Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

11 Neutral

About ARCNA442

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

149 profile views
  1. Salute Like a Girl

    I think that's the right question - a quick Google search shows several photos of Russian naval personnel saluting in a manner fairly close to the WoWS art.
  2. Iowa's dispersion+ Iowa vs Yamato

    Looking at that diagram, it's 60# of STS from the waterline to the 2nd deck and 35# STS from the 2nd deck to the main deck. That's definitely splinter protection seeing as 60# is enough to stop a 5" shell past 10k yards.
  3. The superstructure (outside of the armored conning tower) is only 1-2" of structural steel, 6" shells will go right through it..
  4. The superstructure (outside of the armored conning tower) is only 1-2" of structural steel, 6" shells will go right through it..
  5. Thanks for the information about the importance of fragmentation size. I was comparing explosive filler because I was talking about blast rather than fragmentation. As you say, the important areas on a WWII American battleship were well protected against shrapnel, but the damage to South Dakota suggests that the same protection didn't stand up to blast. The two examples I provided were both described in the damage report as pure blast damage and the damage you mention from the Tiny Tim test sounds very similar. While simply battering an armored ship into a wreck using a large amount of HE is less efficient than penetrating the armor, I seem to recall that it was considered a valid tactic back in the late 19th century when effective AP shells didn't exist. Further, while the individual fires from Terrier hits may be minor (although I somewhat doubt that), there would be a large number of them and the damage control parties would be exposed to fragmentation from additional missile hits.
  6. As near as I can tell, the American fast battleships had hulls and superstructures of 25-60# of STS (40# of STS = 1") with 80# or 100# (depending on the class) over critical components such as the directors and 5" mounts. Horizontal protection was much thinner at 20-50# of STS. Figuring out exactly what this means in terms of protection is more difficult. Apparently the USN preferred 100# for splinter protection but accepted 80# to save weight. However, the Army seems to think that around 1.5" of vehicle armor is proof against artillery fragments. Looking at South Dakota's damage report, the 60#+ protection seemed successful but fragments still pierced the hull and superstructure in multiple places, starting some small fires. More interesting was the amount of damage done to her by blast overpressure. One 5" mount (80# STS) received internal damage when an estimated 6" shell exploded nearby and a 14" hit blew a 3x10' hole in the main deck (60# STS). Given that Japanese 6" shells had only 2.5 (AP) or 6.8 (HE) pounds of explosives, this makes me believe that the 200# warhead on Terrier could inflict some real damage even if the fragments had little effect. I agree with you on the HEAT missiles. Shaped charges are often mentioned but it seems to me that the jet wouldn't penetrate very far even if did go through the belt. I'm not certain if a true armor piercing warhead would prove viable though, given the limited payload of a reasonably sized missile (even the 400# warhead of the massive Talos is barely larger than a 335# superheavy 8" shell).
  7. While it wouldn't penetrate the belt or deck armor, a 200# blast warhead would still wreck the superstructure or unarmored parts of the hull. More importantly, missile hits have a tendency to start large fires. Solid fueled Exocets hitting at nearly their max range burnt out Sheffield and nearly did the same to Stark - what would the much larger Terrier do? Or a Talos with most of its 85 gallons of jet fuel still on board? Basically, I think a missile would have similar effect to a Kamikaze. Individually, they probably wouldn't achieve much, but once you start firing dozens of them the BB is going to have a very bad day. And early missile cruisers generally carried well over 100 missiles each. Continuing to ponder the idea of a missile battleship, I wonder what sort of warheads would have been developed to deal with armor. While a missile is big and fast, it can't really carry much weight so the techniques used for AP shells wouldn't really be applicable. Would we have seen the development of subcaliber penetrators similar to those used by tanks today, would shaped charges been preferred, or would they have simply continued to rely on HE?
