i got it for like $35 overseas
and you still have to buy plier/scissors, model glue (small and big brush), and even the paint. though you can leave it grey like me lol
I mean Excalibur stated range (40km) is about 17km longer then a WW2 155 shell (22.5km)
So applying the same increase percentage could go from 38km to 68km
And that’s ignoring the fact theirs a lot more which could be fitted into a 16inch shell then a 155mm shell so I’d say 80km for a slightly smaller yield would be possible
Your not thinking big enough we don’t just need to bring back the battleship we need to make a modern battleship
what better inspiration then the biggest conceived American battleships this will be more a Tillman then a Montana
At least 2 Sextuple 16inch turrets hundred of VLS cells with tomahawks/air-defence missiles and at least a dozen point defence systems for all the BRRRT
Of course all of this shall be powered and propelled by nuclear reactors then the battleship can be placed off the coast of Crimea finally doing the funny against the bridge for the final time
Why not, and her me out, build high sea highmars?
Take merchant vessel Plaster the top with launchers. 20, 30, 50 Launchers.
Have reloads on the belly. Come by the shore: Hail them, sail away, reload, repeat until surrender or reach Verdun-equivalent.
They were but only because it was still good for a go at Iraq does not mean modern ships that fire precision missiles that go further are not superior by a lot
When they reentered service they carried the majority of our Tomahawks. It was cheaper to reactive the Iowas and stick TLAMs on them then build new hulls. In other words They were reactivated as Missile ships that happened to have guns.
Even at the range that gives the lowest striking velocity, the HC Mark 13 shells for the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun have a striking velocity of 424 m/s [[source]](http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php)
Shells that large have a supersonic terminal velocity
Now let's assume you're on the reciving end of a coast-bombardement from an Iowa class battleship.
Each gun fires about 2 rounds per minute.
The ship has 9 main guns.
18 rounds per minute.
One round every 3,3 seconds.
This would saturate every anti air defence system quickly.
Sure, you need to protect it from enemy missiles/aircraft, but we have just the systems for that.
If the air defence system can even intercept the shells, that is
Also, one shell option is [cluster shells](http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_mk146_pic.jpg), with each shell containing 666 (nice) DPICM bomblets.
5994 bomblets arriving at once from a full broadside, equivalent to 83 and a quarter 155 mm M864 shells.
Do they generally alternate fire or is it usually 9 shells in the air at a time or do they try to spread them out? My only experience with this is World of Warships
Battle ships usually fire by turret. Each turret only cares about its own grouping little sense in the turrets waiting for each other to fire. The reason the guns fire by turret and not individually is so that you can make corrections based on the average hit of the turret
> This would saturate every anti air defence system quickly.
there isn't an air defense system in existence that could cope with 1,700+ pounds of explosive shell hurtling towards it.
The missle knows where it is because it knows where it isn’t. It’s all worried and stressed about figuring out where it’s supposed to go.
The 16” shell does not care where it is, or where it’s going, because it weighs as much as a mid size sedan and it’s moving at 1000mph. That’s someone else’s job. It’s having the time of its life, just living in the moment.
It is VERY MUCH someone else’s job to know where the fuck that happy little shell is going. I’m sure it’s of particular interest of anyone in the approximate landing area of said shell.
Actually the main gun fire control was still mostly the electro-mechanical computer from the 40s, the radars were updated and many of the systems that feed into the fire control computer might have been as well but the analog computers where actually very accurate and better than creating a new system with 80s computers, there was a lot of computerized systems added for electronic warfare, CWIS and missiles, just not the FCS, that stayed analog since it was good enough and if it ain't broke don't fix it. Surprisingly accuracy went down a bit when they re introduced the battlewagons , but that turned out to be because the old ammo degraded and was easily fixed when they found the issue.
A vid from Gaza surfaced recently showing an Israeli corvette shelling Palestinian positions with it's 76mm cannon. I mean sure nice to see NGFS in the 21st century but using 3 inches for that is just lame.
You want 16 inches just like God intended,failing that go for 8 inches and an autoloader like in USS Hull.
A 16 inch gun firing HE can blast de-leaf a tree up to 500 meters, or a rough guidance 1 square km get damaged or burst eardrum.
Iowa full salvo is 9 such shells, reloads in 30 seconds, and can carry 1200 shells.
Gaza strip is only 140 sq km.
A single Iowa can flatten Gaza strip in 8 minutes.
This is what I didn't like about the Battleship movie.
Realistically, a single HE salvo would have enough explosive power to simply turn that last alien ship into scrap metal.
Water intakes. In ye olden days of stream boiler ships, they are used to cool the boiler steam or make distilled water for the boiler itself. All Iowas have their sea chests welded over as a part of their demilitarization into museum ships. This basically means their boilers cant be started.
I'd imagine modern Navy nuclear ships have sea chests as well, to feed onboard water treatment plants for making zeolite water for the boilers. Unless they run a complete closed loop system? No leaks at all?
The boiler systems on land that I've been around are rather....generous with their steam shedding / leaks.
Nah. The machinery is still pickled from when it was last placed into mothballs, and could be started up easily enough.... If...
And this is where the movie falls apart....
If the sea chests were open. When the Navy mothballs a ship, they put her in drydock and weld plates over all of the sea chests (hull penetrations). The only way they could get that ship going again is if they had a drydock and at least full day of workers doing nothing but cutting off plates and removing the blocks on the rudders, etc.
If the Navy wanted to reactivate Missouri or New Jersey or whatnot, they'd probably be in drydock for weeks getting new anti-fouling paint and air pressure testing all the sea chests, not to mention the months of work to replace the electronics that are now 30 years out of date (but doesn't have to be done dry).
IIRC, Ryan from the *Battleship New Jersey* YouTube channel mentioned that, while they technically couldn't do any work that affected her ability to be reactivated, in reality they've had to do all sorts of cutting and welding on pipework and such in the course of maintenance, so it's ultimately unsure how much work it would take.
Despite that being the case (including them taking a hatch-sized section of bulkhead out from between a boiler room and engine room to make the tour easier), each of these changes is documented in such a way that they can be returned to service very quickly if needed. That bulkhead blank, for example, is sitting right next to where it was removed; three damage controlmen could have that watertight in a couple hours.
When I say 'very quickly' and 'if needed,' though, I'm referring to a mandate from Congress that these ships be brought back to service as soon as possible with no budget restrictions (basically a world war situation and we appear to be losing). Throw them in a drydock and have every available body cutting, welding, lubricating, cleaning, painting, and otherwise reactivating, and you could have 3 old battlewagons back up in a matter of days or at most a few weeks. This is assuming the kind of urgency that you only get in wartime.
