Iowa class BB, they don't build them like that today

Yeah...they were important until the Red Chinese invaded in human waves.

Six members of my family were in Korea...they all came home.

Iowa Class Gun's meant (*)(*)(*)(*) when it came to what happened!!!

They kept coming to the point our .50 Cal's and Mortars would overheat, blowup or seize.

Ten's of Thousand's of them we cut down and they still kept coming.

AboveAlpha

 

No, we were not. The XST was purely a testbed, roughly half the size of the eventual F-117. They were only flown over California and Nevada, not over the Soviet Union.





And as the saying goes, you can not prove a negative. Please give a reliable reference (not somebody like Art Bell) that shows that they were flown over the Soviet Union.

Uhhh, the Iowa class ships were rarely used against personel in the Korean War. This is simply because the majority of those battles (especially with the Chinese) were far to far from the shore to be useful.

However, the Iowa class battleships were of critical use when shelling railroad tracks, bridges, and tunnels. Because of the terrain of Korea, most of these ran along the coast.

[video=youtube;ztYcF7I9yok]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztYcF7I9yok[/video]

Please, please, please, please, please! Start doing some actual research, and provide references. Do not just make some silly claim and expect me to buy it just because you say so. You should know by now that I am going to fact check, if I know the claim is flawed or not. A simple map of Korea and the battles fought there show that few were within range of off-shore bombardment.

So human waves have not a damned thing to do with Battleships.

 

Red Chinese Human Waves were the reason for our retreat and as I said the Iowa Class gun's could do nothing about this.

You yourself have shown what we were secretly flying back in 1977.

AboveAlpha

 

That was an excellent video you posted Mushroom.

 

Thanks. I already knew that the main target of Battleships in the Korean War was rail lines and highways, I was lucky in finding a video which stated the same thing. And with the latest announcement from North Korea, I am increasingly worried that without this kind of capability, any future conflict with them will cost many more lives then even the last one did.

 

OK....listen....I don't want to start a P!$#!NG Contest over this but as I demonstrated as far as when you were not aware of the 2,400 Former Nuclear Cruise Missiles that the DoD back in 2004 ordered reconfigured with conventional warheads and redesigned for use in Ship to Ship and Sub to Surface Ship Combat as they have been and some already are granted a small number so far deployed upon USN. Ships and Subs....and they have been redesigned to...."LOITER"....over a target....in this case being directed to an enemy Naval Attack Group and at the point these USN. Cruise Missiles arrive close enough to such an enemy Naval Group a HUMAN OPERATOR will be able to use OPTICAL AND RADAR GUIDANCE and designate a TARGET OF CHOICE as well as be able to select the most vulnerable impact location of such a chosen Naval Target dependent upon the cruise missiles incoming vector.

Now when I posted this you did not believe these Cruise Missiles existed or at the very least you were not aware of this program and you asked me several times for a LINKED SOURCE and I replied I had already provided one earlier in that topic but I did repost a LINK for you and Appy.

Now I respect the fact that you are/were U.S. Navy and worked with the SM-3 AA/ABM/ASAT and the fact you did allows me to have great respect for you as I know just how important that Weapons System is and as I am not Navy I have no doubt there are many things you are much more aware of as far as Naval Systems as usually when I and my Team are dealing with the U.S. Navy it is just to GET A RIDE.

HOWEVER....there are many things I am aware of specific to SOCOM, SPECIAL TEAMS and CIA TEAMS as well as U.S. CYBER COMMAND and how the NSA's CSS or CENTRAL SECURITY SERVICES RUN'S SIGNET or the Signals Intelligence and Information Assurance missions of NSA/CSS which is absolutely VITAL to ensure Military Service Branch integration.

Now when SPECIAL THINGS need to be done....the extent of the various standard U.S. Military Service Branches is regulated to either becoming a TAXI SERVICE or regulated to ORDINANCE DELIVERY....and even this will shortly be ending....as now I am discussing the realm of SPECIAL TEAMS, SOCOM and CIA TEAMS OPERATIONS.