  8. While OTH missile shots are extremely difficult, the final generation of Soviet weapons were extremely advanced (in many ways more so than NATO missiles) and operated as part of a wider networked system that was superior to what the Chinese have today. A Kirov would be getting targeting information from radar satellites and maritime patrol aircraft and SS-N-19 was designed to receive midcourse target updates. Add the fact that it was a Mach 2+ missile that could reach its max range in 12 minutes and I don't think completely writing off its OTH capability is realistic. Terrier and Talos posed a significant threat to a BB. Both of them had ASuW capability and even Terrier carried more explosives than a 16" HE shell. While they couldn't penetrate belt armor, a large number of them would easily turn a BB into a burning wreck - and that's before you consider the nuclear warheads. However, if there had been an enemy fleet worth mentioning in the 1950's, I do wonder if would we have seen the development of a new generation of heavily armored warships designed to engage in surface actions but armed with missiles instead of guns.
  9. Nuclear weapons are far from ineffective against ships. While Able/Baker proved that a single low yield nuke wasn't going to take out an entire fleet, a half megaton detonation right on top of (if not inside of) its target is going to sink anything that ever put to sea. I don't know what place MAD has in your argument as both the US and USSR fully intended on fighting in a nuclear environment. RIM-2D Terrier had a range of 20 miles but, more importantly, a hit rate a that distance that wasn't measured in single digits. Further, Terrier didn't require a 50,000 ton ship to carry it which meant that the battleship would be outnumbered as well as outgunned. Once you add Talos and later versions of Terrier to the mix things look even worse. Yes, the USN doesn't confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons. However, during the period when the battleships were reactivated, TLAM-N was the priority. Also, when looking at the chart below, remember that most of the 80/81 missiles were expended in testing so we probably didn't actually have enough TLAM-C to arm even one Iowa until the second half of the 1980's. The 8 Tomahawk ships I was referring to were not the Ticonderogas but the destroyers and cruisers that were retrofitted with ABL's. VLS didn't exist when the battleship reactivation began, and wasn't trialled at sea until 1984. When VLS finally reached the fleet in numbers then the battleships' 32 Tomahawk was no longer a unique capability and focus shifted to the guns but that wasn't useful enough to keep them in service.
  10. I don't cruise gaming forums all the time :) - my response is now up.
  11. 1. First, all battleship construction did not end during the war. You already mentioned Vanguard and the US continued work on the last two Iowas until 1946. After the war, who was going to build more BB's? The UK, France, and Italy were all effectively bankrupt, the USSR didn't have the design resources (though they tried anyways), and the US had 10 fast battleships and 2 large cruisers with lots of service life left in them. Also, I said "ultimate surface combatant" not "most important ship" - carriers did become more important than battleships overall, but battleships were still king in a surface action. 2. The Marines may have loved New Jersey but that doesn't mean she was considered effective. Reading Norman Friedman's US Battleships, apparently there was disagreement between Secretary of Defense McNamara (who wanted to shell the Ho Chi Min Trail) and New Jersey's captain (who wanted to support the Marines). In the end the battleship only spent 20 days off North Vietnam and spent the remaining 100 days south of the DMZ. The NVA story is a result of battleship supporters blowing things out of proportion - McNamara announced the repositioning of the ship as a "deescalatory gesture" and that eventually morphed into the idea that the NVA refused to talk unless the battleship was sent home. Again, if New Jersey was so effective, why wasn't she kept in service? 3. The Iowas were brought back as missile platforms and I have not seen anything credible that even mentions the Kirovs. Mainly because the idea that the two ships would engage in a "toe to toe slugging match" is laughable - the Kirov's SS-N-19's had 500kt nuclear warheads and the Soviets weren't afraid to use them. 4. The battleship concept is that of a heavily armed and armored warship that will engage in fleet actions against enemy warships. The whole land bombardment thing was a sideshow until the pro-BB people needed to find something that would make 16" guns seems halfway relevant. When USS Boston commissioned in 1955 with 144 Terrier missiles, the days of the battleship were over. Unfortunately, I do not have