How many conventional cruise missiles to sink the USS Missouri?

Factual Questions
21

[QUOTE=Tranquilis]
I didn’t say stop, I said resist and contain. If you wish to note how successful they are at such resistance and containment, let’s look at a comparabely-armored battleship: The Bismark.

Combining after action reports with recent ROV visits to her grave; the following was determined. She was hit by approximately eighty 14.5 and 16 inch armor-piercing naval artillery shells (and a thundering butt-load of lesser shells). All but two of the 14.5 in shells bounced. Only four of the 16 inch shells were found to have penetrated the armor, and though the torpedo bulge was shredded by plunging near-misses, no shells pentrated the armor belt. What doomed her was progressive flooding from numerous torpedo hits, possibly aided by scuttling. The shells that did penetrate did massive damage internally, but they didn’t sink her.

I’d call that adequate resistance and containment, thankyouverymuch.
[/QUOTE]

Dang I was going to talk about the Bismark. The only thing I can add is that for 20 minutes two British Battleships and 1 heavy cruiser fired for 20 minutes at point blank range and was unable to sink the Bismark. I figure that it would take a lot (40+) of cruise missiles to sink the ship. However, it would take a great deal less, half a dozen maybe, to put all of the batteries out of commission.

Battleships are built with water tight compartments. Even if the missile manages to open a hole below the water line, the section will be shut off and the ship will remain floating.

22

[QUOTE=///Metal]
The Bismarck was doomed by having its rudder disabled by a torpedo.
[/QUOTE]

That’s what forced her to give battle, but not what sunk her.

What sunk her was an hours-long battering by a pair of battleships, a slew of lesser surface vessels, and a raft of torpedoes.

23

[QUOTE=Tranquilis]
That’s what forced her to give battle, but not what sunk her.

What sunk her was an hours-long battering by a pair of battleships, a slew of lesser surface vessels, and a raft of torpedoes.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, i don’t disagree with you. I was merely pointing out the fact that even after the ship was basically doomed, it still put up one hell of a fight and took a long time to bring down.

24

Also notice that the Bismark sunk the HMS Hood with ONE well placed salvo that penetrated into the ammo magazines and virtually destroyed the entire ship almost instantly. But that was a lucky hit from heavy armor piercing rounds. The question is how many modern cruise missiles which are not designed to deal with that type of armor defenses would it take to actually sink a WWII battleship.

25

[QUOTE=///Metal]
Oh, i don’t disagree with you. I was merely pointing out the fact that even after the ship was basically doomed, it still put up one hell of a fight and took a long time to bring down.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

Bear in mind, that the HMS Hood was fighting out of her weight - she should have never been sent up against the Bismark.

Back on subject:
Cruise missiles that can penetrate 2 meters of concrete? It might hurt, but it’s not gonna be a leathal blow, nor even a dangerous one. Hell, all it might do, if it hit a turret, is scorch the paint. Put it into the bridge, and you’ve got a telling hit, but not a fatal one, nor even a combat-ending one. Better launch a couple squadrons of them.

[QUOTE=treis]
However, it would take a great deal less, half a dozen maybe, to put all of the batteries out of commission.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I suspect the main batteries would be the last things to go - they’re armored like nothing that has ever moved under its own power has ever been armored before, excepting for the IJN Yamamoto. More likely, you’d take out the directors, radar, and other surface impedimentia, rendering her blind, and thus ineffective. But I’d want to say send well more than a half-dozen, to be sure; The director towers were armored too.

26

[QUOTE=Snarky_Kong]
I’m fairly certain that the defenses of battleships are not adequate to defends against the main guns of another battleship.
[/QUOTE]

If you read the “Armor” section in Tranquilis’ link you’ll see that that was in fact the criteria used - the Iowa was built to withstand hits from weapons equivalent to its own main guns.

“Generally, a ship is armored to withstand hits from weapons equal to or smaller than its own main guns. The Iowa’s mount 16 inch main guns and are designed for optimal performance at ranges between 19,000 and 30,000 yards. With this in mind, the deck and side armor is designed to defeat the armor piercing shells fired by a ship mounting equal armament at these same ranges.”

Those are the 2700lb armor piercing shells that can penetrate almost 15" of armor at that distance (33" at point blank range, and wouldn’t that be a hell of a gunfight to watch). Or 32 feet of concrete.

27

[QUOTE=Tranquilis]
Hah!
Modern vessels aren’t armored at all - not in the sense that the old battle wagons were.

But to answer the armor values of aluminum. I have here on my desk, a hunk of aluminum armor cut from the side of an M-113 APC. It has a .50 cal AP bullet lodged in it - 3/4 of the way through the armor. In fact, the ogive of the bullet is actually sticking through the far side.

