Naval guns were big. - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Naval guns were big. (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 10/16/2011 4:44:22 PM EDT

[#1]

Nothing says FUCK YOU, TOJO better than a full broadside from one of the old battle wagons... The sheer shock of it would hit you in the chest like a baseball bat times 9. Notice the wakes at the waterline - that's the ship going SIDEWAYS from the recoil

I bet there's a Master Chief below decks giggling like a school girl when these bad boys bark.

Posted: 10/16/2011 4:45:48 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What do you mean not useful?
1, they created jobs, making the steel, making the steel into barrels and steel into ships.
2, a 16" 1900 - 2700 lbs round is quite useful at anything within 23.4 miles
3, they also could fire 15-20 kiloton nukes too....

280+ 16" shells hit Beruit in 1984, only mistake was stopping.

Arty can shoot anytime of the day, in any weather. Still a shit load of targets within 23.4 miles of the shore....
Think how well they would work clearing out the wall street protesters? The survivors would have jobs picking up the body parts and rubble.
win-win.

If you could hit it. How long does it take to adjust? How many rounds?

It takes one round fired from a smaller gun to measure the atmosphere, wind, etc. Radar measures that round in flight. First round from the big gun was usually so close to being on target that the target was probably dead anyways.

Posted: 10/16/2011 4:47:06 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What do you mean not useful?
1, they created jobs, making the steel, making the steel into barrels and steel into ships.
2, a 16" 1900 - 2700 lbs round is quite useful at anything within 23.4 miles
3, they also could fire 15-20 kiloton nukes too....

280+ 16" shells hit Beruit in 1984, only mistake was stopping.

Arty can shoot anytime of the day, in any weather. Still a shit load of targets within 23.4 miles of the shore....
Think how well they would work clearing out the wall street protesters? The survivors would have jobs picking up the body parts and rubble.
win-win.

If you could hit it. How long does it take to adjust? How many rounds?

It takes one round fired from a smaller gun to measure the atmosphere, wind, etc. Radar measures that round in flight. First round from the big gun was usually so close to being on target that the target was probably dead anyways.

OVERKILL GOOD

Posted: 10/16/2011 4:47:49 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Damn those decks need to be holy stoned.

I believe they are teak.

The way we preserve our history is atrocious.

Take all the $$$$ spent on naming highways & buildings after politicians and apply it to those men and equipment who actually did something positive for our country.

That is correct the deck is teak wood. I stood on the deck of the USS Missouri that was anchored in Long Beach Calif before being deactived, and the tour guide mentioned that it was teak wood, but I forget the reason why though. Can someone explain.

BTW: I walked on the same deck that the treaty end WWII was signed, what an awesome and humbling feeling on history.

Posted: 10/16/2011 4:49:57 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
It takes one round fired from a smaller gun to measure the atmosphere, wind, etc. Radar measures that round in flight. First round from the big gun was usually so close to being on target that the target was probably dead anyways.

I know what MET is. I'm just trying to figure out what the CEP is...

Posted: 10/16/2011 4:50:29 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What do you mean not useful?
1, they created jobs, making the steel, making the steel into barrels and steel into ships.
2, a 16" 1900 - 2700 lbs round is quite useful at anything within 23.4 miles
3, they also could fire 15-20 kiloton nukes too....

280+ 16" shells hit Beruit in 1984, only mistake was stopping.

Arty can shoot anytime of the day, in any weather. Still a shit load of targets within 23.4 miles of the shore....
Think how well they would work clearing out the wall street protesters? The survivors would have jobs picking up the body parts and rubble.
win-win.

If you could hit it. How long does it take to adjust? How many rounds?

It takes one round fired from a smaller gun to measure the atmosphere, wind, etc. Radar measures that round in flight. First round from the big gun was usually so close to being on target that the target was probably dead anyways.

Some times, the problem normally in having effects on target was normally failure to meet the first requirement for accurate predicated fire. Poor target location, all the other 5 requirements are normally met, but you still don't get effects because of number 1.

Posted: 10/16/2011 4:52:55 PM EDT

[#7]

As a child growing up during the Vietnam Era, Navy cruisers would visit port and the public was allowed to tour the ship. It was easy to be awed by these big ships with big guns. I recall watching from Coit Tower the U.S.S. New Jersey returning from Vietnam. What a thrilling sight to see as a child. The Missouri class BBs were the last of their kind. Los Angeles is getting the U.S.S. Iowa. They beat out tiny Vallejo which is bankrupt. I hope L.A. takes care of that grand old lady.