If there is an Experimental Weapons Platform of ANY KIND existing and it has shown to work but is not fully completed testing in all possible listed conditions and situations....BUT.....WE have a need for WEAPONS PLATFORM X....and X so far has successfully completed trials in Y ENVIRONMENT and under Z CONDITIONS....and SPECIAL TEAMS has a JOB that happens to be in Y ENVIRONMENT and in Z CONDITIONS.....the U.S. Military or Agency Contractor testing WEAPONS PLATFORM X is contacted and is asked how many of the X do we have ready for YZ Environment and Conditions and how soon can they be made ready for either Transport or Flight?

EXAMPLE: MH-X SILENT HAWK which is a stealth version of a Black Hawk Chopper used by elite team of U.S. Navy SEAL's during the Bin Laden Kill Mission.

Those MH-X's WERE NOT THROUGH FULL FLIGHT TESTING and we lost one during that mission as they had....PAST TENSE....issues with stability when landing due to VRS issues and as well the stealth Blackhawks are equipped with anti-radar coatings on their windshields that may make it difficult to see with night vision gear. It's possible that VRS wasn't the cause at all, but that the helicopter simply clipped its tail rotor on the wall and lost control.

POINT IS.....they still had an X in their designation...yet they were USED!!

There is more about the Have Blue Program I cannot discuss....and the XST....which stands for EXPERIMENTAL SURVIVABLE TESTBED......well Lockheed Martin was NOT the only Company developing an XST.

The Lockheed Martin XST you have shown in the picture was the precursor to the F-117....but because your primary knowledge and experience is regulated to the U.S. Navy...and again...I have great respect for that....you are NOT aware of many INCREDIBLY CRAZY AND INSANE THINGS that were going on behind the scenes between 1975 and 1988.

And by the way...I agree with you as far as what the Iowa Class Main Gun's were primarily used for in Korea and they did a good job at doing specifically that.

But my post was detailing out that nothing the Iowa Class could have done short of firing Nuclear Warheaded Shells out of their Main Gun's....would not have prevented the massive in width of area and number of men Human Wave Attacks which were in effect SUICIDE CHARGES directly into the TEETH of our Defenses as the SOLE PURPOSE of such ordered attacks my the Red Chinese was for the U.S. Ground Forces to simply use up all our bullets and munitions as the Red Chinese Communist Leader was quoted as saying....and this is off the top of my head..."Let the Imperialists fire at our Forces....as we have more men than they have bullets!"

THAT....is exactly what happened!!!

We could have turned the tide by SATURATION BOMBING the entire Chinese Boarder!!!

But Truman did not want the war to escalate.

General Douglas MacArthur wanted to use anywhere from 10 to 50 Nuclear Weapons.

Insane.

AboveAlpha...p.s...I am back. Things worked out much better than any of us thought they ever could of. Every now and then one get's lucky I guess but I am REALLY happy to be home and even happy to debate and argue with you Shroom!

 

This is just one of the four Iowa's BB's histories of their tour on the gun lines during the Korean War, the USS Wisconsin.

 

APPY....I am not trying to take away anything from the awesome capabilities of the Iowa Class Battleships.

Remember during the whole Lebanon war when we used I think it was the New Jersey to kill the Syrian General in charge of Ground Forces in Lebanon back during the whole Marine Barracks suicide run debacle?

By the way no large group of U.S. Marines should EVER have all been based ina single building in Lebanon!!!

But as my Great Uncles and several other family members fought in Korea they told me that because Truman would not allow the unrestricted bombing using heavy bombers of the Red Chinese Lines when the Red Chinese came in massive human waves over the boarder which pushed us back.....well that would never have happened if Truman had allowed the day and nigh time continual unrestricted saturation bombing of Red Chinese Lines.

The Iowa Class Main Guns are awesome....but they do not have enough effect to do as what I am describing what was needed.

It was considered a POLICE ACTION!!!

And we fought with both hands tied behind our backs.