Or, you could look at the HMS Sheffield - Aluminum, burned to the waterline by a single relatively small anti-shipping missile, or the USS Stark, who recived very near the same fate from the same class of missile. Modern vessels are thin-skinned and vulnerable, compared to the old battle wagons. They rely upon their active defenses, or on faster, longer-reaching offense, to protect them from damage. They simply aren’t designed to take a beating like the old all-gun ships were.
[/QUOTE]

Aren’t modern ships less armored because the defensive capabilities of ships can’t keep up with the offensive and so they do other things rather than layer on armor?

28

[QUOTE=Snarky_Kong]
Aren’t modern ships less armored because the defensive capabilities of ships can’t keep up with the offensive and so they do other things rather than layer on armor?
[/QUOTE]
I think that’s right when you factor the cost in. You very well might need 40+ missiles to take out a fully armoured battleship, but how expensive was that armouring in the first place? And the battleship might well be functionally disabled after the first dozen or so anyway even if it doesn’t sink.

Which doesn’t mean that I don’t think there isn’t a place for heavily-armoured surface ships, just that our main focus should not be on that, as we can produce a larger quantity of other ships with more weapons for the same price.

29

[QUOTE=Snarky_Kong]
Aren’t modern ships less armored because the defensive capabilities of ships can’t keep up with the offensive and so they do other things rather than layer on armor?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ludovic]
I think that’s right when you factor the cost in. You very well might need 40+ missiles to take out a fully armoured battleship, but how expensive was that armouring in the first place? And the battleship might well be functionally disabled after the first dozen or so anyway even if it doesn’t sink.
[/QUOTE]
Ludovic has it - cost is a big issue. Battleships, even in their day, were prestiege weapons - If you could maintain a fleet of first-rate battleships, you were somebody on the international stage. It’s ol’ Teddy R’s “Big Stick.” If you can afford a fleet of those money-sucking monsters, you were someone whom had to be taken seriously.

Today, it’s aircraft carriers. They serve the same function - power projection - and are every bit as expensive, proprotionately, as the old battle wagons were. Big guns simply can’t keep up with aircraft in terms of flexibility, range, and striking ability, except where it comes to close-support of troops in contact, where artillery is often far cheaper, just as effective, with faster response times. So - that limits the battleship’s utility to those areas where her guns can reach, and where there’s likely to be US or allied troops in close contact with an equal or superior foe. Not many places that’s gonna be happening, these days. No… There’s not enough mission these days for the battleship, to justify keeping them in commission. Not even if you pack them full of cruise missiles (and they’d make seriously fearsome arsenal ships!) because we simply don’t fire cruise missels en mass all that often. No, better to have a lot more, less defensible, less hard-hitting, but more flexible ships. Flexibility is the jey - more options for your your defense dollar, and all that rot.

But those old battle wagons are still some awesomely tough SOBs!

30

Some of the Russian anti-ship missiles designed for carrier groups would have to have a chance Id think? They have ~1000kg warheads, do mach2+, and can weigh 7 tons or so.

US cruise missiles arent really designed to sink battleships so would struggle unless a warhead was developed for it or a fair few were used. Given they own the only battleships that have a chance of putting out to sea, you can see why it hasnt been a huge design priority. I imagine the first choice for sinking one would be a submarine.

GBU’s would also hurt a fair bit Id think? Because they really could fly down a smokestack, with a bit of luck.

Otara

31

[QUOTE=Elendil’s Heir]
Would the battleship’s Phalanx antimissile defense system blow away a cruise missile before it hit, anyway?
[/QUOTE]
You might ask the British about that, or the crewmen on the USS Stark. Even obsolescent anti-ship missiles pose a significant risk, and modern low-riding supercruise missiles of Russian and Chinese design have a very good chance of flying right through the barn door.

[QUOTE=Snarky_Kong]
Aluminum isn’t really a whole lot weaker than steel. It’s just more elastic. I’m not entirely sure how much that changes in impact as opposed to a dead load, but I don’t believe that old armor is better than new armor.
[/QUOTE]
Even modern high strength (6061-T6 or 7075-T6) is neither as strong (in terms of yield and tensile strength) nor nearly as tough or resistant to impact as the high grade low-to-medium carbon steels used in ship construction. And aluminum strength doesn’t tend to hold through wide (>2" thickness) of aluminum, whereas you can roll steel with good properties to much greater thickness. Plus, aluminum really isn’t the most ideal armor, given the fact that when you get it hot enough *it burns!*Major Sayers: The Brits did a study on aluminum.
Col. J.D. Bock: That would be the same aluminum sheathing used on the Bradley, sir.
Major Sayers: When hit by a shell, it has a tendency to burn, and when it burns it gives off a toxic gas.
Major General Partridge: Goddamnit! We fought a revolution so we wouldn’t have to pay any attention to the fucking British![right]-The Pentagon Wars[/right]

The use of aluminum hulls decreses weight for the same displacement and prevents some of the fracture problems with hull-grade steel, but it’s not a great armor. Most modern aluminum hulled military craft really aren’t that thick-skinned anyway, and rely on various active systems to prevent accurate interception.