Posted: 10/16/2011 5:12:02 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

What do you mean not useful?

1, they created jobs, making the steel, making the steel into barrels and steel into ships.

2, a 16" 1900 - 2700 lbs round is quite useful at anything within 23.4 120 miles

3, they also could fire 15-20 kiloton nukes too....

280+ 16" shells hit Beruit in 1984, only mistake was stopping.

Arty can shoot anytime of the day, in any weather. Still a shit load of targets within 23.4 miles of the shore....

Think how well they would work clearing out the wall street protesters? The survivors would have jobs picking up the body parts and rubble.

win-win.

Fixed. They did a lot of testing and came out with new tech in the late 90's, they have range up too 120 miles and accuracy as good as many missiles for a lot less cost. The AP shells are able to do more damage to hardened targets than even the most modern missile systems. The Battleships are also able to take more damage than a modern ship and still keep fighting. In Libya we could have saved a ton of money with just one active battleship doing the job of the Aircraft carriers as most targets were well within the 120 mile operational umbrella.

Posted: 10/16/2011 5:16:15 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How big?

Here's a little article that shows the barrels from WWII guns.

http://www.rgspemkt.com/4925V5.jpg

http://www.rgspemkt.com/WebCoverPageV5.jpg

http://www.rgspemkt.com/Hist1-V5.jpg

http://www.rgspemkt.com/Hist2-V5.jpg

http://www.rgspemkt.com/215-P2.html

Not that they are as useful now as they once were, but I wonder if we even have the machining capability to make half this stuff anymore?

no, we don't.

Man I get tired of hearing this line, as if making large steel tubes is somehow beyond our grasp despite all the advances in technology that have been made in the last 50 years.

IF we had the need to build battleship guns again we could do it lighter and stronger than before.

We have several items on the old ships that we can no longer make. We do not have the ability to make the armor for one anymore,lots og the gears and the like either. We have lost a lot of abilities that we had in the early half of the 20th century due to attrition and technology making things "better". Hell, look at something like a Garand/M14 receiver. With all the companies out there trying to make a reliable copy, no one has come close to what a man with a furnace and a hammer forge using nothing but experience and judging the color of the steel by eye. Sad to say but the closest anyone has come is the Chinese with the Norinco receivers.

Posted: 10/16/2011 5:23:52 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What do you mean not useful?

1, they created jobs, making the steel, making the steel into barrels and steel into ships.

2, a 16" 1900 - 2700 lbs round is quite useful at anything within 23.4 120 miles

3, they also could fire 15-20 kiloton nukes too....

280+ 16" shells hit Beruit in 1984, only mistake was stopping.

Arty can shoot anytime of the day, in any weather. Still a shit load of targets within 23.4 miles of the shore....

Think how well they would work clearing out the wall street protesters? The survivors would have jobs picking up the body parts and rubble.

win-win.

Fixed. They did a lot of testing and came out with new tech in the late 90's, they have range up too 120 miles and accuracy as good as many missiles for a lot less cost. The AP shells are able to do more damage to hardened targets than even the most modern missile systems. The Battleships are also able to take more damage than a modern ship and still keep fighting. In Libya we could have saved a ton of money with just one active battleship doing the job of the Aircraft carriers as most targets were well within the 120 mile operational umbrella.

Those were Sabot type rounds and were never fielded as the BB's were either decommissioned or various stages of decommission. It came about the same time that the 16's firing proximity fuzed rounds being used as ABM systems came out.

Posted: 10/16/2011 5:25:34 PM EDT

[#11]

We can make as many M14 receivers as we'd like, but they are now more expensive than AR designs, so why bother?

Posted: 10/16/2011 5:39:33 PM EDT

[#12]

I only saw an Iowa class once.
We were in the Red sea on board the Eisenhower, in AUG or SEP 1990 when the Wisconsin steamed through. I remember seeing her on the horizon and thinking how huge impressive a ship she was, I've never seen one that big before. Then she pulled along side for a photo op, and when we looked down on her she didn't seem so big anymore. IKE is a big ship.

