# How many conventional cruise missiles to sink the USS Missouri? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 27, 2007, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406 "2007-07-27T18:05:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2007, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/81 "2007-07-30T19:48:45Z")
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train] In fact, _USS Arizona_’s hull was laid down in 1914 and the ship was commissioned in 1916, long before aerial bombardment would have even been a concern. _Arizona_ was, at the time of her sinking, one of the oldest capital ships still on the Navy’s register in active service. Her resistance to damage is not comperable to the much newer and more heavily armored _Iowa_-class battleships. Stranger [/QUOTE] Minor Nit pick: the following battleships were older and on active service on Dec. 7: Arkansas, New York, Texas, Nevada, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania. The following were older, but converted to training roles: Utah, Wyoming The following were older, but converted to non-combatant/auxiliaries: Oregon (ammunition barge, '44), Kearsarge, Illinois The following were newer: New Mexico, Mississippi, Idaho, Tennessee, California, Colorado, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina, Washington 😉 ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2007, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/82 "2007-07-30T20:17:09Z")
[QUOTE=Ranchoth] Well, instead of asking how well protected the _Missouri_ is, I’d like to ask…how accurate and maneuverable is a Tomahawk? Could you fly one straight down one of the smokestacks? [/QUOTE] On the old battleships, they had what was called an “armored grating”, IIRC, that attempted to stop shells and shrapnell from entering this way. I am not at home (and dont have access to my reference books), so I cannot supply any data on this feature… As far as I know, shell or bomb hits rarely entered this way, so the system was not severly tested, but in the few cases it was, I think it held up… Anybody else confirm? ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 10:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/83 "2007-07-31T10:07:32Z")
[QUOTE=Pushkin] I often wondered, purely from some small drawings in books I’ve seen (and, yes, Hollywood) the bridge never seemed like the pill box I thought necessary to survive. [/QUOTE] When I toured the battleship [USS Massachusetts](http://www.battleshipcove.org/bb59-history.htm) in Fall River, Mass. as a kid, I remember that the bridge was actually a double structure. On the outside was a conventional-looking ship’s bridge area with with a wide, windowed pathway across the superstructure (though without a helm and other controls). Within this was a concrete pillbox with small, slit viewports that held the helm and all other essential control functions. I recall the concrete being about a foot thick (and I had no way of knowing if it had been reinforced). It would be fairly easy for hostile fire to wipe of the outer bridge, but taking out the inner pillbox would be another matter. ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/84 "2007-07-31T10:58:40Z")
[QUOTE=Tranquilis] I keep going over this, and people insist on ignoring it. The “aerial bomb” that detonated the _Arizona_ was a bunker buster - An AP _battleship_ shell with fins slapped on it [/QUOTE] Well squish my ignorance, I never knew that. Improvised weapons always seem a little bit more interesting (like the re-engineered Exocet missile that the Argentines launched from a truck instead of an aircraft in the Falklands). [QUOTE=Billdo] It would be fairly easy for hostile fire to wipe of the outer bridge, but taking out the inner pillbox would be another matter. [/QUOTE] Interesting, thanks. The B&W films I’ve seen of Royal Navy ships never showed this. But then I’m not sure about the size of the ships seen on screen, no doubt a destroyer or perhaps even a cruiser wouldn’t have the benefit of this sort of protection. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/85 "2007-07-31T16:55:10Z")
[QUOTE=Pushkin] I often wondered, purely from some small drawings in books I’ve seen (and, yes, Hollywood) the bridge never seemed like the pill box I thought necessary to survive. [/QUOTE] I believe you are thinking of the “conning tower”. The US had mixed feelings about the weight devoted to the conning tower, and had it removed in some of it’s battleships. On the Iowa class, Wiki says that the conning tower is located “in the middle of the bridge”, which, if correct, would make it hard to see in photos… I will try to confirm elsewhere. Found a pic on this site: [http://www.ussiowa.org/general/html/specifications.htm](http://www.ussiowa.org/general/html/specifications.htm) ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/86 "2007-07-31T17:02:36Z")
[QUOTE=mlees] Found a pic on this site: [http://www.ussiowa.org/general/html/specifications.htm](http://www.ussiowa.org/general/html/specifications.htm) [/QUOTE] And here: [http://www.ussiowa.org/pics/mothball/mb13.jpg](http://www.ussiowa.org/pics/mothball/mb13.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/87 "2007-07-31T19:27:36Z")
