I dont intend this to turn into a flame war or anything like that.

This topic got started on another messageboard and want to get more views on this.

When it comes to the Iowa class battleships, I will admit that they had their positives but they also had negatives to their design. In my opinion one of the big negatives is the fact that the belt armor on the Iowa class goes from 12.1" thick above the waterline to 1.45" thick below the waterline. Given the belt armor is angled at a 18 - 20 degree angle this will allow the armor to bounce rounds off easier requiring a much larger round to penetrate the armor.

Down side is even at that angle a 5inch gun could easily punch through the 1.45" thick belt armor below the waterline even with the angle taken into account.

Now this is where the discussion took a turn for the worse. I made a comment about older battleships being just as good as the modern Iowa class because they were moderized in 1925 - 1926 by the Navy and had all new equipment installed.



So my question here, is it wrong to not buy into all the hype that follows the Iowa class around as being the end all greatest battleship ever built? Cause honestly from what I have been finding out, I feel confident enough that if the Iowa was put up against the Battleship Texas that the battle would result in a draw but the Iowa would be listing for sure. I dont want to go too far into why I feel confident to make that statement. I just want a discussion on if its wrong to not believe a warship as being as good as hype is making it out to be.

 

Cold war era and modern day torpedoes when ejected from a submarine dive deep and explode directly under the keel of the target thus breaking it's back and the vessel ultimately breaks in half.

Torpedoes developed in the 40's and earlier were ejected and traveled at or just under the surface of the water and hit the ship along the area where the Iowa class heavy belt line is positioned. At the time it was correct.

To add a little more perspective, Iowa class battleships displaced about 60,000 tons. They were about 9?? feet long and about 13? feet wide at the beam. They drew about 30 feet of water sitting pierside.

A modern day warship built to her specs would be unaffordable. So, she may only displace 18,000 tons or so.

A modern day aircraft carrier is much larger in stature and yet displaces about 110,000 tons. No big guns and no heavy armor plating.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...uz65mY6V0b8xYg

 

I'm just glad to see some of these old ships preserved. My dad served on the USS Salt Lake City-CA25. After gallant service in WWII it was used in the atomic tests at Bikini Atoll in '46 and sunk as a target a couple years later off the coast of California.

 

Rusty,

Being a Battleship LOVER!! (Yes, I said Battleship LOVER!!). . . .

The Iowa Class Battleships will forever be the BEST and toughest ships to ever sail the seas!!!!

There is NOTHING as beautiful as watching an Iowa Class Battleship break water. Nothing. (Well. . . . Grace Kelly, in her younger days. . . swimming would have topped the battleships. Ahhhhhhhh. . . I digress. . . . )

Our Heavy Cruisers were next. Gorgeous ships!!



These are all MY opinion:

The Yamato was destined to fail, from the beginning.
Not enough oil/fuel to do what it was designed to do.
The allies would have 'targeted' and 'dogged' the Yamato until was at the bottom of the Pacific.

The Bismark and Tirpitz were beautiful ships too, but, they 'were on the wrong side' of the war.

 

All 4 Iowa Class BB's are preserved as museum ships.

USS Iowa (BB-61) San Pedro (Port of Los Angeles) CA

USS New Jersey (BB-62) Camden NJ

USS Missouri (BB-63) Pearl Harbor Oahu HI

USS Wisconsin (BB-64) Newport News VA

USS Iowa would sink the USS Texas in less than 20 minutes, would be a massacre with very few Texas survivors.

Texas: 12" belt amidships. 6" belt ends and 3" deck armor that would be very susceptible to plunging fire. HMS Hood also had 3" deck armor, blew up...sunk by the Bismarck in less than a minute!

Iowa: Nine 16" guns (3X3), twenty 5" guns (10X2) / Texas: Ten 14" guns (5X2), 16 5" guns (16X1) that were mounted in casemates, useless when the ship was underway.

The Iowa's 16" guns have a greater range than the Texas' 14." Could stand off and pound the Texas into scrap. Iowa: 33 knots / Texas: 21 knots

The USS Washington (same main/secondary armament as the Iowa) made mincemeat of the HIJMS Kirishima: Eight 14" guns (4X2), sixteen 6" guns (16X1) mounted in casemates. The Kirishima had been totally rebuilt in the 1930's.