Posted: 10/16/2011 5:40:25 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Nothing says FUCK YOU, TOJO better than a full broadside from one of the old battle wagons... The sheer shock of it would hit you in the chest like a baseball bat times 9. Notice the wakes at the waterline - that's the ship going SIDEWAYS from the recoil

No, it isn't. It's the shockwave from the muzzle blasts.

Posted: 10/16/2011 5:41:36 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Nothing says FUCK YOU, TOJO better than a full broadside from one of the old battle wagons... The sheer shock of it would hit you in the chest like a baseball bat times 9. Notice the wakes at the waterline - that's the ship going SIDEWAYS from the recoil

No, it isn't. It's the shockwave from the muzzle blasts.

This

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:03:26 PM EDT

[#15]

Let's be honest - we probably can build the oil fired boilers for her anymore either.

Nor could we build a Steam Locomotive anymore.

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:05:03 PM EDT

[#16]

A ship that big could be built with a reactor at a cost savings.

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:09:17 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Damn those decks need to be holy stoned.

I believe they are teak.

The way we preserve our history is atrocious.

Take all the $$$$ spent on naming highways & buildings after politicians and apply it to those men and equipment who actually did something positive for our country.

That is correct the deck is teak wood. I stood on the deck of the USS Missouri that was anchored in Long Beach Calif before being deactived, and the tour guide mentioned that it was teak wood, but I forget the reason why though. Can someone explain.

BTW: I walked on the same deck that the treaty end WWII was signed, what an awesome and humbling feeling on history.

The wood deck provides sound and temp insulation to the decks below, and provides better traction for walking on that steel. Imagine a bright sunny day off Okinawa, and your walking around on a solar powered frying pan.

Teak was used because the oil in the wood protects the underlying steel deck from corrosion.

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:12:59 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
You think those guns are big? Imagine the 18" naval guns on the Musashi and Yamato. Adding 2 more inches of barrel diameter no doubt increases the weight immensely.

Wonder what those shells weighed?

AP=3,218 lbs
HE or AA(yes they made AA shells for the 18" guns)=2,998 lbs

If you stood near the main guns when they were fired, the blast would tear/burn the skin off of your body.

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:15:10 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Damn those decks need to be holy stoned.

I believe they are teak.

The way we preserve our history is atrocious.

Take all the $$$$ spent on naming highways & buildings after politicians and apply it to those men and equipment who actually did something positive for our country.

That is correct the deck is teak wood. I stood on the deck of the USS Missouri that was anchored in Long Beach Calif before being deactived, and the tour guide mentioned that it was teak wood, but I forget the reason why though. Can someone explain.

BTW: I walked on the same deck that the treaty end WWII was signed, what an awesome and humbling feeling on history.

The wood deck provides sound and temp insulation to the decks below, and provides better traction for walking on that steel. Imagine a bright sunny day off Okinawa, and your walking around on a solar powered frying pan.

Teak was used because the oil in the wood protects the underlying steel deck from corrosion.

IIRC Teak's traditionally used on warships because it reduces splintering as well.

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:16:33 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:

As a child growing up during the Vietnam Era, Navy cruisers would visit port and the public was allowed to tour the ship. It was easy to be awed by these big ships with big guns. I recall watching from Coit Tower the U.S.S. New Jersey returning from Vietnam. What a thrilling sight to see as a child. The Missouri Iowa class BBs were the last of their kind. Los Angeles is getting the U.S.S. Iowa. They beat out tiny Vallejo which is bankrupt. I hope L.A. takes care of that grand old lady.

Ahem

, that would be IOWA class.

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:19:19 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What do you mean not useful?

1, they created jobs, making the steel, making the steel into barrels and steel into ships.

2, a 16" 1900 - 2700 lbs round is quite useful at anything within 23.4 120 miles

3, they also could fire 15-20 kiloton nukes too....

280+ 16" shells hit Beruit in 1984, only mistake was stopping.

Arty can shoot anytime of the day, in any weather. Still a shit load of targets within 23.4 miles of the shore....

Think how well they would work clearing out the wall street protesters? The survivors would have jobs picking up the body parts and rubble.

win-win.

Fixed. They did a lot of testing and came out with new tech in the late 90's, they have range up too 120 miles and accuracy as good as many missiles for a lot less cost. The AP shells are able to do more damage to hardened targets than even the most modern missile systems. The Battleships are also able to take more damage than a modern ship and still keep fighting. In Libya we could have saved a ton of money with just one active battleship doing the job of the Aircraft carriers as most targets were well within the 120 mile operational umbrella.

