They use AGM-65's on P-3's so \"Their not just for Tanks in the Morning\"
I bet those DU rounds would \"Play Hell on the Deck\"
It was an interesting read by far.
Goose
| Warthog Territory Forums https://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| How many A-10's would it take to sink the Yamato???? https://www.warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12480 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | sgtgoose1 [ 26 Jan 2008, 14:48 ] |
| Post subject: | How many A-10's would it take to sink the Yamato???? |
I was surfing to find this \"Future Air STICK ACTUATOR \" some more info and found this . Its a HOOT GUYS. http://forums.spacebattles.com/archive/ ... 17422.html Come on, 1 Hog, 1 \"Old Stick\" and \"a Couple of AGM-65's \" and a load of \"Party Mix\" Goose |
|
| Author: | jackb [ 26 Jan 2008, 17:01 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I read the subject line and immediately knew the correct answer is \"1\". |
|
| Author: | Growler67 [ 26 Jan 2008, 17:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
\"Well, aren't there Mavricks designed for Anti-Ship use, that target a ship right around the waterline? Plus with that big ass gun, maybe one or two.\" Not exactly. The AGM-165 Maverick was developed from an earlier Navy weapon, the AGM-62 Walleye. The Walleye was a \"glide\" weapon as it had no propulsion section. To increase it's stand off range and accuracy the basic concepts were revamped and the Maverick was developed. A good look wouls show the lineage in the Maverick leading directly back to the Walleye. ************************** *cough* Mavericks are anti-tank missiles, dude.... They'll cut through the armor on a battleship. They don't have much blast effect tho, so internal damage will be limited. Used mostly as an anti-tank munition, it is basically a steerable stand off weapon that can be employed against hardened targets or moving targets. Battleships of the era described would fit within that general description, IMO. |
|
| Author: | gifted [ 26 Jan 2008, 18:03 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Yamato's armor was also intended to stand up to the 16 inch guns on the Iowas. It's four or five inches at the thinnest, the heaviest on the turrets is something like TWENTY inches thick. Battleships are a lot tougher than even today's tanks. The HEAT warheads would probably have trouble with most of the armor, and forget about the blast warheads on the anti-shipping missile. Your best bet would be to get your laser pod, go up beyond the easy range of the massive AAA the Japanese put on the ship, and drop GBU-24s on it. |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 26 Jan 2008, 19:13 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: How many A-10's would it take to sink the Yamato????
Just 1 but the Yamato would have to WANT to sink, lol AGM-65F was specifically developed to counter ships, but the LGBs would likely be a much more effective weapon. Didn't the Yamato have the blisters on the hull?? |
|
| Author: | Coach [ 26 Jan 2008, 20:21 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mavericks were originally anti-ship weapons. In fact, the AGM-65G has a switch to select land or ship terminal profiles. Ships typically are not heavily armored near the waterline...see the USS Cole. If the battleship was unmanned, a two-ship could do it easily. Coach |
|
| Author: | sgtgoose1 [ 26 Jan 2008, 21:23 ] |
| Post subject: | |
They use AGM-65's on P-3's so \"Their not just for Tanks in the Morning\"
I bet those DU rounds would \"Play Hell on the Deck\" It was an interesting read by far. Goose |
|
| Author: | gifted [ 26 Jan 2008, 22:41 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Ships typically are not heavily armored near the waterline...see the USS Cole. Modern ships you mean. The WWII and prior battleships were frequently armored near the waterline to counter torpedoes. Most effective was to put a blister that would absorb the blast, leaving the hull intact. Modern warships are very weak on armor compared to previous generations.
There was some variation. As ranges increased, armor was shifted from the sides to the top and deck. At the longer ranges, the shells would hit almost vertically like a bomb, instead of on the sides. So, engagement distances were taken into account. The side armor that a Mav would attack would still be pretty thick, by tank standards. |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 28 Jan 2008, 03:01 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I hate to say this but an A-10 would have to get close enough to the Yamato to sink it. Sure it would launch a few Mav's from 5 miles out but it would have to get a lot closer to drop the bombs and at that range, and with all those 50 cals and 5 inch guns throwing up the ack-ack , not to mention the 40mm 's..................................my money is on the Yamato and not the lone A-10. 
|
|
| Author: | Coach [ 28 Jan 2008, 17:24 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Coach wrote: If the battleship was unmanned, a two-ship could do it easily.