any reliable source that I can cite. The idea is something I've pieced together from various comments and from looking at how the Iowa's fit in the fleet. If you have evidence that refutes it I will gladly consider it. But look at the numbers. Iowa carried 32 Tomahawks when every other ship in the fleet was limited to 8. Further, each ABL weighed some 35 tons loaded and placed all of that weight high on the ship so I doubt they could have added more without an extensive (and expensive) redesign. Also, at the time almost all the land attack Tomahawks ordered were the nuclear variant so the massed Tomahawk attacks of today weren't even imagined. In contrast, almost no money was spent on the modernizing the ship's guns and they were still using shells and powder procured during WWII. This mismatch between guns and missiles is what persuaded me that the comments about reactivating them as missile platforms were true. As to the Des Moines modernization, looking for sources I discovered that I actually confused the dates and the cruisers were looked at after the Iowas, not before. Here's a link to article about the modernizations (unfortunately it's behind a pay wall but you can read the abstract that mentions the issues for free) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1559-3584.1984.tb01812.x/abstract and here's a picture of the proposal. As you can see, maintaining the same missile battery was a clear priority over getting more heavy guns back into the fleet. As to your idea to put Tomahawks on an old carrier, there simply weren't many old carriers left and the ones that hadn't been scrapped were worn out. Out of all the WWII carriers, only 6 Essexs remained in 1980 and all of them had spent 20-24 years in active service (which was about their expected service life). In contrast, the Iowas and Des Moines had only spent 10-13 years in active service (except Newport News, which had spent 26 years).
  12. This is just wrong. Nobody thought battleships were gone before the Korean War - no fewer than 5 navies (US, UK, USSR, France, and Italy) had operational battleships in 1950 and they were still seen as the ultimate surface combatant. The US didn't retire its battleships until 1958 - a year after the last foreign battleship was retired. In Vietnam we deployed 1 battleship for a grand total of 8 months in 1968 as an experiment to see if 16" gunfire could replace airstrikes. Given that New Jersey subsequently returned to the reserve fleet and no further battleship deployments occurred despite the war continuing for another 3 years, I think we can safely say that the experiment was not a resounding success. Finally, the 1980's return to service only happened because the Navy needed large hulls to carry Tomahawk and had absolutely nothing to do with Kirov. In fact, the Navy originally wanted to use the Des Moines class cruisers but they turned out to be too small. When VLS hit the fleet in numbers, the battleships were again soon retired. Face it, the battleship died in the 1950's when guided missiles became a reality and it will never be coming back. The closest you might get is a dedicated NGFS vessel or an arsenal ship but both of those would have far more in common with a monitor than a battleship.
  13. The Kriegsmarine's "Goth" phase

    Not really - if that were true we would have seen a return to the old pre-WWI national ship colors. What happened was that the world's navies determined that uniform grey camo schemes were both the most versatile and the simplest. Note how the complex schemes disappeared immediately after the war even while weapons hadn't changed at all. And despite the use of radar to detect and track targets, optical sensors still very much have a place in modern naval warfare.
  14. I think that monstrosity is more a result of the Russian propensity to mount way too many separate radar systems rather than anything a normal navy would do (also, is that a secondary bridge halfway up the forward tower?). If you look at an Iowa most of the bulk comes from the stacks and the fire control towers. And nuclear propulsion and drop the need for long distance optical spotting and the superstructure could be cut down to next to nothing. Of course, that doesn't change the fact the basic idea would be insanely impractical.
  15. How do I Survive in the Omaha?

    What's weird reading these topics is that Omaha feels like the best ship I've played (of course, as a new player I haven't played many ships) and I actually have a higher average damage and better survival percentage in her than in Cleveland. Maybe I'll understand the dislike when I start playing other lines, but right now Omaha strikes me as a great balance of firepower and maneuverability.