Those were Sabot type rounds and were never fielded as the BB's were either decommissioned or various stages of decommission. It came about the same time that the 16's firing proximity fuzed rounds being used as ABM systems came out.

Indeed, although they were tested with great results before all the toys were but away because the BBs were being retired.

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:22:02 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

We can make as many M14 receivers as we'd like, but they are now more expensive than AR designs, so why bother?

We cant make them reliably, not anywhere near what we did in the 30's thru the 50's. Of the two American manufacturers of Forged M14 receivers in operation today, they have many throw aways and problem receivers that make it into the public. Lots of waste to make just a few workable receivers that still are not as good as the USGI versions. I wont go into the merits of the M14 vs the AR here, just call me not a fan of the AR.

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:22:52 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
there is a member on another forum I read that has a slice of a 16" barrel. It was cut off a barrel being sold as military scrap, the guy said it took 8 hours to make the cut.

http://i516.photobucket.com/albums/u321/definc/IMG_1418.jpg

See the ring just outboard of the rifling?

The rifling was part of liner that could be replaced.

I saw what was reported to be the last lathe owned by the US Govt. for machining the OD of those liners. I saw it being cut up and sold for scrap after it failed to sell.

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:27:09 PM EDT

[#24]

"As modernized in the 1980s, each turret
carried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, which
made it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Together
with the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, these improvements
made these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever
made. For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen
shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun
of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of
the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m)
of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m).
Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range." link

How does that compare to 155's and rockets?

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:31:52 PM EDT

[#25]

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:31:59 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What do you mean not useful?

1, they created jobs, making the steel, making the steel into barrels and steel into ships.

2, a 16" 1900 - 2700 lbs round is quite useful at anything within 23.4 miles

3, they also could fire 15-20 kiloton nukes too....

280+ 16" shells hit Beruit in 1984, only mistake was stopping.

Arty can shoot anytime of the day, in any weather. Still a shit load of targets within 23.4 miles of the shore....

Think how well they would work clearing out the wall street protesters? The survivors would have jobs picking up the body parts and rubble.

win-win.

If you could hit it. How long does it take to adjust? How many rounds?

The battleships, even back in WWII, had first shot hit capability. Unlike both German and Japanese naval artillery, the Iowa class guns ALL had first shot, first hit capability and did NOT need to fire a first shot for ranging. They had sophisticated (for the time) analog fire control computers that could accurately place the 16 inch shells within a few feet of the perfect point of aim at a range of 20 miles.

So, how long to adjust? Just as long as it takes to range in on the target. The first round would hit the target dead on. Additional rounds could be fine tuned to be even better aimed. The first shot was a bullseye. The second would be an X.

CJ

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:33:40 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

http://50essentialexperiences.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Missouri-Broadside.jpg

Nothing says FUCK YOU, TOJO better than a full broadside from one of the old battle wagons... The sheer shock of it would hit you in the chest like a baseball bat times 9. Notice the wakes at the waterline - that's the ship going SIDEWAYS from the recoil

http://img165.imageshack.us/img165/9669/ussiowaxy8.jpg

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/bb-62-8406362.jpg

I bet there's a Master Chief below decks giggling like a school girl when these bad boys bark.

My Grandfather was on the IOWA. He had a plaque on his refrigerator that read "If you can't stand the roar of the big guns, get off the main deck!"

He always said "HUH?!!!!" because he was pretty much deaf from those monsters.

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:37:04 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What do you mean not useful?
1, they created jobs, making the steel, making the steel into barrels and steel into ships.
2, a 16" 1900 - 2700 lbs round is quite useful at anything within 23.4 120 miles
3, they also could fire 15-20 kiloton nukes too....

280+ 16" shells hit Beruit in 1984, only mistake was stopping.

Arty can shoot anytime of the day, in any weather. Still a shit load of targets within 23.4 miles of the shore....
Think how well they would work clearing out the wall street protesters? The survivors would have jobs picking up the body parts and rubble.
win-win.

Fixed. They did a lot of testing and came out with new tech in the late 90's, they have range up too 120 miles and accuracy as good as many missiles for a lot less cost. The AP shells are able to do more damage to hardened targets than even the most modern missile systems. The Battleships are also able to take more damage than a modern ship and still keep fighting. In Libya we could have saved a ton of money with just one active battleship doing the job of the Aircraft carriers as most targets were well within the 120 mile operational umbrella.

