Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Another USS Iowa question.

 
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] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Another USS Iowa question. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Another USS Iowa question. - 12/17/2013 1:43:25 PM   
STUCKER868

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 4/30/2009
Status: offline 		In the cold war database I noticed that the USS Iowa (66-0) version is listed as only having 2x460/50 for the mount? All the other ships in the class say 3x460/50. Anyone know what this means?
Thanks in advance.

S.
Post #: 1
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/17/2013 3:22:54 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline 		Had noticed this also. Really it could be considered as having 9, because each gun was individually aimed and fired (of course each 3 set had to aim on the same bearing at least)but Iowa did have 3 turrets each of 3 guns also.

(in reply to STUCKER868)
Post #: 2
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/17/2013 3:29:56 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		I thought towards the end of its career they decommissioned one turret for manpower reasons. No source, but I remember the discussion around the time of the turret explosion.

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 3
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/17/2013 4:41:41 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline 		Yes, I think in the modern db it would reflect that decommissioning but in the CWDB .. all of those years it had all three.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 4
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/17/2013 4:53:11 PM   
ed72n

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 11/23/2013
Status: offline 		Perhaps this might be because of the incident that occurred in the 1980's(?) when there was a powder bag explosion during the loading of one of the guns that potentially could have put the entire ship in jeopardy. If I recall, there was a lot of controversy in the incident investigation whether or not it was sabotage. I believe that the turret involved was permanently out of commission afterwards.

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 5
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/17/2013 7:52:53 PM   
.Sirius


Posts: 1404
Joined: 1/18/2013
Status: offline 		Hi guys the reason for the 2 turret version is that this was a proposed Amphib Conversion for Vietnam

Amphibious battleship

_____________________________

Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law

(in reply to ed72n)
Post #: 6
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/17/2013 8:18:33 PM   
jdkbph


Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline 		None of those schemes ever made it off the drawing board though. I didn't think there were any what-ifs like that in the database...?

Besides, I don't see any facilities or weapons added to the class (CWDB, Iowa, 1966 - 0) to account for the missing turret.

I think you're right that this was not done to represent the damage to turret 2 from the 1989 explosion, but I don't think it's an attempt to model the what-if conversions either. I'm wondering now if it's just a plain old mistake.

I do know someone who would know for sure though....

JD

(in reply to .Sirius)
Post #: 7
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/17/2013 10:11:02 PM   
mrfeizhu


Posts: 131
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline 		After the turret explosion the ship just used 2 turrets, the cost was the main reason why it was not repaired.

_____________________________

Old man sort of living in China for the last 10 years

(in reply to jdkbph)
Post #: 8
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/17/2013 10:22:24 PM   
jdkbph


Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline 		Yeah but that was in 1989. This DB entry covers the years 1966 - ??

JD

(in reply to mrfeizhu)
Post #: 9
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 12:59:30 AM   
mrfeizhu


Posts: 131
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline 		the Iowa was not in service in 1960s. the new jersey was activated for a short time during Vietnam war, all four battle ships were activated in the Reagan years.

_____________________________

Old man sort of living in China for the last 10 years

(in reply to jdkbph)
Post #: 10
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 1:07:00 AM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline 		The CWDB covers 1946-1970s... the Iowa was active in the Korean War 1951-52, so should have a version where it is full.

(in reply to mrfeizhu)
Post #: 11
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 1:31:02 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline 		It does. As stated above, its only 1966 and on that is in contention.

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 12
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 2:21:31 AM   
STUCKER868

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 4/30/2009
Status: offline 		But the turret explosion was a accident and it could have been repaired. The database includes the Montana class which never really existed as completed ships! If the Montana's can be assumed, why not the repaired turret. What if someone wanted t make a Vietnam scenario where the Soviets get involved... The Iowa's would probably have been re-commissioned and would have had three working turrets then.
I would prefer the turret included in the DB.

(in reply to mrfeizhu)
Post #: 13
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 2:31:38 AM   
STUCKER868

 

Posts: 84
Joined: 4/30/2009
Status: offline 		Of course the Japanese already tried this idea...http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-021.htm
quote:

ORIGINAL: .Sirius

Hi guys the reason for the 2 turret version is that this was a proposed Amphib Conversion for Vietnam

Amphibious battleship


(in reply to .Sirius)
Post #: 14
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 4:27:52 AM   
strykerpsg

 

Posts: 277
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline 		Thanks for the links. I really like the Harrier/VLS version. Would've been a BA ship, with enough armor and firepower to hold it's own unescorted. Matched with an Aegis destroyer and/or cruiser.....unstoppable.

(in reply to STUCKER868)
Post #: 15
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 6:33:19 AM   
Russian Heel


Posts: 231
Joined: 10/8/2013
From: Metro Station Vasileostrovskaya
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

Besides, I don't see any facilities or weapons added to the class (CWDB, Iowa, 1966 - 0) to account for the missing turret.




Well, that's not true. It has 600 troop capacity and 200 cargo capacity and larger aircraft capacity as well as carries aviation fuel and a smaller crew.