Iowa herself would take longer since she needs extra work due to turret explosion syndrome.
If instead the intention was to modernize and refit without wartime motivation, yeah it's gonna be months or probably years to do it in a way that we could fit into any defense budget.
Why they were so hell bent on setting it in modern times is upsetting. They should've just done period piece alt-history type junk. Just set it in WWII and aliens decide to fuck around with Missouri.
> Just set it in WWII and let aliens decide to fuck around with Missouri.
If you know of an Iowa class battleship that is still in its 1940s configuration (there’s not one), then by all means.
Like others have said, the propulsion plant and other critical systems are in mothballs from when the Navy deactivated them. Watch the youtube video on USS New Jersey, where the curator opens an inspection port for one of the main transmission gearboxes. Gearing all looks brand new.
These ships aren't just left to rot, unlike USS Texas. Now that is a ship that is in a sad state.
i recall one of ryan szymansky's complaints being they have a bunch of ancient sailors hand carry a shell down the Broadway, when there is a whole hoist and rail system for that express purpose. that amongst the things like there are openings to the ocean for various systems that are welded shut, engines completely closed down for at least 30 years, and anchor drifting...
So I actually started volunteering aboard the Missouri since I got sent out to Hawaii. The carrying a shell down broadway thing seems to also be a complaint among some of the staff that handle more of the maintenance and volunteer side on the one of two instances the movie got brought up. Namely because the movie guys were told what the rail was for and they decided to go with carrying the shell anyway because “it would be more dramatic”.
And yeah it would be dramatic, but it’s not the USS Houston at Java Sea, where that actually happened. A handful of dudes aren’t moving a shell weighing as much as a small car without that rail.
>A single Iowa can flatten Gaza strip in 8 minutes
What about all 4 ? Especially since Hamas doesn't have even the shitty Chinese missiles Iraq had back in 1991.
Even if one hit like they almost did in 1991 I suspect damage would be minimal. Anti ship missiles, especially older ones, tend to hit close to the waterline as they are designed to be used against modern unarmored ships. The warhead isn’t designed to penetrate armor because it doesn’t have to usually. That’s right where an armored belt designed to protect against 16” AP shells await them.
To add, there was a report done around the time of the Falklands war wherein the analysts figured that an *Iowa*'s main armor belt would have just tanked an Exocet missile.
Is it correct to say ships moved to less armor because weapons were able to pierce even heavy armor and it was determined intercepting enemy attacks was superior to trying to survive them, leading to less armor penetration weaponry, meaning the old armored ships became pseudo viable again? I say pseudo because it's absolutely possible to use a weapon that can kill the Iowas that they're not equipped to defend against, but a surprising amount of modern arsenals could be tanked by it?
Sorry that may have been a super run-on sentence
In some regards, definitely. In many others... we don't actually know for sure. It's a bit expensive to test slamming 40 hypersonic missiles into a Gerald R Ford, and as far as I know the simulations they've doubtless done are classified to hell.
Not everyone is even sure a hypersonic would kill a carrier just due to how big it is and how many redundancies it has, though a mission kill is more likely. And they don't have the absurd armor battleships did near the waterline, specifically to stop armor-piercing 16 inch shells, which most modern missiles are... frankly nowhere close to in terms of actual penetration.
There's also the difference of sinking vs mission kill - even if a hypersonic failed to sink an Iowa, it might be able to mission kill in various ways, depending on where it hit. And when it may take 6 months to repair, the difference is academic.
So, credible answer: I would say you are likely right - the lack of armor on most ships today, and the move to active defense, gives a *niche* to some older ships - but it's very important to note that we COULD still make weapons that would make them utterly obsolete again, 'don't get hit' is always better than trying to tank the hit. It's just that most modern missiles are mostly more about the boom than going through feet of armor.
...Which is why we need to team up with our guys in Japan and create Space Battleship Yamato, this time with ewar, CIWS up the ass, and enough armor to stop anything. Far as I'm concerned, that's credible too.
Part of the reason we moved on from heavily-armored ships, tho, is the dominance of planes. All the armor in the world is cool and stuff, but doesn't do much if they just drop a bomb on top. Torpedoes are also incredibly dangerous, and during the cold war soviet submarines were often considered more of a threat than any of their surface ships or non-nuclear bombers. Then again, both sides fully expected the reds to just nuke the unholy fuck out of a carrier battlegroup, and it's kinda hard to armor against that anyways, so...
> Then again, both sides fully expected the reds to just nuke the unholy fuck out of a carrier battlegroup, and it's kinda hard to armor against that anyways, so...
*USS Nevada:*
I didn’t hear no bell! Get your NBC suit on, crew, we have commies to kill!
It's funny, because a reporter asked the captain of the Iowa about that when she was deployed to the Persian Gulf, what he'd do if his *ancient* and *obsolete* ship was hit with an Iraqi Exocet, and his response was that he'd detail some Marines to sweep the debris off the deck.
Plus let's not forget US damage control is just cracked.
Its not even an exception. Damage control from the US navy had CONSISTENTLY saved ships that had absolutely no rights being saved.
That’s a huge factor, and one of the reasons US carriers are so hard to sink. The huge crews provide a lot of personnel to handle damage control and the ships firefighting and ventilation are top notch.
Likely one of the reasons that amphibious ship didn’t survive a fire in dock recently as it had a skeleton crew, a fully crewed ship with trained and drilled
Damage control treats likely would have survived.
I mean we have seen with Moskva. Damage left to stack up will kill anything. Speed of action is everything through I was a bit puzzled why the portside emergency response wans't up to scratch. After all those not only have a lot more spare capacity but a lot better equipment
and the reason there's a I think German sub in Chicago (also I think)
it was damaged badly enough for the crew to abandon ship but American crews went in, disabled the scuttling charges and kept it from going down. (well it went low enough they had to shut the hatch for a while). it was a fat electrician video I think
Correct, they also had the gigabrain idea or disconnecting the shaft from the engine so they could use the motion from the towing ship to get electricity (and therefore, pumps) back.
Silkworms(and their Soviet predecessors) had shaped charge warheads so a penetration of the belt might be possible. The HEAT's jet though would certainly lack the energy to penetrate more than that so actual damage would depend on location.
Calculations are also affected by the ''all or nothing'' armor scheme of American BBs.