Since this thread is still moving along, what would happen if a Hiroshima sized nuke were detonated over an Iowa class BS? Would it just turn the thing into a canoe? Would the hull be gutted and filled with melted steel but still be floating? Oh, and can a mothballed ship be brought back to service? What would it take? ---
**Author:** ![mks57](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b9bd4f/32.png) [@mks57](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mks57)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/88 "2007-07-31T19:31:19Z")
See [Operation Crossroads](http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq76-1.htm). ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/89 "2007-07-31T21:58:45Z")
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] Oh, and can a mothballed ship be brought back to service? What would it take? [/QUOTE] Anything can be made to be usefull again in some way, as long as it floats. As to how long it takes, that depends on the condition of the hull and the machinery onboard, as well as how much old stuff needs to be removed and replaced with newer stuff. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2007, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/90 "2007-07-31T22:49:06Z")
[QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] Since this thread is still moving along, what would happen if a Hiroshima sized nuke were detonated over an Iowa class BS? Would it just turn the thing into a canoe? Would the hull be gutted and filled with melted steel but still be floating? > [@](#): > > It depends on what you mean by above (and the yield from ‘Little Boy’ was about 13kT, substantially less than most warheads carried by naval cruise missiles; the nuclear armed opton on the SS-N-9 ‘Siren’ was estimated at 200kT). At prox distance the thermal pulse and blast wave would probably batter the ship to pieces. At altitude it would just set fire to anything inflammable, fry anything electronic, and irradiate the entire ship. An enhanced radiation (neutron) device would probably cause fast-fission reactions on anything made of depleted uranium or other fissile material. Any unshielded nuclear devices would probably undergo fission themselves, although not efficiently, disabling them. In short, it would be a very bad day. > > [QUOTE=Uncommon Sense] > Oh, and can a mothballed ship be brought back to service? What would it take? Sure. The _USS Missouri_, for instance, was decommissioned in 1955, and recommissioned and refitted with modern weapon systems in addition to her impressive artillery in 1985 as part of Reagan’s thrust to build up the Navy. Refitting older ships is difficult, though–they aren’t designed with hullspace to fit newer weapon systems, which have to be retrofit or placed on-deck. It’s generally not worth recommissioning an old ship, particularly given the fact that the hull itself is only a small fraction of total construction cost and that reduction in operating costs of a newer, more efficient ship will overshadow any cost savings from salvaging a hull and powerplant. Most nations just sell off older ships to second-hand navies; the U.S. tends to scrap them as targets or sink them for artificial reefs, alhtough there is a recycling program to salvage raw materials as well. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/91 "2007-08-01T05:17:39Z")
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train] alhtough there is a recycling program to salvage raw materials as well. Stranger [/QUOTE] I have a vague memory about the, hmmm, harvesting of steel from pre 1945 ships because the steel produced afterwards is contaminated by the fallout of all the nuclear explosions and atmospheric tests. Anyone has a better recollection of that? ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/92 "2007-08-01T13:16:32Z")
[QUOTE=Ale] I have a vague memory about the, hmmm, harvesting of steel from pre 1945 ships because the steel produced afterwards is contaminated by the fallout of all the nuclear explosions and atmospheric tests. Anyone has a better recollection of that? [/QUOTE] I have seen that statement as applied to salvaged vessels of the period, for example on this web site: [Scapa Flow High Seas Fleet Scuttling](http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/scuttle.html) , down near the bottom in the box discussing the Bayern. ---
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 1:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/93 "2007-08-01T13:38:07Z")
[QUOTE=Ale] I have a vague memory about the, hmmm, harvesting of steel from pre 1945 ships because the steel produced afterwards is contaminated by the fallout of all the nuclear explosions and atmospheric tests. Anyone has a better recollection of that? [/QUOTE] I asked about that on the boards before, its a big enough market for people to go down and bring up steel from old wrecks, useful for MRI machines amongst other things. ---