Like I said. Coach |
|
| Author: | Hawg166 [ 29 Jan 2008, 01:40 ] |
| Post subject: | |
The Yamato's armor was like this; 16.1 \" at the belt 11.8\" on the bulkheads 9.1\" on the deck 25.6\" on the turret face 21.5\" on the barbetts 19.7\" on the con From what I understand though there is some speculation saying the belt armor may have failed due to bad welds on the day she was sunk. Nonetheless, Coach is right, two jets may have been able to do it if there was no water tight conditions set and if she was unmanned. She was a frikkin' monster thats for sure. But then again so wasn't the Bismarck and she went down having not done much. |
|
| Author: | Growler67 [ 29 Jan 2008, 01:48 ] |
| Post subject: | |
So basically the Big Yam had the thickest and most, but of inferior quality by comparisson to it's contemporaries. The thing I found most impressive about her stats was the deck plating. Even at that thickness I think a couple of well placed Mavericks would penetrate through to the magazine(s) and send her down. Why would one intentionally attack an adversary at it's least vulnerable place instead of it's most? |
|
| Author: | gifted [ 29 Jan 2008, 07:27 ] |
| Post subject: | |
How would you shoot a mav at the deck though? You'd have to come from the top. Pull up in a loop and fire on the way down? Through AAA? I'm not sure even the mav's gas jet would penetrate far enough to reach the magazines. Bad welds would certainly make it easier. You'd have a devil of a time getting through good steel though. |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 29 Jan 2008, 09:31 ] |
| Post subject: | |
2000lb LGBs, through the deck or at the waterline the Yamato's a goner. |
|
| Author: | Ice Pirate [ 29 Jan 2008, 19:07 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I think boomer's got the right tac. You drop a ton of laser guided HE, and it's bound to punch through to the lower decks. With the right delay element in the fuze, she'll go off about halfway through the ship and there'd be nothing left but a smoking hole in the water. |
|
| Author: | Coach [ 29 Jan 2008, 23:06 ] |
| Post subject: | |
It would depend on the type of bomb body. GP bombs aren't very good at penetration. You would have to use BLU-109s, which have a harder case but less explosive filler than a Mk-84. It would also require specialized fuses to get through the deck intact. Coach |
|
| Author: | gifted [ 30 Jan 2008, 00:48 ] |
| Post subject: | |
BLU-109 is why I stated GBU-24 in my first post, but I think -24 is just on the F-117 for the sideways tail assembly, I can't remember what the other designation is. |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 30 Jan 2008, 10:31 ] |
| Post subject: | |
GBU-24 is the MK-84 body with the large LGB wings. GBU-24A is the same but with the BLU-109 penetrator body. GBU-27 and 27A were the stubby versions for the F-117 bay with the clipped guide fins, shorter guidance section and older smaller flip out rear wings. Two A-10s, first one with 6 FAEs, second one with 6 CEMs, both with two LGBs and a pod. First pass is the FAEs obliterating every soft area of the Yammy ( including command and sensors ), second pass is the CEMs taking out all or nearly all of the defenses and all lightly armored devices ( this would likely produce a \"mission kill\" right there ). They take turns Lasing for each other for the LGB passes on any spot of the ship they want. 9 inches of deck steel? I don't think they even need to be penetrators, 4 2000lbers will peel it open like a grape. |
|
| Author: | gifted [ 30 Jan 2008, 22:20 ] |
| Post subject: | |
You're right about the numbers, my bad. Point behind the penetrators though is to get the bomb to explode well below deck; Imagine that grape peeling effect on the keel, rather than the deck. Refresh me, I don't think I've heard FAE and CEM before. |
|
| Author: | Growler67 [ 31 Jan 2008, 00:44 ] |
| Post subject: | |
FAE = Fuel Air Explosive CEM = Combined Effects Munition Lots on FAS or GlobalSecurity for specific info. Basically the above are weapon \"catagories\" and not actual designations (CBU, BLU etc..). The animation here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/fae.htm shows an FAE in action. |
|
| Author: | TheBigThug [ 31 Jan 2008, 12:56 ] |
| Post subject: | |
We tried to sink Saddams Yacht. But then were told to stop using it as a place to ditch Stores. This went on for about 3 weeks, when the pronoun people figuredt out that it was already touching bottom and would not sink .... just a note of humor. |
|
| Author: | HogSnort [ 31 Jan 2008, 19:58 ] |
| Post subject: | |
TheBigThug wrote: We tried to sink Saddams Yacht.
But then were told to stop using it as a place to ditch Stores. This went on for about 3 weeks, when the pronoun people figuredt out that it was already touching bottom and would not sink .... just a note of humor. ![[lol]](./images/smilies/anim_lol.gif "LOL")
|
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|