Talk:Iowa-class battleship

Archives
Archive 1 (August 2004-October 2006)	Archive 2 (November 2006-April 2007)

Tomahawk Specs

The Tomahawk range is dramatically understated at 675nm. In fact we were carrying Block II BGM-109s which had about twice that range. ---B- 23:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention of BGM-109B TASM? The Iowas did carry them for a time along with TLAMs. --Dukefan73 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the page Armament of the Iowa class battleship, the TASM should be moentioned there. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions - Welding, RADAR

The Illinois and Kentucky sections both repeat the sentences on welding and Montana changes verbatim. It seems to me this would be better placed in a section lower down on construction techniques or similar. Of course a few details on the construction of the first 4 to counter balance are needed. Something about construction techniques maturing during the war, possibly.

Also the 1980 radars are described, but not a word on their WWII radars. Even if they somehow didn't get WWII radar it would be notable enough to say so.--J Clear 14:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll look into getting WWII radar specs after finals week, and will also check to see if they had any electronic countermeasures installed in WWII for protection against missiles (though I don't expect to find that they did). TomStar81 (Talk) 20:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Carrier conversion

In the 80s, it was initially planned for a "Phase II" of the reactivation of the Iowa-class battleships, which would have involved converting them into battleship/aircraft carrier hybrids.[1] While ultimately nothing came of this plan, it's just as deserving of mention in the article as things like the rejected proposals to complete the USS Kentucky as a missile battleship. For that matter, the WWII proposal to convert them into aircraft carriers (which Admiral King rejected), also mentioned in that same link, could presumably also be put somewhere in this article. Redxiv 03:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I was aware of the plan(s) to remove the #3 turrets and replace them with aircraft facilities (that information having come up during my New Jersey research), but I was unaware of any plans for the construction of these BB's to be switch to CV's. This info will make its way into the article forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Tom it would be nice to find the original references for these conversions. The FAS (globalsecurity) article is so poorly edited that using it as a citation bothers me.--J Clear 15:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ther's a GOA report detailing plans to remove the #3 turret on USS New Jersey and replace it with either aircraft facilities of a missile magazine sitting in my sandbox at the moment; I could add that to this article to back up the global security sie currently mentioned if it would make you feel better. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The debate on armor protection

I'd like to clear up the debate over the Iowa's armor scheme, what calibre gun they were designed to withstand, immune zones, etc. Norman Friedman, one of the most recognized authorities on the subject, makes the following qoute in his work, U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History:

"Protection against shellfire duplicated that of the South Dakota, with an immune zone of 18,000 to 30,000 yards against the 16in/45 gun firing a 2,240 pound shell. It corresponded to 21,700 to 32,100 yards against the higher velocity and hence flatter-trajectory 16in/50 firing the same shell. However, the armored box of the new ships was 464-feet long, compared with the 360-feet for the South Dakotas, with a proportionate increase in weight. Just as the Iowas were being designed, BuOrd adopted the new 2,700 pound, 16-inch shell, a magnificently destructive projectile, which shrank the immune zone (against the 16in/45) to only 5,300 yards (20,200 to 25,500 yards)."

Some of the confusion over this seems to stem from the fact that people forget that the first class of US "fast battleships", the North Carolinas, were designed to protect against 14" shells, as the USN demanded greater endurance from their ships, and were willing in that case to trade some protection for it.

Another point when discussing armor. There were great variations in armor quality and layout when comparing contemporary German, Italian, French, Japanese, and American ships. The quality and layout went a long ways in determing how effective the armor was. Here's a qoute from Nathan Okun (I'll provide a multitude of links to his work at the end) when comparing the belt armor of Bismark, KGV, Vittori Veneto, Yamato, South Dakota, and Richelieu:

"The use of a spaced decapping plate and a large outboard inclination made the U.S. design, which had the thinnest belt armor, more effective than the heaviest 'naked' armor, regardless of the poor scaling effects of the U.S. WWII Class 'A' armor!"

Remember, this is essentially the same armor and layout as used for the Iowas. The "spaced decapping plate" mentioned is something most people don't know about or forget about. Iowa had a 1.5" STS plate outboard of the main belt. It was designed to "decap" incoming AP projectiles at most angles of obliquity. The Iowas decapping plate was capable of decapping the AP rounds fired from the 18.1" guns of the Yamatos, depending on the engagement parameters. Getztashida makes the assertion in his argument that the Iowas had the same armor protection as the North Carolinas, which unfortunately is false. He may be confusing the North Carolinas with the South Dakotas, upon which the Iowas scheme was based. The North Carolinas had a much smaller immune zone against the 16/45 2,240 pound shell than did the South Dakotas or the Iowas. Getztashida's claim that "the Iowas did not carry sufficient protection against 16" guns - neither the 50 cal nor the 45 cal version" is patently false. If I haven't proved it with the information I've provided here, then I don't know what kind of proof is needed.