AboveAlpha

 

When the chi-coms came pouring over the border and the 1st Mar Div found it self being surrounded by 10 chi-com divisions they were out of range of any naval guns. Below zero weather and most of the time the weather was so bad, no CAS or could A.F. heavy bombers conduct bombing missions. I think it was Chesty Puller who said we have the enemy where we want them, we can shoot in any direction. The 1st Mar Div fought it's way to the sea where Marines are suppose to be fighting. Unlike the U.S. Army, Marines don't have the pleasure of a lot of artillery support.

History remembers it as the Chosen Reservoir but Marines who were there are known as the Chosen Few or the Frozen Chosen.

This is when the chi-coms used WW ll Soviet tactics of massive frontal attacks with bugles blowing and outnumbering the Marines some times ten to one. It all came down to long range marksmanship, engaging the chi-coms from 900 yards away and hoping by the time it came to fixing bayonet, there weren't as many as there was before.

As for Lebanon and the bombing of the "Marine Barracks" President Reagan took full responsibility for it even though Reagan never micromanaged the U.S. military. He always allowed the military to do their thing.


The reason the Marines barracks were attacked was because of the battleship's 16" guns. It was in retaliation of those guns why the Marines were targeted.

Now there were problems with accuracy of the 16" guns, the powder bags were contaminated, likely by moisture. 16" gun projectiles have a 100 year life span, the powder bags don't.

But the story goes further, America's response to the Marine barracks bombing. A massive carrier air born attack from the sea, F-4's, A-4's, A-7's A-6's and F-14's flying a CAP. It was launched at dawn. It seems some Admirals and Navy Captains ignored the lessons learned from those who served before them. In particular Gregory "Pappy" Boyington USMC. Be it air to air combat or bombing strikes, always have the sun at your six not at 12 0-Clock. The Navy aircraft came in from the west with the sun in their eyes that was just rising over the horizon from the east.

But Reagan did retaliate before issuing the "didi" order.

 

Yeah...I remember those A-7's being shot down.

And your right about the weather issues as far as Korea and the Red Chinese Invasion.....but Truman refused to hit Red Chinese supply lines in China.

That would have changed the tide of that war.

AboveAlpha

 

Truman and the Democrats got blamed for allowing China going commie. That led to the great divide between the Democrats and Republicans, the Republicans wouldn't allow the Democrats to forget. And it continues today even though most have no idea why there is so much hostility between the two party's.

It would result in LBJ putting American combat troops in South Vietnam not wanting Democrats being blamed for South Vietnam going red like what happened in China.

But LBJ (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up big time by micromanaging the air war over North Vietnam. If he allowed the military to do their thing, the war would have been won by 1966.

But even Richard Nixon acknowledged the biggest mistake he did as POTUS was not Watergate but he could have ended and won the Vietnam War in 1969.

FYI:
In 1969 the North Vietnamese government demanded that the Iowa class battleship the USS New Jersey be withdrawn from being deployed in the Western Pacific to continue any further discussions of conducting peace talks. Nixon appeased the North Vietnamese commies and had the New Jersey deactivated and returned to the reserve fleet. (moth balled) when President Reagan would reactivate all four of the Iowas's that caused the Soviet Union to soil their red diapers.

North Vietnam didn't demand that B-52's stop bombing Hanoi but it was the USS New Jersey's 16" guns that they feared. You can always shoot down a B-52 but nobody is able to sink an Iowa class battleship.

 

Yeah....I remember that from History.

LBJ was the most idiotic micromanaging SOB who ever lived!!!

I have several KIA in Nam relatives who I hope are kicking his ass in the afterlife!!

Shoot only when shot at!!! B.S!

And letting Ivan supply Hanoi with SAM's that LBJ would not allow us to hit!!

SOB!!

AboveAlpha

 

OK.....HOW TO DESTROY AND SINK AN IOWA CLASS BATTLESHIP.

Strafford Morss and Iowa Class Survivability
Lead [-]
Posts: 343
May 11 09 9:02 PM
Reply Quote More
My Recent Posts
Commander Strafford Morss wrote an article in 1984 on the survivability of the Iowa class agaist modern weapons. It is to long to post everything but I will place in quotation marks those areas that are in the article. He first takes on torpedoes.