The USS Texas (BB-35) has the distinction of being the only US BB (extant) to have served in both World Wars. Was known as the "Mitsubishi Nightmare" while serving in the PTO.

btw: Visited the Texas, New Jersey and the Missouri and will soon be aboard the Iowa several days a week for lawd only knows how long.

 

Right, the Iowa does have that powerful look to her, but her armor wasnt even capable of defending herself from her own guns. They went with thinner armor to keep her speed up since she was being built as a fast battleship.

The big problem I have is the way how they designed the belt armor. The belt armor was designed to be within the hull so she could traverse the panama canal. To get the angled belt armor on the exterior would mean she would have to be about 30 feet wider to be stable and she would have been too wide. The hull was designed to decap armor piercing round, which all armor hull plate was capable of. But the decapped round would have a harder time penetrating the angled belt armor. This is where I have an issue with it. Once the round has been decapped and stopped by the belt armor the Iowa class will now take on water between her hull and the reverse angled belt armor which will act as a saddle tank and cause her to list. This would effecively reduce her range of fire from 23 miles to as little as 13 miles max.

It was desided that Japanese warships with their poor quality sighting systems would take more hits before they could even get a hit on an Iowa class. But when you place her up against a war ship with the same capabilities targeting wise, well now you start running into a draw.

Armor wise this is where it becomes tricky, the Iowa with her reverse angled belt armor had a high deflection rate of incoming rounds so after her hull decapped the armor piercing round the angled belt armor of 12.1" above waterline and 1.45" below water line would have a better chance of surviving. Problem is though since the belt armor is reverse angled this means once the hull was pierced the Iowa class would start to take on water in this saddle tank created by the belt armor. This list would effectively reduce Iowa`s range of 23 miles down to just 13 miles. The same range that Texas could throw her 14inch shells.

Texas on the other hand was designed with slightly angled 12" thich belt armor but the design called for an upgrade by 1" on all armors before the armor was installed so her belt armor could in reality be really 13". We do not know for sure the exact dimensions of the belt armor only what the orignal design plans called for. Besides this if it was 12" belt armor or 13" the belt armor still had an energy absorbing backing to the belt armor which allowed the belt armor to punch higher than plain 12" belt armor. At the time of construction the idea was the backing to the belt armor would not add as much weight to the ship as going with 14" class A belt armor but it would allow the hull to act in a way simmilar to 14" class A belt armor. just like the Iowa`s angled belt armor allowed the 12.1" belt armor to act like 13.1" belt armor above the waterline and Iowa`s 1.45" belt armor to act llike 2.45" belt armor below the waterline.

Like wise the 3" deck armor on the Texas was designed just like Iowa`s 4.75" deck. The idea was to ignite the fuse on the armor piercing projectile and have it detonate sooner below deck to allow the heavier deck armor below deck protect against shrapnel. Problem is though even Iowa`s 4.75" deck couldnt stop a plunging shell, it was never designed to. Bismarck`s 3" deck armor was never designed to stop a shell either but to arm it and have it hopefully detonate above the tough armor deck below deck. In the case of Texas all her vital area`s like the Iowa was protected by thick class A armor plate which means while the Texas`s bow and stern would take damage, so would Iowa since her belt armor like the Texas`s only cover the vitals amidship.

The 5inch guns were not useable underway in heavy seas. With seas calm enough to keep the Texas from pitching the 5inch guns were useable every single time.



In my opinion, both would get black eyes but it will be a draw in the end. The Iowa would take some hits she would list, Texas would take some hits as well. But the design of the two would allow them to survive each other. The only way Iowa could potentially take real damage is if the 14inch or even the 5inch guns were doing waterline shots which had a very high chance of shreading Iowa`s 1.45" thick belt armor below the waterline. Typically in naval combat waterline shots are done but its on a case to case basis.

I have to stress that I am not saying the Iowa is a bad ship, I just dont think the Iowa is as great as everyone seems to make it out to be. Lots of people get on the bandwagon saying Iowa would have sunk the Yamato, I would have to disagree cause with the design of the Yamato the Iowa would exhaust all her main and secondary armament and would leave the scene with the Yamato still afloat. The Yamato had a hell of a lot of sealable compartments meaning you have to pretty much put huge holes in every square inch of her hull to counter the compartment design of the Yamato.

