The Iowa Class

[hawkeyem4]

From what I know,the Iowa class battle ship had a mane armament of nine 16" guns was retire 3 or 4 time,and was used up to the Gulf War.They're the last battleships made by the USA,and where brought back again and again.There's a place that can only be filled by the battle ship and the Iowas may be proof.All still float,and,if I remember right,have there armament in storage if there're needed again(though that may be out of date info).They may be the best battleships ever built,and though they're retired,they are a testament to the battleship,and the the sailors who served on them.

[alphakaynine]

i found another cool article about this!

http://www.enchanted...sa/states/iowa/

[Zamolxet]

Evreybody posting here know what or who the Iowas are :)

[Wunderwaffen1945]

Iowa si one of the best ships for posting around

[Crag_r]

Iowa is a state right?  :Smile_trollface:

[Pallada1895]

Iowa for perfect posting.

 

BB Iowa was the only Fast Battleship that taken many beatings during WW2 and still goes on hard.

 

Not only that, them main guns was Lethal as Heck as x3 Barrel 16 Inch Guns.

 

They refer to this ship as "Cruiser Killer".

[JeeWeeJ]

Pallada1895, on 30 December 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

Iowa for perfect posting.

BB Iowa was the only Fast Battleship that taken many beatings during WW2 and still goes on hard.

Not only that, them main guns was Lethal as Heck as x3 Barrel 16 Inch Guns.

They refer to this ship as "Cruiser Killer".

Which beatings exactly? I don't recall one ever getting hit...

[Pallada1895]

JeeWeeJ, on 30 December 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

Which beatings exactly? I don't recall one ever getting hit...

what i meant is that whoever tries to damage this ship, they need more than that to take a beatings.

[hawkeyem4]

Yep.They are probable the best battleships ever built.

[HaradaTaro]

hawkeyem4, on 01 January 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

Yep.They are probable the best battleships ever built.

Nice gully boy....  They were good as carrier escort for their very efficient and numerous AA.  Against ship?  They never engaged any true surface action... That was better for them...  They had some good point, they had flaws, like any ship.  Iowa vs Bismark vs Yamato vs Vanguard vs Littorio ?  Luck will decide... None was globally superior to the others.

[hawkeyem4]

HaradaTaro, on 02 January 2013 - 07:18 AM, said:

Nice gully boy....  They were good as carrier escort for their very efficient and numerous AA.  Against ship?  They never engaged any true surface action... That was better for them...  They had some good point, they had flaws, like any ship.  Iowa vs Bismark vs Yamato vs Vanguard vs Littorio ?  Luck will decide... None was globally superior to the others.

That's true,but I think the Iowa class is one of the of the last of the battleships ever built.

[Inspector_Callahan]

best battle ships ever built.

faster than their cruiser escorts.

16inch guns almost god penetration as the japanese 18inch

armor that can bounce anything smaller than 17inch and would require 8  direct hits of the best penetrating rockets

an actual armored deck unlike the japanese yamatas

and a the most accurate rifle of any caliber any where, even the super accurate sniper rifles

 

Iowas are the best battleships ever built, which would mean they will be nerfed to crap

[BigWaveSurfer]

an actual armored deck unlike the japanese yamatas

 

Yamato deck armour 9.1in  7.9in (230mm - 200mm)

Iowa deck armour 6in - 0.5in (152mm - 13mm) Jane's does how ever make reference to a possible 4in (100mm) lower deck....anyone got any info on that?

 

not sure what u meant by that TommyGunCharlie  :Smile_smile:

[Super_Dreadnought]

TommyGunCharlie, on 03 January 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

Iowas are the best battleships ever built, which would mean they will be nerfed to crap

Don't count you chickens before they've hatched, it may not play out like you think. Iowa is the best all rounder battleship ever built in real life. On paper Yamato is better in a 1v1 deathmatch.

In the game, Iowa - which will be classed a battlecruiser btw according to devs - could possibly end up facing Montana, Number-13, H-42, Super Lion, N3, G3, Sovetsky Soyuz, whatever super weapon design the French and Italians could cook up on paper. And Yamato ingame might have some flaws ironed out (100% crew with repairs skill should not equal historical crappy damage control), making it even tougher.

It's just as likely that Iowa will be too weak, and in need of a buff

[NGTM_1R]

Deadnought, on 03 January 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

On paper Yamato is better in a 1v1 deathmatch.

Depends entirely on whether Iowa (who can make the decision of what range to fight at because it's faster) chooses to fight at 30,000-25000 yards or close the range. At 30,000-25,000 yards Iowa is by pretty much by any reasonable standard in the driver's seat against any other opponent that actually got built. Her radar FC is better, her AP shell quality is massively superior, and even against Vanguard her superior stable vertical elements in the radar system let her shoot and maneuver while Vanguard has to pick one. At shorter ranges than that, Yamato takes over the kingship against all comers.

[Crag_r]

Deadnought, on 03 January 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

Don't count you chickens before they've hatched, it may not play out like you think. Iowa is the best all rounder battleship ever built in real life. On paper Yamato is better in a 1v1 deathmatch.

In the game, Iowa - which will be classed a battlecruiser btw according to devs - could possibly end up facing Montana, Number-13, H-42, Super Lion, N3, G3, Sovetsky Soyuz, whatever super weapon design the French and Italians could cook up on paper. And Yamato ingame might have some flaws ironed out (100% crew with repairs skill should not equal historical crappy damage control), making it even tougher.

It's just as likely that Iowa will be too weak, and in need of a buff

Iowa packed Tomahawk missiles with the 200KT warhead, i think its the best one  :Smile_trollface:

But it should be interesting to see how players settle these debates in game, all be it through WG interpretation on them.

[HaradaTaro]

BigWaveSurfer, on 03 January 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

an actual armored deck unlike the japanese yamatas

Yamato deck armour 9.1in  7.9in (230mm - 200mm)
Iowa deck armour 6in - 0.5in (152mm - 13mm) Jane's does how ever make reference to a possible 4in (100mm) lower deck....anyone got any info on that?

not sure what u meant by that TommyGunCharlie  :Smile_smile:

Correcting:

Iowa deck armor:

Main deck 38mm
Second deck 121mm back on 32mm STS
Third deck 36mm

Total 227mm on machinery

Yamato deck armor outboard

Main deck 20mm on 18mm
Second deck 25mm
Third deck 230mm sloped @ 7°

Total 293mm

Yamato deck armor centerline

Main deck 12mm
Second deck 10mm
Third deck 200mm
Splinter + fourth deck 9 + 9mm

Total 240mm

The main difference was the sturdy 200 to 230mm plate which was more resistant than than the whole thickness of Iowa's deck armor.  A sole plate is much more resistant than multi layered plates of the same global thicknes

Quote

armor that can bounce anything smaller than 17inch and would require 8  direct hits of the best penetrating rockets

Oh man stop dreaming...

The side belt only give against 16inch/45 caliber firing the 2700pounds heavy AP shell an immunity zone of 20,400 to 26,700 yard.
the side belt was only 307mm thick backed on 22mm STS sloped to 19° which was equivalent to 439mm of vertical plating.  That's all but not wonderfull.  The yamato had 410mm sloped at 20° that was equalling 589mm vertical side belt.  The bismarck had 320mm vertical backed by a 100mm sloped making the vitals protected by a 550mm vertical plate...

sources : Naval institute press, Annapolis Maryland Garzke and Dulin : Battleships.

[NGTM_1R]

US AP was far better as a round than anyone else's in the world; this actually had a big and occasionally negative influence on the design of US armor, particular the Class A "Thick Chill" type, while they tried to beat their own shells when it wasn't a reasonable match for any of their opponents. If it can reject US 16" superheavy AP, it can by default reject any remotely comparable round in the world. Which the 18.1" qualifies as.

[Super_Dreadnought]

Crag_r, on 03 January 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

Iowa packed Tomahawk missiles with the 200KT warhead, i think its the best one :Smile_trollface:

Meh, Yamato could fly in space and had giant death lasers. :Smile_trollface:

[Capcon]

NGTM_1R, on 03 January 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

US AP was far better as a round than anyone else's in the world; this actually had a big and occasionally negative influence on the design of US armor, particular the Class A "Thick Chill" type, while they tried to beat their own shells when it wasn't a reasonable match for any of their opponents. If it can reject US 16" superheavy AP, it can by default reject any remotely comparable round in the world. Which the 18.1" qualifies as.

Armor quality debate again, where everybody, or nearly so, claims their country's armor plate was better than (insert other nation name here).

I expect the development team will do their homework diligently. I also expect that 20% of everybody will have a beef with the result no matter what.

[HaradaTaro]

NGTM_1R, on 03 January 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

US AP was far better as a round than anyone else's in the world; this actually had a big and occasionally negative influence on the design of US armor, particular the Class A "Thick Chill" type, while they tried to beat their own shells when it wasn't a reasonable match for any of their opponents. If it can reject US 16" superheavy AP, it can by default reject any remotely comparable round in the world. Which the 18.1" qualifies as.

American legend man... to listen such of dedicated united states lovers, everything the us made was far better than anything else on earth....  If you claim that prove it, give us serious sources of US vs other world steel quality. I can admit it was probably better than the steel made somewhere in central africa.... but compared to German Krupp cemented armor.... Nevertheless just bring some comparative testing then you may gain some credibility.

Social/Religious/Political. Warning issued. ~nTwo

[Ariecho]

Can we keep the politics out of a thread that is already not that impressive...  :Smile_sceptic:

[HaradaTaro]

Ariecho, on 03 January 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

Can we keep the politics out of a thread that is already not that impressive...  :Smile_sceptic:

I would love to... just ask those speaking US x ship is far the best, US gun were far the best.... and so on.  fI you state something, just back it up with trusty sources.

Someone asked more info on those two ships dack armor.  I just gave it.

No one can honestly say which was the best BB ever built.  as only 3 of them had experienced real BB to BB battle.  The Hood for a few minutes... the KGV and the Bismarck. So no real way to judge.

[Elouda]

HaradaTaro, on 03 January 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

Correcting:

Iowa deck armor:

Main deck 38mm
Second deck 121mm back on 32mm STS
Third deck 36mm

Total 227mm on machinery

Yamato deck armor outboard

Main deck 20mm on 18mm
Second deck 25mm
Third deck 230mm sloped @ 7°

Total 293mm

Yamato deck armor centerline

Main deck 12mm
Second deck 10mm
Third deck 200mm
Splinter + fourth deck 9 + 9mm

Total 240mm

The main difference was the sturdy 200 to 230mm plate which was more resistant than than the whole thickness of Iowa's deck armor.  A sole plate is much more resistant than multi layered plates of the same global thicknes

1. Do not sum armour thickness directly for multiple plates when comparing them. It has little basis in the protection actually offered - its more representative of the weight used.
2. Yamatos's 7 degree slope is inboard. This means it actually reduces effective thickness, because it reduces the shells angle of impact. It was seen as having a marginal enough effect on the 230mm plate that the weight savings were worth it.

Quote

Oh man stop dreaming...

The side belt only give against 16inch/45 caliber firing the 2700pounds heavy AP shell an immunity zone of 20,400 to 26,700 yard.
the side belt was only 307mm thick backed on 22mm STS sloped to 19° which was equivalent to 439mm of vertical plating.  That's all but not wonderfull.  The yamato had 410mm sloped at 20° that was equalling 589mm vertical side belt.  The bismarck had 320mm vertical backed by a 100mm sloped making the vitals protected by a 550mm vertical plate...

Your numbers on equivalent thicknesses are completely out of whack. I suggest reading some of Okuns work to get an understanding on the actual mechanics of armour and penetration.

Capcon, on 03 January 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

Armor quality debate again, where everybody, or nearly so, claims their country's armor plate was better than (insert other nation name here).
I expect the development team will do their homework diligently. I also expect that 20% of everybody will have a beef with the result no matter what.

We've been pretty much told that quality issues for both armour and shells will be ignored ingame.

HaradaTaro, on 03 January 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

American legend man... to listen such of dedicated united states lovers, everything the us made was far better than anything else on earth....  If you claim that prove it, give us serious sources of US vs other world steel quality. I can admit it was probably better than the steel made somewhere in central africa.... but compared to German Krupp cemented armor.... Nevertheless just bring some comparative testing then you may gain some credibility.

Well, the US 16in Mk8 Mod8 was superior to most other AP shells. It offered a ~10% improvement to overall armour piercing quality compared to the preceding Mods 0 thru 7, due to the advances in heat treating the armour piercing cap, along with a larger cap itself. This meant the shell performed better, especially at higher angles of impact (read - deck penetration at medium ranges). This allowed the Mod8 to be almost a good a penetrator at long range as the larger and heavier Japanese 18.1in shell. It only saw service from late 1944 onwards though.

Its not so much a question of steel or armour quality as it is about applying new processes to the AP cap - something which requires an investment in time and resources to develop. To most other navies it wasnt an immediate priority, nor did they necessarily consider such development worth the effort. The US were able to develop many such 'niceties' during the war, due to their immense resource base.

For comparative tests, look at some of the test firings of new and old 16in shells at Dhalgren.

[HaradaTaro]

Elouda said:

1. Do not sum armour thickness directly for multiple plates when comparing them. It has little basis in the protection actually offered - its more representative of the weight used.
2. Yamatos's 7 degree slope is inboard. This means it actually reduces effective thickness, because it reduces the shells angle of impact. It was seen as having a marginal enough effect on the 230mm plate that the weight savings were worth it.
Your numbers on equivalent thicknesses are completely out of whack. I suggest reading some of Okuns work to get an understanding on the actual mechanics of armour and penetration.

Did I said it was numericaly higher?  I don't believe so.  I stated on the less layers in a global same thickness is better in resistance.  Put two plates of 100mm of STS take one 200mm of sts armor... The more resitant is the second....  That's all I said. and on that the 200mm plate of the yamato was a great defense.

I have never said the 230mm sloped helped or did not help. I just said how it was positioned.

Well if the numbers I placed are out of whack, just say the navy test performed at Dahlgren test yard are false because they all come from there ;)