Pretty sure your calculations are wrong when you consider the billion dollars a year it costs to maintain them.

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:37:59 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Damn those decks need to be holy stoned.

I believe they are teak.

The way we preserve our history is atrocious.

Take all the $$$$ spent on naming highways & buildings after politicians and apply it to those men and equipment who actually did something positive for our country.

That is correct the deck is teak wood. I stood on the deck of the USS Missouri that was anchored in Long Beach Calif before being deactived, and the tour guide mentioned that it was teak wood, but I forget the reason why though. Can someone explain.

BTW: I walked on the same deck that the treaty end WWII was signed, what an awesome and humbling feeling on history.

Teak is very tough, very weather resistant, and maintains exellent traction even when wet. It also hardly burns at all even under ideal circumstances.

And, it's very easy to repair. Just yank out a badly damaged plank and lay down a new one. Really simple, and fast.

These are ideal properties for a decking material. Switching to a textured paint or asphalt based decking surface like on other ships would be fairly expensive and not give improved qualities. So why bother?

There is also s certain respect for Naval traditions at work here. The BBs always had teak decks, and so long as it served its purpose well, the teak

deck would stay, as much for tradition as for practicality.

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:39:17 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

"As modernized in the 1980s, each turretcarried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, whichmade it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Togetherwith the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, these improvementsmade these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns evermade. For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteenshells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gunof each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% ofthe total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m)of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range." link

How does that compare to 155's and rockets?

The round dispersion?

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:40:59 PM EDT

[#31]

Quoted:
[/span][span style='font-family: Arial,Helvetica;']How does that compare to 155's and rockets?[/span][span style='font-weight: bold; font-family: Arial,Helvetica;'][/span]

As or more accurate...

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:50:34 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
I am pleased to note that all four of the battleships are spoken for as museums. A deal was recently made to preserve the Iowa, the last of the BBs
to still be in the Navy's inventory, and turn it into a museum along with the other three.

Here is part of the story: "San Fransisco shuns the Iowa" (from 2005):

"Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a former San Francisco mayor, helped secure $3 million to tow the Iowa from Rhode Island to the Bay Area in 2001 in hopes of making touristy Fisherman's Wharf its new home.

But city supervisors voted 8-3 last month to oppose taking in the ship, citing local opposition to the Iraq war and the military's stance on gays, among other things.

"If I was going to commit any kind of money in recognition of war, then it should be toward peace, given what our war is in Iraq right now," Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi said.

Feinstein called it a "very petty decision."

"This isn't the San Francisco that I've known and loved and grew up in and was born in," Feinstein said. ""

Link: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8C3PH0G0

Posted: 10/16/2011 6:53:24 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Nothing says FUCK YOU, TOJO better than a full broadside from one of the old battle wagons... The sheer shock of it would hit you in the chest like a baseball bat times 9. Notice the wakes at the waterline - that's the ship going SIDEWAYS from the recoil

No, it isn't. It's the shockwave from the muzzle blasts.

This

I can't believe this crap is still being parroted on the internet!

ETA: Just kidding.

Posted: 10/16/2011 7:00:18 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
How big?

Here's a little article that shows the barrels from WWII guns.

http://www.rgspemkt.com/4925V5.jpg

http://www.rgspemkt.com/WebCoverPageV5.jpg

http://www.rgspemkt.com/Hist1-V5.jpg

http://www.rgspemkt.com/Hist2-V5.jpg

http://www.rgspemkt.com/215-P2.html

Not that they are as useful now as they once were, but I wonder if we even have the machining capability to make half this stuff anymore?

no, we don't.

Man I get tired of hearing this line, as if making large steel tubes is somehow beyond our grasp despite all the advances in technology that have been made in the last 50 years.

IF we had the need to build battleship guns again we could do it lighter and stronger than before.

We have several items on the old ships that we can no longer make. We do not have the ability to make the armor for one anymore,lots og the gears and the like either. We have lost a lot of abilities that we had in the early half of the 20th century due to attrition and technology making things "better". Hell, look at something like a Garand/M14 receiver. With all the companies out there trying to make a reliable copy, no one has come close to what a man with a furnace and a hammer forge using nothing but experience and judging the color of the steel by eye. Sad to say but the closest anyone has come is the Chinese with the Norinco receivers.

