• Tuesday, June 18, 2019

No one Anti-ship missile modern day can beat Iowa Battleship-class ?

Discussion in 'Naval Warfare' started by vietminh, Jul 21, 2016.

  1. vietminh

    vietminh FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    222
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Ratings:
    +0 / 107 / -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...
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61-design.htm

    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. 21 Dec 2012

    21 Dec 2012 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    894
    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Ratings:
    +0 / 612 / -2
    [​IMG]

    A 16' shell weighed what? 2000 pounds? 150 pound charge? At about Mach 2 ( of course the farther they went, the lower)



    versus​



    [​IMG]

    1 ton warhead. Mach 4.6 tops. 6 tons gross weight (of course the farther it goes...)

    I think we'd have a massacre on our hands.
     
  3. vietminh

    vietminh FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    222
    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2011
    Ratings:
    +0 / 107 / -0
    Okay, I'll calculate basic

    The Japanese Yamato was struck by some ten torpedoes, mainly on the port side, and several bombs before she sank. Musashi and her consorts were attacked by hundreds of U.S. Navy carrier aircraft. This battlewagon was hit by some nineteen torpedoes and seventeen bombs. Though her heavy protection withstood this massive damage to a degree probably unsurpassed by any other contemporary warship, Musashi capsized and sank about four hours after she received her last hit.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Just to give an idea of how much punishment BBs can take.

    Standard USN air droppable torpedos weighed 1005kg/2216 lbs and had warheads with 262kg Torpex. Typical aircraft armaments in these cases consisted of 454kg/1000lbs and 227kg/500lbs. Respectively, these contained about 241kg and 119kg of HE explosive.

    Name Type Bomb-Weight HE-Weight
    AN-M30 GP 100 lb 54 lb
    AN-M57 GP 250 lb 123 lb
    AN-M64 GP 500 lb 262 lb
    AN-M65 GP 1,000 lb 530 lb
    AN-M66 GP 2,000 lb 1,051 lb
    AN-M56 Light Case 4,000 lb 3,245 lb
    AN-Mk1 Armor-Piercing 1,600 lb 215 lb

    By comparison

    P-800 Oniks
    Warhead 250 kg (551 lb)
    P-700 Granit
    Warhead weight 750 kg (1,653 lb) HE (unknown composition, probably RDX or similar) or 500 kt fission-fusion thermonuclear weapon


    Assuming Mk13 torpedos and 500lb bombs were used, it took at least some 3 tons of explosive to sink Yamato (and 7 tons to sink Musashi). That's the same weight of explosive as in 4 (9) SS-N-19 or in 12 (28) SS-N-26. Between 11 to 15 torpedo's and at least 7 direct AP bomb hits to sink the Yamato. Let's Remember ! The anti-ship missile operates mainly sea-skimming

    [​IMG]

    And armor of Iowa better than Yamato/Musashi, it plated by nickel-steel

    Unlike modern warships, which operate on the concept of eliminating an incoming threat (anti-ship missiles or enemy aircraft) before the given threat strikes a ship and thus carry lighter armor, the Iowa-class was designed and built in an age when ships were expected to withstand an onslaught of naval shells from enemy ships, emplaced coastal defenses from fortified enemy positions near the coast, and the increasing threat of gunfire and armour piercing/ incendiary bombs dropped by enemy fighter and bomber aircraft. Like most World War II era battleships, the Iowa-class was equipped with class B armor plate designed to a post Jutland design (the "all or nothing" armor scheme), but unlike earlier WWII-era battleship, the Iowas benefitted from advances in steel technology that allowed mills to forge the steel at higher temperatures and heat treatment, which produced a much higher-quality, stronger and more elastic armor. The metal was a nickel-steel compound, classified as a stainless steel, that can bend easily and resists corrosion. Most of the armor was manufactured at Bethlehem Steel’s main mill in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and Luken Steel’s Coatsville mill just outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The exception was the turret plating, which was forged at a plant built especially for the Iowas: the Charleston Ordnance Works in Charleston, West Virginia.
     
  4. Godman

    Godman BANNED

    Messages:
    2,695
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2 / 3,179 / -2
    Country:
    Sri Lanka
    Location:
    Sri Lanka
    Hoping it doesnt get hit by a nuclear missile.
    It may tank a few shots but its large size and the lack of stealth technology makes it a easier target.
    Advanced electronic equipment remains without any Armoured protection and even a small missile could destroy them leaving them extremely vulnerable so Tanking is not the best option as every hit taken would make it more vulnerable and they will be having to deal with fires onboard as well. They would be in a really pathetic situation

    Technolgies are now way past the WW2 level. Kh-22 and Kh 15 could be very lethal against those
    The type of explosives used are also different and plus the topedoes used to take down the japanese ships are ligher are lighter aerial topedoes. The Iowa class is also really weak against subs so a modern day Attack submarine with both topedoes and Cruise missiles would be a nightmare.

    we also need to see where it would most likely hit

    [​IMG]
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  5. Penguin

    Penguin PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    13,097
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2009
    Ratings:
    +56 / 11,415 / -0
    Yes, above makes sense, although one has to allow for the poor damage control capabilities of the Japanese navy, including on Yamato and Musashi. Shinano - a carrier conversion of a Yamato class hull - was hit by just four torpedoes. Although the damage seemed manageable, poor flooding control caused the vessel to list to starboard. Eventually, she capsized and sank, taking 1,435 of her 2,400-man crew with her.

    Plus, ... there are a sufficient number of example of BBs that sank or explode due to getting an unlucky hit in a vulnerable place. Most famous of which would be HMS Hood (hit by shell) and HMS Barham (hit by torpedo), which set of immediate or delayed magazine explosions.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2016
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  6. Archie

    Archie SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,917
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Ratings:
    +1 / 2,328 / -3
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    United States
    Is USN planning to resurrect the battleship
     
  7. HeinzG

    HeinzG SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,046
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    Ratings:
    +0 / 865 / -0
    Country:
    Sri Lanka
    Location:
    Sri Lanka
    I sincerely believe that the age of the battleships are over. In fact the age of the aircraft carriers are nearing it's end according to some experts, mainly due to proliferation of carrier killing missiles such as DF-11.