Iowa battleships

[Nickle]

9 hours ago, Chantry said:

Perhaps, but it's always dangerous to to try to predict the future of war based on a specific situation. 

 

Oversimplifying it a lot*, most in the world's militaries thought WWI set the example of what future warfare would be, trench warfare with a limited number of heavily armored, slow moving tanks supporting the infantry and artillery blowing everything up.  Warfare at sea was supposed to be the same, decisive fleet actions fought by battleships with aircraft carriers in the support role.

 

Between advances in technology and some smart people not wanting to fight WWII the same way as WWI, WWII was significantly different.

 

Right now drone counter measures are being researched and being put into production and my prediction is that we will see drone jammers and anti drone lasers,  ways to kill drone operators, although fitting a laser into a tank sized vehicle that supplies enough power to the laser AND vehicle is going to be a challenge.

 

*Trying to shorten what is often covered in books into a couple of short paragraphs is always a challenge.

Drones are now operating independently with artificial intelligence making the decisions. 

AI can't  be jammed. 

Remember Terminator movies? 

Robots are future.  Infantry, aircraft or torpedoes, etc but artificial intelligence controlled so Basically robots 

9 hours ago, Chantry said:

Perhaps, but it's always dangerous to to try to predict the future of war based on a specific situation. 

 

Oversimplifying it a lot*, most in the world's militaries thought WWI set the example of what future warfare would be, trench warfare with a limited number of heavily armored, slow moving tanks supporting the infantry and artillery blowing everything up.  Warfare at sea was supposed to be the same, decisive fleet actions fought by battleships with aircraft carriers in the support role.

 

Between advances in technology and some smart people not wanting to fight WWII the same way as WWI, WWII was significantly different.

 

Right now drone counter measures are being researched and being put into production and my prediction is that we will see drone jammers and anti drone lasers,  ways to kill drone operators, although fitting a laser into a tank sized vehicle that supplies enough power to the laser AND vehicle is going to be a challenge.

 

*Trying to shorten what is often covered in books into a couple of short paragraphs is always a challenge.

Drones are now using AI. 
AI can’t be jammed so artificial intelligence or robots are the future of warfare. 
scares the heck out of me. Think terminator movies 

[Nickle]

9 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

I still think the Intimidation Factor is valid.  Battleship is all muscle, bone and guts.  Bristling with guns and gear should scare the hell out of adversaries.   They are designed to look like brutes and bullies...and should be just that. 

 

Submarines aren't usually SEEN, so they aren't intimidating to those who aren't around them.  Kind of out of sight, out of mind.  Let's get real: a sub has no visual weaponry and can't give the same aura as a gun boat of almost any kind.

 

Aircraft carriers are impressive, but are so pretty they just don't measure up.... and they don't LOOK deadly and intimidating.  They look like an LAX that floats

 

Most of the remainder of our combat ships are are sleek and impressive but simply don't have the visual brute force intimidation factor.  Some are almost cute, looking more like pleasure craft than killing machines.

 

As to the cost: if we would stop trying to buy loyalty from our "allies" and spending too much of our money on useless crap, we could afford it.  Financially the USA is the super sucker of the entire planet.  We give away the cost of a several battleships every year to countries that repay us by voting against us in the UN, supporting terrorist groups and out-and-out military enemies, building infrastructures for questionable countries, ignoring our borders and laws, and we give everyone who asks all of our military equipment and technology, and we allow them to buy up vital industries both on our soil and all over the world and then allow them to throw it all in our faces.

About intimidating 

Aircraft carriers have same problem.  Carriers have to stay offshore so far that nobody sees them. 

[Nickle]

8 hours ago, Seldom Seen #16162 said:

I once read a proposal that to refit and modernize a BB would be about the same cost as building a new cruiser. 

 

Replace the engines with nuclear power engines, remove the aft turret and reconfigure the aft space with missile launchers. Of course a lot of internal changes such as computers, radars, etc. backed up by old fashion wiring.

 

American Navy seems only interested in nuclear powered subs and carriers.  I'm not sure why but I suspect good reasons for it.

Those Iowas were built around their turbines or engines. They have so much armor that I don't think they can cut a hole in the ship to replace the engines or propulsion systems.  

 

[Nickle]

7 hours ago, Stump Water said:

 

With subs it's the fear of the unknown.  You can't see it, which is the point.  Look at all of the effort, technology, resources that go into "anti-submarine".

