pub-0537105895943487

The First Gulf War: USS Missouri adds to Shock and Awe

USS Missouri firing her Big Guns. Video from USS Princeton steaming to Japan just before Desert Storm & Desert Shields 1st Shock & Awe Campaign.

The ultimate battleship USS Missouri as part of the first Gulf War adds her mighty guns to the ‘shock and awe’ process

Install this web app on your Android: Tap menu, more options, and then Add Shortcut To Homescreen.×
  • Share

49 Responses to “The First Gulf War: USS Missouri adds to Shock and Awe”

  1. Iamnobodynobody7 says:

    flares?

  2. Gemo377 says:

    CIWS

  3. ZageInfinity says:

    Flares, bye bye ship.

  4. coolcon1993 says:

    @Vipera217 A ship can’t become a destroyer. A destroyer is a type of ship… Kind of like a sedan is to a car. The Missouri was, and always will be something from the pinicle of naval engeneering… a battleship.

  5. coolcon1993 says:

    @Vipera217 A ship can’t become a destroyer. A destroyer is a TYPE of ship.. kind of l

  6. Aninda Deb says:

    Yea i agrree iwth you donald, these are heavy duty ships but they are very hard to maintain……

  7. dj17q says:

    Hey mate, check your facts right. The mighty MO was never at PH on Dec 7th. She wasnt even completed yet.

  8. Vipera217 says:

    so it basically means it is not a Destroyer yet?

  9. Iamnobodynobody7 says:

    wtf you on about? she was completed in 1944

  10. Iamnobodynobody7 says:

    SAMs, bye bye fighter plane. BBs are as cheap as dirt.

  11. coolcon1993 says:

    The USS Missouri was one of the few ships to survive Pearl Harbour

  12. ZageInfinity says:

    Fighter jets…bye bye ship. And they cost a shitton to operate,

  13. Vipera217 says:

    Missouri did exist.. wow. i thought it’s only in Battleship

  14. Iamnobodynobody7 says:

    A GAO report in 1991 found that BBs costed only 58M dollars. in contrast, VAMOSC FY1996 stated that the Nimitz class carriers cost 160M and Tarawa class Assault ships cost 75M. with inflation, in 58M in 1991 would become 67M in 1996. Quite cheap for a capital ship.

  15. Iamnobodynobody7 says:

    Missiles cant even sink WWI Battleships. not even 10 Billion of them. even with CWIS switched off, its impossible. unless one goes nuclear anyway.

  16. Iamnobodynobody7 says:

    how easy? errm, so easy it’s damn near impossible?

  17. Alex H says:

    Never heard of the Yamato? Look it up and you’ll realize that these kinda battleships are useless.
    PS: I know you weren’t serious.

  18. Ironsiderodger says:

    Ah yes the vaunted Russian Missiles do outshine the excoet- but that doesn’t change a Battleship being “easily” sunk by them. It’s not simply a matter of defeating armor, it’s a matter of subdivision and damage control. Again, I have not said the Iowa’s are immune, but they would absorb much more damage than a modern combatant and be able to respond. Also what is always described when these ships are singled out as “worthless” or “vulnerable” is an darn near ideal situation for the enemy.

  19. aaronzack14 says:

    …..Shut up. 

  20. ScoundrelzNTwK says:

    Modern missiles have made that statement old. The exocet is an old missile and modern russian missiles are made to defeat weapons platforms. Missiles are cheap, ships arent. Even the US doesnt risk its battle group in range of missile systems that are used by China and Russia. And anti missile systems are easy to defeat, just launch a shit load of missiles at them, there are only so many bullets in a cwics cannon and only so many rolling airframe missiles. And only so much the radar can pick up

  21. gonavy2018 says:

    *face palm*

  22. wouter kellerman says:

    SURE IT TAKES A LOT OF MONEY TO OPERATE……..but…….its mere presence can stop a war from even starting, as in the case in the gulf in the nineties. when the missouri steamed in everything went dead quiet……….and lets face it, it saved many a life and far more costs of war being waged.

  23. Ironsiderodger says:

    Actually incredibly hard. They are incredibly redundant weapons platforms that antiship missles would be hard-pressed to do anything more than system killing them. This is if the incoming weapons (or weapon carrier) made it past the support group and the Battleship’s own weaponry. The USS Stark stayed afloat (no matter how barely) after two exocets and the Stark- by far- is much less protected and subdivided. Torpedoes would be the best bet- and even then would require even several modern ones.

  24. Blobheadful says:

    0:56

    J3 miss

  25. zed1207 says:

    So many hicks on one boat.