" The following evaluations are estimates of the damage to be expected by an Iowa class ship. The shock wave from an underbottom proximity explosion assumed to be at least 1000 pound TNT will be absorbed partially by the triple bottom structure. Forward in the area of Turrets 1 and 2, storerooms below the powder magazine could be flooded and flooding of the magazines less likely. Detonation of the powder magazines would be unlikely.

Beneath the machinery spaces it is assumed the triple bottom will be breached. Depending on damage location one and no more than two machinery spaces would flood. With the alternating fire room engine room no more than one shaft would be affected. This was the intent of the designers.

Farther aft the two skegs supporting the inboard shafts should help resist underbody damage however the outboard shafts remain vulnerable. The ship has a full void under the ram room three to six feet deep and has better protection than did Bismarck. Some directional control is possible with propellers alone. However the rudders are the most difficult area to protect in any ship.

Forward of the armored citidel there would be concern as to the possible loss of her bow however some reinforcement of the bow has occured during the years of active service.

A contact side explosion is expected to result in damage similar to that recieved by North Carolina.

In no case should a single hit be fatal to the ship. but each subsequent hit will increase disruption and reduction in capability making it more difficult for the ship to continue." end quote.

"Shape charges torpedoes are expected to breach the system but will cause less damage to shell plating. Shape charges torpedo warhead tests on a side protective system based on an aircraft carrier did produce fragments that penetrated the holding bulkhead however this system did not have an armored bulkhead. However, if within range of her objective, she should still be able to employ her missile and gun batteries even with grievous underwater damage" end quote.

In no case are we speaking about the total structural failure of the ship. I would add shock damage could be considerable but she does have redundant systems so her ability to recover after damage remains high. Basically what happens is the triple keel absorbs as much of the energy it can and then breaks venting the explosion into the ship. A single torpedo can not damage enough of her structural strength so the keel is crushed locally with the sides of the ship holding her from hogging in any significant way. Her upper strength decks being so strong there is no significant sagging motion either. Therefore you get localized flooding similar to a side hit. This is why Arkansas remained intact despite a nuclear explosion below her keel. The keel is crushed all around her framing and side protection inwards into the hull. The shock wave was transmitted into her hull and two propeller shafts were ripped out. Despite being thrown into the air over two ship lengths or over 1,000 feet she never hogged. Her sides were keeping her intact as the keel was crushed and her armor is cracked in only one location on one side but not torn open. Though she slammed upside down onto the sea floor her upper decks show no sign of hogging or sagging. Her turrets remain in their barbettes and her casemate guns and battery deck are unaffected. One side is crushed flat as the sea fell back on top of her but the type of structural failure you see with small destroyers taking a torpedo under the keel does not apply to an Iowa or a large carrier. I can not think of a more extreme test to demonstrate this. The Baker bomb was tens of thousands times more powerful then a single conventional torpedo and could not produce the type of structural failure seen in small warships.


New Quote;
" Bomb Damage - Based on 1,000 lb HC bombs the main deck along with the superstructure can be extensively damaged. Bombs which penetrate the main deck can cause extensive damage to the side shell from an internal explosion. Shape charged bombs 1,000 to 2,000 lbs in tests simulating superstructure, weather deck, armored deck and then splinter deck one bomb gouged the armor and one penetrated but fragments did not penetrate the splinter deck." end quote.

New Quote;
"Gunfire damage - The largest guns in service today are no more than 6-inch claiber. What can be expected is damage similar to what South Dakota took in November 1942 with extensive superstructure damage and damage to her electronics. Niether her strength, buoyancy, nor stability should be impaired." - end quote.

New Quote;

"Guided missiles - While Exocet was able to penetrate Sheffeld, there has to be a question about missiles of the Harpoon type penetrating the 1.5" shell plating or main deck. Portions of the superstructure are more vulnerable as would the lighter bow and stern areas. Soviet missiles with shape charged warheads of up to 2,200 lbs could cause deck and superstructural damage on the order of shape charged bombs. While the ship should survive several hits of this type, mission capability could be severly reduced."

