Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

No an anti-ship missile modern day can beat Iowa Battleship-class ?

Discussion in 'Ships & Shipborne Weaponry' started by blackuday, Oct 21, 2018.

  1. blackuday

    blackuday New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2018
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Iowa Class: Armor Protection

    One of the main characteristics of a battleship is its ability to withstand an attack. Few ships from the past and no modern ships can equal the survivability of the Iowa Class Battleships. The decision of where to armor and how much armor to use is a very complicated and sometimes frustrating process. Simply adding armor can not be done since this greatly increases weight and reduces the top speed of the ship. The process of protecting a battleship is an art that has been perfected over decades of battleship design. Iowa Class Battleships are an excellent example of superior armor protection and high top speed.
    The armor systems of the Iowa Class ships can be divided into two basic sections. First is the above water armor, which is designed to protect the ship against gun fire and aerial bombing. The second is the below water armor (side protective and triple bottom armor), which is designed to protect the vessel from mines, near miss bombs and of course, torpedoes.

    All the systems needed to keep these ship's combat effective such as magazines, engineering spaces, steering, plotting rooms, command & control, weapons, etc. are protected by heavy armor. The armor box, referred to as the citadel, extends from just forward of Turret 1 to just aft of Turret III. The top, sides and ends of the citadel are heavily armored, however the bottom is not ballistically protected. Critical systems located outside the citadel such as the turrets, conning tower, fire control, directors, etc. are armored extensions of the citadel...
    Iowa Class: Armor Protection - Naval History Forums

    The Armor:

    Armor
    The second basic factor, after firepower, to be considered was Iowa class armor. The armor scheme was a copy of the armor used on North Carolina and South Dakota, only thicker. This armor could, in theory, stop a 16-inch shell coming in at a 45-degree angle. There was some idle talk about making the Iowa class armor tough enough to stop an 18-inch shell, but BDAB dropped the idea when it realized how much more weight and redesign work it would take.

    Nickel-steel was used to manufacture the armor. This type of steel is a kind of stainless steel which has the added benefits that it does not corrode quickly, but bends easily. Nickel-steel was not a new material. From the start, armored warships like USS Indiana (BB-1) used this type of steel. One 17 1/2 inch belt of the nickel-steel ran from the deck to the below water line on both sides of the ship and covered the middle 2/3 of the ship. Eighteen inch plates were used in the turrets and 11 1/2 inch plates were placed on the decks.

    It is interesting to note that much of the Iowa class's armor is just as thick as battleships built 50 years earlier. Wisconsin and her sisters, however, benefitted from advances in steel technology that allowed mills to forge the steel at higher temperatures and heat treatment, which in turn produced a much higher quality steel that was stronger and more elastic. Two plants, Bethehelm Steel's main mill in Bethehelm, PA and Luken Steel's Coatsville mill just ouside Phildadelphia, manufactured most of the armor plating. For the turret plate, however, a special forge was constructed just for the Iowa-class at the Charleston Ordnance Works in Charleston, WV...
    BB-61 Iowa-class Design

    Thus, all of today's anti-ship missiles (example: Kh-35/31, RGM-84, Exocet, C-803, YJ-18, LRASM, P-270/700/800/1000, NSM, TLAM Block IV, Brahmos.....) can not do anything with the armor of Iowa, unless they attack in large numbers (100 or more)
     
  2. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,599
    Likes Received:
    1,685
    Cut off the head, kill the snake. The bridge isn't as heavily protected as the innards. A lucky hit would affect performance I think. If it was remotely controlled a hit on the bridge would be possible, if the operator was sharp.
     
  3. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Ummm... how do you end up with this conclusion?
     
  4. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,101
    Likes Received:
    1,073
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
  5. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    There have been a number of weapons over the last 50 years that while they might not have sunk an Iowa class with one hit would have severely inconvenienced one and a handful of hits would have rendered them not combat worthy if they didn't sink them.
     
