive in today's world is to use non-
battleship weapons. Ironic huh? You're not using those 16" guns in a surface-to-
surface engagement. You'll instead fire a harpoon from a few hundred miles away.
That's something we certainly don't need a big, bulky, expensive battleship to do.
And as great as their armor is, it won't protect vs modern anti-ship weaponry. It's
designed vs cannon.

FYI, the Navy is even phasing out cruisers. The redundancy with the smaller and
more agile destroyers means there's no need for them anymore. Every ship is multi-
role now. Frigates are being phased out, cruisers are being phased out, I think even
some subs might be phased out. No need for all those different ship types anymore.

I've also heard that the Navy struck the Iowa and Wisconsin from the registers,
meaning they'll become museum ships never again to set sail in anger. The Navy
feels battleships are no longer needed. I'm not so sure that's true, but that's mostly
because of my love of the romanticized WWII battleship. I know deep down that
there's no real need for them anymore. For one, it would cost roughly $500 million
each to reactivate and modernize (some estimates say $2 billion after expenses like
crew). Second, all you're getting is a bigger and costlier version of a ship that can do
what the ships we already have can do, minus coastal bombardment with large
guns which in this age of precision missiles isn't really necessary. And firing those
guns has the unpleasant side effect of breaking that very expensive electronic
equipment.

Sad but at least they live on in videogames and our imaginations.

these things looks so sexy... those guns are HUGE!
wish i could go and visit them..

> These old ships are awe-inspiring. And what's even more awe-inspiring is
> that they're totally outdated and don't stand a chance vs modern ships
> and subs unless it's one of the few that were slightly modernized and used in
> Desert Storm (or Shield?). Cannon is only good in emergencies and when
> bombarding land. It's crazy. My brother's destroyer has tons more firepower
> than an Iowa class battleship, and that thing's cannons are enormous.

Holy, its not that these ships can't compete with modern warships (they can
compete just fine), it's that battleships don't have a useful ROLE in modern naval
combat. They're still superior as far as taking punishment, but their primary anti-
ship weapons are now the missile armament they carry. So while they can dish it
out just like other contemporary ships, their pockets aren't as deep as a
Ticonderoga or a Burke, and they run out of ammo quickly. (This is what your
brother was referring to.) Shore bombardment just isn't a useful role in most
circumstances now, and a destroyer is more efficient at protecting a carrier group in
terms of $$$ spent on maintenance, ammo, and crew. Most naval battles will never
take place within the range of their 16" guns.

So the Iowas are still the most powerful surface warships in existance, but they
have limited uses with modern naval tactics and doctrines. As a result, they've been
put to bed again until their country calls them to arms once more.

Yup Spec. The Sodak class has 10 secondary batteries (t-slots). SDE made ours in game with
8. They designed it exactly as the South Dakota itself and not the class. The USS South
Dakota actually only had 8 secondary as she was designed specifically as a fleet flagship
so 2 mounts was removed for more command space in the ship. Ironically she never served as
flagship. The other 3 ships of the class, USS Indiana, USS Massachusetts and USS Alabama
all carried 10 MK-28 turrets.

Yeah the dual 5" turrets are fairly large. Inside the turret itself in time of war
requires 10 men to operate with about another 10-15 (sometimes more for sustained firing)
below in the magazine/hoist rooms. Timed fuze charges (AA) are automaticly set on the
hoist by the ships secondary battery fire control systems.



Im going again soon and I'll take pics of inside a MK-28 mount and the 5" magazines below.

Oh look. The SoDak class has 10 T slots....

I didn't realise the 5" turrents were that big...