This was written in 1984. More modern missiles today with shape charges should be able to penetrate her armor protection. They travel much faster and hypersonic missiles that travel at mach 10 will go through any armor period. The size of the ship and her subdivision should allow her to absorb multiple hits before she is mission killed or sunk unless she suffers an internal magazine explosion. No amount of armor can protect from all threats.

New Quote;

"Nuclear weapons - With the advent of nuclear weapons in 1945, many people became convinced that built-in defense or resistance features were impractical, impossible, and therefore unnecessary. The Able and Baker tests at Bikini in 1946 demonstrated that ships can survive as long as they are not directly hit or unduly close to the point of detonation. The Sailor Hat conventional explosive blast experiments of the early 1960s further refined the design techniques necessary to minimize damage from air bursts. A battleships resistance to external forces applied to the hull and superstructure is well known. Part of this strength is required to resist the muzzle blast and over-pressure of the 16-inch guns. A nuclear proximity blast will not be examined, because of the varibles to be considered in the size of the device, relative location of the burst to the ship, depth of burst, and targets orientation to the resulting shockwave. However Iowa compares very favorably in their resistance to blast damage." end quote.

New Quote;
"Conclusion - Damage will exploit design deficiencies and inherant vulnerability such as electronics, superstructure, and rudders. There is scant comfort in considering the 1982 loss of the General Belgrano to read the comments of the US Navy chief of BuShips made in January 1944. "The light construction adopted to keep the prototype Brooklyn class within 10,000 ton treaty limit has led to a greater number of lost bows than we expected". What is saved in treasure is later paid for in blood. All warships are not treated equal. The Iowa's are niether invulnerable nor unsinkable. They possess characteristics that should limit the effects of damage from each sustained hit. These are defences of last resort and can be overwhelmed by massed attack or a series of lesser attacks just like Yamato. However along with the big carriers the Iowa's are more damage resistant than any ship afloat today". end quote.


In regards to not all ships being equal an Iowa can not be compared to even a 17,000 ton heavy cruiser their structural design and strength is not comparable. As for Nuclear weapons what Bikini really showed is that the crew is far more suseptible to radiation poisioning than the ship is to blast damage. The ship would still be vulnerable to AP bombs dropped vertically at high altitude just like any battleship was in WWII. Certain high speed missiles will certainly break through but her size and subdivision are a critical part of her overall survivability which will still allow her to absorb multiple hits despite such weapons penetrating the armored citadel. If her mission is an indirect fire mission losing her electronics plays no role for such a mission. Radars will not be able to see over the horizon and she was designed to operate before radar really came into its own. Direct fire missions it will certainly help but is not necessary due to her optics. Losing her ECM would make her more vulnerable to attack but this does not mission kill the ship. In Summeral's book Iowa Class Battleships he gave the estimate of 4-6 torpedoes to sink the ship and 4-6 missiles/bombs to mission kill the ship. This is a good estimate. Of course much would depend on location. Musashi took 7 torpedoes to the bow alone. Some of these hits simply re-arranged the wreckage of already damaged and flooded compartments and added nothing to the sinking of the ship. This is one reason she took more torpedoes than what was expected. For me none of this should be a great surprise that she can take more than a single hit. She is 58,000 tons full load. 4-6 hits is not that many which shows the power of modern weapons but she is certainly more resistant physically than any modern surface combatant and that should be no great surprise to anyone.

LINK....http://warships1discussionboards.yu...rss-and-Iowa-Class-Survivability#.Vpcvx7YrLMo

AboveAlpha

 

To be historically correct, Barack Obama is the most idiotic micromanaging SOB who ever lived!!!

But I digress.

The Iowa class BB's are able to withstand 10 psi overpressure. It's the thick armor why they can withstand the overpressure. Just one 16" gun produces 10 psi overpressure. When the Iowa's were reactivated in the 1980's and upgraded with Tomahawk missiles and Harpoon anti ship missiles and advanced high tech electronics deep below with in the ship they couldn't handle the overpressure of a nine gun 16" salvo. So when you see an Iowa firing a nine gun salvo during the 1980's and 90's actually what you are seeing are the nine guns firing at different times, usually just less than a fraction of 1/10th of a second.

