Dreadnaught (Texas) vs. Most Modern (Iowa) Battleships

montyp165 said:

I'd find it a lot easier to start with a new-build vessel with all the aforementioned equipment instead of modifying the Iowas, since a new build would have much more modern infrastructure components for high-power electrical systems and more advanced materials for protection including MBT-type composite armour.

Click to expand...

In order to build a new build vessel equipped like what I mentioned above, you are talking something on the order of 3x the displacement of the Zumwalt and probably 6 billion each.

The hulls and all the structure is already there on the Iowas and given the sheer amount of armor (again that is already there), you would have to put a lot of that new armor on their (very expensive) to get what already exists on the Iowas.

Anyhow, most likely it is moot...but there are very positive aspects of refitting an Iowa class if they ever wanted to do it.

montyp165 said:

I'd find it a lot easier to start with a new-build vessel with all the aforementioned equipment instead of modifying the Iowas, since a new build would have much more modern infrastructure components for high-power electrical systems and more advanced materials for protection including MBT-type composite armour.

Click to expand...

I tend to agree with that, and would think that if doing anything, it'd probably be more sensible to make the Iowas modern seaborne artillery bases. Install latest 5" guns using Volcano and then (as a replacement fo some or all main turrets) standard multi-barrel 155mm artillery with ER ammunition plus ER-MLRS and ATACAMS type.
Extended aviation facilities to also use VTOL / STOL UAVs for spotting.

That being said, the desired effect is probably achieved most economicly by adding some 5" guns / MRLS to a SAN ANTONIO type.

Jura, these next few posts are for you. I thought I would show the USS Texas compared to the Viribus Unitis. They were definitely contemporary dreadnaught battleships.

The Viribus was launched in June 1911. The Texas was launched in May 1912.

The Viribus was commissioned in December 1912. The Texas was commissioned in March 1914.

Both ships saw active duty in word War I.

But that is where the similarities end. The Viribus, right at the end of the war, after being turned over to the new Croat/Serb state, was sunk by mines attached to her hull. The Texas went on to serve through the interim years between wars, and then throughout World War II in both the Atlantic/European Theater and in the Pacific Theater, ultimately becoming a museum ship after the war.

Here are the characteristics of both ships, Texas as built, followed by Viribus:

Displacement: 27,000 tons - 20,000 tons
Length: 573 ft - 499 ft.
Beam: 95 ft - 49992 ft.
Draft: 29 ft - 49929 ft
Speed: 21 knots - 49920 knots
Range: 7,060 nmi - 4994,200 nmi
Crew: 1,042 - 1,087
Main Guns: 10 x 14" - 12 x 12"
2nd Guns: 21 x 5" - 12 x 6"
Other: 2 x 3" - 18 x 3"

After a major refit, and then following heavier armament in world War II, several characteristics for Texas changed:

Displacement: 33,000 tons
Beam: 106 ft.
Draft: 32 ft.
Range: 15,400 nmi
Crew: 1,810
Secondary Guns; 6 x 5"
Other: 10 x 3", 40 x 40mm, 44 x 20mm

Here are some pictures:

Viribus Unitis



USS Texas



Viribus Unitis



USS Texas

Viribus Unitis



USS Texas



Viribus Unitis



USS Texas

Viribus Unitis



USS Texas



Viribus Unitis



USS Texas

Viribus Unitis



USS Texas



Viribus Unitis Model



USS Texas Model

Jeff you want a new Arsenal ship !

Or better yet, set up a hunter killer SAG, with one of these, a Zumwalt, a Tico, four Burkes,, four Freedom class ASW FFs, two Virginia SSNs and two Virginia SSGN variants. My goodness!

Click to expand...

Yeah

Jura said:

now I see! I agree, I'll add some loose comments:

• while the Italians relied on the land-based aviation (their reasoning was around "Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier Italia" and for example killed an excellent aircraft-carrier project in 1928 -- tell me in case you were interested in it), this too often failed, and a single British aircraft carrier in the battle-group repeatedly proved to be more useful than that huge "unsinkable carrier"

Click to expand...

I think the disparity is due to the aircraft available and tactics employed. When it comes to naval aviation, the RN is no where near the IJN, and certainly less than the USN easily the best in the world. Yet italian aircraft performed so poorly, and I believe a reason is their weak engine technology, there is no single engine torpedo bomber and there is a reliance on SM.79s 3 engine bomber for topedo runs, each carrying 1 torpedo,

This means a bigger aircraft for AA fire, less number of aircraft in the air for swarming effect and to concentrate AA fire. i.e. there were too few of them to make a difference and certainly, they were no B25s

Jura said:

• the distances in the Med area are indeed small, recently I was kinda surprised to see it's just 78 nautical miles from Pola, where the main base of Austro-Hungarian Navy was, to Ancona, Italy which was bombarded on the day the hostilities started between those two countries in WW1; it takes 8 hours at 10 knots according to
  Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  but they of course needed to be quick (practically all their valuable ships were taking part in this); I've read the reality 17 knots max. as ironically the Viribus Unitis was slowing down the rest (also funny is at that time 20 knots would be "a sprint" -- this speed was not meant for the battle-line maneuvers anyway: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/th...del-main-gun-turrets.t7810/page-4#post-363568)

Click to expand...

Yeah, these ranges are really small, if we imagine the Gerald Bull guns, having a range of around 40 miles at 8"/203mm, a modern 12" might be able to shoot from Pola to Ancona directly, a modern full war in europe will be very ulgy.

Jura said:

I think the FAC threat would've been very real in "an alternative scenario" of September of 1943 (am retyping from Stille's book):
I believe the Nelson and Rodney were around, plus the old enemies: the Warspite, Valiant, etc.

Click to expand...

What strikes me is that, the Axis are really bad at sharing their technologies. Can you imagine how dangerous a flotilla S-boat steaming at 48 knots, armed with long lances and possibly beam riding guided (the frit X control system) V1 missile/Ohka missile?

Can you imagine a squardron of 12 s-boats launching a total of 48 long lances plus 12 ohkas at a battleship? that would be a sight to see.

Jeff Head said:

...

I am going to do some art work this weekend depicting the upgrade/modernization that I just described.

Click to expand...

I'll sure look at it! But I point to your attention additional problem with a possible reactivation, which is the manning, just on board it would be about 2000 Sailors, at the times where for example LCSs are dangerously undermanned since the manpower savings accumulated over the years are presented as a great advantage (but I think I criticized the LCS Project enough times already

Jeff Head said:

Jura, these next few posts are for you.

Click to expand...

Thank you very much indeed, Jeff. Now not too many people talk WW1-era ships, I mean from among those who are interested in Navies (understandably, general public gives a damn

Jeff Head said:

I thought I would show the USS Texas compared to the Viribus Unitis. They were definitely contemporary dreadnaught battleships.
...

Click to expand...

Let me challenge you: It's September 18, 1917. The visibility is perfect. I lead the Austro-Hungarian Battleship Division from my flagship, the Viribus Unitis, and have the Tegetthoff, the Prinz Eugen, and a screen with me. I'm in the middle of the Adriatic Sea, steaming South, to encounter yet unidentified enemy Squadron which is composed of at least one Battleship, the USN Texas. My tactics is going to be to take it parallel to them at 17 knots, and commence fire from 26000 yards: my 12" guns have superior range (above 27000 yards at 20 degrees of elevation) to both 14" of the Texas (it's 1917, so they can be elevated only to 15 degrees and have max. range of 21000 yards), and to 16" of the Queen Elizabeth-class (24300 yards, also at 15 degrees max., I think). My fire-control is probably inferior, and I need to start with large split to fork the target; if they maneuver too quickly, my range-clock might not show me what I need to know (LOL) but if I hit their 2" deck, I'll crack through it. If there's just one Battleship against me, I know about the Texas already, I'll concentrate my three-ships fire on her, which I can call by the radio (I believe it was manufactured in Prague)

LOL I'll leave it at that point ... Jeff, it could be a prelude to the battle, but it's silly, I know

anyway, would you please change the numbers for the Viribus Unitis (I didn't check the Texas yet) below:

Jeff Head said:

Displacement: 27,000 tons - 20,000 tons
Length: 573 ft - 499 ft.
Beam: 95 ft - 49992 ft.
Draft: 29 ft - 49929 ft
Speed: 21 knots - 49920 knots
Range: 7,060 nmi - 4994,200 nmi
Crew: 1,042 - 1,087
Main Guns: 10 x 14" - 12 x 12"
2nd Guns: 21 x 5" - 12 x 6"
Other: 2 x 3" - 18 x 3"
...

Click to expand...

... into

• beam 90 ft
• draft 29 ft
• top speed 20.5 kn
• max. range 4200 nm at 10 kn
• three-inch guns to 2 and (19⁄32) of inch (just nitpicking now