**Author:** ![Ring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Ring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ring)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/94 "2007-08-01T17:24:07Z")
Why did the Missouri and, I think, all WWII battleships have such long front ends (bows?) [http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hawaiitravelnewsletter.com/images/usnavy/uss-missouri-02-400x302.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hawaiitravelnewsletter.com/oahu/uss-missouri.htm&h=302&w=400&sz=152&hl=en&start=0&um=1&tbnid=rIkMzr7pP7oiFM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Duss%2Bmissouri%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hawaiitravelnewsletter.com/images/usnavy/uss-missouri-02-400x302.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hawaiitravelnewsletter.com/oahu/uss-missouri.htm&h=302&w=400&sz=152&hl=en&start=0&um=1&tbnid=rIkMzr7pP7oiFM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Duss%2Bmissouri%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN) ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/95 "2007-08-01T17:35:16Z")
[QUOTE=Ring] Why did the Missouri and, I think, all WWII battleships have such long front ends (bows?) [/QUOTE] I’m going to hazard a guess and say that it’s to obtain a better (lower) [prismatic coefficient, C[sub]p[/sub]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hull_(watercraft)#Metrics), and a higher maximum [Froude number](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Froude_number). You generally get this by making the frontal aspect less and the wetted length of the hull longer (for the same displacement), so as to part the water. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/96 "2007-08-01T18:23:48Z")
A longer ship requires less power to push through the waves than a shorter, but equally broad ship. This also means that a longer ship will have a higher top speed than an shorter one, assuming the same power plant. So, in effect, the Iowa’s were long(er) so they could achieve the 32+ knot speeds the designers where asked to provide. Iowa class: 212,000 horsepower on an 887 ft hull, 45000 tons displacement. The planned follow on class, the Montana class, was 60000 tons, 920 ft hull, 172,000 horsepower plant, 28 knot speed. The previous class, the South Dakota class, was 35000 tons, 680 ft hull, 130,000 horsepower, 27 knot speed. The previous class to that, the North Carolina class, was also 35000 tons, 729 ft hull, 115,000 horespower, 27 knot speed. (Same speed, longer hull, less power than the South Dakota’s.) All classes had a 108 ft beam (width), to fit through the Panama Canal. ---
**Author:** ![Ring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Ring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ring)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/97 "2007-08-01T19:05:47Z")
That’s what I kind of figured. But since speed is money for just about any large ship I couldn’t figure out why no other type opted for the long bow. My guess is that it’s expensive as hell to do, doesn’t offer much in additional cargo space, and therefore can only be justified by the military? God, it certainly makes for a beautiful ship though. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/98 "2007-08-01T19:10:15Z")
[QUOTE=Ring] That’s what I kind of figured. But since speed is money for just about any large ship I couldn’t figure out why no other type opted for the long bow. My guess is that it’s expensive as hell to do, doesn’t offer much in additional cargo space, and therefore can only be justified by the military? God, it certainly makes for a beautiful ship though. [/QUOTE] The downside to a long narrow bow: It doesn’t offer much in bouyancy, and either requires a lengthening of the armor belt (if it is desired to armor this section) requiring weight; or; offers a large amount of unarmored hull that, if flooded, would require reserve bouyancy in the armored citadel section to be available, “just in case”, again requiring weight and volume. ---
**Author:** ![N9IWP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/n9iwp/32/3154_2.png) [@N9IWP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/N9IWP)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/99 "2007-08-01T19:23:40Z")
The Wisconsin is a bit longer than the other Iowa class ships - it collided with another ship in fog and had part of another battleship’s bow glommed on. Brian ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2007, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406/100 "2007-08-01T19:49:09Z")
[QUOTE=N9IWP] The Wisconsin is a bit longer than the other Iowa class ships - it collided with another ship in fog and had part of another battleship’s bow glommed on. Brian [/QUOTE] :eek: From the uncompleted Kentucky, 1956. Cool! I didnt know that! The Missouri grounded on a shoal in 1950, and had to be repaired in the drydock that the Kentucky’s hull was in: [http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/bb63-m4.htm](http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-m/bb63-m4.htm) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-conventional-cruise-missiles-to-sink-the-uss-missouri/413406.md?page=6)