A cruise missile with a conventional warhead could do significant damage to the superstructure of an Iowa-class battleship, and if it made a lucky hit it might even set off the powder magazine and destroy a turret. It will scarcely make a dent in the massive main hull. In addition, the armor isn’t just a single thickness of plate, but is layered and has additional features to maintain watertight integrity even if the outer hull is breached. Literally sinking a WWII-era battleship with cruise missiles would be a fool’s errand, but you could disable it and leave it adrift.

Stranger

32

[QUOTE=Otara]
Some of the Russian anti-ship missiles designed for carrier groups would have to have a chance Id think? They have ~1000kg warheads, do mach2+, and can weigh 7 tons or so.
[/quote]
These would do more damage, and enough of them would do the trick - eventually. But recall that thse aren’t really designed to penetrate armor either, just the side of an aircraft carrier. It’s entirely possible that they might actually breack up and fail to function effectively, if they were to hit straight on to armor. OTOH, if they do detonate properly, they’re going to strip a lot of topside fittings away. These are the only extant cruise missiles I’d give a chance of actually sinking a battle wagon with any kind of reasonable numbers. But you’d still need a lot of 'em.

No, instead, they’d “only” render it combat-incapable, and fairly quickly, I imagine.

Well, yes and no. Remember, battleships were designed to resist plaunging fire by 1200kilo armor-piercing shells. What’s a GBU? It’s plunging fire. So, how did the IJN mess up the ships at Pearl? By strapping fins on naval shells, and dropping them from really high, getting higher velocities than normal. That, and the fact that the ships weren’t at GW, and so couldn’t effectively engage in damage control until the damage had largely already been done. So… Are there ain equivalents to that in teh world’s aresenals? Why, yes, yes there are… GBU bunker busters. Those would fuck up a battlehip in very, very short order.

Stranger On A Train, you might also ask the crews of the USS Missouri and the HMS Gloucester. Two silkworms, much more capable missiles than the Exocet, were fired at the Missouri. One failed to make it to engagement distance, crashing instead, and the other was quite handily shot out of the air by the Gloucester. So much for the Chinese missiles efficacy. Anti-cruise missile defenses do work, if they’re up and running. I don’t know about the Sheffield, but the Stark did NOT have their defenses up and running, so cannot be used in argumant for or against the efficacy of such defenses when prepared and ready. IIRC, the Sheffield didn’t even posses such defenseise, but I could be wrong. Anyway, navies have since become acutely aware of the threat of sea-skimmers, and so such attacks are much less likely to go undetected (as happened with the Sheffield).

Edit:
Oh, great quote about the aluminum - I thought the Pentagon Wars was a wonderful bit of work, especially since my father knew some of those people personally, and agreed with the assesment IRT the Bradley’s vulnerability.

Further edit:
A cruise missile isn’t going to reach a magazine ona battleship. they’re deep in the hull, and very well protected. Even ready-use ammunition is well protected, and isn’t sent up to the gun mount until it’s to be loaded. You need to set off an explosion inside the turret to get to the ready-use magazine, and even that won’t sink a battleship, as wintnessed buy the Missouri explosion.

33

[QUOTE=Tranquilis]
Stranger On A Train, you might also ask the crews of the USS Missouri and the HMS Gloucester. Two silkworms, much more capable missiles than the Exocet, were fired at the Missouri. One failed to make it to engagement distance, crashing instead, and the other was quite handily shot out of the air by the Gloucester. So much for the Chinese missiles efficacy. Anti-cruise missile defenses do work, if they’re up and running. I don’t know about the Sheffield, but the Stark did NOT have their defenses up and running, so cannot be used in argumant for or against the efficacy of such defenses when prepared and ready. IIRC, the Sheffield didn’t even posses such defenseise, but I could be wrong. Anyway, navies have since become acutely aware of the threat of sea-skimmers, and so such attacks are much less likely to go undetected (as happened with the Sheffield).
[/QUOTE]
Oh, they work, but not with anything like 100% efficacy. And they’re designed to intercept the 'Eighties level of capability; the Soviets have since deployed several supercruise missiles capable of skimming down in the snow, literally a few meters above a calm sea. These ASM defense systems haven’t been tested against such a threat operationally but it’s likely that the capability to defend against these threats is less than of the Exocet or Silkworm.