Anynobody then states an unusual viewpoint:

"Getztashida I totally agree with you that the North Carolina class ships should accurately be called battlecruisers, after all their armor was only able to offer protection against the 14" guns they were designed with. I'm also open to discussing calling the Iowa class battlecruisers since they were designed with the 16"/45 caliber guns and armor, but ended up with a battery 16"/50 guns with armor protection for 16"/45."

First off, there's no argument to be made for the North Carolinas, South Dakotas, nor the Iowas as regards to them being "battlecruisers". They were nothing of the sort in either design nor role. Let me clear up another misperception that Anynobody and Getztashida seem to have; the North Carolinas DID have a substantial immunity zone (21,300 yards to 32,000 yards) against the 16/45 gun and 2240 pound shell.

Now, if you want to speak of inadequacies in the protection of the Iowas (and the other USN "fast battleships"), now we're talking about underwater protection. Their underwater protection was adequate at best, certainly inadequate against the IJN Long Lance torpedo (then again, did any ship of any navy have adequate protection against the Long Lance?). Fortunately for the USN only North Carolina was torpedoed during the war, and although she was able to sustain 18 knots afterwards, No. 1 turret was essentially out of action and the main search radar was disabled due to shock. Although the protection system had come close to failure in a crucial area (abeam the magazines), BuShips felt that the system had performed as designed. Take it with a grain of salt I suppose.

• http://www.combinedfleet.com/gunarmor.htm
• http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm
• http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.htm
• Friedman, Norman U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History ISBN 0870217151

--Dukefan73 07:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Reactivation Potential

I really don't like the inclusion of the Gorshkov qoute. It would lead one to think that the Iowas are some sort of unsinkable super-ships. I'm willing to bet anything that Gorshkov was blowing hot air when he said what he did; Soviet Naval Aviation would have had less problem taking out an Iowa than Third Fleet and Fifth Fleet had taking out Musashi and Yamato in WWII. My humble opinion, but that quote is *constantly* overblown regarding this subject. --Dukefan73 12:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been adressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it should remain in. This is because they Soviets had a different naval structure to the US and vaulued different ideas in their ideal fleet.

Critism

From reading this article it seems that Iowa class is some kind of supership, above criticism. I hope someone edits it soon to show faults in the class, such as the armour protection, similary to how its done in other pages on battleship classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:86.140.35.108 (talk • contribs)

There should be some information about the inadequate armour protection for the Iowas in the armour section. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion

Can't speak for Neon Genesis as I never saw an episode, but the picture presented here supposedly of the Illinois and Kentucky ... maybe it's the angle we're looking at, but their bows look more like the blunt noses of the North Carolina class battleships. Iowas are much longer and sleeker. Nolefan32 03:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a very brief shot of some kind of Command and Control system where the ships were labeled thusly. Actually Evangelion used a lot of "inspired by-" style military equipment, like a hypothetical Yak-38 derivative, etc.

Funny thing, even really sleek ships like the Scharnhorsts look chubby when viewed from low and in front. That being said, there's actually no canonical information that Illinois and Kentucky really were Iowas in the NGE canon, so I don't know.

Anyway enough expounding on the subject, I would actually support removing the information except that there's a pretty picture too.

Eleland 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This image names both battleships as Illinois and Kentucky. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And that image reflects proper Iowa-class outlines for them both. However, this image (/media/wikipedia/en/5/5f/NGE_Iowas.png) - the one on the Iowa-class page - is a straight on shot, and from this angle, those aren't Iowa-class bullnoses we're looking at. Might just be bad animation, but those are too rounded; they're definitely more North Carolina-like. Nolefan32 05:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats actually no the only thing thats wrong with the ships, both are missing the bow mounted satellite uplink antenna that should have been added in the 1980s. I would chalk it up to bad animation myself, it would be hard to miss the christmas tree antennas since that was a mainstay feature of the modernized Iowas. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

SPQ-9

SPQ-9, the bubble / radome 2/3 of the way up the mast below the AN/SLQ-32 and above the CIWS and GFCS radar.