You need infantry on the ground and all the support that they need can't  be done with just submarines. 

Iowas are gorgeous! 

I suspect alot more would inlist in the navy if a Iowa  was docked in their local  harbor and giving tours to the public. 

 

[Nickle]

7 hours ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

All of those "other" ships weren't there to protect the battlewagon from other battlewagons. 

 

 

The thing about a Iowa in a carrier fleet is just the size of a Iowa.  They can carry alot of whatever you need or want on them to contribute to the rest of the carrier fleet. 

This could be anything from fuel for other ships or could be missiles or anti aircraft drone defense weapons.  Iowa could also contribute alot like a mobile artillery for shore bombardment. 

Truth is American military is so far ahead of the rest of the world that you probably don't need Iowas. But they sure are beautiful! 

[Stump Water]

1 hour ago, Nickle said:

You need infantry on the ground and all the support that they need can't  be done with just submarines. 

Iowas are gorgeous! 

I suspect alot more would inlist in the navy if a Iowa  was docked in their local  harbor and giving tours to the public. 

 

 

Well, one thing is for sure, I agree that the Iowa is gorgeous.

 

But I'm not sure how we got to "infantry on the ground".  

 

Sure, the BBs and cruisers and everything else pounded the beaches back when.  These days, if I should find myself on the beach, it would be fine with me if "Sandy" was in a an F-18. 

 

While we have several BBs "docked" and doing tours, unfortunately we didn't preserve enough for every local harbor.

[Joe LaFives #5481]

On 11/6/2025 at 2:43 PM, Nickle said:

Well  Iowas are just so frigging cool.  It's like saying a 73 colt/Winchester obsolete.  Or 1911s no good anymore. 

So missile cruisers obsolete? If you compare a Iowa to a Kirov. I would rather be on board the Iowa. 

Iowas just so gorgeous .

So if you had a choice would you take the 73 or an AR into combat.  

[Nickle]

12 hours ago, Stump Water said:

 

Well, one thing is for sure, I agree that the Iowa is gorgeous.

 

But I'm not sure how we got to "infantry on the ground".  

 

Sure, the BBs and cruisers and everything else pounded the beaches back when.  These days, if I should find myself on the beach, it would be fine with me if "Sandy" was in a an F-18. 

 

While we have several BBs "docked" and doing tours, unfortunately we didn't preserve enough for every local harbor.

In Ukraine war,artillery is still a big part of it. A Iowa offshore could provide alot of artillery, cruise missiles, etc. A drone wouldn't be much worry to a Iowa. Kirov cruisers and everything else new can't take a hit. No armor. Only splinter protection. 

About recruitment tool. If New Jersey was reactivated, she could sail under her own power to different harbors for visitors. 

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

14 hours ago, Nickle said:

You need infantry on the ground and all the support that they need can't  be done with just submarines. 

Iowas are gorgeous! 

I suspect alot more would inlist in the navy if a Iowa  was docked in their local  harbor and giving tours to the public. 

 

 I never thought of that but it's a reasonable assumption.  Thanks.

[Nickle]

8 hours ago, Joe LaFives #5481 said:

So if you had a choice would you take the 73 or an AR into combat.  

Not enough power for range with a 73. I think a 1876 would have  made a heck of a infantry gun.

I have no personal experience with AR. Never fired one. American infantry seem extremely good at what they do so I I'm not going to question their choice of rifle.

I just think of these Iowas as treasures and don't want to see them go away.  

It's like my original Sharps rifle.  I use it.  Old iron is like old women.  They need attention and action.  You have  to take them out every now and then and play with them. 

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

8 hours ago, Joe LaFives #5481 said:

So if you had a choice would you take the 73 or an AR into combat.  

Not a fair question.  Some  of us, me included, wouldn't take an AR to a dog fight.  I KNOW where my '73 shoots and at 100 yards it's a good choice.  In my experience, there aren't many gunfights beyond that range.

 

And if I were in combat there would be a lot of supporting fire on my side.  If it weren't enough it wouldn't matter much.

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Pondering this again and I was thinking why stop at a 16” gun?  Then it occurred to me that there are now smart artillery shells. Don’t need those big honking shells all the time, I bet smart shells would be made for whatever barrel was fitted.

