Another USS Iowa question. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

STUCKER868 -> Another USS Iowa question. (12/17/2013 1:43:25 PM)

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.



navwarcol -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/17/2013 3:22:54 PM)

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.



thewood1 -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/17/2013 3:29:56 PM)

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.



navwarcol -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/17/2013 4:41:41 PM)

Yes, I think in the modern db it would reflect that decommissioning but in the CWDB .. all of those years it had all three.



ed72n -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/17/2013 4:53:11 PM)

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.



.Sirius -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/17/2013 7:52:53 PM)

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

Amphibious battleship



jdkbph -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/17/2013 8:18:33 PM)

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



mrfeizhu -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/17/2013 10:11:02 PM)

After the turret explosion the ship just used 2 turrets, the cost was the main reason why it was not repaired.



jdkbph -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/17/2013 10:22:24 PM)

Yeah but that was in 1989. This DB entry covers the years 1966 - ??

JD



mrfeizhu -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 12:59:30 AM)

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.



navwarcol -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 1:07:00 AM)

The CWDB covers 1946-1970s... the Iowa was active in the Korean War 1951-52, so should have a version where it is full.



thewood1 -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 1:31:02 AM)

It does. As stated above, its only 1966 and on that is in contention.



STUCKER868 -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 2:21:31 AM)

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.



STUCKER868 -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 2:31:38 AM)

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




strykerpsg -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 4:27:52 AM)

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.



Russian Heel -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 6:33:19 AM)


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.



.Sirius -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 7:20:33 AM)

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 :)



Dimitris -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 7:24:22 AM)

What, you mean my proposal for the Space Battleship Yamato is hopeless? [:D]



strykerpsg -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 7:34:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sunburn

What, you mean my proposal for the Space Battleship Yamato is hopeless? [:D]

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



.Sirius -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 7:54:58 AM)

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? [:D]




mrfeizhu -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 8:52:45 AM)

if your not happy with a 2 turret Iowa just have 2 Wisconsin's



navwarcol -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 9:11:47 AM)

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? [:D] lol



Dimitris -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 9:14:15 AM)

Try [:)]



navwarcol -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 12:58:05 PM)

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.



Russian Heel -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 1:42:14 PM)


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?



Dimitris -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 1:51:46 PM)

Look here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0ndXmvPQnk



jdkbph -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 7:02:46 PM)

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



.Sirius -> RE: Another USS Iowa question. (12/18/2013 7:53:33 PM)

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




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.59375