The Nimitz class carrier and Burkes can only withstand 5 psi overpressure. If you were to put a 16"/50 gun on the deck of a Nimitz class carrier or an Arleigh Burke destroyer the overpressure from firing the gun would severely damage the super structure of the ship and it's electronics systems.

 

Well I would agree about the damage to the Destroyers.

But Shaped Charged Torpedo's....4 to 6 hits....will sink an Iowa Class.

AboveAlpha

 

Actually, basing the entire Marine force in a single building was and still is a standard procedure. After all, it was only a "Heavy Battalion". And placing them all inside of a single building reduces the security a great deal. Less fenceline to secure, easier to consolidate security forces and reaction forces. Plus add to the fact that it was a UN Peacekeeping force, not an actual combat force engaged in offensive operations (although such operations were needed as part of the mission).

And do not forget, the French did the same thing, and suffered the same results in the same day. Most people tend to forget the French were attacked on the same day.

And things were learned from the attacks. Barriers afterwards became the standard for military posts and defensive perimeters. This is why 13 years later concrete barriers reduced the casualties at the Khobar Towers.

However, even strong defensive perimiters are still not enough, as seen in Benghazi. No matter how strong you make defenses, you need to have a flexible plan to defeat all attacks.

 

I've used the same source more than a few times to defend my personal experiences with NSFS and that the only way an Iowa class BB can be sunk is by breaking it's keel.

 

Still...given the realities on the ground and the regions history were ignored.

It was a really stupid thing to do.

AboveAlpha

 

I would add one more to that.

By killing most of the crew.

The only real way currently to destroy an Iowa class battleship was with a nuclear warhead. Even if the warhead did not destroy the ship (not likely as seen by previous explosions near similar ships), it would have killed the majority of the crew. And with the power plant knocked out of action and most of the crew dead or very seriously injury, likely sinking would have resulted.

Not from outright damage, but from the lack of people to save her after she was so heavily damaged.

But in the current era, there is still not a single missile that could have penetrated her hull. And not a single artillery round or bomb that could have penetrated her deck (short of a gravity dropped "bunker buster" warhead).

It is amazing how most people do not appreciate how well armored these ships were. And with the increasing dependence on missiles to attack ships, I wonder why nobody has tried to revive the concept of defense through armor, instead of relying upon more technology like guns and missiles. The lessons of the failures in the Falklands War, Tanker War, and USS Cole seem to have been ignored by everybody.

 

Have you ever heard of BUCKY BALLS?

They are a special Matrix of Carbon Atoms that is impossible to physically destroy.

It is possible although this only at the very earliest stages of development to use a combination of high tensile strength steel that has a linear Bucky Ball Carbon Enhancement that would allow a 5 inch thick hull to be of greater strength than an Iowa Classes side armor.

At first they worked with Carbon Fibers but now we are into a whole knew line of development of light and thin armor that is virtually indestructible and shaped charge molten copper cannot burn through such armor.

I will see if I can find some links but here is a BUCKYBALLS and NANOTUBES.

Bucky Ball:

"It is the roundest and most symmetrical large molecule known to man. Buckministerfullerine continues to astonish with one amazing property after another. Named after American architect R. Buckminister Fuller who designed a geodesic dome with the same fundamental symmetry, C60 is the third major form of pure carbon; graphite and diamond are the other two." Bucky Balls - Andy Gion.

AKA: C60 molecules & buckminsterfullerene. Molecules made up of 60 carbon atoms arranged in a series of interlocking hexagons and pentagons, forming a structure that looks similar to a soccer ball [Steffen Weber, PhD.]. C60 is actually a "truncated icosahedron", consisting of 12 pentagons and 20 hexagons. It was discovered in 1985 by Professor Sir Harry Kroto, and two Rice University professors, chemists Dr. Richard E. Smalley and Dr. Robert F. Curl Jr., [for which they were jointly awarded the 1996 Nobel Lauriate for chemistry] and is the only molecule composed of a single element to form a hollow spheroid [which gives the potential for filling it, and using it for novel drug-delivery systems. See Structure of a New Family of Buckyballs Created].