 

Quote

Smart artillery ammunition, also known as precision-guided munitions, are 

shells that use advanced guidance systems like GPS or infrared sensors to increase accuracy. Examples include GPS-guided rounds like the Excalibur and sensor-fused munitions like SMArt 155, which can self-guide to a target, even in GPS-denied environments, using sensors to detect and track vehicles. A more recent development is a Precision Guidance Kit (PGK) that can be added to standard shells to make them precision-guided. 

 

[Joe LaFives #5481]

6 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Not a fair question.  Some  of us, me included, wouldn't take an AR to a dog fight.  I KNOW where my '73 shoots and at 100 yards it's a good choice.  In my experience, there aren't many gunfights beyond that range.

 

And if I were in combat there would be a lot of supporting fire on my side.  If it weren't enough it wouldn't matter much.

What is not fair about that question?  For you, it seems to be you would take your 73 into combat.  Good luck.  I'd like to know more about your experiences?  Where and when?  These would be interesting stories.  Lastly, what would your role be,  pistol caliber rifles can't penetrate Kevlar or provide suppressive fire for very long.  My closest experience to something like this would be when I shot a PCC event with my 73 around 15 years ago down in Catalina.  I brought 3 fast loaders for my 73 with pins and prestaged them around the course of fire so that I could reload reasonably quickly on the clock. While it was fun and I had a reasonable amount of hits on targets in the 75 yd range while moving and crawling, there is NO way I would assume that to be better than any of my semi autos.

Edited November 10, 2025 by Joe LaFives #5481

[Joe LaFives #5481]

6 hours ago, Nickle said:

Not enough power for range with a 73. I think a 1876 would have  made a heck of a infantry gun.

I have no personal experience with AR. Never fired one. American infantry seem extremely good at what they do so I I'm not going to question their choice of rifle.

I just think of these Iowas as treasures and don't want to see them go away.  

It's like my original Sharps rifle.  I use it.  Old iron is like old women.  They need attention and action.  You have  to take them out every now and then and play with them. 

1876 is a heavy rifle with limited firepower.  I had a 40-60 in 2011.  

[Sedalia Dave]

 

All the armor on the Iowa Class battleships is useless if they can't effectively fire those big guns.  As all it takes to render them ineffective is to take out their targeting systems.  A couple of HARM missiles would disable their radars and backup optical targeting systems in short order.

 

Denial of GPS is easy to do and renders those GPS guided munitions no better than dumb the current dumb munitions.

 

While currently there are not any weapons in inventory that will penetrate the armor of an Iowa class ship; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to modify existing bombs, and missiles so that they could penetrate the armor to great effect. Research the post war testing of the Yamato's armor.

 

Drones are constantly evolving in capabilities. Soon they will be capable of coordinated attacks in mass, overwhelming self defense systems while actively deciding the best way to target and take out vulnerable yet critical ship systems.

 

While we're at it, defense from torpedo attack is an area where all navies are lacking. Effective detection, and accurate ranging of underwater threats is infinitely harder than detecting surface and airborne threats.

For example self protection from a missile coming at you at Mach 3 is child's play when compared preventing a torpedo traveling at 40 knots from blowing your tail off.

Keep in mind that you don't have to sink the ship. You just have to damage it enough so that it is no longer combat effective. A single hit from a wake homing torpedo would easily cripple the propulsion system of even the strongest ship.

 

Another serious threat is the Supercavitating torpedo. Current wisdom is that they are virtually impossible to counter.

 

Speed is no protection from a subsurface threat that lies in wait for you to come into range.  

 

Lastly, just like the armored knights of old were rendered obsolete, it is easier and cheaper to design weapons that can counter armor than it is to develop better armor.  The war in Ukraine has made this abundantly clear with the effective use of ever more capable inexpensive drones. 

[Nickle]

4 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

All the armor on the Iowa Class battleships is useless if they can't effectively fire those big guns.  As all it takes to render them ineffective is to take out their targeting systems.  A couple of HARM missiles would disable their radars and backup optical targeting systems in short order.

 

Denial of GPS is easy to do and renders those GPS guided munitions no better than dumb the current dumb munitions.

 

While currently there are not any weapons in inventory that will penetrate the armor of an Iowa class ship; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to modify existing bombs, and missiles so that they could penetrate the armor to great effect. Research the post war testing of the Yamato's armor.