Check out LRB Arms for a Mil. Spec. true to Rock Island Arsenal semi M14

Posted: 10/16/2011 7:05:47 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
"As modernized in the 1980s, each turretcarried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, whichmade it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Togetherwith the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, these improvementsmade these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns evermade. For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteenshells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gunof each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% ofthe total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m)of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range." link

How does that compare to 155's and rockets?

That's a 50moa group at 19 miles, if alcohol hasn't impaired my math skills.

I wonder what the ballistic coefficient is?

Posted: 10/16/2011 7:06:58 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

What do you mean not useful?

1, they created jobs, making the steel, making the steel into barrels and steel into ships.

2, a 16" 1900 - 2700 lbs round is quite useful at anything within 23.4 120 miles

3, they also could fire 15-20 kiloton nukes too....

280+ 16" shells hit Beruit in 1984, only mistake was stopping.

Arty can shoot anytime of the day, in any weather. Still a shit load of targets within 23.4 miles of the shore....

Think how well they would work clearing out the wall street protesters? The survivors would have jobs picking up the body parts and rubble.

win-win.

Fixed. They did a lot of testing and came out with new tech in the late 90's, they have range up too 120 miles and accuracy as good as many missiles for a lot less cost. The AP shells are able to do more damage to hardened targets than even the most modern missile systems. The Battleships are also able to take more damage than a modern ship and still keep fighting. In Libya we could have saved a ton of money with just one active battleship doing the job of the Aircraft carriers as most targets were well within the 120 mile operational umbrella.

Pretty sure your calculations are wrong when you consider the billion dollars a year it costs to maintain them.

Compaired to the costs of operating a Aircraft Carrier its cheap.

Posted: 10/16/2011 7:09:05 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How big?

Here's a little article that shows the barrels from WWII guns.

http://www.rgspemkt.com/4925V5.jpg

http://www.rgspemkt.com/WebCoverPageV5.jpg

http://www.rgspemkt.com/Hist1-V5.jpg

http://www.rgspemkt.com/Hist2-V5.jpg

http://www.rgspemkt.com/215-P2.html

Not that they are as useful now as they once were, but I wonder if we even have the machining capability to make half this stuff anymore?

no, we don't.

Man I get tired of hearing this line, as if making large steel tubes is somehow beyond our grasp despite all the advances in technology that have been made in the last 50 years.

IF we had the need to build battleship guns again we could do it lighter and stronger than before.

We have several items on the old ships that we can no longer make. We do not have the ability to make the armor for one anymore,lots og the gears and the like either. We have lost a lot of abilities that we had in the early half of the 20th century due to attrition and technology making things "better". Hell, look at something like a Garand/M14 receiver. With all the companies out there trying to make a reliable copy, no one has come close to what a man with a furnace and a hammer forge using nothing but experience and judging the color of the steel by eye. Sad to say but the closest anyone has come is the Chinese with the Norinco receivers.

Check out LRB Arms for a Mil. Spec. true to Rock Island Arsenal semi M14

LRB is one of the two manufacturers I had in mind when i stated above. They are good, but not milspec and no where near the quality of the USGI receivers. The only company to get it close to right unfortunately is China's Norinco.

Posted: 10/16/2011 7:09:14 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What do you mean not useful?
1, they created jobs, making the steel, making the steel into barrels and steel into ships.
2, a 16" 1900 - 2700 lbs round is quite useful at anything within 23.4 120 miles
3, they also could fire 15-20 kiloton nukes too....

280+ 16" shells hit Beruit in 1984, only mistake was stopping.

Arty can shoot anytime of the day, in any weather. Still a shit load of targets within 23.4 miles of the shore....
Think how well they would work clearing out the wall street protesters? The survivors would have jobs picking up the body parts and rubble.
win-win.

Fixed. They did a lot of testing and came out with new tech in the late 90's, they have range up too 120 miles and accuracy as good as many missiles for a lot less cost. The AP shells are able to do more damage to hardened targets than even the most modern missile systems. The Battleships are also able to take more damage than a modern ship and still keep fighting. In Libya we could have saved a ton of money with just one active battleship doing the job of the Aircraft carriers as most targets were well within the 120 mile operational umbrella.

Pretty sure your calculations are wrong when you consider the billion dollars a year it costs to maintain them.

Compaired to the costs of operating a Aircraft Carrier its cheap.

But we already have aircraft carriers, and always will. I love battleships as much as the next guy, but they are redundant and obsolete.