"The buckyball, being the roundest of round molecules, is also quite resistant to high speed collisions. In fact, the buckyball can withstand slamming into a stainless steel plate at 15,000 mph, merely bouncing back, unharmed. When compressed to 70 percent of its original size, the buckyball becomes more than twice as hard as its cousin, diamond."

LINK....http://www.nanotech-now.com/nanotube-buckyball-sites.htm

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Make sure to read this part.




"The buckyball, being the roundest of round molecules, is also quite resistant to high speed collisions. In fact, the buckyball can withstand slamming into a stainless steel plate at 15,000 mph, merely bouncing back, unharmed. When compressed to 70 percent of its original size, the buckyball becomes more than twice as hard as its cousin, diamond.


AboveAlpha

 

The key word is "UN"

Lessons learned ? I thought we already learned those lessons, Pearl Harbor is a good place to start. troops or aircraft should always be dispersed even during peace time.

You served as a Marine before political correctness and remember quonset huts, old WW ll era wooden barracks and post WW ll concrete barracks, platoon size never larger then company size.

Today they have battalion size barracks and laid out as dorms, no barracks where a platoon live and sleep together where unit cohesion took a big hit when they went to dormitory style barracks. What the (*)(*)(*)(*), today most soldiers and Marines live off base any ways.

But unlike the Hollywood left that portrayed soldiers always being bunched up in combat, in reality they are dispersed. I guess Hollywood always want to get all of the actors in the lens.

Back in 1971/72 there was talk of deactivating the U.S. Naval Base Long Beach (not to be confused with the Long Beach NSY) At the time the LBNB was the home port of 100 Navy ships including 8 Essex class CVS's and LPH's, and all of their destroyer escorts. The plan was to home port all of these ships in San Diego. The Greatest Generation and their children who were serving in the military at the time went vocal, "Remember Pearl Harbor." You don't put an entire fleet in one port.

Guess what we have today ? Blow up the Coronado Bay bridge and most of the Pacific fleet is trapped and unable to put to sea.

There are only three harbors on the west coast that can handle deep draft ships, San Pedro/Long Beach, San Francisco, and the Puget Sounds like Bremerton.
San Diego isn't a deep water port. A Nimitz class carrier can go no further than North Island. Large American battleships were always homeported at Long Beach, San Francisco or Bremerton not San Diego.

The left wing libs in San Francisco no longer allows the U.S. Navy to use San Francisco Bay.

 

And exactly who has adopted shape charge torpedoes ? I seriously doubt any shaped charged torpedo would have much affect against 12 " of armor after pentretrating the torpedo blisters. Since mid WW ll torpedoes no longer hit the hull of ships, they detonate below the ship to cause a bubble to break the keel of a ship.

FYI: Except for the U.S. Navy, all navies have gone to wake following torpedoes while the U.S. Navy continues using homing and wire guided torpedoes.

 

I didn't say that we have shaped charged torpedo's in inventory as there is no need for them but if we had to sink an enemy Battleship that was like the Iowa Class we would simply have shaped charged torpedo's in our inventory and 4 to 6 would do the job.

It would not be hard at all to develop such torpedo's as we have decades of experience in designing shaped charged munitions and these torpedo's would have to directly impact the ship.

Super Hot Molten Copper will melt through anything and melt through any amount of armor as long as you design the warhead properly.

AboveAlpha

 

Lets be honest, during the Korean War the USS Wisconsin did take four direct hits from North Korean shore 155 mm guns and one of the rounds did hit a hatch (door for land lubbers) and the round did break the hatch hinges.

 

Remember....Aircraft can continue to drop bombs on the deck and effectively put the Battle Ship out of effective commission.

You don't have to sink it to make it worthless in combat.

AboveAlpha