Iowa Class Battleships

[leonidesalinas]

i am outright surprised noone posted a resource thread on this class...SO I'LL DO IT.

 

http://www.lonesentr...-iowa-bb-61.jpg

 

Name: Iowa-class battleship

 

Builders:

 

New York Naval Shipyard

(BB-61 & BB-63)

 

Philadelphia Naval Shipyard

(BB-62, BB-64, & BB-65-never completed)

 

Norfolk Naval Shipyard

(BB-66-never completed)

 

Operators:  United States Navy

 

Preceded by: South Dakota-class battleship

 

Succeeded by: Montana-class battleship (planned)

 

Cost: US$100 million per ship

Preserved: 4

 

General characteristics

 

Type: Battleship

 

Displacement: 45,000 tons (Standard);

52,000 tons (mean war service);

57,000 tons (pre 1980s full load); 58,000 tons (post 1980s full load) Length: 861¼ ft (262.5 m) pp 887 ft (270 m) oa

Beam: 108 ft (33 m)

Draft: 36 ft (11 m) maximum

Installed power: 212,000 shp (158,000 kW)

 

Propulsion: 4 screws; GE geared turbines; 8 B&W boilers; G.E. (BB-61, BB-63);[1] West. (BB-62, BB-64, BB-66)

Speed: 31 knots (36 mph; 57 km/h) normal operation

Range: 14,890 miles (23,960 km) @ 15 knots (17 mph; 28 km/h);

11,700 miles (18,820 km) @ 20 knots (23 mph; 37 km/h)

 

Complement: ~2,700 officers and men (WWII, Korea)

~1,800 officers and men (1980s refit)

 

Electronic warfare & decoys:

AN/SLQ-32(V)

AN/SLQ-25 Nixie

Mark 36 SRBOC

 

Armament:

 

World War II, Korea:

9 × 16-inch (406 mm)/50 cal. Mark 7 guns

20 × 5-inch (127 mm)/38 cal. Mark 12 guns

80 × 40 mm/56 cal. Bofors

49 × 20 mm/70 cal. Oerlikon

Vietnam:

9 × 16-inch/50 cal. Mark 7 guns

20 × 5-inch/38 cal. Mark 12 guns

Cold War, Gulf War:

9 × 16-inch / 50 cal. Mark 7 guns

12 × 5-inch/38 cal. Mark 12 guns

32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk

16 × RGM-84 Harpoon

4 × 20 mm (78 inch).Phalanx CIWS

 

Armor:

 

Belt: 12.1 in (310 mm),

Bulkheads: 11.3 in (290 mm),

Barbettes: 11.6 to 17.3 in (295 to 439 mm),

Turrets: 19.7 in (500 mm),

Decks: 7.5 in (190 mm)

 

Aircraft carried:

 

World War II:

3 × Vought OS2U Kingfisher/Curtiss SC Seahawk

Korea/Vietnam:

3 × helicopters

Cold War/Gulf War:

5 × RQ-2 Pioneer Unmanned aerial vehicle

 

Notes: Final battleship class completed by the United States

 

 

http://www.conwaypub...77-Iowa-pic.jpg

 

http://www.hndme.com/BB62NJ.jpg

 

http://www.navweaps....iles_flight.jpg

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

Suggested additions to OP:

• Fire control.

• Director (Range finder, Optics, Spotting array, etc).

• Armament maximum capacity per weapon system.

• Reload time(s) for various armament.

• Effective/Maximum range(s) for various weapon platforms.

• Depression minimum on primary weapon(s).

• Elevation maximum on secondary weapon(s).

• Turn rate.

• Design date.

• Commissioned date.

• Refit(s) date with details.

• Repair(s) date with details.

• Decommissioned.

• Reactivation.

• Final Disposition date with location.

Also, design cross-sections give reference to displacement, length, width, and visual indications of components.

 

[leonidesalinas]

bout to go to bed now... i'll do that when i wake up tomorrow. i'm just getting them started now, so we have a decent set of resources to go by.

 

 

(SSGS brofist)

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

Also, the immune zone would be interesting to know.