Its like the Bismarck, the Yamato would be a total wreck above deck but she would still be floating and it would be up to the crew if they want to scuttle her or keep her afloat.

 

What source are you getting the Iowa's 4.75" deck armor from? The Iowa's (edit: acccording to Jane's) have thicker deck armor than the Indiana class (6") which preceeded it.

Even in a calm sea, casemate mounted guns were wet, spray from the bows made the guns difficult to train. AFAIK, the only time during WWII that the Texas' 5 guns were used, was during Operation Neptune, the bombardment of Normandy. Neptune: sea, Overlord: land. Some of the OBB's when rebuilt, had the hull casemates plated over, guns relocated one deck higher, didn't solve anything.

Both Yamato (off Okinawa) and Musashi (Sibuyan Sea) were sunk by US aircraft bombs and torpedoes.

Last BB vs BB big gun action occurred 11/15/1942: Washington vs Kirishima. Washington main/seconday armament same as Iowa, Kirishima main/secondary armament similar to Texas (see post 5). Sunk in less than an hour.

Battle of the Denmark Strait: When Hood and Prince of Wales first sighted Bismarck and Heavy Cruiser Prinz Eugen, both opened fire on the Prinz Eugen, as she was in the van and resembled Bismarck. First hit on the Hood came from an 8" shell from Prinz Eugen, then a Bismarck 15" shell hit Hood near the mainmast, plunged thru the decks to the after powder magazines. The explosion blew the stern off the Hood. The Hood's forward section reared up to a 60 degree angle, the aft magazines fire burned thru the hull, setting off the Hood's forward magazines, blew the bow off. Two massive explosions occurred seconds apart.

This same scenario could occur Iowa vs Texas, with Texas on the losing end.

When the Hood was located in 2001, its bow and stern were found resting upright on the sea floor, while the midsection is upside down. Only one 15" turret was located, all four were blown off when she exploded...twice. When I visited the Imperial War Museum in May 2002, was flabbergasted to learn that the Hood had been located. British TV Channel 4 sponsored the search for the Hood, a book had been published. The event was broadcast on British TV, but didn't appear on US PBS stations until 2004. The company hired by Channel 4 to search for the Hood, also located the Bismarck.

While Robert Ballard had located the Bismarck first, he refused to divulge its location, as he didn't want the ship and its debris field raped llke RMS Titanic's was. Ballard discovered Titanic in September 1985.

Not only did Ballard locate the Titanic & Bismarck, but the USS Yorktown (CV-5) as well. Sunk durung the Battle of Midway.

After being damaged by bombs and torpedoes from Japanese aircraft, Yorktown had been patched up, was steaming towards PH at 4 knots under her own power with USS Hammann (DD-412) alongside supplying electrical power. Japanese sub fired one torpedo at Yorktown, passed underneath the Hammann, explosion damaged the Yorktown so badly, it had to be scuttled. Hammann also sunk by force of concussion.

btw: Prinz Eugen survived WWII, was handed over to the USN. Troublesome engines broke down for the last time while steaming towards Bikini Atoll, had to be towed by USN tug the rest of the way. Prinz Eugen survived both Bikini A-bomb tests, received minor damage to stern, was "too hot" to board to repair damage. Towed to Kwajalein Atoll, soon capsized with stern out of water. She's still there today.

 

Bill, I tried to give reps, but, with my fat fingers, I hit the 'enter' key before I had typed the following:

As usual. . . GREAT post, Bill!!!!

Somebody 'hit up' Bill for me, please.

 

SINK THE BISMARCK ~ sung by Johnny Horton - YouTube

 

The source that lists Iowa`s deck as 4.75" are below.

Iowa Class: Armor Protection - Naval History Forums

Paragraph 8 - Sentence 2

"The bomb deck is 1.5 inches STS plate, the main armor deck is 4.75 inches Class B armor laid on 1.25 inches STS plate and the splinter deck is 0.625 inches STS plate."

The other specifications I find for armor is post WWII specifications when the Iowa class was upgraded. What I found out is the armor type and thickness used in the ship is the same type and dimensions as battleships built 50 years earlier. Only difference is the technique of hardening the steel that changed in that time period.