 

Drones are constantly evolving in capabilities. Soon they will be capable of coordinated attacks in mass, overwhelming self defense systems while actively deciding the best way to target and take out vulnerable yet critical ship systems.

 

While we're at it, defense from torpedo attack is an area where all navies are lacking. Effective detection, and accurate ranging of underwater threats is infinitely harder than detecting surface and airborne threats.

For example self protection from a missile coming at you at Mach 3 is child's play when compared preventing a torpedo traveling at 40 knots from blowing your tail off.

Keep in mind that you don't have to sink the ship. You just have to damage it enough so that it is no longer combat effective. A single hit from a wake homing torpedo would easily cripple the propulsion system of even the strongest ship.

 

Another serious threat is the Supercavitating torpedo. Current wisdom is that they are virtually impossible to counter.

 

Speed is no protection from a subsurface threat that lies in wait for you to come into range.  

 

Lastly, just like the armored knights of old were rendered obsolete, it is easier and cheaper to design weapons that can counter armor than it is to develop better armor.  The war in Ukraine has made this abundantly clear with the effective use of ever more capable inexpensive drones. 

As much as I hate to say it but I fear you're right.

Artificial intelligence, or robots. Might look like a drone or a submarine but the reality is if it's AI controlled then it's a robot. AI infantry maybe look like a small tank but if it's AI controlled then it's a robot. 

Pandoras Box

Not only that but then it levels the playing field.  All of America's super carriers might soon be obsolete? 

The new technologies might also have a big effect on how far away from home a nation  can project power.

Seems like if anything big can be destroyed.  We'll all this little stuff doesn't have range. If building it big then it gets expensive and can be destroyed. 

[Sedalia Dave]

2 hours ago, Nickle said:

As much as I hate to say it but I fear you're right.

Artificial intelligence, or robots. Might look like a drone or a submarine but the reality is if it's AI controlled then it's a robot. AI infantry maybe look like a small tank but if it's AI controlled then it's a robot. 

Pandoras Box

Not only that but then it levels the playing field.  All of America's super carriers might soon be obsolete? 

The new technologies might also have a big effect on how far away from home a nation  can project power.

Seems like if anything big can be destroyed.  We'll all this little stuff doesn't have range. If building it big then it gets expensive and can be destroyed. 

 

The problem with AI is that it really cannot evolve beyond it's programming. Case in point. A group of  Marines that defeated an AI intrusion detection system by moving in ways the programmer didn't consider. By dressing like trees, wearing boxes. doing somersaults / cartwheels and other not traditional means of approaching the detector the Marines easily defeated the system

 

AI is pretty good at imitating intelligence. However, it is a complete failure at actual intelligence.

Edited November 11, 2025 by Sedalia Dave

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

On 11/10/2025 at 2:28 PM, Joe LaFives #5481 said:

What is not fair about that question?  For you, it seems to be you would take your 73 into combat.  Good luck.  I'd like to know more about your experiences?  Where and when?  These would be interesting stories.  Lastly, what would your role be,  pistol caliber rifles can't penetrate Kevlar or provide suppressive fire for very long.  My closest experience to something like this would be when I shot a PCC event with my 73 around 15 years ago down in Catalina.  I brought 3 fast loaders for my 73 with pins and prestaged them around the course of fire so that I could reload reasonably quickly on the clock. While it was fun and I had a reasonable amount of hits on targets in the 75 yd range while moving and crawling, there is NO way I would assume that to be better than any of my semi autos.

I'm almost 84 years old, was an Army Captain and a Marine Gunnery Sergeant, Vietnam twice.  First time a 1911 and M-1 carbine.  Second time AK47, SKS carbine, M3A3 grease gun, 1928A1 Thompson, M1A1 Thompson, a 1911, Browning High power, S&W model 60, Colt Police Positive (iirc) and a .45 Colt SAA....not all at once but usually had three or four guns on me or within reach.

 

I also carried, at various times, a Gerber MkII Commando, a 7" Bowie style knife, a British Fairbairn, and a German made lever lock switchblade.

 

I usually had access to shotguns, machine guns, grenade launchers, and M-14 rifles.

 

I bought my first gun, a SAA .45, when I was fourteen, and have been carrying a gun almost all my life.  I am almost never without at least two knives.

