History Club
Military history and past events only. Rants or inflamitory comments will be removed.
Hosted by Frank Amato
Plan Z
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 08:47 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Maybe so, DJ... My own recollections from other sources (titles now long forgotten) is that the BBs had steam up to do turns for maximum speed to go after Yamato and the request to alter course to engage was denied. Undoubtedly there was also a loss of life factor involved in the decision. Yamato might very well have seriously damaged or sunk one of the BBs befroe seh went down, and the losses in that eventuality would be far higher htan that of losing a few aircrew to Japanese antiaircraft. At that late stage of the war I'm sure there was considerable risk/benefit analysis going on, as everyone realized that the enemy was very nearly done so why take casualties you don't need to take.

Getting off topic, but the whole evolution of this thread makes me wonder what might have occurred had Surface Action Groups based around an Iowa and a Kirov might have fared against each other.

Greg



Greg--that is one of those interesting historical possibilities better left to electronic wargames. I'd love to match electrons over that one!
DJ
SS-74
Visit this Community
Vatican City
Member Since: May 13, 2002
entire network: 3,271 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 10:29 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Maybe so, DJ... My own recollections from other sources (titles now long forgotten) is that the BBs had steam up to do turns for maximum speed to go after Yamato and the request to alter course to engage was denied. Undoubtedly there was also a loss of life factor involved in the decision. Yamato might very well have seriously damaged or sunk one of the BBs befroe seh went down, and the losses in that eventuality would be far higher htan that of losing a few aircrew to Japanese antiaircraft. At that late stage of the war I'm sure there was considerable risk/benefit analysis going on, as everyone realized that the enemy was very nearly done so why take casualties you don't need to take.

Getting off topic, but the whole evolution of this thread makes me wonder what might have occurred had Surface Action Groups based around an Iowa and a Kirov might have fared against each other.

Greg



Greg--that is one of those interesting historical possibilities better left to electronic wargames. I'd love to match electrons over that one!
DJ



Just ship to ship, not considering the escorts, I think the Kirov might fare better, because I think it has more of Ship to Ship missles than the Iowa, right? I know Iowa has Tomakawks, but does it also carry Harpoons?

BlueBear
Visit this Community
Idaho, United States
Member Since: August 26, 2002
entire network: 414 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 02:06 PM UTC
I think that the Kirov would get some good licks in first with its Shipwrecks, the Russians having more experience with mid-course guidance correction for long range shoots, but once the Iowa had a hard firing solution for its anti-ship Tomahawks, she would literally dismember the Kirov piece by piece. Nothing beats a good old-fashioned armored belt and steel plate for handling explosive impacts, both of which the Iowa has in abundance and which the Kirov is nearly completely lacking in. It would sure make a mess though if or when the Kirov's reactor vessel was breached---Chernobyl at sea...
As rebuilt, the Iowas were armed with 8x Armored Box Launchers with a mix of land attack. anti-shipping, and Nuclear land attack missiles. She and her sisters also had 4x quad Harpoon launchers.
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 07:25 PM UTC

Quoted Text

I think that the Kirov would get some good licks in first with its Shipwrecks, the Russians having more experience with mid-course guidance correction for long range shoots, but once the Iowa had a hard firing solution for its anti-ship Tomahawks, she would literally dismember the Kirov piece by piece. Nothing beats a good old-fashioned armored belt and steel plate for handling explosive impacts, both of which the Iowa has in abundance and which the Kirov is nearly completely lacking in. It would sure make a mess though if or when the Kirov's reactor vessel was breached---Chernobyl at sea...
As rebuilt, the Iowas were armed with 8x Armored Box Launchers with a mix of land attack. anti-shipping, and Nuclear land attack missiles. She and her sisters also had 4x quad Harpoon launchers.



And, now they are no more....sad.
DJ
Ranger74
Visit this Community
Tennessee, United States
Member Since: April 04, 2002
entire network: 1,290 Posts
KitMaker Network: 480 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 01:12 AM UTC
One thing forgotten about the Soviet warships was that they carried no reloads, everything was on deck!!! They had a formiable intial launch, but then nothing if they failed to destroy their target.
BlueBear
Visit this Community
Idaho, United States
Member Since: August 26, 2002
entire network: 414 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 02:54 AM UTC
Our BB's are still there, unless some rocket scientist in Washington decided to sell them off for razor blades. It would take some time to get paint chipped and the reserve crews worked up, unless they have partial active reserve crews assigned for up-keep and maintenance. When they decided to reactivate the New Jersey back in the 80's, there was only 1 qualified 16" turret captain left in the Navy---an old Master Chief with the Navy Reserve unit here in Boise.
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 06:58 AM UTC
Blue--we had a great discussion about the Iowa Class BBs sometime ago. As I recall most felt the loss of these magnificent vessels was tragic. However, to upgrade them to acceptable standards would be cost prohibitive. So, there they sit.
DJ
BlueBear
Visit this Community
Idaho, United States
Member Since: August 26, 2002
entire network: 414 Posts
KitMaker Network: 0 Posts
Posted: Friday, September 27, 2002 - 06:26 AM UTC
They did manage to keep Saddam's attention off Stormin' Norman's preperations for his round-house left punch into the Iraqi Army's guts when they started firing broadsides off the coast back in '91. The Iraqi's must have thought they were having a past life experience from Normandy back in '44. I know that oil burners are labor intensive, heavy, and expensive to run, but I don't see any contenders running around out there in front of their rooster-tails that can play whump-up-side-the-head on the bad guys like a battlewagon with an attitude will do---and I'm an Airdale!
I can't imagine anything that would shove a carrier 3 or 4 feet sideways from its course line like cutting loose a broadside does that would leave the thing afloat after the insulation stopped falling from the overheads and the lights came back on, let alone being on the receiving end of same and just shrugging it off!
It would make an interesting sight though if they were to pull the boilers and put in COGAG units in the Iowa's; running around on plane at 60 knots with a 200 foot rooster-tail shooting up behind. Sounds like a project for Tim the Toolman Taylor---More Power!!! #:-)
210cav
Visit this Community
Virginia, United States
Member Since: February 05, 2002
entire network: 6,149 Posts
KitMaker Network: 1,551 Posts
Posted: Friday, September 27, 2002 - 08:15 AM UTC
Blue--nice work, thought provoking. Can I ask you to check out Jeff's input on the Doolittle topic? He has done us all a service through research on aggragate totals of naval power. If you find those thought provoking, may I ask you to contribute to the Relief of the Philippines topic.
thanks
DJ