(in reply to jdkbph)
Post #: 16
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 7:20:33 AM   
.Sirius


Posts: 1404
Joined: 1/18/2013
Status: offline 		Hi guys, I have added over the years many proposed ship conversions to the Cold War Database , I only add the ones that were actually proposed or had some good line drawings from sources, ie soviet carriers for the 1950s, proposed conversion of the USS Albany in the late 1970s, CVA-01 UK Super Carrier from the 1960s etc, the thing with the command DB you can do this, even in the scenarios you create you can alter the sensor, weapons fits on the platform for your own user scenario :)

_____________________________

Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law

(in reply to Russian Heel)
Post #: 17
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 7:24:22 AM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		What, you mean my proposal for the Space Battleship Yamato is hopeless?

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to .Sirius)
Post #: 18
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 7:34:58 AM   
strykerpsg

 

Posts: 277
Joined: 11/13/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

What, you mean my proposal for the Space Battleship Yamato is hopeless?

LOL, woot, woot, nerd alert....kidding!

< Message edited by strykerpsg -- 12/18/2013 9:50:00 AM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 19
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 7:54:58 AM   
.Sirius


Posts: 1404
Joined: 1/18/2013
Status: offline 		lol D, got the DVD could be a good build
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

What, you mean my proposal for the Space Battleship Yamato is hopeless?



_____________________________

Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 20
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 8:52:45 AM   
mrfeizhu


Posts: 131
Joined: 10/13/2013
Status: offline 		if your not happy with a 2 turret Iowa just have 2 Wisconsin's

_____________________________

Old man sort of living in China for the last 10 years

(in reply to .Sirius)
Post #: 21
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 9:11:47 AM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline 		I do think the best solution is just adding the turret through scenario editor also.
Really now D, you have me thinking also... could still make the spaceship Yamato... can we arm satellites? lol

(in reply to mrfeizhu)
Post #: 22
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 9:14:15 AM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		Try

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 23
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 12:58:05 PM   
navwarcol

 

Posts: 637
Joined: 12/2/2009
Status: offline 		Haha.. I did. Unfortunately it seems no satellites can fulfill the launch/fire parameters for any weapons I can see. So you need to make a "laser cannon" or "energy matter cannon" lol.

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 24
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 1:42:14 PM   
Russian Heel


Posts: 231
Joined: 10/8/2013
From: Metro Station Vasileostrovskaya
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: navwarcol

Haha.. I did. Unfortunately it seems no satellites can fulfill the launch/fire parameters for any weapons I can see. So you need to make a "laser cannon" or "energy matter cannon" lol.

I've never even looked at it, but what about that airborne laser? What are its parameters? Can you make a working SDI?

(in reply to navwarcol)
Post #: 25
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 1:51:46 PM   
Dimitris

 

Posts: 13282
Joined: 7/31/2005
Status: offline 		Look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0ndXmvPQnk

_____________________________

Facebook
Twitter

(in reply to Russian Heel)
Post #: 26
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 7:02:46 PM   
jdkbph


Posts: 339
Joined: 2/11/2007
From: CT, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Heel
Well, that's not true. It has 600 troop capacity and 200 cargo capacity and larger aircraft capacity as well as carries aviation fuel and a smaller crew.


Well OK then... I give up. I did see that but thought at first it was an "adjustment" for the out of commission turret. Wrong dates though. Then I thought maybe it was just an unused capability that applied to all the Iowas across the board. Now I don't know. This configuration doesn't seem to fit any specific proposal I ever saw for a planned Iowa modification.

So hopefully one of the devs will eventually speak up and tell us...

Is this a mistake or is it intended to represent something specific? If so what?

JD

(in reply to Russian Heel)
Post #: 27
RE: Another USS Iowa question. - 12/18/2013 7:53:33 PM   
.Sirius


Posts: 1404
Joined: 1/18/2013
Status: offline 		Hi JD, that specific conversion never did take place granted, but was proposed, therefore as a "what if" platform it gives you a good indication of what could have been the the Command inviroment


quote:

ORIGINAL: jdkbph

quote:

ORIGINAL: Russian Heel
Well, that's not true. It has 600 troop capacity and 200 cargo capacity and larger aircraft capacity as well as carries aviation fuel and a smaller crew.


Well OK then... I give up. I did see that but thought at first it was an "adjustment" for the out of commission turret. Wrong dates though. Then I thought maybe it was just an unused capability that applied to all the Iowas across the board. Now I don't know. This configuration doesn't seem to fit any specific proposal I ever saw for a planned Iowa modification.

So hopefully one of the devs will eventually speak up and tell us...

Is this a mistake or is it intended to represent something specific? If so what?

JD



_____________________________

Paul aka Sirius
Command Developer
Warfaresims
Cold War Data Base 1946-1979 Author

Old radar men never die - Their echoes fade away in accordance with the inverse fourth power law

(in reply to jdkbph)
Post #: 28
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Another USS Iowa question. 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

1.096