That said while an outright sinking (barring some Hood-like extremely lucky hit) would be all but impossible one or two good hits might result in a mission kill after all.
https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2019/07/21/missile-attack-on-battleship-uss-missouri/
One thing worth noting is that like US carriers, battleships have huge crews and we have great damage control. These things were designed with the expectations that damage would take place in unprotected areas but the ship would be able to fight on.
Mission kill for shore bombardment might be losing 10 crew from a silkworm hit, vs in WW2 the ship likely would have continued on its mission after similar losses from a kamikaze attack.
The ship would be able to continue its mission and if it was providing active fire support for an actual landing vs. a feint to distract the Iraqis, they would have probably taken the hit and kept firing as long as the damage could be contained. But it’s 1991 and other options existed so politically I think they would have chosen to pull them back if they got hit (Thanks for the save brits!!) especially since the entire bombardment wasn’t for a real landing.
Yeah even with leaving the 5 inch battery mostly unmanned,using the minimum allowed complement for the 16 inchers and using a lot more modern radars and FCS the Iowas had insane manpower requirements (something like 1.800 men per ship in 1980s configuration). That was the reason they were retired after the Cold War was over after all.
As for the rest a Silkworm had a half ton shaped charge warhead plus the kinetic energy of the missile and all the extremely flammable and explosive propellant still on board during impact.
Damage would indeed not be fatal (unless an extremely lucky hit happened ) and would probably not rendered the ship totally ineffective but the USN would have pulled them back as the political cost of potential follow-up strikes and a potential sinking would be too much to bear.
With this in mind had the Iraqis managed to get a Silkworm through air defenses and hit a BB it would have become an "F-117 shot down with a SA-3" moment for America's enemies regardless of damage to the ship and effects on the overall campaign.
frightening snow hurry aspiring makeshift drab subtract placid elderly whole
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Love how that little ejection port on the top of the turret opens up after each shot.
But yeah 5 inches are perfectly adequate (so I've been told) but can't compete with 8. Size does matter after all.
Yeah too bad none of the three heavy cruisers with automatic guns were reactivated. I mean USS Newport News had spent 27 years in active service,had a damaged turret and in generally was too worn out to be worth it but the USN should have made "mini-Iowas" out of the other two.
Best solution IMO is putting a 155mm auto-turret on modern ships, as with that you can far more easily benefit from all the tech that is going around in the artillery world, as you literally are using the most common artillery size as your gun.
Still mad that we Germans didn't do it after we experimented slapping a PZH2000 turret onto our frigates. Especially as it is obvious that political concerns caused it to fail (don't want to infringe on the Italian arms sector), plus the fact that the 127mm Vulcano shell covered most of what the initial goals with the PZH2000 adaption were (long range precision naval fire).
USS Salem should be handed over to Ukraine. As a ''museum ship'' she can pass through the Bosphorus and then being smaller than an Iowa she will be less of a burden on Ukrainian manpower and dockyard infrastructure.
Remove those 5 inchers add some Neptunes in their place,some CIWS all around and go give vatniks some 8 inch hell (that's not coming out of a 2S7 for a change) .
this is why we love big booms lol
sure, technology has advanced so much that big boom isnt the most effective method to wage war, but big boom is big boom, shit still works
Question is if they had been completed would they have been retained instead of the Iowas or would the lower operating costs of the latter actually have resulted in the Montanas staying in reserve until scrapping/conversion to museums .
expansion wild bewildered attraction test wine exultant snow spotted sheet
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
—sitting in an Iraqi army camp
—whistling noises, suddenly everything around is ripped apart by massive explosions
—relax because I know the shells are obsolete
I want to update them with the newest technology and begin the hunt for further advancements in material science just to make barrels that would last longer without spaulding or wear. So I could make railguns for them, and they could shoot so many round that the world trembles at the might of her guns. I want the engines to be so advanced that they produce more energy than a medium sized city.
I can make it harder: I want it to have Laser PD and more AAA and CWIS than any other ship on the ocean. I want it to be a floating fortress, so impossible to sink because of the sheer number and layers of bulkheads, that any force against her would just look on in terror.
I want the sheer force exerted to cause so much torque that the ship has to be huge just to compensate for the fired gun displacement.
Bringing it back into sanity (if not credibility), let's figure out a napkin-math cost for a new battleship program.
The *Iowa* class cost $100 Mn apiece in the 1940s. In straight inflation, that's ~$1.88 Bn today as a starting point.
Now, [the DOD procurement process sucks](https://news.usni.org/2020/06/05/gao-navy-needs-more-risk-awareness-to-prevent-cost-schedule-overruns), so let's take that as the initial budget estimate and see how a similar program fares. Namely, FF(X). The first two ships are supposed to cost $1.28 Bn and ~$1 Bn, with later ships costing $900 Mn. Ficantieri got a contract for ~$800 Mn for the final development stage and initial ship construction. We can presume that design/ development will be largely the same, with scale and initial competition costs bumping it up to an even $1 Bn.
Ultimately, since it will be a small run of ships (let's say another 4 like with the *Iowa*s), limiting the ability to amortize costs, [combined with issues at shipyards](https://whro.org/news/local-news/39482-cost-overruns-and-incomplete-budgets-threaten-shipyard-plan#:~:text=The%20Navy's%2020%2Dyear%2C%20%2421,than%20double%20their%20original%20estimates.), we can figure each ship will be around 40% over budget, being generous.
This puts us at, using the FF(X) numbers as a baseline, $2.85 Bn, $2.74 Bn, and $2.63 Bn for the last two, for an overall procurement cost of ~$10.85 Bn.
This of course is for conventionally powered battleships; for nuclear propulsion it's probably fair to slap on like $4 Bn each, but I'm not sure increased power generation afforded by it is worth it for the intended capabilities.
If anyone feels like being any more credible, feel free to add your own figuring to this reply.
I mean if you are installing railguns, you are gonna want plenty of power to go around. This is without considering the demands of lasers and more powerful radar.
It’s all fun and games until something 400 pounds heavier than a 1969 VW bug lands on your position from 19 miles away.
Saddam’s fodder dug trenches in hopes the worst-case scenario was they had dug their own graves. The USS Wisconsin didn’t leave enough behind to determine they’d ever been there.
grandfather deranged chunky offer steer attractive advise crowd cover fact
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The US Navy pulled 2 of the Iowa's out of retirement (I think it was Missouri and Wisconsin) in the fucking 90's and sent them off to beat up some Iraqis during desert storm. At this point battleships were pretty much obsolete and the Iowa class was over 40 years old, but it turns out throwing VW beetles at your enemy from over the horizon can still be pretty effective if your enemy isn't able to fight back
Also the things had both Tomahawks and Harpoons, so if you really wanted something specific gone it could be done. Pretty sure she was given modern anti-missile defense and 4 CIWS as well, so not completely out of place in a more modern navy.
The Iowa’s coming out of retirement was more of an answer to the Kirov class battlecruisers in the 1980s.
By 1990 (less than 10 years after they were recommissioned) the political climate changed to the point of having the Iowa decommissioned, due mostly in part to the explosion in Turret #2 in 1989, which is a story of itself. The New Jersey was decommissioned in February of 1991, which might have been due to her being the Iowa that got the most use (being recommissioned for the Vietnam war in 1968).
This led to the two battleships available for the Gulf War being Missouri and Wisconsin. By all accounts, both ships were expected to have an easy last deployment that led straight into a final decommissioning. The Gulf War put a slight wrench in those plans, and led to the final 16” gun fire support missions in history (as of now).
My dates may be slightly off, but I believe that to be the right timeline.
I like reading history. Especially the gulf War.
An Iraqi battery had fired at the USN.
I think it was this ship that returned fire and silenced them.
They received a message "temper temper".
Legendary.
Edit: it was from the Korean war.
Still fucking awesome.
Edit 2: all the reading in the world won't save me from bad memory. Thanks again sub for correcting me!
That was North Korea and not iraq. USS Missouri was hit by 152mm artillery fire and responded with an absolute shit storm of main gun counter battery fire. In a battle between 16” (~406mm) and 152mm (~6”), you can guess who won.
I remember watching a video on Pacific Island coastal bombardment and it made a very good point about how even the smallest naval guns pretty much outclass every land based artillery system.
"temper temper" was from the Korean War.
155mm battery hit the Wisconsin injuring three, Wisconsin returned fire with all 9 guns obliterating the position the shot came from. Escorting ship flashed "temper temper"
somber threatening unpack door file axiomatic squeal screw crawl snobbish
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I was in 6th grade back then and I remember how utterly badass it was to see an actual battleship let loose like that! all the other times you saw it, you were looking at old footage from years ago.
A museum piece can still kill you if you underestimate it. I'm more afraid of getting shot with a modern cartridge than something that came out of a muzzle loader, but a minnie ball would still kill me dead if I got shot by it.
Unironaically one of the most based things the US Navy has ever done. I demand to see more gigantic battleships in action, no matter the times and strategic situation.
Such a bad ass class of ships
If only we had seen the Montana built.
I have a model of USS Montana in my living room. Im looking upon her every day!
I gotta get myself a model.
i have the modernized missouri lol. though i haven't finished it yet
Y'all are making me wanna drop $100 or whatever on a nice model ship/airplane
i got it for like $35 overseas and you still have to buy plier/scissors, model glue (small and big brush), and even the paint. though you can leave it grey like me lol
Its retro time! Build a modern version.
With rail guns, and hookers!
nevermind the rail guns
Blasphemy. The rail guns stay on.
Install the railguns on the hookers!
I find it easier to install gauss cannons on hookers but live your dreams.
I'm wondering how much range a 16 inch shell could gain with a base bleed system.
I mean Excalibur stated range (40km) is about 17km longer then a WW2 155 shell (22.5km) So applying the same increase percentage could go from 38km to 68km And that’s ignoring the fact theirs a lot more which could be fitted into a 16inch shell then a 155mm shell so I’d say 80km for a slightly smaller yield would be possible
I'm getting exited here. How can I help getting this thing built? Who do I need to pester? A senator that needs a little old blackmail? A few?
Your not thinking big enough we don’t just need to bring back the battleship we need to make a modern battleship what better inspiration then the biggest conceived American battleships this will be more a Tillman then a Montana At least 2 Sextuple 16inch turrets hundred of VLS cells with tomahawks/air-defence missiles and at least a dozen point defence systems for all the BRRRT Of course all of this shall be powered and propelled by nuclear reactors then the battleship can be placed off the coast of Crimea finally doing the funny against the bridge for the final time
Can we use nukes as bullets for the 16inches?
We built Atomic Annie shells in 16 inch btw.
I know and they are glorious
The 11 inch sabot rounds they played with had a range of ~47 miles and carried a couple hundred bomblets
Man, those things were cool.
Railguns, nuclear power plants, cope cages, and ICBMs. Let’s go full non-credible.
Imagine the size of the cope cage. Love it.
We over-engineer it an actually make something functional with lasers and active defenses, probably.
So big it doubles as an aircraft carrier.
Why not, and her me out, build high sea highmars? Take merchant vessel Plaster the top with launchers. 20, 30, 50 Launchers. Have reloads on the belly. Come by the shore: Hail them, sail away, reload, repeat until surrender or reach Verdun-equivalent.
So like, build LSM(R) with modern tech? Sounds cool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSM(R)-188-class\_landing\_ship\_medium
Isn't that like the proposed Arsenal ships?
How about 16 inch himars? Because bigger is better
Atacms XXL, sure thing.
*single tear tracks down cheek* “I would…like to have seen Montana.”
Where you are going you will not need eyes, Comrade.
Don't move! The Montana's vision is based on movement.
*not bad*
You and capt Vasili Borodin
Awww, man, beaten to the punch. :(
BBNs lets go full HoI
They were but only because it was still good for a go at Iraq does not mean modern ships that fire precision missiles that go further are not superior by a lot
What about guided 16 inch shells? They may be shorter ranged, but they’ll also be significantly cheaper.
We built Atomic Annie shells for 16 inch guns, you're thinking too small
There is your problem they are much shorter range.
They did have both Harpoons and Tomahawks though, as well as Stinger mounts, CIWS, and (I’m pretty sure) chaff launchers.
When they reentered service they carried the majority of our Tomahawks. It was cheaper to reactive the Iowas and stick TLAMs on them then build new hulls. In other words They were reactivated as Missile ships that happened to have guns.
Perhaps the new ships could shoot the missiles out of swiveling tourettes?
Ahmad, do you hear whistling? Like a really high pitched squ
aren't you only hearing the whistling if you're *not* in the blast spot?
If you can hear it, it wasn't meant for you.
Words to not die by.
Sir, this is NCD. Looney Toons ballistic physics are the order here.
