USS Iowa

[Dis]

yep Wisconsin. I knew a guy on the Wisconsin. He was there when they shot off the first cruise missiles of the gulf war. Though they were actually the second to start the war. they were hoping to be the first ship to start the war.

[Patroklos]

Or I could just ignore you MOBIUS, which is the most logical answer.

Tell me which ship allied ship the US fired on...

And if an American admiral puts a British ship on air defense for a BB, why is it embarassing when it does its job?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Steel armor doesn't stop radiation as well as lead shielding, plus a nuke is going to be detonated in the air, so the radiation will strike the ship from an angle not protected by armor anyway.

true but even the thickness of a couple of decks would probably block most of that. Lethal radiation from nuclear explosions isn't as penetrating as people seem to think and it's not an instantaneous killer either. People have had exposures greater than would be received at the deck of a ship in the H-bomb tests and taken hours to feel really sick. The fire fighters at chernobyl got zapped really hard and didn't become incapacitated for hours (though they all died). They didn't have any shielding and they had a much longer exposure than a nuclear blast would give.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc

Also, there is a problem with cascade radiation in the armor. Steel is LOUSY radiation shielding, as instead of simply absorbing the radiation, the iron nuclei release there own lethal radiation under the right circumstance. The estimation is that the crew would die several days after an airburst. At that time they were not talking about super-heated air, I suspect that the armor belt would stop enough direct radiation to prevent that. It will definitely protect against the initial blast damage. You coujld survive to operate the ship for a couple of days before dying.

Partly for the reason you describe Iron is inferior to most other common materials as a shielding material but not to an extant that prevents it from being an effective shielding material regardless of possible secondary emission.

Note from the table on this page that 1.3 inches of iron actually provides as much protection as 4.7 inches of concrete against gamma radiation which tends to be the most dangerous and penetrating radiation component of a nuclear blast.

[PLATO]

So from that table we are to assume that iron is 1/2 as effective as lead in stopping gamma rays?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by PLATO
So from that table we are to assume that iron is 1/2 as effective as lead in stopping gamma rays?

Actually pound per pound iron is superior to lead. Lead has an MW of 207 while iron is 58. So 120g of iron can provide as much protection as 207g of lead at the price of that reduced mass of iron occupying about 2x the volume that the heavier mass of lead would need to.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Or I could just ignore you MOBIUS, which is the most logical answer.

Tell me which ship allied ship the US fired on...

And if an American admiral puts a British ship on air defense for a BB, why is it embarassing when it does its job?

Are you really that stupid that you can't find the info yourself!!?

Look everybody, Patroklos can't even do a simple google search...

I would advise you to check their help page - but they don't have one because it is that easy to use!

[Patroklos]

Do you even know how much self pwnage you are inflicting?

[MOBIUS]

I'm reeling you in sucker - at some point after I've grown bored with making you look like a punk I'm going to post the links you're asking for on this thread...

So I suggest you save yourself this impending colossal embarrassment by scuttling off and finding the links before then.

[Patroklos]

So I suggest you save yourself this impending colossal embarrassment by scuttling off and finding the links before then.

I ASKED you to post the links, they only one here being embarrassed is you for stalling.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I ASKED you to post the links, they only one here being embarrassed is you for stalling.

And I TOLD you to look them up for yourself because I'm not inclined to lie when I make an easily verifiable statement.

I am even less inclined to waste my time posting the links when it is preferable to have you waste your own time doing it. You're the one questioning me - the onus is on you to prove me wrong, not vice versa.

You can't find the links can you and you're too embarrassed to admit it, so you're asking me to do it for you!!?

Or you can't find the links and you don't believe me...

Two words is all you need to find the info you're asking for - it's not exactly rocket science, if you'll excuse the pun...

[Kuciwalker]

And I TOLD you to look them up for yourself because I'm not inclined to lie when I make an easily verifiable statement.

He who makes the claim posts the link. Sucks to be you.

[Patroklos]

You can't find the links can you!!?

Probobly has something to do with them not existing.

Closest think to freindly fire(Americans) by the Navy in GWI is HARMS fired at freindly radars, which they didn't know were freindly because they were too far away, on the order of 30-40nm past the range of the missile.

Not a single hit, faitality, property damage, nothing.

As far as coalition ships, that is another matter

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

And I TOLD you to look them up for yourself because I'm not inclined to lie when I make an easily verifiable statement.

He who makes the claim posts the link. Sucks to be you.

Yeah well I'm different...

You know, if I were you I would have already independently verified the links myself to put me in a better position to 'shoot down' the argument...

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Closest think to freindly fire(Americans) by the Navy in GWI is HARMS fired at freindly radars, which they didn't know were freindly because they were too far away, on the order of 30-40nm past the range of the missile.

So are you officially admitting you can't find them - because right now I would say that your google skills aren't as good as perhaps you'd like them to be...