Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ?

Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

bklooste -> Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 5:45:47 AM)
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 ?

moonraker65 -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 8:22:07 AM)
Was Nevada one of the "ghost" fleet used during Operation Crossroads ?

bklooste -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 9:28:51 AM)
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.

Sardaukar -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 11:33:01 AM)
Probably range to target caused trajectories that made hitting waterline etc. very difficult.

xj900uk -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 1:12:54 PM)
Anybody got any pictures or caps of this?

fbs -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 2:19:37 PM)
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... [:D]

xj900uk -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 3:10:49 PM)
Well a nuclear bomb didn't...

moonraker65 -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 3:45:04 PM)
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.

crsutton -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 4:35:38 PM)
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.

Sardaukar -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 4:46:23 PM)
Same with Bismark, it was quite difficult one to sink too.

Nikademus -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 4:58:13 PM)
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.

Cuttlefish -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 5:12:25 PM)
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.

bklooste -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 6:19:14 PM)
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 ?

bklooste -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 6:20:14 PM)
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..

Nikademus -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 6:22:50 PM)
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)

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 6:51:27 PM)
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.

mariandavid -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 7:52:46 PM)
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.

fbs -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 8:48:14 PM)
Iowa = Overrated (run away fearing for dear old life)

Cerion -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 9:01:05 PM)
quote: Iowa = Overrated (run away fearing for dear old life) +1 This is obviously true.

wdolson -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/9/2010 11:28:39 PM)
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

seydlitz_slith -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/10/2010 12:14:35 AM)
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

bklooste -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/10/2010 4:36:52 AM)
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 .

bklooste -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/10/2010 4:38:52 AM)
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.

bklooste -> RE: Why couldnt they sink the Nevada ? (7/10/2010 4:54:11 AM)
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... [image]http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/013423b.jpg[/image] She is the orange ship below. Surface temperature of the fireball was 100K F . [image]http://www.history.navy.mil/ac/bikini/88181i.jpg[/image] She did well after being nuked from 3000 yards ( literarly) :-)

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.65625