I found a link saying Iowa class was designed to take an aerial hit from a 2000lb bomb.
Given modern precision and the like, I think maybe it would be a close run thing vs even a GBU-15, yes with a BLU-109 (I kind of took that as a given), particularly if a mission kill rather than outright destruction was the aim. Obviously you’d use multiple rounds in practice.
History is a bit replete with people being a bit overoptimistic about battleships ability to shrug off aerial bombardment. I think the addition of laser guiding would change things a fair bit.
I don’t think anyone doubts that aerial bombs can sink a battleship. It has been proven in combat several times. The OP is specifically asking about cruise missiles.
Five ton tall boys and GBU-15 are not mounted on any cruise missile I am aware of.
Harpoon is a relative pip-squeak against the kind of armor a battlewagon carries.
If we must stick with cruise missiles, the the Russian “shipwreck” missiles mentioned above are the only one with realistic chances in any realistic numbers.
I doubt even they could sink a battleship except by lucky accident. Even the more advanced Russian anti-ship supercruise missiles are carrying a <300kg warhead. You could clear off the deck and send the superstructure sinking astern, but I think the hull would still be intact. The Missouri and the other Iowa-class ships are phenomenally armored on a scale we wouldn’t even consider today.
I live on a lake, and if she were mine I’d lower her on my boatlift, back her out of the dock, and take her out to the center of the lake. I’d then tell my gun control officer to train our 16 inchers on every God damn SeaDoo on the lake and blow them to smithereens.
One thing to consider is that the USS West Virginia was supposedly hit by a Japanese Ohka suicide rocket plane on April 1, 1945, and while damaged, was nowhere near sinking, and continued fighting at Okinawa.
Ohkas had a 2650 lb warhead, and went almost 400 mph.
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?
Battleships thickest armour (U.S. armor)was in a belt around the hull above the waterline,the upper deck had much thinner armour because ,my guess is,when the ships were built other ships were considered to be the the main threat not aircraft plus a top heavy vessel is more likely to capsize ,but as I say thats just my guess.
Taranto,Pearl Harbour,H.M.S. Prince of Wales(U.S. Harbor) and the numerous sinkings of Japanese ships proved that even heavy naval units were very vulnerable to air attack .
My uninformed guess is that a C.M. that struck a WW2 B.S on a vertical axis rather then a horizontal one would take the ship out.
The Iowa Class was built just before and during WWII. They knew all about bombs. The ships at Pearl were older classes, and despite that, only one was compltely destroyed, and that by a magazine hit. Despite multiple strikes by what were in effect bunker busters, the Nevada actually got underway - And she was an even older class than the Arizona. And no, they weren’t top-heavy. They were very carefully deisgned to be maximally seaworthy.
No doubt that they were vulnerable to air attack, but as I was reminded, we’re supposed to be sticking to cruise missiles here, and they simply don’t hit with the same punch. Not even the mongo ones like the Shipwreck.
Again, check the penetration ability of a cruise missile warhead versus that of an AP bomb. Cruise missiles are lightly constructed - they’re not AP. The Iowas have a tripple deck - a bomb deck to innitiate the bomb, and armor deck to contain and reflect the blast, and a splinter deck to trap and collect any spalling or penetrating shrapnel. The bomb deck was 1.5 inches of STS plate, to cause the bombs to innitiate, and most light bombs would simply detonate on the bomb deck. Heavier bombs would detonate in between the decks. Below that is an expansion volume fo disipate the blast, then the armor deck, which was 4.75" of class B armor. The splinter deck was negligible armor, but was there to basically trap an debris falling off the underside of the armor deck.
Yeah, they knew about bombs when they built the Iowas. You’ll need bunker busters, 'cause cruise missiles aren’t built tough enough.
I often wondered abou this, surely there’s enough of a wallop from a salvo of shells to wipe the bridge off a ship? And if not the bridge then the radar or range finders.
My step-brother did a tour on Missouri one of the things that amazed him about the old battlewagons vs present day ships is just how heavily built everything was. Its like they figured out how much steel to stop the nastiest gun they might face then doubled it to make sure.
When the gates of hell open, park an Iowa class battleship there and watch it hold the line until hell Satan dies of old age or runs out of minions.
The conning tower, an armored battle bridge, has heavy armor. In the Iowas, it’s 16 to 17 inches of class B armor. Other structures weren’t that heavily armored, but they’re also designed to be survivable against massive shells. Basically, if it was necessary to fight the ship, it was protected to some degree. Critical systems were as heavily armored as the turrets.
I remember when they were re-commisioning the Iowa’s back in the early '80’s, around the time of the Falkland War. A British warship (HMS Sheffield - a Guided Missile Destroyer) was sunk by an Exocet missile fire by Argentina.
A reporter asked an Admiral about the danger to the big Battleships from the dreaded Exocet missile - After all, the Battleships are a bigger target. The Admiral’s response - the Exocet would ‘bounce off’ the armor of Iowa class ships.
As posters have pointed out modern cruise missiles are not designed to engage heavily armoured ships, their warheads are not armour piercing and are too light. Simplest way of sinking it I think would be to just stick a modern torpedo on it to avoid the need for heavy armour penetration at all. Battleships hate torpedos.
Of course if there was actually any longer a need to do so, cruise missiles with large warheads designed to defeat heavy armour could be easily designed. By the end of WW2, anti-ship missiles capable of penetrating armour like the Missouri were already in use. The Germans fielded such weapons as early as 1943. The Fritz X had a 320kg armour-piercing warhead and could penetrate up to 20 inches of steel armour. These were devastating versus battleships. The Italian “Roma”, a modern Vittorio Veneto class battleship, was hit twice by these missiles and exploded catastrophically. The British battleship Warspite stayed afloat after being hit by a Fritz but was crippled.
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.
Would the same sort of torpedo that took out the Argentinian Cruiser “General Belgrano” have any meaningful impact on an Iowa class vessel.
Absolutely capable of sinking it, although you would expect a vessel of this size would withstand several torpedo hits before sinking. While it was also carrying modern torpedos the Conqueror sunk the Belgrano with a torpedo design that dated back to the 1930s and these were very capable of engaging battleship targets (as are modern torpedos). The hull is much thinner under the waterline. Most battleships sunk in WW2 were sunk by torpedo hits, often those dropped by aircraft but also fired by submarines and surface vessels. The earlier discussion about the Bismark is a good example about the relative vulnerability to torpedo and shell hits.