Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!texsun!sun-barr!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: USS Iowa explosion
Summary: BB antimissle capability
Keywords: Iowa
Message-ID: <6488@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 12 May 89 02:47:13 GMT
References: <6272@cbnews.ATT.COM> <6322@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Verdix Corporation, Chantilly,  VA
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart)

In article <6322@cbnews.ATT.COM>, rti.uucp!duncan@rti.rti.org (Stephen Duncan) writes:
> 
> On a different note, why have the 40mm guns been removed from the BBs?
> I would think that replacing them with newer guns, such as the twin
> 40/70s in the DARDO ciws, would be in line, but wouldn't any extra
> firepower help against incoming missiles?
> 
> Steve Duncan
> mcnc!rti!duncan

The problem with the WW2 40mm was the combination of lack of range and 
large manpower requirement. Even in 1945 they were being replaced by
twin 76mm (3") mounts. 
Actually the Iowas in their WW2 configuration would have pretty formidable
anti missle capabilities. A lot of research went into anti kamikaze planning
in the late stages of the war. barrage type AA would put a very dense wall
of fire up that the missile would have to fly thru the problem is that the
navy cannot support the very large manpower requirements that a full AA suite
would require. As I understood the anti kamikaze program the idea was to put
up a wall of shells and fragments that the attacker would have to fly thru.
"If a shell doesn't hit a the plane the plane will hit a shell" was one quote
I remember seeing.

Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com)