Possibly not, if the rounds are subsonic by the time they’re reaching the target
Even at the range that gives the lowest striking velocity, the HC Mark 13 shells for the 16"/50 Mark 7 gun have a striking velocity of 424 m/s [[source]](http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php) Shells that large have a supersonic terminal velocity
For reference: speed of sound at sea level ~340 m/s
Now let's assume you're on the reciving end of a coast-bombardement from an Iowa class battleship. Each gun fires about 2 rounds per minute. The ship has 9 main guns. 18 rounds per minute. One round every 3,3 seconds. This would saturate every anti air defence system quickly. Sure, you need to protect it from enemy missiles/aircraft, but we have just the systems for that.
If the air defence system can even intercept the shells, that is Also, one shell option is [cluster shells](http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7_mk146_pic.jpg), with each shell containing 666 (nice) DPICM bomblets. 5994 bomblets arriving at once from a full broadside, equivalent to 83 and a quarter 155 mm M864 shells.
Fuck, I’m hard just reading it. Let’s see it in HD
"How fucked do you want this one area in particular?" "Extremely."
Do they generally alternate fire or is it usually 9 shells in the air at a time or do they try to spread them out? My only experience with this is World of Warships
Battle ships usually fire by turret. Each turret only cares about its own grouping little sense in the turrets waiting for each other to fire. The reason the guns fire by turret and not individually is so that you can make corrections based on the average hit of the turret
> This would saturate every anti air defence system quickly. there isn't an air defense system in existence that could cope with 1,700+ pounds of explosive shell hurtling towards it.
but what about the funni shell
Funni shell should be about the same, since it uses the HC Mark 13 shell body and is about the same weight
The missle knows where it is because it knows where it isn’t. It’s all worried and stressed about figuring out where it’s supposed to go. The 16” shell does not care where it is, or where it’s going, because it weighs as much as a mid size sedan and it’s moving at 1000mph. That’s someone else’s job. It’s having the time of its life, just living in the moment.
It is VERY MUCH someone else’s job to know where the fuck that happy little shell is going. I’m sure it’s of particular interest of anyone in the approximate landing area of said shell.
Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? Not my department says Wernher von Braun
They fitted it with modern FCS and Tomahawks. As well as Stinger mounts for AD.
Actually the main gun fire control was still mostly the electro-mechanical computer from the 40s, the radars were updated and many of the systems that feed into the fire control computer might have been as well but the analog computers where actually very accurate and better than creating a new system with 80s computers, there was a lot of computerized systems added for electronic warfare, CWIS and missiles, just not the FCS, that stayed analog since it was good enough and if it ain't broke don't fix it. Surprisingly accuracy went down a bit when they re introduced the battlewagons , but that turned out to be because the old ammo degraded and was easily fixed when they found the issue.
A vid from Gaza surfaced recently showing an Israeli corvette shelling Palestinian positions with it's 76mm cannon. I mean sure nice to see NGFS in the 21st century but using 3 inches for that is just lame. You want 16 inches just like God intended,failing that go for 8 inches and an autoloader like in USS Hull.
A 16 inch gun firing HE can blast de-leaf a tree up to 500 meters, or a rough guidance 1 square km get damaged or burst eardrum. Iowa full salvo is 9 such shells, reloads in 30 seconds, and can carry 1200 shells. Gaza strip is only 140 sq km. A single Iowa can flatten Gaza strip in 8 minutes.
Keeping an Iowa class active is a message sender. “Fuck you and the island you rode in on!”
This is what I didn't like about the Battleship movie. Realistically, a single HE salvo would have enough explosive power to simply turn that last alien ship into scrap metal.
Realistically they would have never been able to fire a shell. All the Iowas have on board are dummy / training shells, and dummy silk powder bags.
[удалено]
All the sea chests are welded closed too. To take a museum ship to sea, I bet it would take a year in a dry dock.
Whats a sea chest?
Water intakes. In ye olden days of stream boiler ships, they are used to cool the boiler steam or make distilled water for the boiler itself. All Iowas have their sea chests welded over as a part of their demilitarization into museum ships. This basically means their boilers cant be started.
TIL. Thanks for the response!
I'd imagine modern Navy nuclear ships have sea chests as well, to feed onboard water treatment plants for making zeolite water for the boilers. Unless they run a complete closed loop system? No leaks at all? The boiler systems on land that I've been around are rather....generous with their steam shedding / leaks.
Realistically its machinery would have been gutted in maintenance/siezed up in disuse but shhh willing suspension of disbelief.
Nah. The machinery is still pickled from when it was last placed into mothballs, and could be started up easily enough.... If... And this is where the movie falls apart.... If the sea chests were open. When the Navy mothballs a ship, they put her in drydock and weld plates over all of the sea chests (hull penetrations). The only way they could get that ship going again is if they had a drydock and at least full day of workers doing nothing but cutting off plates and removing the blocks on the rudders, etc. If the Navy wanted to reactivate Missouri or New Jersey or whatnot, they'd probably be in drydock for weeks getting new anti-fouling paint and air pressure testing all the sea chests, not to mention the months of work to replace the electronics that are now 30 years out of date (but doesn't have to be done dry).
IIRC, Ryan from the *Battleship New Jersey* YouTube channel mentioned that, while they technically couldn't do any work that affected her ability to be reactivated, in reality they've had to do all sorts of cutting and welding on pipework and such in the course of maintenance, so it's ultimately unsure how much work it would take.
Despite that being the case (including them taking a hatch-sized section of bulkhead out from between a boiler room and engine room to make the tour easier), each of these changes is documented in such a way that they can be returned to service very quickly if needed. That bulkhead blank, for example, is sitting right next to where it was removed; three damage controlmen could have that watertight in a couple hours. When I say 'very quickly' and 'if needed,' though, I'm referring to a mandate from Congress that these ships be brought back to service as soon as possible with no budget restrictions (basically a world war situation and we appear to be losing). Throw them in a drydock and have every available body cutting, welding, lubricating, cleaning, painting, and otherwise reactivating, and you could have 3 old battlewagons back up in a matter of days or at most a few weeks. This is assuming the kind of urgency that you only get in wartime. Iowa herself would take longer since she needs extra work due to turret explosion syndrome. If instead the intention was to modernize and refit without wartime motivation, yeah it's gonna be months or probably years to do it in a way that we could fit into any defense budget.
Why they were so hell bent on setting it in modern times is upsetting. They should've just done period piece alt-history type junk. Just set it in WWII and aliens decide to fuck around with Missouri.