 

I've been shot at (hit once), broken a bunch of bones, sprained and / or dislocated many things in many places and times, been bitten by two rattle snakes, and was a downhill skier, a sports car racer, a saddle bronc rider, a boxer  (I wasn't very good) and a 200 yard free style swimmer.  

 

I studied Defendu, a stupidly named and very deadly hand to hand martial art system, for two years on Okinawa.

 

I have shot deer, elk, one pronghorn, a pair of bobcats, a brown bear, and a cougar.  I haven't hunted for over 35 years.

 

I have been a firearms instructor, a NRA Safety Officer / Instructor and a CAS shooter since about 1972 or so  (badge number 3935.

Edited November 13, 2025 by Forty Rod SASS 3935

[Nickle]

1 hour ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

The problem with AI is that it really cannot evolve beyond it's programming. Case in point. A group of  Marines that defeated an AI intrusion detection system by moving in ways the programmer didn't consider. By dressing like trees, wearing boxes. doing somersaults / cartwheels and other not traditional means of approaching the detector the Marines easily defeated the system

 

AI is pretty good at imitating intelligence. However, it is a complete failure at actual intelligence.

Basically your saying Artificial Intelligence only knows what we tell it. So far it can't learn on its own?  

That's good to hear.

But 30 years ago if someone would have  told me that I could buy a small hand held phone and talk to people all over the world I would have thought they were crazy. 

[Nickle]

9 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

I'm almost 84 years old, Vietnam twice.  First time a 1911 and M-1 carbine.  Second time AK47, SKS carbine, M3A3 grease gun, 1928A1 Thompson, M1A1 Thompson, a 1911, Browning High power, S&W model 60, Colt Police Positive (iirc) and a .45 Colt SAA....not all at once but usually had three or four guns on me or within reach.

 

I also carried, at various times, a Gerber MkII Commando, a 7" Bowie style knife, a British Fairbairn, and a German made lever lock switchblade.

 

I usually had access to shotguns, machine guns, grenade launchers, and M-14 rifles.

 

I bought my first gun, a SAA .45, when I was fourteen, and have been carrying a gun almost all my life.  I am almost never without at least two knives.

 

I've been shot at (hit once), broken a bunch of bones, sprained and / or dislocated many things in many places and times, been bitten by two rattle snakes, and was a downhill skier, a sports car racer, a saddle bronc rider, a boxer  (I wasn't very good) and a 200 yard free style swimmer.  

 

I studied Defendu, a stupidly named and very deadly hand to hand martial art system, for two years on Okinawa.

 

I have shot deer, elk, one pronghorn, a pair of bobcats, a brown bear, and a cougar.  I haven't hunted for over 35 years.

 

I have been a firearms instructor, a NRA Safety Officer / Instructor and a CAS shooter since about 1972 or so  (badge number 3935.

Thank you for your service Forty Rod

About lever guns in combat

https://sogsite.com/sergeant-jerry-shriver/

Everyone probably  heard of him but it's well worth re reading. 

Anyway this guy carried a 444 marlin in Vietnam. 

[Stump Water]

11 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

By dressing like trees...

 

Great Birnam Wood to high Dunsinane Hill shall come.

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

On 11/11/2025 at 6:57 AM, Nickle said:

Thank you for your service Forty Rod

About lever guns in combat

https://sogsite.com/sergeant-jerry-shriver/

Everyone probably  heard of him but it's well worth re reading. 

Anyway this guy carried a 444 marlin in Vietnam. 

I worked with a Major who carried a Savage 99 in .30-30.  I'm looking for one for my own, but they are almost as scarce as virginity among hookers.

 

I also knew a Colonel who picked up a 1908 Mannlicher-Schonauer (SP?) sporter carbine, a truly beautiful and elegant piece and one of the smoothest bolt action rifles ever made.  It was very well cared for and  had a Weaver 2.5x scope mounted in those "damned German claw mounts".

Edited November 13, 2025 by Forty Rod SASS 3935

[Chantry]

Probably the definitive answer, maybe feasible, but highly unlikely per the curator of the USS New Jersey museum:

 

 

 

[Joe LaFives #5481]

23 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

I'm almost 84 years old, was an Army Captain and a Marine gunnery Sergeant, Vietnam twice.  First time a 1911 and M-1 carbine.  Second time AK47, SKS carbine, M3A3 grease gun, 1928A1 Thompson, M1A1 Thompson, a 1911, Browning High power, S&W model 60, Colt Police Positive (iirc) and a .45 Colt SAA....not all at once but usually had three or four guns on me or within reach.

 

I also carried, at various times, a Gerber MkII Commando, a 7" Bowie style knife, a British Fairbairn, and a German made lever lock switchblade.

 

I usually had access to shotguns, machine guns, grenade launchers, and M-14 rifles.

 

I bought my first gun, a SAA .45, when I was fourteen, and have been carrying a gun almost all my life.  I am almost never without at least two knives.

 

I've been shot at (hit once), broken a bunch of bones, sprained and / or dislocated many things in many places and times, been bitten by two rattle snakes, and was a downhill skier, a sports car racer, a saddle bronc rider, a boxer  (I wasn't very good) and a 200 yard free style swimmer.  

 

I studied Defendu, a stupidly named and very deadly hand to hand martial art system, for two years on Okinawa.

 

I have shot deer, elk, one pronghorn, a pair of bobcats, a brown bear, and a cougar.  I haven't hunted for over 35 years.

 

I have been a firearms instructor, a NRA Safety Officer / Instructor and a CAS shooter since about 1972 or so  (badge number 3935.

Cool - we have a lot in common, former Capt. Artillery.  NRA Instructor and CAS since 94.    Also have a Steyer-Mannlicher. Sako and Mauser all full stocked.  German hunting License. Skied, Fenced, Caught many rattlesnakes - Mohave, Black tail and Diamondback - knew enough not to get bit <grin>.  

But would you see yourself downrange with a 73?    (and btw what cars did you race? and where?) 

Edited November 12, 2025 by Joe LaFives #5481

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

On 11/11/2025 at 8:51 PM, Joe LaFives #5481 said:

Cool - we have a lot in common, former Capt. Artillery.  NRA Instructor and CAS since 94.    Also have a Steyer-Mannlicher. Sako and Mauser all full stocked.  German hunting License. Skied, Fenced, Caught many rattlesnakes - Mohave, Black tail and Diamondback - knew enough not to get bit <grin>.  

But would you see yourself downrange with a 73?    (and btw what cars did you race? and where?) 

What is "down range"?  I seldom saw any action at over 75-90 yards and we had enough weaponry ( M-14. M-60, Ma Deuce, M-79.....plus some very close and nasty air craft on our side) that a '73 could wait to work at "in your eye" ranges.

 

Cars:

'54 Dodge Royal Lancer hard top Copy of Indy pace car

Devin SS kit car

Corvair Corsa 140 T coupe

Meyers Manx  (I don't care what anyone says, that little squirt was a "sports car".

Sunbeam Alpine

Sunbeam Tiger (Discontinued before they got it all together.)

MGTD

MGA 1500

MGA 1500 Twin Cam (drive it for an hour, work on it for two...repeat)

MGA 1600

TR-3

TR-3A

TR-GT-6

AH 100-4

AH 100-6

AH "frog eyed" Sprite (fun little beastie that topped out about 80mph.)

Fiat Abarth 600D (ugly little monster but ran far faster than most folks would believe.)

Honda roadster (650?)

Toyota something (?)

Datsun 1600 (Three of those at different times)

and a Ferrari D-50 open wheel racer with a V-12 cylinder engine.  It was pretty well clapped out when a friend and I bought it.  We only took it to one race but we newer could get it running right and we REALLY couldn't afford it....but my God, man...it was a Ferrari! 

 

I was SCCA and FIA qualified, wrote a weekly column (Taylor's Shift Point) for an English language news magazine (This Week On Okinawa) about The Okinawa Sports Car club and all of its goings on.  It ran from late 1966 to late 1968.  I was also Vice President of the Club and on the Events and Trophy Committee.

 

My last great car was a 1970 1/2 Pontiac Firebird Formula 400 GT.  They only made a few and they were hotter than the TransAm but didn't sell as well because it didn't have vents, a fancy race car paint job, decals, scoops, spoilers, and all that other "neato keen" eye candy.  It did have functional ram scoops, but it looked like the other 400 series cars.  It was discontinued after that first year if remember right. 