No, a cruise missile can’t hit the powder mag or ammo stores; I was envisioning a scenerio in which a lucky hit managed to propogates through down to the elevator. And, as you note, while it’ll put a turret out of action, it won’t blow the hull apart or even disable maneuvering functions. Those ladies are built to take a lot of punishment; unfortunately, their primary role is obsolescent, and they’re expensive to take out for a spin.

The Pentagon Wars is a great mockumentary. It’s a good thing that weapon system development and procurement doesn’t actually work that way. :wink:

Stranger

34

The sheffield’s computer broke and required resetting. I remember it, and the subsequent inquiry, well.

35

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
No, a cruise missile can’t hit the powder mag or ammo stores; I was envisioning a scenerio in which a lucky hit managed to propogates through down to the elevator.
[/quote]
Well, such a hit would need to pentrate into the gunroom, and that’s the most heavily-protected part of the whole ship. I won’t say impossible, but darned unlikely.

Yeah, I’d love to take one of those ladies out for a cruise around the bay… Be a nice evening. :wink: In the bad ol’ days, when I still wore a uniform, they parked a pair at the Navy Yard in Philly. When I was pulling Command Duty Officer, I’d have to go and check the mothball conditions tell-tales and alarms, to be sure they were stil working, and nothing had gone wrong. Of course, I’d have gone over there to look a them anyway. Too beautiful not to go look at. We also had a pair of Salem-class all-gun cruisers in the reserve basin, and if you think the battlewagons were pretty, well..! Those cruisers were the epitome of big, bad, and beautiful!

Yeah. Good thing things like that never happen in real life. :stuck_out_tongue:

36

[QUOTE=///Metal]
Also notice that the Bismark sunk the HMS Hood with ONE well placed salvo that penetrated into the ammo magazines and virtually destroyed the entire ship almost instantly. But that was a lucky hit from heavy armor piercing rounds. The question is how many modern cruise missiles which are not designed to deal with that type of armor defenses would it take to actually sink a WWII battleship.
[/QUOTE]

The Hood was a battlecruiser, not a battleship. She carried battleship-sized guns, but much lighter armor than the battleships of her day.

37

“Are there ain equivalents to that in teh world’s aresenals? Why, yes, yes there are… GBU bunker busters. Those would fuck up a battlehip in very, very short order.”

I think even a GBU-15 would be pretty effective, but my immediate thought was obviously the 28.

Theres a pretty big difference between essentially straight down bombs hitting armour at close to 90 degrees in precision areas, and plunging area fire which is coming in at an angle, thats a pretty big decrease in armour effectiveness by itself.

Otara

38

[QUOTE=Otara]
I think even a GBU-15 would be pretty effective, but my immediate thought was obviously the 28.
[/quote]

Again, yes and no.

The GBU-15 would need a BLU-109 penetrator. It’s not always so-equipped. sometimes, it’s only a Mk-82 with the GBU unit strapped on. And actually, I think the BLU-109 would be rather light for the job. The casing is so thin that it’d very likely merely ‘splash’ rather than penetrate. A 1" hardened case isn’t much against armor designed to resist 16" AP navel shells. Now, OTOH, the GBU-28 is what I had in mind. That might well do the trick - mind you, it’s still less capable than the shells a battleship is resigned to resist. Remember 9+ meters of reenforced concrete? The GBU-28 is only rated against 6 meters of hardened concrete. And that, even with the higher angle. Remember, though, that bombs also do not fall straight down - they still retain the forward element of flight from the launching aircraft - and that naval artillery falls at a sharper angle than it rose at. Due to drag, naval shells actually tend to blunge rather more sharply than people think. The armor-penetrating capability of the big rifles were tested at 50[sup]o[/sup], and the deck armor on battleships was designed to resist plunging fire coming from 50[sup]o[/sup] off horizontal, and all lessor angles. so, the GBU wold need to be dropped from such an attitude and altitude that the vertical compoent of it’s motion resolved into a more-than-50[sup]o[/sup] angle, to be hopeful for an effective hit.

I think it can be done. I think GBU-28s would mess up a battleship, and in short order, but it isn’t exactly an easy proposition. The devil is in the details, and those details include armor designed against the nastiest anti-armor weapons ever built. Armor that’s even tougher than the toughest of Saddam’s bunkers. Armor that’s moving. Bring spare bombs - there’ll still be some misses.

39

[QUOTE=Mr. Excellent]
The Hood was a battlecruiser, not a battleship. She carried battleship-sized guns, but much lighter armor than the battleships of her day.
[/QUOTE]

I never said it was battleship. But it was the pride of the British Navy. And it went poof very quickly.

40

The British 617 squadron (the Dam Busters) sank the Tirpitz using their 5 ton “Tallboy” bombs. According to the book at least one went right through the deck and blew out the bottom of the ship. Here’s some Wiki info: