Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 5:45:47 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline 		Im not talking PH but the Iowa and 3 cruisers in 1946 . ..After 2 nuclear close to ground zero attacks the radio active hulk was used for gunnery practice but Iowa couldnt sink her.

Anyone have more details on this ?

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy
Post #: 1
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 8:22:07 AM   
moonraker65


Posts: 556
Joined: 7/14/2004
From: Swindon,Wilts. UK
Status: offline 		Was Nevada one of the "ghost" fleet used during Operation Crossroads ?

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 2
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 9:28:51 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline 		Yes  but after 2 tests it didnt sink they towed it to Pearl ( Radio active) and then Iowa and some cruisers used her for Gunnery practice apparantly they couldnt sink her and they used an Aerial torpedo .  Just interested in why Iowa couldnt sink her.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to moonraker65)
Post #: 3
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 11:33:01 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Probably range to target caused trajectories that made hitting waterline etc. very difficult.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 4
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 1:12:54 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		Anybody got any pictures or caps of this?

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 5
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 2:19:37 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Yes  but after 2 tests it didnt sink they towed it to Pearl ( Radio active) and then Iowa and some cruisers used her for Gunnery practice apparantly they couldnt sink her and they used an Aerial torpedo .  Just interested in why Iowa couldnt sink her.


I bet that the Yamato would be able to sink her...

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 6
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 3:10:49 PM   
xj900uk

 

Posts: 1340
Joined: 3/22/2007
Status: offline 		Well a nuclear bomb didn't...

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 7
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 3:45:04 PM   
moonraker65


Posts: 556
Joined: 7/14/2004
From: Swindon,Wilts. UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: xj900uk

Anybody got any pictures or caps of this?


There are plenty of clips on YouTube of the "Operation Crossroads" Test shots. Some of them show the state of the ships afterwards.

(in reply to xj900uk)
Post #: 8
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 4:35:38 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Well, she was probably stripped of just about anything that could blow up including fuel, munitions and such. It is pretty hard to sink a well built BB hulk with just gunfire. Usually in combat, a shell will finally find something that goes "bang" and that will do the ship in. But I suspect Nevada had nothing of the sort on her at the tim so she would have been tough to take down with just naval gunfire.

Look at the Kaga at Midway. She pretty much blew off every bit of fuel and ordinance on her and was a floating pile of metal and goo but did not sink until scuttled much later in the battle.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to moonraker65)
Post #: 9
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 4:46:23 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Same with Bismark, it was quite difficult one to sink too.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 10
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 4:58:13 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		The 2nd test proved the best way to sink a warship quickly was to blow it up under water in close proximity to the target. Poor Arkansas got lifted up and squashed flat into the lagoon surface by the water plume.

Overall IIRC, the tests showed that warships were far more resilient than expected to the early bombs, but of course the biggest impact, the radioactivity of exposed surfaces was not fully appreciated at the time.

Fortunately.......tests were as far as any of this stuff got after WWII.

_____________________________


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 11
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 5:12:25 PM   
Cuttlefish

 

Posts: 2454
Joined: 1/24/2007
From: Oregon, USA
Status: offline 		While they placed some fuel and ordinance aboard the ships used in the Bikini tests to make the results more realistic these may have been removed before Nevada was used for target practice (if so, I feel for the men given that little task). That would have made Nevada harder to sink than one might expect. Still, that was one tough old battleship.

_____________________________


(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 12
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 6:19:14 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, she was probably stripped of just about anything that could blow up including fuel, munitions and such. It is pretty hard to sink a well built BB hulk with just gunfire. Usually in combat, a shell will finally find something that goes "bang" and that will do the ship in. But I suspect Nevada had nothing of the sort on her at the tim so she would have been tough to take down with just naval gunfire.

Look at the Kaga at Midway. She pretty much blew off every bit of fuel and ordinance on her and was a floating pile of metal and goo but did not sink until scuttled much later in the battle.


Still the Iowa with its gunnery should have hit a stationary target at a very high % and 50-100 16" shells should do some damage... Or is it the poor effect from the extra heavy shells ?

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 13
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 6:20:14 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The 2nd test proved the best way to sink a warship quickly was to blow it up under water in close proximity to the target. Poor Arkansas got lifted up and squashed flat into the lagoon surface by the water plume.