  26. spaceshipjessica says:

    strip the guns and do what ever with them. Stickm in some VA park. Strip the tower. Completely strip her belly, and fill her full of long range stand of missles. Make her the worlds largest floating missile platform. Fill her belly full of missles and her top full of ships defence. Then again, shed need a new engine. More cost. Put 2 of those smaller GE nukes in her like a Gerald r ford class.
    She’d be a fat duck. I wouldn’t send her out with nothing less then an entire strike group.

  27. ZageInfinity says:

    You know how easy it would be to sink them? Waste of money so they don’t make them anymore.

  28. beboy12003 says:

    Because of the cost to operate them. While the Iowa class battleships are still useful, even today, they would over 2 million dollars a day to operate. Also all the parts needed to maintain them are no longer being made, which is added cost. And the numbers of people needed to operate them,(about 1500)  would be equal to 5 modern day arleigh burke class detroyers, So while i wish the battleships were still in service, they really couldn’t be for too many reasons.

  29. HaloPokemon5Master says:

    Why was the battleship class mothballed anyway?

  30. loosct says:

    Considering that they have not made any new 16″ rounds since WWII

  31. Donald Smith says:

    They need to bring these ships back in duty

  32. faronthefiddler says:

    One of the last Iowa Class Battle Wagon’s.

  33. kuribayashi84 says:

    Wow, I can’t even

  34. thegoatboy102 says:

    The fuck..?

  35. 34scot says:

    Yea, you should feel the shock wave on the ship when all 9 guns go of at close to the same time (While standing topside). It was so very cool, there is no way to tell anyone about it that they would understand.

  36. HayabusaGrrrl says:

    Nah, they cost about 7k a piece in real money.

  37. fuckobama4 says:

    Get on your meds dude

  38. faheem salman says:

    USS stands for United States Ship. like HMS stands for Her Majesties Ship. And PST stands for Pacific Standard Time and please stop trolling

  39. kidddogbites says:

    USSR=Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
    USS=United States Ship.
    All US Navy ships have “USS” in the begining of them, even before the USSR was even in existance. It has nothing to do with the USSR.

  40. DoodeWarrior says:

    Do you even realize how retarded you sound right now?

  41. trader0108 says:

    The USS Missouri name contains the letters USSR. The cold war with the USSR started with the president from the USSR Missouri state, Harry Trumen, and caused the unknown hidden and secret murders clandestinely of more innocent US citizens within the USA than any other war. Many millions were murdered in the USA clandestinely and secretly for being suspected of being of the USSR when it was not true.

  42. jds06 says:

    Also, notice it has at least TWO CWIS systems…port and starboard midships, and probably another farther aft.

  43. Ironsiderodger says:

    Well said, but even without that an anti-ship missile such as the exocet would be an extremely poor choice of weapons to take on a battleship; the preponderance of armor and compartmentation- albeit over 60 years old- would greatly hamper a missile’s capability. The most one could really hope for would be a combat systems kill- which any ship is vulnerable too- and even with that, the Iowa’s would still be much harder than the average current ship to disable.

  44. haddock75 says:

    I thought they already had been updated with tlams and harpoon missles?

  45. ytemsg says:

    Surely JESUS CHRIST IS OUR GOD ! Through HIM all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made – GET SAVED NOW – JESUS CHRIST SAVES

  46. Thomas Parsons says:

    To those naysyers who imply that such a ship would be defenseless against missiles…you might wish to view some video on a defensive weapon called the Goalkeeper Gun System. I was surprised by it’s potential.

  47. Jesse Bains says:

    Saddam was pissing his pants

  48. quagmire2 says:

    Slow? Even after 50 years of age, the Iowa’s could still do 30 knots keeping up with CVN-65 and the Nimitz class. Plus their 18″ armor is better protection than the carriers no armor…. Not dismissing the fact that missiles can take her out before she has a chance to do shore bombardment( the only thing a BB is relevant in todays combat). But, an Iowa would make for a good armored cruise missile launch platform by removing the rear turret and put launchers in.

  49. ClaudeMagicbox says:

    Your comment is foolish.
    In today’s scenario these “tanks of the ocean” are too slow, slow manouvering and especially would be sunk by naval missiles around 10-20 miles before even getting in operating range of a modern warship ;-)
    They would start loading their big guns and a few seconds later *glu glu glu* down they go on the ocean floor.

Leave a Reply

X

Please Help Us Out by Sharing Our Site...

Sharing is caring! We work hard to bring you all the best content on YOUR TOPIC. All that we ask in return is that you share our site! By sharing our site...

  • You give us the motivation to continue bringing you all the best content
  • You get free, unlimited access to all this great content
  • You help spread the word about our incredibly cool site!

Please take a moment to share our site on the social network of your choice below!

UA-37985474-18