  6. Kai-Petri

    Kai-Petri Kenraali

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2002
    Messages:
    21,941
    Likes Received:
    992
    Location:
    Kotka,Finland
    Exocet? I think the Argentinians won´t forget it. What was it? You had some 3-4 seconds from noticing it to fire an anti-missile. To me a very fearsome weapon if not the other ones as well. Just my opinion of one big ship sinker.
     
  7. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    Exocet wasn't really designed to take on armored vessels and of the ones I've heard about used in actual combat only about 50% of the warheads actually went high order. The fact that some of the ones that didn't detonate were used from well in side max range lead to some pretty serious fires but I doubt they'd have done much if they hit an armored section of a battleship. Now some of the big Soviet ship killers ...
     
  8. Otto

    Otto Gearing up. Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,399
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    Someone (you maybe?) appears to have made the exact same post over two years ago on the Pakistan Defence Forum:
    No one Anti-ship missile modern day can beat Iowa Battleship-class ?

    In addition, your post is simply a cut & paste job from both the links in your post. I'm fine with citing a source, but I'm not sure what the purpose is here.
     
  9. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,599
    Likes Received:
    1,685
    Over at NavWeaps Board too.
     
  10. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,931
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Curious as to why you are mentioning only the "kiddie" missiles that one would use to threaten Osas or frigates with?

    Why not mention the heavyweight Soviet/Russian Carrier Killers with names like...Kitchen, Kingfish, Siren, Sandbox, Shipwreck, and Sunburn!

    You smack an Iowa with 1 metric ton of shaped charge goodness, I can fairly guarantee that it will feel the pain.
     
  11. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,599
    Likes Received:
    1,685
    A man-portable like the Hellfire can burn through 300 mm. of armor.
     
  12. Otto

    Otto Gearing up. Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,399
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
  13. Takao

    Takao Ace

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Messages:
    7,931
    Likes Received:
    1,689
    Location:
    Reading, PA
    Sorry, but no...

    The ship is hit by two missiles milliseconds apart. The repeating .gif at the beginning does not show it as well as the later video.

    The first missile approaches from the left and skims the sea(you can see the wake/spray). It hits just short of the ship(visible large splash a little distant from the ship), with it's momentum carrying the missile into the stern of the ship. You also see the second missile coming in from the left - not a sea-skimmer as it is leaving no wake/spray. The action happens at the 1:22-1:23 minute mark



    You see the second missile hit slightly forward of amidship(small splash as an indication). While most of the explosive force of the first missile appears to be deflected away from the aft end.




    The explosions forward are due to the second missile hit, as seen shortly after the initial hit.
    1:24 minute mark



    Not very impressive considering this is a stationary undefended target, and the first missile falls short and does little apparent damage.


    The cynic in me also thinks of the possibility that secondary explosives were used within the ship to make the hit seem that much more impressive.
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018
    CAC and Otto like this.
  14. Otto

    Otto Gearing up. Staff Member WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2000
    Messages:
    9,399
    Likes Received:
    1,576
    Location:
    DFW, Texas
    Indeed. The animated gif appears to be one strike.

    Fake news!
     
  15. OpanaPointer

    OpanaPointer I Point at Opana Staff Member Patron   WW2|ORG Editor

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    10,599
    Likes Received:
    1,685
    Russians faking their prowness? Who knew!
     
    RichTO90 likes this.
  16. scott livesey

    scott livesey Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2018
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    31
    here is some data on AP Bomb penetration. from Dive Bomber by Peter Smith pg 67. A 2000 pound AP bomb had to be dropped from 7000 ft to penetrate 6" of armor (thickness of Iowa main deck armor). The armored conning tower of Iowa was 17" of armor. An Exocet is 1500 pounds pre-launch, a Harpoon is 1525 pounds, no chance of doing more than damaging the paint. A SS-N-3 with 2200 pound warhead might penetrate main deck if impact angle was perfect. In all these missles, the nose is guidance system and radar set, not a hardened steel nose. Newer ships have "shredder" plates between inner and outer hull to prevent proper missile warhead detonation.
    this thread seems to be happening on at least 4 other forums.
     
  17. RichTO90

    RichTO90 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,810
    Likes Received:
    658
  18. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,230
    Location:
    Michigan
    Yep ... drive by trolling.
     

Share This Page