They also had something like 50 lbs of explosives in them. 900 pounds is a lot more than 50.
You’re thinking of the AP shells. The HC (high capacity) were more like 200 lbs.
But HE is pretty much worthless vs. armor, so the HC shells were probably as effective or even more so than an anti-ship missile, as they had a lot more non-HE mass.
In fact, the closest thing we have to a historical equivalent, kamikaze attacks, were virtually worthless vs. US battleships, due to a combination of high volumes of AA fire and the armor rendering the ones that did it, ineffective.
When I first started reading this thread my mind immediately went to the idea of multiple hulled warships. I dropped the idea after a few minutes of thought because a catamaran design offers little advantage over that of a traditional battleship. Then someone brought up the idea of a submersible battleship. But anything shaped like a battleship would be a terrible submersible and vice versa. Then it hit me: a dual-hulled submersible battleship! Something shaped like two submarines joined together by a rigid structure would be able to slice through the water under the waves AND be stable enough to handle recoil from big guns firing.
Just imagine it: What looks like two submarines burst out form under the surface, then you notice that it’s a single ship. The top of each hull slide away to reveal the main armament, two turrets on each hull, each turret sporting a massive railgun. The smaller directed energy weapons light up, vaporizing all threats in the ships line-of-sight, while the railgun deliver hypersonic death to any enemy inside of 2000 kilomers. As soon as enemy aircraft and satellites get a fix on the location of the death dealing leviathan it’s returned to the deep. None but it’s crew know where or when it shall reappear and once again wreak havok!
Granted I can’t think why any nation would need a ship like that, but you’ve got to admit that it would the most awesome vessel to ply the seas.
No nation. I do however have a buyer. Ernst Stavro Blofeld I think was the name.
It also need to be able to fire barrages of torpedoes, and anti-torpedo torpedoes.
I’d like to see those old mechanical gun direction computers rebuilt. They weighed a ton, and maintaining them was almost impossible
There are plenty of bombs and missiles designed to penetrate “hardened targets”. Some are simple masses of steel packed with explosive, while others use the tandem shaped charge that I described previously. How would 12+ inches of hardened steel fare against warheads designed to penetrate several meters of reinforced concrete before exploding?
I’m guessing that if there’s a newly developed ship with heavy armor, it might be temporarily immune to many anti-ship missiles but opponents will quickly develop and deploy effective anti-armor warheads
Man, you say that like it’s a BAD thing…
Anyway, 'apologies, all, as I actually kept meaning to get back to this a lot sooner, but work’s been swamping me, lately. I just hope it’s not too late to dust this one off.
But back to the OP; apologies again, as I’d actually just hoped to head off the greater (quite valid) debate over the utility of an Iowa-class as a modern warship by sidelining the question of armament at the start—and I actually did have some ideas about how their weapons might be effectively used or developed, FWIW, but thought that’d be a whole topic in and of itself. Probably a clear as mud, boneheaded idea on my part.
So, to puke out a better…um, “OP statement”? The more prosaic but still important aspects of warship design that might be updated were what was interesting me, more than anything else. Posters above mentioned that it would be possible to design a hull form with less drag, or than the fire suppression system might be improved, for example.
A few people suggested simply putting a nuclear reactor as a power plant. No argument from me, but I’m also wondering if any other conventional power plant arrangement be overall better than the boilers and steam turbines used on the Iowas? Or at least, offer improvements in one area (consume less fuel, produce more power, be easier to maintain, etc) enough to make up for shortfalls in another?
Would there be any ability (or need) to improve crew accommodations? Better heating/air conditioning? Improved fresh water production? Cushier toilet seats?
What kind of safety improvements might be made, over how the Iowas were when they were first launched, or when they were last in service? Less Lead paint and asbestos, I presume, at least.
I…realize this is increasingly sounding like a request to boil down seventy years of advancements in naval architecture down to a message board reply, which isn’t really reasonable or sane. But some of the major bullet points (er, “shell points”?), at least, as could apply to this class of ship in particular, would be enlightening.
There probably isn’t anything in advancements for “this class of ship in particular” for hull, mechanical, and electrical improvements that aren’t equally applicable to other ships.
Just a few examples: the Navy is now replacing steam fittings used on the DDG-51 destroyers (which run all sorts of stuff) with electrical components. That’s a huge weight, safety, and efficiency improvement. New reverse osmosis water purifiers make huge amounts of water, meaning sailors can have full showers. In terms of crew space, the DDG-1000 is a very big ship with a fairly small crew, so everyone gets their own staterooms.
As far as propulsion, I’m pretty sure any technology today would be a vast improvement over the boilers used on an Iowa. Large amphibious ships today use either big diesels or gas turbines.
Finally, for hull form, the DDG-1000 uses a tumblehome hull. It’s a controversial design, but you can look up the pros and cons in Wikipedia.