Overall IIRC, the tests showed that warships were far more resilient than expected to the early bombs, but of course the biggest impact, the radioactivity of exposed surfaces was not fully appreciated at the time.

Fortunately.......tests were as far as any of this stuff got after WWII.


The hauled the radio active Navada into PH and repaired her..

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 14
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 6:22:50 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste


The hauled the radio active Navada into PH and repaired her..


After an intensive scrubbing and cleanup effort. In wartime......this would probably not be possible in the immediate aftermath. Add to that the impact of being soaked by radioactive seawater in wake of the blast(s) etc. the impact on the crews would have been severe in the extreme as there was no radioactive kit at the time. The military was primarily interested in the destructive effect of the bombs in conventional terms. (aka.... TNT factor)



_____________________________


(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 15
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 6:51:27 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		What Sardaukar said. Have to know what the target practice range was. It may have been similar to the KGV/Rodney pummeling of the Bismarck. Close enough range to hit repeatedly, but little to no floatation damage inflicted.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 16
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 7:52:46 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline 		Certainly puzzling. All I can think of is that USN 'heavy' shells combined a high penetration level with a very small (relatively speaking) explosive charge and effect - maybe this meant that there was no damage deformation of the structure and therefore very limited progressive leaking.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 17
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 8:48:14 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline 		Iowa = Overrated

(run away fearing for dear old life)

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 18
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 9:01:05 PM   
Cerion

 

Posts: 101
Joined: 9/16/2009
From: Europe
Status: offline
quote:

Iowa = Overrated

(run away fearing for dear old life)


+1

This is obviously true.

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 19
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/9/2010 11:28:39 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		The Iowa was probably shooting practice shells which didn't have explosives, so the damage to the Nevada was from kinetic energy only.  The combination of nothing explosive on the Nevada and the lack of explosive shells, the Iowa was hitting the Nevada with what amounted to 16 inch slugs.

The goal was to get the Iowa's crew to practice gunnery, not sink the Nevada as fast as possible.

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Cerion)
Post #: 20
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/10/2010 12:14:35 AM   
seydlitz_slith


Posts: 2036
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Danville, IL
Status: offline 		Here is a link to revelant pics.
One of her sinking as well as two pics showing damage from the baker blast. It crushed her stack flat like a tin can.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/36g.htm

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 21
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/10/2010 4:36:52 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste


The hauled the radio active Navada into PH and repaired her..


After an intensive scrubbing and cleanup effort. In wartime......this would probably not be possible in the immediate aftermath. Add to that the impact of being soaked by radioactive seawater in wake of the blast(s) etc. the impact on the crews would have been severe in the extreme as there was no radioactive kit at the time. The military was primarily interested in the destructive effect of the bombs in conventional terms. (aka.... TNT factor)




Yes scrubbing it without radiation kit would not be a nice job .


_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 22
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/10/2010 4:38:52 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The Iowa was probably shooting practice shells which didn't have explosives, so the damage to the Nevada was from kinetic energy only.  The combination of nothing explosive on the Nevada and the lack of explosive shells, the Iowa was hitting the Nevada with what amounted to 16 inch slugs.

The goal was to get the Iowa's crew to practice gunnery, not sink the Nevada as fast as possible.

Bill



Such shells are only used against target ships - they were trying to sink her... When they couldnt they brought in a plane with a torp.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 23
RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? - 7/10/2010 4:54:11 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

Here is a link to revelant pics.
One of her sinking as well as two pics showing damage from the baker blast. It crushed her stack flat like a tin can.



Nice picks , she is a very tough ship ( also at PH) - they painted her orange because she was the ground zero target .. but the bomber missed by 3000 feet .

Love the ad hoc Danger keep off sign ( the other sign says danger radio active) below ( picture reveresed left to right) just like a wet paint sign to show she is radio active . They found out she was so radio active that they quickly decided to sink her. Geiger counter readings anyone...




She is the orange ship below. Surface temperature of the fireball was 100K F .




She did well after being nuked from 3000 yards ( literarly) :-)

< Message edited by bklooste -- 7/10/2010 5:00:29 AM >

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to seydlitz_slith)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.125