I made a stub on AN/SPQ-9 and I noticed some of the Iowa class images of the late 1980s show it and some do not. I'm also not sure which units had the SPQ-9, but it looks like Wisconsin and Missouri both had it during the Gulf War. As for the rest of the radar section, no offense, but the AN/SPS-49 section seems a bit overkill. In the grand scheme of things, the battleship is not an air defense unit, rather a major anti-surface / strike platform, thus the 49 shouldn't be explained in this level of detail in the class article. The only combat use I can see for the the 49 is if the Iowa's had capabilities for combat air controllers that would be direct A/C to ground targets and locate the A/C via the 49. Otherwise, the battleships would be screened by some AAW unit, a AN/SPY-1 or AN/SPS-48 SM-2 missile carrying cruiser at least in the 80s period anyway. What is important in this article, at least I would think, would be radars intended to track surface targets to engage with the shipboard artillery. Radars like the gun fire control radars and the SPQ-9, if it played a role, could use more coverage. I'm not sure I can provide that detail for these ships, maybe someone else has a source that they can use to elaborate on these radars instead of the 49. --Dual Freq 03:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is easier to reduce details than to add details, so I put everything I had into the article rewrite to update everything. On the issue of SPQ-9: I have been trying to call togather enough information to create an article on the radar, EW, and EW countermeasures of the Iowa-class to help reduce page size here. I haven't dug into it hardcore yet because I just got out of summer school this week. At any rate I agree that the radar stuff should focus on the surface equipment. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How much ammunition?

I was wondering, how many shells can these ships carry for the main guns? There's this discussion of whether they should be kept for possible future reactivation, and it makes me wonder just how much firepower is represented by an Iowa-class ship. Also the amount a 5-inch ammo might be relevant, but mainly the 16-inch shells. --Howdybob 23:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would take an educated guess at about 100 rounds per gun for the 16" guns. There are editors who have served on Iowas though who could be more accurate. --LiamE 14:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually came across those numbers during my research into the article's rewrite some monthes back. The stated number is 130 rounds of 16 in ammo per gun (390 rounds total), but that number is disputed since it seems to small (firing the guns during 6 to 9 hours seiges would exhast that ammount of ammunition quickly). Other personel put the numbers at 387 rounds for Turret I, 456 for Turret II, and 367 for Turret III for a total of 1,210 rounds of 16-in ammo (navweaps.com). For the 5-in guns the number stated is 450-500 rounds per 5-in mount. Multiplied by 10 this puts the total at 4,500 to 5,000 rounds of 5-in ammo in a WWII design. In their 1980s configuration the total would be 2,700 to 3,000 rounds of 5-in ammo (navweaps.com). TomStar81 (Talk) 21:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's 130 per gun, as opposed to 130 per turret, then the actual total would be 1,170 rounds, which is close to the other figure of 1,210. --Howdybob 06:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Fire Control section modifications

I am an old retired Fire Control Technician (Gun) new to WikipediA. You folks have done a great job on this article, but I would like to humbly offer some suggestions to the Fire Control Section. Each gun battery had its own set of Fire Control Systems. The 16in/50Cal Main battery had the two Mk 34 GFCS's and they each used a Mk 4 Rangekeeper electromechanical computer (I'm pretty sure about this, but it has been 25 years). The 5in/38Cal Secondary Battery had four Mk37 GFCS's and each used a MK IA electromechanical computer. The 40mm AA Battery probably used the Mk51 Director with a Mk14 (40mm) gun sight near each mount. The 20mm AA Battery used a Mk14 (20mm) Gun Sight mounted over the barrel/barrels on each mount. This is because these were all electromechanical analog computing devices. They calculated by spring tension, Gyro precession, position of a small rod on a three dimensional cam buried deep in the workings of the device. Each computer was designed and hand made for each gun ballistic in the factory, and could not be changed to another gun ballistic at sea. If you all think I could help your great work, I would be glad. FTC Gerry 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(Later: I Apologize for posting this in this article's discussion page. I thought I was on the Armament page. I don't know how to delete it!) FTC Gerry 02:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; were not suppose to delete good faith additions, and this will eventually be archived. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Red Storm Rising?