 

SSGS t42592 "Numbers"

 

Good night! :Smile_honoring:

 

[xthetenth]

Okay, that diagram is interesting. The numbers I've got from Friedman say the Iowa IZ is 23,600 to 27,400 against her 16"/50 and 20,100 to 25,500 against the 16"/45. This is of course with the Mark 8 shell. That would imply the US 18" left over from WWI was something of an underperformer or not at all modernized.

[leonidesalinas]

well, it WAS from WW1...

[alexm2012]

they should of made the Montana class, it would have been awsome.

[Jracule]

Iowa is going to be my first priority in this game.

Doesn't have the raw power of the Yamato but it does have the speed and more effective gunnery.

Most importantly, it will be a great team player. With nearly 4x the AA capability of the Yamato class you can provide some nice coverage to your team's carriers.

[leonidesalinas]

the Iowa will be a solid tier 10 ship. it's going to have the same role as the Yamato, the tier 10 fast battleship.

[ramp4ge]

The nice thing about Iowa was she was fast enough to maintain distance on anything in the world, this keeping any target in her zone of immunity, and accurate enough to fire accurately while at speed. Her secondary battery was effective at the ranges her immunity zone was, and she had what was probably the finest secondary battery (Same as the North Carolina and South Dakota-classes) ever put to sea. Her protection wasn't as thick as some of her contemporaries but her scheme was MUCH more efficient and the materials used in her production were top-notch.

[James296]

alexm2012, on 23 September 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

they should of made the Montana class, it would have been awsome.

they were in the process, had the keel down, but the need for carriers was greater so those plans were scraped so to speak

[ramp4ge]

No keel was ever laid for the Montanas. The project was cancelled before construction was started.

 

The ships were approved in April of 1942 and the ships were ordered in May of 1942, but there were only 3 shipyards capable of building the Montanas, and all 3 were either building Iowa-class ships or Essex-class carriers, both of which had been given priority.

 

The Montanas were cancelled in July 1942 before any of them were laid down.

[Coldt]

xthetenth, on 23 September 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Okay, that diagram is interesting. The numbers I've got from Friedman say the Iowa IZ is 23,600 to 27,400 against her 16"/50 and 20,100 to 25,500 against the 16"/45. This is of course with the Mark 8 shell. That would imply the US 18" left over from WWI was something of an underperformer or not at all modernized.

The Iowa's guns were deliberately weaker for a few of reasons. 1: to bring plumitting fire into a closer more practical range, 2: The turret mounts were lighter and unable to handle the 16"/50 mark 2, 3: The U.S. navy wanted to extend the barrel life on the Iowa, and managed to succeed.  The Barrel life of the Yamato was around 90-100 shots per gun, the barrel life on the Iowa was 350-400 shots per gun.  In actuallity if there was a full power pouder load in the mark 7 gun its characteristics would be much more similar to the mark 2, if not better.  The issue is the barrel life would be significantly decreased.

If you want to see real American firepower, look up the mark 2.

[Chiyeko]

I am really looking forwards to play one of these, speed, plenty of gun and enough armor.

 

Sure there will be ship with more armor, more gun, more speed, but the Iowa seems to put it all in one nice package that looks good as well :)

[ramp4ge]

I doubt there will be anything with more speed, as the Iowas were the fastest battleships ever built (Altho the North Carolinas were just as fast when their boilers were uprated).  Armor is one of those things where you can't rely on just a number. Armor is all about "Where is it?" and "What kind is it?" and less about "How much is there?". Iowa's armor scheme was very efficient for her displacement. It'd be tough to do better with 50,000 tons of ship.

[Crag_r]

ramp4ge, on 24 September 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

I doubt there will be anything with more speed, as the Iowas were the fastest battleships ever built (Altho the North Carolinas were just as fast when their boilers were uprated).  Armor is one of those things where you can't rely on just a number. Armor is all about "Where is it?" and "What kind is it?" and less about "How much is there?". Iowa's armor scheme was very efficient for her displacement. It'd be tough to do better with 50,000 tons of ship.

Well thats why we are looking at the Iowa or a parallel Montana tree as teir X going up against Yamato, and one of the H class

[ramp4ge]

That'd be about right, even tho the Montana was intended to be the Yamato-buster. But that's the way other games have tiered them up. Iowa vs Yamato vs H-39 vs Lion. That'd probably work in this game too. Probably have the Sovietsky Soyuz for the Soviets at that same tier.

[xthetenth]

Coldt, on 24 September 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:

The Iowa's guns were deliberately weaker for a few of reasons. 1: to bring plumitting fire into a closer more practical range, 2: The turret mounts were lighter and unable to handle the 16"/50 mark 2, 3: The U.S. navy wanted to extend the barrel life on the Iowa, and managed to succeed.  The Barrel life of the Yamato was around 90-100 shots per gun, the barrel life on the Iowa was 350-400 shots per gun.  In actuallity if there was a full power pouder load in the mark 7 gun its characteristics would be much more similar to the mark 2, if not better.  The issue is the barrel life would be significantly decreased.

If you want to see real American firepower, look up the mark 2.

I'll take 2700 lbs at 2500 feet per second over 2200 lbs at 2800 feet per second any day thank you very much. The Mark 7 was the more powerful gun. For plummeting fire they had tables worked out for a reduced charge, rather than weakening the gun. That's a reduced charge though. However, the Mark 7 with the Mark 8 shell drastically outperforms the Mark 2 with the Mark 3 shell. At 30,000 yards, the Mark 7 penetrates 100 mm more side armor (380 vs 279 mm) and 55mm more deck armor (169 mm vs 114 mm)

Incidentally, I think I found my answer as to why the Iowa's IZ against an 18" gun is so wide. The Mark 7 with the Mark 8 shell is scary.

The 18"/47 Mark A is the scariest though. 3,850 pounds at 2,400 feet per second. Dear god why. Only two numbers for it, but 159mm pen against deck armor at 25,000 yards (vs 131mm for the 16"/50 Mark 7), and 406mm pen against belt armor at 30,500 (vs 380mm at 30,000 for the Mark 7)

Quote

BuOrd estimated that a ship with 16 inch (40.6 cm) side armor and 6.25 inch (15.9 cm) deck armor would have no immune zone whatsoever from the "super-heavy" 18" (45.7 cm) AP projectile.

WHY. (Also, that's a Montana's armor scheme).

Quote

It was estimated that a three-gun turret fitted with the 18"/48 (45.7 cm) would have weighed about 3,000 tons (3,050 mt), which is over 40% heavier than the three-gun 16"/50 (40.6 cm) turrets that are carried by USS Iowa (BB-61).  In addition, the barbettes and supporting framework would have been proportionally heavier, as well.  From these figures, it can be seen that a battleship the size of USS Iowa (45,000 standard tons) would have been able to carry no more than five 18"/48 (45.7 cm) guns vs. the nine 16"/50 (40.6 cm) guns that she actually did carry.

WHY. (Also, this is the obvious reason the Montana didn't carry those things).

[leonidesalinas]

the question is, will we be able to change the powder charge for the guns?

 

some of us might remember the High-Angle style of firing in Navyfield.

[Joel47]

That was just asked in the current Q&A thread; answer was "no."

[ramp4ge]

leonidesalinas, on 24 September 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

the question is, will we be able to change the powder charge for the guns?

some of us might remember the High-Angle style of firing in Navyfield.

High-angle whoring in an Oakland and watching BB3s run away from you was one of the best things about NF..Lol.

[Coldt]

leonidesalinas, on 24 September 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

the question is, will we be able to change the powder charge for the guns?

No, KGB confirmed.

[MrCuttleFish]

I always go to Norfolk and visit the WisKey every chance i get. Perks of being an hour and a half away. :Smile_teethhappy:

[ReiAyanami]

Guys I'll live up this forum, I'll be posting lots of battleship pictures from my stash from now on, so keep in tuned!!!!

 

(Click on them cause I have a 22'' monitor and the forum might get them squished, Also, I suggest you save them cause I have a bad history with imagesites)

 

:Smile_honoring::Smile_honoring::Smile_honoring:

 

http://img13.imagesh...7336/os4v9s.jpghttp://img211.images...1480/zlfd5y.jpg

[ReiAyanami]

More, as I promised!