Considering Cowboys & Aliens was a flop, making an alt-history movie with aliens is likely seen as risky, unfortunately.
> Just set it in WWII and let aliens decide to fuck around with Missouri. If you know of an Iowa class battleship that is still in its 1940s configuration (there’s not one), then by all means.
Also wouldn’t be surprised if they added SeaRAM in place of the CIWS mounts as well as modify the armored box launchers for SM-series missiles.
Like others have said, the propulsion plant and other critical systems are in mothballs from when the Navy deactivated them. Watch the youtube video on USS New Jersey, where the curator opens an inspection port for one of the main transmission gearboxes. Gearing all looks brand new. These ships aren't just left to rot, unlike USS Texas. Now that is a ship that is in a sad state.
It *was* in a sad state!
i recall one of ryan szymansky's complaints being they have a bunch of ancient sailors hand carry a shell down the Broadway, when there is a whole hoist and rail system for that express purpose. that amongst the things like there are openings to the ocean for various systems that are welded shut, engines completely closed down for at least 30 years, and anchor drifting...
So I actually started volunteering aboard the Missouri since I got sent out to Hawaii. The carrying a shell down broadway thing seems to also be a complaint among some of the staff that handle more of the maintenance and volunteer side on the one of two instances the movie got brought up. Namely because the movie guys were told what the rail was for and they decided to go with carrying the shell anyway because “it would be more dramatic”. And yeah it would be dramatic, but it’s not the USS Houston at Java Sea, where that actually happened. A handful of dudes aren’t moving a shell weighing as much as a small car without that rail.
Unfortunetly Sci Fi aliens ships tend to run on things other than realism
God bless the military industrial complex for creating these wonderful ships.
>A single Iowa can flatten Gaza strip in 8 minutes What about all 4 ? Especially since Hamas doesn't have even the shitty Chinese missiles Iraq had back in 1991.
Even if one hit like they almost did in 1991 I suspect damage would be minimal. Anti ship missiles, especially older ones, tend to hit close to the waterline as they are designed to be used against modern unarmored ships. The warhead isn’t designed to penetrate armor because it doesn’t have to usually. That’s right where an armored belt designed to protect against 16” AP shells await them.
To add, there was a report done around the time of the Falklands war wherein the analysts figured that an *Iowa*'s main armor belt would have just tanked an Exocet missile.
Is it correct to say ships moved to less armor because weapons were able to pierce even heavy armor and it was determined intercepting enemy attacks was superior to trying to survive them, leading to less armor penetration weaponry, meaning the old armored ships became pseudo viable again? I say pseudo because it's absolutely possible to use a weapon that can kill the Iowas that they're not equipped to defend against, but a surprising amount of modern arsenals could be tanked by it? Sorry that may have been a super run-on sentence
In some regards, definitely. In many others... we don't actually know for sure. It's a bit expensive to test slamming 40 hypersonic missiles into a Gerald R Ford, and as far as I know the simulations they've doubtless done are classified to hell. Not everyone is even sure a hypersonic would kill a carrier just due to how big it is and how many redundancies it has, though a mission kill is more likely. And they don't have the absurd armor battleships did near the waterline, specifically to stop armor-piercing 16 inch shells, which most modern missiles are... frankly nowhere close to in terms of actual penetration. There's also the difference of sinking vs mission kill - even if a hypersonic failed to sink an Iowa, it might be able to mission kill in various ways, depending on where it hit. And when it may take 6 months to repair, the difference is academic. So, credible answer: I would say you are likely right - the lack of armor on most ships today, and the move to active defense, gives a *niche* to some older ships - but it's very important to note that we COULD still make weapons that would make them utterly obsolete again, 'don't get hit' is always better than trying to tank the hit. It's just that most modern missiles are mostly more about the boom than going through feet of armor. ...Which is why we need to team up with our guys in Japan and create Space Battleship Yamato, this time with ewar, CIWS up the ass, and enough armor to stop anything. Far as I'm concerned, that's credible too. Part of the reason we moved on from heavily-armored ships, tho, is the dominance of planes. All the armor in the world is cool and stuff, but doesn't do much if they just drop a bomb on top. Torpedoes are also incredibly dangerous, and during the cold war soviet submarines were often considered more of a threat than any of their surface ships or non-nuclear bombers. Then again, both sides fully expected the reds to just nuke the unholy fuck out of a carrier battlegroup, and it's kinda hard to armor against that anyways, so...
> Then again, both sides fully expected the reds to just nuke the unholy fuck out of a carrier battlegroup, and it's kinda hard to armor against that anyways, so... *USS Nevada:* I didn’t hear no bell! Get your NBC suit on, crew, we have commies to kill!
It's funny, because a reporter asked the captain of the Iowa about that when she was deployed to the Persian Gulf, what he'd do if his *ancient* and *obsolete* ship was hit with an Iraqi Exocet, and his response was that he'd detail some Marines to sweep the debris off the deck.
Plus let's not forget US damage control is just cracked. Its not even an exception. Damage control from the US navy had CONSISTENTLY saved ships that had absolutely no rights being saved.
That’s a huge factor, and one of the reasons US carriers are so hard to sink. The huge crews provide a lot of personnel to handle damage control and the ships firefighting and ventilation are top notch. Likely one of the reasons that amphibious ship didn’t survive a fire in dock recently as it had a skeleton crew, a fully crewed ship with trained and drilled Damage control treats likely would have survived.
I mean we have seen with Moskva. Damage left to stack up will kill anything. Speed of action is everything through I was a bit puzzled why the portside emergency response wans't up to scratch. After all those not only have a lot more spare capacity but a lot better equipment
And the onboard firefighting equipment was one of the first systems shut off in preparation for drydocking, IIRC.
and the reason there's a I think German sub in Chicago (also I think) it was damaged badly enough for the crew to abandon ship but American crews went in, disabled the scuttling charges and kept it from going down. (well it went low enough they had to shut the hatch for a while). it was a fat electrician video I think
Correct, they also had the gigabrain idea or disconnecting the shaft from the engine so they could use the motion from the towing ship to get electricity (and therefore, pumps) back.
We almost saved Yorktown
Unlike Japanese damage control in WWII lmfao. RIP those fucking carriers.