Besides that, where did you hear about "Mitsubishi Nightmare"? Ive looked into that and cant find a single reference to that. I have no idea what is ment by it nor can I find any references to this "nickname" on the battleship`s website.



Below is a list of shells fired for every shorebombardment Texas took part in during WWII.

Operation / 14in / 5in / 3in / 40mm / 20mm
Morocco, North Africa - 8-15 November 1942 / 273 / 6 / unk / Not Aboard / unk
Normandy, France - 6-18 June 1944 / 690 / 270 / 0 / 192 / 0
Cherbourg, France - 25 June 1944 / 208 / 0 / 0 / 0 / 0
Southern France - 15-17 August 1944 / 172 / 0 / 121 / 492 / 0
Iwo Jima - 16 February - 7 March 1945 / 923 / 967 / 4 / 0 / 0
Okinawa - 25 March - 14 May 1945 / 2,019 / 2,640 / 490 / 3,100 / 2,275

The 5inch guns on Texas was shot 6 shells at Morocco, North Africa, fired 270 shells at Normandy, France, then 967 at Iwo Jima, then a further 2,640 at Okinawa.

The 3inch guns on Texas fired 121 shells at Southern France, 4 at Iwo Jima, and 490 at Okinawa.

Texas fired a total of 4,305 14inch shells, 3,885 5inch shells, 615 3inch shells between Morocco North Africa through Okinawa Japan. Only two invasions the 5inch guns werent used that was at Cherbourg and in southern france, and during the Cherbourg bombardment the oceans were not rough so the reason for them not being used I cant explain. During Operation Neptune, the seas were rough but not rough enough to limit the use to the 14inch main guns.

 

I'm going to have to link this to my Naval Warfare forum where there is a 39 year veteran of the LBNSY and a known expert, if I may say so, in armor design and battleship design.

 

Im willing to hear out views. I just dont think the Iowa is as "godly" as she is portrayed by so many people. Was a good warship with a fair design but all armored battleships had to make sacrafices to maintain their final design.



Maybe the veteran can help me understand this document I found. It is a penetration chart which if I am reading it right, indicates the AP shell Texas used was able to penetrate through 7" thick deck armor at 37,900 yards and could go through 18" thick deck armor at 11,500 yards. I might not be reading it right but I got a lot of old tech documents from when the battleship was new and most of it I cant make heads or tails of.

Update - I think I might have just realized how to read it, the inch description on the curve part is the thickness of hull armor the shell can penetrate and the inch listed with the distance is the deck armor thickness. Which means at 37,900 yards 7" hull armor can be pierced, and at 11,500 yards 18" thick hull armor can be pierced. Then at 36,000 yards the shell can pierce a 8" thick armor deck and at 13,500 yards the shell can pierce a 2" thick armor deck. Makes sense considering at the shorter range of 13,500 the shell will be hitting at a high angle resulting in a higher chance to be deflected by armor thicker than 2". Not bad for a 14" gun in my opinion, this tells me Texas could have really shreaded the Iowa armor at the right ranges.

 

Conway's All The Worlds Fighting Ships 1922-1946:

Iowa Class armor: Belt 12.1" on 0.875" STS / lower belt 12.1" - 1.6" on 0.875" STS / armor deck 6" with 1.5" weather deck and 0.625" splinter deck / bulkheads 11.3" / barbettes 11.6" - 17.3" / turrets 19.7" face, 7.25" roof, 9.5" side, 12.0" rear / CT (conning tower) 17.5" with 7.25" roof.

Jane's Fighting Ships of WWII:

New York & Texas armor (as built): 12" belt amidships, 6" ends, 3" deck (later increased) / 9" - 6" upper belt / 14" - 8" turrets / 6" battery / 12" CT / bulges fitted 1926/27.

Battle Report, Volume V, Victory in the Pacific (all 5 volumes written by Captain Walter Karig *), shows an official USN photograph of the Texas with the myriad anti-aircraft guns that were added for the PTO. Pic is captioned "Mitsubishi Nightmare." 2010: I was speaking with a Pearl Harbor survivor at the Arizona Memorial who later served on the Texas. He asked me if I had ever been aboard. I said yes and that my noggin still hurts after banging it on the low overhead. He asked me if I had ever heard the term "Mitsubishi Nightmare?" Sure, you bet, a gazillion anti-aircraft guns added to shoot down Kamakazi's.