 

I never raced that car, but we lived in Brigham City, so I drove it over to the Salt Flats. I paid my fee and drove it through the traps both directions.: 168.1mph out, 170.0 back.  Scared the beejabbers out of me.

 

 

I couldn't afford that car, either so we bought a used Plymouth and let Pontiac repossess that Firebird.

Edited November 14, 2025 by Forty Rod SASS 3935

[El Chapo]

I do think we'll see battleships again someday.  In the future, naval warfare will be shooting at targets too cheap to warrant a $2 Million+ missile.  Bullets are cheap. 

 

We need an entirely new battleship design with nuclear power (preferably), no treaty displacement limits, and cartridge main guns.  Otherwise, the crew cost makes them not feasible.  

 

The military industrial complex has convinced us that only airplanes, missiles, and fancy radar are needed in a modern navy.  They stand to profit huge from that being the continuing narrative.  Only time will tell if I'm right about cost being the biggest factor that returns big guns to the seas.

[Chantry]

53 minutes ago, El Chapo said:

I do think we'll see battleships again someday.  In the future, naval warfare will be shooting at targets too cheap to warrant a $2 Million+ missile.  Bullets are cheap. 

 

We need an entirely new battleship design with nuclear power (preferably), no treaty displacement limits, and cartridge main guns.  Otherwise, the crew cost makes them not feasible.  

 

The military industrial complex has convinced us that only airplanes, missiles, and fancy radar are needed in a modern navy.  They stand to profit huge from that being the continuing narrative.  Only time will tell if I'm right about cost being the biggest factor that returns big guns to the seas.

 

Sadly I disagree, I don't think we'll see another heavily armored warship armed with anything bigger than MAYBE  155 mm guns (essentially a 6" gun.). Too much opposition from the politicians (of both parties) and a strong push back from those admirals who came up either through aviation or the sub force.  Too much money to build and run, too few US shipyards that could build a ship that large (maybe only the same shipyard where the carriers are built) and how long would it take to design and build a new ship from a blank piece of paper?  The last/most recent ship "original" ship built that way was the littoral combat ship, not exactly considered a success.  Most other designs are an evolution of their predecessor.  We can't even build a new cruiser design anymore.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CG(X)

 

A nuclear power plant is a trade off, higher upfront build costs with a cheaper to run lifespan versus fuel oil run engines.   

 

I'm not sure we can build non nuclear engines that can push something the size of an Iowa at 30 + knots, would probably need to use multiple nuclear power plants from the  most current submarine design.

 

Displacement is a trade off and you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns.  The extra 10,000 tons of the Iowa over the preceding South Dakota basically got you a longer hull, doubling the shaft horsepower to get the 33 knots and 16" 50 caliber main armament over the previous 16" 45 caliber guns, which give an additional 6,000 yards range.

 

Lots of data for the really interested: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php 

 

 

[El Chapo]

52 minutes ago, Chantry said:

 

Sadly I disagree, I don't think we'll see another heavily armored warship armed with anything bigger than MAYBE  155 mm guns (essentially a 6" gun.). Too much opposition from the politicians (of both parties) and a strong push back from those admirals who came up either through aviation or the sub force.  Too much money to build and run, too few US shipyards that could build a ship that large (maybe only the same shipyard where the carriers are built) and how long would it take to design and build a new ship from a blank piece of paper?  The last/most recent ship "original" ship built that way was the littoral combat ship, not exactly considered a success.  Most other designs are an evolution of their predecessor.  We can't even build a new cruiser design anymore.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CG(X)

 

A nuclear power plant is a trade off, higher upfront build costs with a cheaper to run lifespan versus fuel oil run engines.   

 

I'm not sure we can build non nuclear engines that can push something the size of an Iowa at 30 + knots, would probably need to use multiple nuclear power plants from the  most current submarine design.

 

Displacement is a trade off and you quickly reach a point of diminishing returns.  The extra 10,000 tons of the Iowa over the preceding South Dakota basically got you a longer hull, doubling the shaft horsepower to get the 33 knots and 16" 50 caliber main armament over the previous 16" 45 caliber guns, which give an additional 6,000 yards range.

 

Lots of data for the really interested: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-45_mk6.php    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php 

 

 

 

I'm not even sure it'll be in my lifetime, but if the current trends continue, with wars being waged by small parties and not sovereigns, a battleship looks better and better.  