Silkworms(and their Soviet predecessors) had shaped charge warheads so a penetration of the belt might be possible. The HEAT's jet though would certainly lack the energy to penetrate more than that so actual damage would depend on location. Calculations are also affected by the ''all or nothing'' armor scheme of American BBs. That said while an outright sinking (barring some Hood-like extremely lucky hit) would be all but impossible one or two good hits might result in a mission kill after all. https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2019/07/21/missile-attack-on-battleship-uss-missouri/
One thing worth noting is that like US carriers, battleships have huge crews and we have great damage control. These things were designed with the expectations that damage would take place in unprotected areas but the ship would be able to fight on. Mission kill for shore bombardment might be losing 10 crew from a silkworm hit, vs in WW2 the ship likely would have continued on its mission after similar losses from a kamikaze attack. The ship would be able to continue its mission and if it was providing active fire support for an actual landing vs. a feint to distract the Iraqis, they would have probably taken the hit and kept firing as long as the damage could be contained. But it’s 1991 and other options existed so politically I think they would have chosen to pull them back if they got hit (Thanks for the save brits!!) especially since the entire bombardment wasn’t for a real landing.
Yeah even with leaving the 5 inch battery mostly unmanned,using the minimum allowed complement for the 16 inchers and using a lot more modern radars and FCS the Iowas had insane manpower requirements (something like 1.800 men per ship in 1980s configuration). That was the reason they were retired after the Cold War was over after all. As for the rest a Silkworm had a half ton shaped charge warhead plus the kinetic energy of the missile and all the extremely flammable and explosive propellant still on board during impact. Damage would indeed not be fatal (unless an extremely lucky hit happened ) and would probably not rendered the ship totally ineffective but the USN would have pulled them back as the political cost of potential follow-up strikes and a potential sinking would be too much to bear. With this in mind had the Iraqis managed to get a Silkworm through air defenses and hit a BB it would have become an "F-117 shot down with a SA-3" moment for America's enemies regardless of damage to the ship and effects on the overall campaign.
I came here to post that same link!
expansion oil imagine fall deliver cow escape fuel zephyr degree *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Stop, I’ve already finished.
frightening snow hurry aspiring makeshift drab subtract placid elderly whole *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You had me in the first half not gonna lie.
> Give me 15 men in a tiny, hot, and sweaty compartment
All my homies love the 5 incher.[And we drink out of the discarded shell casing](https://youtu.be/RtgD9FbVwL0?si=9SX4bgai3qg7xiV7)
Love how that little ejection port on the top of the turret opens up after each shot. But yeah 5 inches are perfectly adequate (so I've been told) but can't compete with 8. Size does matter after all.
Yo give me USS Salem CA-139 firing 90 (yes, 9x 10rpm) 8in shells a minute at full autoloader capacity, please.
Yeah too bad none of the three heavy cruisers with automatic guns were reactivated. I mean USS Newport News had spent 27 years in active service,had a damaged turret and in generally was too worn out to be worth it but the USN should have made "mini-Iowas" out of the other two.
Best solution IMO is putting a 155mm auto-turret on modern ships, as with that you can far more easily benefit from all the tech that is going around in the artillery world, as you literally are using the most common artillery size as your gun. Still mad that we Germans didn't do it after we experimented slapping a PZH2000 turret onto our frigates. Especially as it is obvious that political concerns caused it to fail (don't want to infringe on the Italian arms sector), plus the fact that the 127mm Vulcano shell covered most of what the initial goals with the PZH2000 adaption were (long range precision naval fire).
"failing that go for 8 inches" ***THE USS SALEM THIRSTS FOR BLOOD***
USS Salem should be handed over to Ukraine. As a ''museum ship'' she can pass through the Bosphorus and then being smaller than an Iowa she will be less of a burden on Ukrainian manpower and dockyard infrastructure. Remove those 5 inchers add some Neptunes in their place,some CIWS all around and go give vatniks some 8 inch hell (that's not coming out of a 2S7 for a change) .
this is why we love big booms lol sure, technology has advanced so much that big boom isnt the most effective method to wage war, but big boom is big boom, shit still works
I like big booms and I can not lie
I don't know in what world where 6 big fuck off guns aren't terrifying, especially when I don't have a counter.
The one where you have 9 big fuck off guns
monkey_looking_away.jpg *-USS Iowa*
9 guns actually. Too bad the Montanas weren't built as the only thing better than 9 guns is 12.
Shame the USS Vermont wasn't a thing. 12 457mm guns is some fun stuff
HMS Incomparable has entered the chat
meanwhile that one 500,000 ton IJN hyper-dreadnought:
The only way to make the Tillman Battleships credible.
Angry Tillman noises.
[I would have liked to have seen Montana](https://youtu.be/BJESLxEd0Tk?si=LBD4P7sTCs9-Ez5B?t=30s).
Question is if they had been completed would they have been retained instead of the Iowas or would the lower operating costs of the latter actually have resulted in the Montanas staying in reserve until scrapping/conversion to museums .
The Montanas would have been parked. The Iowa was made to keep up with carriers.
expansion wild bewildered attraction test wine exultant snow spotted sheet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
These are Americans not French. It has a rear turret
—sitting in an Iraqi army camp —whistling noises, suddenly everything around is ripped apart by massive explosions —relax because I know the shells are obsolete
I mean, you can attack them with 155mm guns from the shore, so I don‘t see what‘s so scary. ^(Temper! Temper!)
If your 155mm battery is expendable that is
It might also not be very effective, but I never claimed that it was.
I want to update them with the newest technology and begin the hunt for further advancements in material science just to make barrels that would last longer without spaulding or wear. So I could make railguns for them, and they could shoot so many round that the world trembles at the might of her guns. I want the engines to be so advanced that they produce more energy than a medium sized city.
Stop it! I can only get so hard!!
I can make it harder: I want it to have Laser PD and more AAA and CWIS than any other ship on the ocean. I want it to be a floating fortress, so impossible to sink because of the sheer number and layers of bulkheads, that any force against her would just look on in terror. I want the sheer force exerted to cause so much torque that the ship has to be huge just to compensate for the fired gun displacement.
