Read the forum code of contact
By: - 21st July 2016 at 10:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Something along these lines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(bomb)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]247152[/ATTACH]
By: - 21st July 2016 at 11:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Time machine and something fitted with a BROACH warhead....
By: - 21st July 2016 at 11:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What's the torpedo protection like? Good against strikes on the sides, I'm sure, but what about under-keel explosions?
There are also penetrating bombs & warheads (e.g. BROACH, as Jonesy says) & the ability to aim at specific points on a ship, so weak points could be targeted.
By: - 21st July 2016 at 11:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The CM-400AKG - hypersonic, top attack missile with Mach 5 terminal attack velocity.
By: - 21st July 2016 at 11:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cheapest way? BETAB bombs.
By: - 21st July 2016 at 12:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nonsense. ~30 cm steel belt armor or ~4 cm deck armor is not something to be exeggerated in today's technology. Even a Harpoon SSM could penetrate that with ease, and larger supersonic SSMs like Moskit, P-500 or P-700 would tear a battleship's guts out with single hit just as any other ship.
Only 50cm turret armor would be of concern to smaller missiles, but no modern weapon would necessarily target individual turrets anyway.
As for aerial attack, historically largest battleship Yamato, with heavier armor than Iowa, took 12 bombs and 7 torpedo hits before getting sunk that makes roughly around 3260 kg of payload delivered to the ship. Today, a single F-16 can deliver greater payload in the form of 4x Mk-84 bombs, with far greater precision than a WWII dive bomber; even without using guided munitions.
By: - 21st July 2016 at 13:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How big are the funnels and could you fit a MOAB down one? Would it function correctly if you could? Interesting problem that is certainly worth a PhD or two....
By: - 21st July 2016 at 14:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kh-22 size missile or Type-65 torpedo should do the trick. Nuclear warhead completely optional.
By: - 21st July 2016 at 15:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Besides regular AP, there is different HE ammo(include missile warheads) today that would shake and bake the internal structure without any direct penetration. On top of this, there are fire to cope with.
You wont have to penetrate to do damage.
The whole idea of using BB as a sort of tanker unit, died at the end of WW2.
And fast forward today its even more outdated.
And a ship of that size is very costly to service.
Smaller frigates and destroyers have about the same firepower today, even without the big guns.
Take a look at the new Russian fleet in the Caspian Sea, they are at frigate size(some small frigates), and yet.. holy moly!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPu_RL7Ncao
Imagine a what those missiles could do to carrier or other larger ships.
For a heavy armoured BB, i've use a Brahmos like missile, imo high kenetic energy on impact.
By: - 21st July 2016 at 15:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
nuclear warhead fit in even the smallest missiles nowadays so if the requirement is there pretty much any modern missiles can be modified slightly to destroy Battle ship in one hit
Without any modifications then stuff like GBU-28, ASMP, JASSM.. etc should do the job alright
By: - 21st July 2016 at 16:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thus, all of today's anti-ship missiles can not do anything with the armor of Iowa, unless they attack in large numbers (100 or more)
Emmmm...nope. It could be penetrated with something like this, designed to penetrate a thick armored hull of US CVN's reactor compartment.
By: - 21st July 2016 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The Iowa's armor was overrated even then, let alone in 2016 ;) .
By: - 21st July 2016 at 17:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Even the Yamato would be easy prey to today's weapons. Something like the Mk 48 that detonates under the hull of the ship to destroy structural strength is enough to outright mission kill a battleship in one hit.
The Iowa's armor was overrated even then, let alone in 2016 ;) .
Iowa and Vanguard are probably tied for the second best protected BB after the Yamato, not like that even matters anyways.
I don't know why people here even take blackadam seriously. Does no one here remember the stupid topics he made before? Like some of the following.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?133395-PLAAF-crisis&highlight=
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?136502-The-truth-about-the-F-22&highlight=
By: - 21st July 2016 at 20:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Iowa's armor was not spectacular. Just look at its size, displacement, installed machinery weight...expecting magic is silly.
Littorio's decapping scheme probably gave it more effective armor. Iowa had a weaker belt than KGV. Richelieu had somewhat better protection than South Dakota, and Iowa had the same scheme as SoDak (with same deficient torpedo protection) just on a much larger hull....
By: - 21st July 2016 at 21:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"The four British ships fired more than 2,800 shells at Bismarck, and scored more than 400 hits, but were unable to sink Bismarck by gunfire."
-towards the end of trying to sink bismarck
By: - 21st July 2016 at 21:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That is because they closed range, and were firing at the Bismark in exactly the sort of conditions the Bismark was supposed to do well in- flat trajectory, where its belt + internal turtleback armor would prevent the citadel from being critically damaged and the ship sunk.
The other side of the story is that within 20 minutes or so the Bismark was unable to form any sort of reply to the British ships, as its turrets and topside were wrecked utterly.
By: - 22nd July 2016 at 00:13 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"The four British ships fired more than 2,800 shells at Bismarck, and scored more than 400 hits, but were unable to sink Bismarck by gunfire."-towards the end of trying to sink bismarck
Well, that's made in Germany... :eagerness:
But one K-22 or KSR-5 is enough for a WW2 battle ship. Or some BLU-109 based Paveways.
By: - 22nd July 2016 at 04:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i will be betting on bismarck unless the missiles are kingfish or shipwreck, and even then at least half a dozen on an average.
there is of course lucky hits such as hood or the ship in pearl harbor
By: - 22nd July 2016 at 05:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Two Fritz X sunk the Roma......you don't need close to half a dozen of the biggest baddest Cold War AShMs to either send the Bismark to the bottom, or to render her a worthless hulk.
Two (admitedly very large) bombs caused the Tirpitz to flip right over.
Posts: 194
By: blackadam - 21st July 2016 at 09:16
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...
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2925
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/milita...-61-design.htm
Iowa class can survive in nuclear weapons test
"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."
Thus, all of today's anti-ship missiles can not do anything with the armor of Iowa, unless they attack in large numbers (100 or more)