[Cypress Sun]

3 minutes ago, El Chapo said:

 

I'm not even sure it'll be in my lifetime, but if the current trends continue, with wars being waged by small parties and not sovereigns, a battleship looks better and better.  

 

When you live 50 miles from the coast and can't see the ocean, Battleships don't scare you too much.

[Joe LaFives #5481]

3 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

What is "down range"?

 

Anywhere where people are shooting at you.

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

On 11/11/2025 at 8:51 PM, Joe LaFives #5481 said:

Cool - we have a lot in common, former Capt. Artillery.  NRA Instructor and CAS since 94.    Also have a Steyer-Mannlicher. Sako and Mauser all full stocked.  German hunting License. Skied, Fenced, Caught many rattlesnakes - Mohave, Black tail and Diamondback - knew enough not to get bit <grin>.  

But would you see yourself downrange with a 73?    (and btw what cars did you race? and where?) 

As to where: Salt Lake Motor Speedway (NOT the Salt Flats), Las Vegas, Denver, Riverside, Pebble Beach, El Toro, Okinawa, Seattle, Pikes Peak (It was won by an old Man in a Cadillac sedan), San Diego (found out driving in dirt and weeds wasn't my forte)...several more that I don't remember.

 

I never had the money to get a good enough car or team, and I wasn't good enough to get a sponsor, especially after the top drivers started getting money, parts, equipment, pit teams, TV coverage, etc. and builders were giving cars and support to the big names.  Also, I was still in the Army and later the Marines, and never knew when I was going to be where there was race.

 

It was fun though, and my wife was a great driver until she was told she couldn't drive anymore because the teams and tracks had insurance that wouldn't cover a pregnant driver. 

Edited December 29, 2025 by Forty Rod SASS 3935

[Dapper Dave]

On 11/10/2025 at 2:46 PM, Sedalia Dave said:

 

All the armor on the Iowa Class battleships is useless if they can't effectively fire those big guns.  As all it takes to render them ineffective is to take out their targeting systems.  A couple of HARM missiles would disable their radars and backup optical targeting systems in short order.

 

Denial of GPS is easy to do and renders those GPS guided munitions no better than dumb the current dumb munitions.

 

While currently there are not any weapons in inventory that will penetrate the armor of an Iowa class ship; it doesn't take a rocket scientist to modify existing bombs, and missiles so that they could penetrate the armor to great effect. Research the post war testing of the Yamato's armor.

 

Drones are constantly evolving in capabilities. Soon they will be capable of coordinated attacks in mass, overwhelming self defense systems while actively deciding the best way to target and take out vulnerable yet critical ship systems.

 

While we're at it, defense from torpedo attack is an area where all navies are lacking. Effective detection, and accurate ranging of underwater threats is infinitely harder than detecting surface and airborne threats.

For example self protection from a missile coming at you at Mach 3 is child's play when compared preventing a torpedo traveling at 40 knots from blowing your tail off.

Keep in mind that you don't have to sink the ship. You just have to damage it enough so that it is no longer combat effective. A single hit from a wake homing torpedo would easily cripple the propulsion system of even the strongest ship.

 

Another serious threat is the Supercavitating torpedo. Current wisdom is that they are virtually impossible to counter.

 

Speed is no protection from a subsurface threat that lies in wait for you to come into range.  

 

Lastly, just like the armored knights of old were rendered obsolete, it is easier and cheaper to design weapons that can counter armor than it is to develop better armor.  The war in Ukraine has made this abundantly clear with the effective use of ever more capable inexpensive drones. 

The Bismarck was rendered helpless from a single light torpedo from a Fairy Swordfish biplane damaging the rudder. 

[El Chapo]

14 hours ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

When you live 50 miles from the coast and can't see the ocean, Battleships don't scare you too much.

 

I guess only half the population should be scared of them, then, and we have cruise missiles, bombs, and who knows what in the future for the rest.

[Stump Water]

18 hours ago, Forty Rod SASS 3935 said:

Datsun 1600 (Three of those at different times)

 

He said Datsun.  🤪

[Cypress Sun]

1 hour ago, El Chapo said:

 

I guess only half the population should be scared of them, then, and we have cruise missiles, bombs, and who knows what in the future for the rest.

 

Way less than half of the population of the US lives within 50 miles of any coast that any battleship (past or present) and supporting vessels could sail with reasonable security.