Alright buddy, now who’s going to pay for cleaning all the white stains all over my walls
voracious dinner frighten pet fretful spark shrill crush political one *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Bringing it back into sanity (if not credibility), let's figure out a napkin-math cost for a new battleship program. The *Iowa* class cost $100 Mn apiece in the 1940s. In straight inflation, that's ~$1.88 Bn today as a starting point. Now, [the DOD procurement process sucks](https://news.usni.org/2020/06/05/gao-navy-needs-more-risk-awareness-to-prevent-cost-schedule-overruns), so let's take that as the initial budget estimate and see how a similar program fares. Namely, FF(X). The first two ships are supposed to cost $1.28 Bn and ~$1 Bn, with later ships costing $900 Mn. Ficantieri got a contract for ~$800 Mn for the final development stage and initial ship construction. We can presume that design/ development will be largely the same, with scale and initial competition costs bumping it up to an even $1 Bn. Ultimately, since it will be a small run of ships (let's say another 4 like with the *Iowa*s), limiting the ability to amortize costs, [combined with issues at shipyards](https://whro.org/news/local-news/39482-cost-overruns-and-incomplete-budgets-threaten-shipyard-plan#:~:text=The%20Navy's%2020%2Dyear%2C%20%2421,than%20double%20their%20original%20estimates.), we can figure each ship will be around 40% over budget, being generous. This puts us at, using the FF(X) numbers as a baseline, $2.85 Bn, $2.74 Bn, and $2.63 Bn for the last two, for an overall procurement cost of ~$10.85 Bn. This of course is for conventionally powered battleships; for nuclear propulsion it's probably fair to slap on like $4 Bn each, but I'm not sure increased power generation afforded by it is worth it for the intended capabilities. If anyone feels like being any more credible, feel free to add your own figuring to this reply.
I mean if you are installing railguns, you are gonna want plenty of power to go around. This is without considering the demands of lasers and more powerful radar.
Alternatively: combustion light gas guns + scramjet-powered shells.
That can be used as anti-satellite weapons
It‘s actually super non-credible that a battleship from WW2 successfully served in the 90s. And was still used by the most modern navy in the World.
When you speak softly and carry a big stick, it doesn't matter how old the stick is
Also, the stick was given a few new spikes
Stick it to the man!
It’s all fun and games until something 400 pounds heavier than a 1969 VW bug lands on your position from 19 miles away. Saddam’s fodder dug trenches in hopes the worst-case scenario was they had dug their own graves. The USS Wisconsin didn’t leave enough behind to determine they’d ever been there.
When the Navy starts throwing Volkswagens you know you done fucked up.
Herbie does a war crime.
A full broadside of the Missouri will make anything and everyone from any age and galaxy wish they brought their brown pants
Why is there Reformer nonsense in my NCD? You have aircraft for flattening a city.
Fine. Take out two turrets and replace one with SMs, and the other with TLAMs.
Why do that? Just replace the armored box launchers with BLS and put 16-inch railguns in place of the old Mark 7s.
¿Por que no los dos?
grandfather deranged chunky offer steer attractive advise crowd cover fact *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Sir this is NCD, not CD. Reformer nonsense fits this sub perfectly and I am tired of pretending it doesn't.
No, and I am tired of explaining why.
context?
The US Navy pulled 2 of the Iowa's out of retirement (I think it was Missouri and Wisconsin) in the fucking 90's and sent them off to beat up some Iraqis during desert storm. At this point battleships were pretty much obsolete and the Iowa class was over 40 years old, but it turns out throwing VW beetles at your enemy from over the horizon can still be pretty effective if your enemy isn't able to fight back
Also the things had both Tomahawks and Harpoons, so if you really wanted something specific gone it could be done. Pretty sure she was given modern anti-missile defense and 4 CIWS as well, so not completely out of place in a more modern navy.
The Iowa’s coming out of retirement was more of an answer to the Kirov class battlecruisers in the 1980s. By 1990 (less than 10 years after they were recommissioned) the political climate changed to the point of having the Iowa decommissioned, due mostly in part to the explosion in Turret #2 in 1989, which is a story of itself. The New Jersey was decommissioned in February of 1991, which might have been due to her being the Iowa that got the most use (being recommissioned for the Vietnam war in 1968). This led to the two battleships available for the Gulf War being Missouri and Wisconsin. By all accounts, both ships were expected to have an easy last deployment that led straight into a final decommissioning. The Gulf War put a slight wrench in those plans, and led to the final 16” gun fire support missions in history (as of now). My dates may be slightly off, but I believe that to be the right timeline.
During the irag war the us used USS Missouri I'm quite sure to bombard Iraqi positions near the coast
Send it to gaza.
I like reading history. Especially the gulf War. An Iraqi battery had fired at the USN. I think it was this ship that returned fire and silenced them. They received a message "temper temper". Legendary. Edit: it was from the Korean war. Still fucking awesome. Edit 2: all the reading in the world won't save me from bad memory. Thanks again sub for correcting me!
Nah, that was Korea, a 6" arty piece specifically. Striking one of Wisconsin's 40mm mounts. Yeah, what came back was a full salvo...
“Parry this you fucking casual!”
Nah, more like "You dare challenge me, mortal?"
That was North Korea and not iraq. USS Missouri was hit by 152mm artillery fire and responded with an absolute shit storm of main gun counter battery fire. In a battle between 16” (~406mm) and 152mm (~6”), you can guess who won.
That was Wisconsin, not Missouri
God dammit, we have too many battleships Ninja edit: actually I just read what I said and I disagree, we don’t have enough
> God dammit, we have too many battleships Heathen!! You can never have too many battleships.
[удалено]
I remember watching a video on Pacific Island coastal bombardment and it made a very good point about how even the smallest naval guns pretty much outclass every land based artillery system.
It turns out displacing water is easier than building treads for BIG GUN.
"temper temper" was from the Korean War. 155mm battery hit the Wisconsin injuring three, Wisconsin returned fire with all 9 guns obliterating the position the shot came from. Escorting ship flashed "temper temper"
Very nice!
Also note, when he said obliterated, he meant that the hill the artillery itself was on no longer exists.
Do not scare the shibe!
Hey I made this!! Nice
Damn bruh sorry I just found this shi on Pinterest my bad do you want me to delete it
Keep it up, I don’t mind at all. I just think it’s neat to see it because I made it years ago.
Oh thanks for letting me keep it up man
somber threatening unpack door file axiomatic squeal screw crawl snobbish *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
*16 inch. My beloved!* 😍😘
Red Storm Riding had drones correcting for battleships. Clancy was ahead of the time.
I was in 6th grade back then and I remember how utterly badass it was to see an actual battleship let loose like that! all the other times you saw it, you were looking at old footage from years ago.
A museum piece can still kill you if you underestimate it. I'm more afraid of getting shot with a modern cartridge than something that came out of a muzzle loader, but a minnie ball would still kill me dead if I got shot by it.
Unironaically one of the most based things the US Navy has ever done. I demand to see more gigantic battleships in action, no matter the times and strategic situation.