Someone removed a reference to Red Storm Rising from the pop-culture section on the grounds that there was no citation. Isn't the citation the novel itself? I don't see what else could be done beyond a chapter number; the page number will vary depending on whether it's hardcover and so on. --Howdybob 02:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed it becuase no ref tabbed inline citation was provided for the novel account. If you wish to reinsert it use the cite book template and add as much information as you can; otherwise I will remove it again as an inadequently cited reference. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was the one who added that in the first place, I figured it was a notable pop culture refrence, since Red Storm Rising is required reading for the US military, etc. etc. I'm affraid I'm not very good at citing sources, I'll see if I can dig up my copy and puzzle my way through it. Should I just include the chapter number, or should I say the page number and the version of the book I'm getting it from? I'm affraid I'm new to this! =) AGTMADCAT 07:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Per the hidden notice in the Pop culture section: BEFORE PLACING AN ITEM IN THIS SECTION PLEASE ENSURE IT HAS HAD A WELL-CITED AND NOTABLE IMPACT ON POPULAR CULTURE. (Caps not mine.) How does the Iowa class's appearance in Red Storm RIsing impact popular culture? I don't think it did, but I could be wrong. But one would have to have a reliable source to prove its impact. As it stands, it is simply listing one of many military/naval assets mentioned in the book. A better list might be "List of contemporary military assets NOT apperaing in Red Storm Rising", as Clancy's books usually have just about every US ship, plane, tank, etc. in or expected in service of the relevant nations at the time of writing. - BillCJ 08:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget Under Siege! Sunil060902 23:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

POV

In the opening paragraphs it states that these battleships where the ultimate capital ship. This is obviously untrue, the Yamato class far more powerful. These ships where limited by the Panama canal. Even though these ships are historical and possibly the second most powerful battleship, they where not the best. The Yamato would rape these things in combat during WW1, and this should be acknowledged. I can understand that these ships are American but the fact of the matter is Yamato was the most powerful battleship (mind you im not counting Iowas post modernising - we should compare the two ships when they where both active at the same time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.118 (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the line that you state is untrue is double-cited. If you could provide reliable sources to back up your claim. -MBK₀₀₄ 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if you could it would be very unwise to compare the Iowa class to the Yamato class in this article; we tried that once, and the net result was a two month edit war over whose ships get to be listed (check archive 1 for proof). Ultimately the whole compitition thing was removed for the sake of peace an civility. Moreover, the Yamato class should be compared to the best U.S. battleships, and those aren't the American Iowa class battleships, they are the U.S. Montana class battleships. In due time I plan to rewrite the Yamato class page, and that page will of nessecity note the honor bestowed on the mighty Yamatos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well when the US was planning the Iowas they didnt expect or want them to fight with the new dreadnought the Japanese where building (Yamato) because they knew it would be certain death. Its role was to be more of a battle cruiser as opposed to a battleship. I think this is excellent proof that the Iowas are not the pinnacle of Battleship design because they where not even designed to take other ships because they where simply stronger. If you think this should be added into this article (which it should because its true, theres no denying the truth) i can get the refs needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This is entirely untrue. It wasn't until late in the war that US intelligence started to form a clear picture of the design specifications of the Yamatos, including their displacement, armor protection, and size of the main gun armament (the US thought they had 16" main guns). Their (the Iowas) role was nothing like that of a battlecruiser, and they most certainly were designed to take on any *known* battleship in existence or under construction. The Iowa's 16/50 main gun was as good or better than any battleship gun known to be in existence, and was essentially as good ballistically as the Yamato's 18.1" weapon. Saying that the Yamatos were more powerful simply because they were larger and had larger main guns is a simplistic comparison that ignores myriad other factors when quantifying the fighting power of the respective ships. No offense, but your comments here lead me to believe that your research on the subject is extremely limited. You should check out the reference section of the article, especially the Sumrall and Garzke and Dulin works. Also, an excellent source is Norman Friedman's work on US Battleships. I'm not saying one can't argue that the Yamatos were the ultimate, most powerful battleship design, you're simply using incorrect and spurious points to make your case. --Dukefan73 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Americans knew that the Japanese where creating a super ship (Yamato) and they didnt want their ships to go one on one with it, but i really cannot be bothered backing this up. But the fact of the matter is, someone who doesnt know anything about battleships will be mislead by this guide. It tells the reader that these where the best battleships the world had ever seen, and has no mention of the Yamato. Lets face it, the Iowas may have been better in terms of a support ship for the carriers and be of more strategic value, but the Yamato fufills the original role of the battleship because it was bigger and better, enough said. The Iowas would surely loose in a one on one duel with the Yamato, but as i said they may have been of more use all around as support ships and what not. I think this article should state that the Yamato was a larger battleship with bigger guns. This would atleast readers to compare the two and come to a conclusion themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.169.244 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Legacy of the Aldenata

The Iowa class battleships are featured in this series of science fiction books being used as fire support against the invasion of the alien Posleen horde. They're successful at that because the aliens' battle computers aren't programed to deal with unpowered, ballistic weaponry. The Iowa herself accidentially and spectacularly destroys a Posleen lander, which is the size of a skyscraper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 11:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)