Mitsubishi manufactured, among other aircraft, the Japanese Zero.

* Karig was the technical advisor of the NBC television series "Victory at Sea" which first aired in 1952. How many of y'all have ever seen this series?

 

Rusty,

I can only submit this perspective for your consideration.

If you think the BB's were under built OR over hyped, check out the specs on any modern naval vessel built to today's specs.

There is no armor plating, hull thickness is about 1/2 inch and the super structures are primarily made from Aluminum for weight savings and ease of maintenance.

Do some research on the USS Cole, Stark and Russel, our most recent at sea disasters.

I'm no expert on the BB's by along shot but they were period correct for the type of armament being used throughout the world. All of the escort vessels were "tin cans" just like today's warships.

 

The armor deck of 6" is basically what I was saying, the difference is the Class A armor for the deck is 4.75" and that is sandwhiched atop of 1.25" STS which comes to a total of 6".

The only thing that I dont agree with is on Janes specs on the Texas, I have copies of orignal documents from the construction and so far no verification on if the last minute changes were done or not. Texas had last minute changes calling for an additional 1" of armor everywheres upon her launch where her orignal design called for 12" belt armor in the orignal plans pre construction.

In the end it doesnt really matter cause its all speculation since finding the real specifications would require altering the warship to get the specs.

Its not that I think battleships were underbuilt. Its that I think the Iowa class was built just as good as all the other battleships. Theres some people I come across that act like the Iowa was a superbattleship that nothing could hurt her and nothing could sink her. With this recently located 1939 shell penetration chart for the Texas and her 14inch/45cal main guns, they could easily punch through Iowa`s 6" deck at maximum range. Like wise at mid range the same 14inch shells could punch through Iowa`s 12.1" belt armor at 26,000 yards.

I know Iowa had bigger guns and was a larger warship with a faster speed. But with that weight and speed comes a drawback. She consumed oil at twice the rate more efficient battleships did meaning her weight was mostly reserves for fuel oil cause she had to carry twice as much to meet the Navy`s combat radius. When you look at it like this, Iowa`s engines made 3 times the power Texas`s engines did, Iowa carried 2 times the fuel oil as Texas did, but Iowa couldnt travel the same distance on a full tank of fuel oil as Texas could at the most economical speed.

Iowa consumed 160 lbs per mile of oil at her most economical speed, Texas consumed just 90 lbs per mile of oil at her most economical speed. The speed difference for the two ships was just 3 knots. Texas`s most economical speed was 12 knots where Iowa`s was 15 knots.

So in closing I am not saying battleships in all are bad designs or underbuilt. I am just saying Iowa in my opinion is underbuilt based off the hype she gets from all these internet sources. Everywheres on the internet I see Iowa vs Yamato vs Bismarck and every one of those the speculation puts Iowa on top even though the Yamato would be a pain to sink considering she had hundreds of sealable compartments. From basic calculations it would take more ammunition than the Iowa carried of 16inch/50cal shells to sink Yamato.

When you look at it, Iowa has for the most part the same composition and the same thickness armor that battleships from 50 years earlier had. The only difference is the belt armor was angled to provide higher deflection rate making it act like thicker armor. Her deck armor was 4.75" backed by a 1.25" STS layer. Well a single 1939 spec 14inch/45cal AP shell would punch through Iowa`s 6" overall thickness deck at 36,000 yards easily. For such a new warship that is hyped up to be the end all of battleships the absololute most powerful and strongest armored one but yet a 14inch shell from 36,000 yards would tear through Iowa`s deck like paper. The 14inch shell at 36,000 hards could punch through 8" thick deck armor. So Iowa was new and shiney and clean but compromises were made in her armor to keep up speed which in my opinion makes her no different than battleships built at the turn of the century to when she was built in the 1940`s.



Besides all that the Battle Report, where would one find the five volumes for that book?

The other question I have is would the local library have tape reel copies of shipboard news papers? I know the name of most of the news papers printed aboard ship but a online search didnt bring up anything else and I would like to find all I can. The ones I currently have ranges from 1920 to 1936, and while their interesting, I am looking more for the ones printed during the 1940`s and if possible during the 1910`s.