Yuku free message boards

I have spoken to weapons annalists who work for NAVSEA and was surprised at the results of what they estimate would happen. In 1982 the threats she would have faced would be considerably different than today 27 years later. In the specific case of Exocet and Harpoon what Zen writes is true. No sub-sonic anti ship missile that has a blast fragmentation warhead can defeat the armored citadel. She has many redundant systems that can direct her main battery including 6 directors and now two CIC. One modern CIC and the older analog computers which are just as accurate. They can transmit shock damage through the armor but it would likely take many of these types of missles to even mission kill much less sink the ship.

The 500 lb charge that detonated on Cole's side would likely not even penetrate the 1.5" STS plating amidships and even if it did damage would be minimal.

Supersonic missles with shape charged warheads will penetrate the armored citadel. Some of these missiles are huge. These represent a major threat. Confined structures such as turrets and conning tower where the hot metal jet stream can bounce around the inside once the warhead detonates can knock them out. If a deck hit and this stream is pointed downward and it hits something like a magazine it could be very bad. However the ship is huge and the missile may not hit anything vital. It would still require multipe hits due to her size and subdivision to mission kill but with enough hits these missiles can sink her. If one hits a magazine it may destroy her just like a 16" shell that finds the magazine.

I was very suprised at Hypersonic missiles or missiles that travel at mach 6-7. These can penetrate any armor simply due to their size and the incredible velocity. These can even knock a turret off its foundation and remove large chunks of armor. Many of these weighed more than any projectile made. Due to the high speed the kinetic energy they will overwhelm any armor period. Here the ship must again depend on her size and subdivision to contain damage and due to her system redundancy unless the missile finds a magazine she would still require several hits.

Torpedoes that strike her side she has very good protection against and even if they do penetrate the side system just like in WWII it would take several to sink her. I was surprised to learn that her keel is not her strength deck. In fact she was designed that her armored deck is her strength deck. This deck is also supported by all the transverse bulkheads and side armor. The class B armor is ductile meaning it will elastically bend before it breaks. Breaking an Iowa's back by an under keel explosion would be extremely difficult. Shock damage could be severe but her hull structure would survive the 1,200 lb TNT equivalent charge of a single MK-48 torpedo. Locally it would defeat the triple keel and subdivision would contain flooding. Shock damage could be transmitted throughout the ship in a similar fashion as Tirpitz. I have asked about her rudder seals and the weapons annalists say her seals would hold even if the hit was directly below the shafts. Though this may jam one or both rudders and take out one or two shafts the flooding would likely be local and not go back to her engine rooms unless the shaft broke like in Prince of Wales. If it hit her bow forward of the armored citadel she would likely lose her bow. The estimate of 4-6 torpedoes to sink her is still a good estimate even if they are below the keel. However any submarine commander who gets within range to fire torpedoes should be court martialed if he only fires a single torpedo at a ship the size of an Iowa. USS America who's hanger deck is her main strength deck did quite well against torpedoes taking multiple hits during her sink-ex and she did not break in half.

The high altitude bunker buster bombs can also penetrate the deck armor but few HC bombs today can. The bunker busters are not designed to hit a moving target that can turn rapidly. This does not mean they can't but it would be more difficult.

My point is an Iowa can be overwhelmed just like Yamato was by multiple attacks. Overall most weapons that can be deployed would require multiple hits unless they strike a magazine. This is more a result of her size, subdivision, and system redundancy. She is not immune nor is a super carrier. She is more survivable once a hit has occurred than all surface combatants as the cruisers and destroyers can be cut in half by the same weapons. One problem I have is most people play a game of Iowa being alone. She has always operated within a task force even if she is hundreds of miles away from a carrier. The navy will command control of the air and control of the seas above and below because all their ships are vulnerable and they do not want any of their ships hit. Thus when looking at defensive measures you need to look at the navies capability on a whole and not Iowa alone. Once you do this any ship that can survive multiple hits complicates an opponents ability to attack due to the limited numbers of missiles that can be deployed against the task force.

Rob

Most missions against land targets are indirect fire missions which means radar plays no role in her ability to hit the target. Only in a direct fire mission would she use radar. Her radar can not spot targets through a land mass. In fact she can turn all her electronics off and complete an indirect fire mission as long as she has the coordinates of the target. Spotters help and it does not matter if they are air assets or ground assets, however she can simply blanket an area through volume fire if needed. Losing her electronics does not mission kill her at all. In a direct fire mission she can use optics and again radar is not a requirement. This has been proved in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Beirut, and first Desert Storm.

She can even lose communications if she has pre-planned coordinates and another ship within the task force which can signal corrections through visible means such as flags or signal lights if the mission was so important. In order to mission kill her you need to take out turrets, her analog computers which are within the armored citadel, or her steering. If already in range of the target she does not even need to move she can anchor like Iowa did at Wonson.

All I have said is that it would require multiple hits to mission kill her. USS Stark took two hits from Exocet missiles and was missioned killed. This is a fact. Even in Seasicks fantasy he speaks of another wave of missiles coming in. She still as her MK8 radar as well as her forward MK37 in his scenario though again this only plays a role in a direct fire mission and again in this case she can use optics. What if the next wave a hit is amidships and causes minimal damage? We can play that game all day which is also a point that the number of hits depends on their location, target angle, warhead strength, speed, type of warhead, and size of the missile. USS Cole was missioned killed by a 500 lb charge detonating along side which would have had minimal effect on Iowa.

For this subject of battleship durability, what detractors need to show is that after a missile hits, can a modern ship withstand the hit better than an Iowa. It is already assumed that the area defence has failed since the hit was made so the argument that a modern ship with her AA missiles can defend herself better is mute. The AA cruiser or destroyer is tasked with defending the entire task force not just herself because carriers and the gator navy have minimal defence just like Iowa. We are speaking about the physical ship and her ability to absorb damage. I have expressed ALL surface ships including the carriers are vulnerable but that in Iowa's case she would require more than a single hit in most cases unless a magazine was hit. Most modern ships will be missioned killed after a single hit. Depending on the weapon many will be outright sunk. The reality is that a modern cruiser or destroyer can not preform her mission AA defense without her electronics but in a mission that Iowa would normally be used in fire support she does not need any. This is actually one of her system redundancy design factors since they knew in WWII radars were susceptible to shock and could not be protected as well as the fact that when she was designed radar was in its infancy so she had to be able to complete her mission without it. Thus concerning battleship durability an Iowa can absorb much more damage and multiple hits over modern warships. The armor is only one factor with her size, subdivision, and designed system redundacy which exceed modern design standards. This should not really be a surprise to anyone since her ability to absorb damage was a primary factor in her design.

Iowa's have already faced these threats in many of the wars they fought. They were not significantly damaged because of the overall power of the entire task force. Since all ships that make up the task force work as a coordinated team and have defence in depth few nations have the ability to mount a succesful attack on a US battlegroup.