Posted: 10/16/2011 7:26:13 PM EDT

[#39]

I think I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that in more recent years obsolete Naval gun barrels were being utilized to make "bunker-buster" deep penetrator bombs. Don't recall the size ranges they selected ....... anyone have any knowledge of this ? The descriptions were kinda fascinating at the time.

Posted: 10/16/2011 7:29:32 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
I think I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that in more recent years obsolete Naval gun barrels were being utilized to make "bunker-buster" deep penetrator bombs. Don't recall the size ranges they selected ....... anyone have any knowledge of this ? The descriptions were kinda fascinating at the time.

Those were 203MM howitzer barrels from Army and Marine artillery pieces.

Posted: 10/16/2011 7:31:18 PM EDT

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I think I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that in more recent years obsolete Naval gun barrels were being utilized to make "bunker-buster" deep penetrator bombs. Don't recall the size ranges they selected ....... anyone have any knowledge of this ? The descriptions were kinda fascinating at the time.

Those were 203MM howitzer barrels from Army and Marine artillery pieces.

I want to see a bomber drop a penetrator based off a BB main gun.

Posted: 10/16/2011 7:35:48 PM EDT

[#42]

Google "HARP 16 inch gun"

As a kid growing up in Yuma We could hear that fucker let loose 20 miles away

.

I work at YPG now. they have not fired it in about 20 years but but when then did in the 80's I felt it in my office 5 miles away

Posted: 10/16/2011 7:45:50 PM EDT

[#43]

Quoted:
You think those guns are big? Imagine the 18" naval guns on the Musashi and Yamato. Adding 2 more inches of barrel diameter no doubt increases the weight immensely.

Wonder what those shells weighed?

3,240 lbs with a max range of 45,000 yds, according to Jane's Battleships of the 20th Century, Harper Collins, 1996, pg 80.

Posted: 10/16/2011 7:47:39 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I think I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that in more recent years obsolete Naval gun barrels were being utilized to make "bunker-buster" deep penetrator bombs. Don't recall the size ranges they selected ....... anyone have any knowledge of this ? The descriptions were kinda fascinating at the time.

Those were 203MM howitzer barrels from Army and Marine artillery pieces.

I got to see those being made at watervliet.

Posted: 10/16/2011 7:56:48 PM EDT

[#45]

I'm jealous.

Posted: 10/16/2011 8:07:03 PM EDT

[#46]

Posted: 10/16/2011 8:09:59 PM EDT

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:

How big?
Here's a little article that shows the barrels from WWII guns.
http://www.rgspemkt.com/4925V5.jpg
http://www.rgspemkt.com/WebCoverPageV5.jpg
http://www.rgspemkt.com/Hist1-V5.jpg
http://www.rgspemkt.com/Hist2-V5.jpg
http://www.rgspemkt.com/215-P2.html

Not that they are as useful now as they once were, but I wonder if we even have the machining capability to make half this stuff anymore?

no, we don't.

Man I get tired of hearing this line, as if making large steel tubes is somehow beyond our grasp despite all the advances in technology that have been made in the last 50 years.

IF we had the need to build battleship guns again we could do it lighter and stronger than before.

How quickly?
Who, specifically, is set up for work of this size?
Mesta Machine is gone (WHEMCO is but a shell)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/statlerhotel/4112593021/
http://media.photobucket.com/image/mesta%20machine/kenshop/MestaMachineCompany.jpg
http://media.photobucket.com/image/mesta%20machine/rniemi/Ries/mestamill2.jpg
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_liqhbbpAFb1qe0lqqo1_500.png
When the steel industry left, it took a bunch of support with it.
Who makes this stuff in the US anymore?

You know why they are gone? Because technology has made machines infinitely more accurate and cheaper.

These are far more prolific now than WW2. It doesn't take teams of men to run them either.

There are some things that aren impractical to do anymore. I wouldn't put a battleship barrel on a lathe. Instead I would use multiple robotic arms to 3d mill it.

Posted: 10/16/2011 9:26:03 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I think I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that in more recent years obsolete Naval gun barrels were being utilized to make "bunker-buster" deep penetrator bombs. Don't recall the size ranges they selected ....... anyone have any knowledge of this ? The descriptions were kinda fascinating at the time.

Those were 203MM howitzer barrels from Army and Marine artillery pieces.

I got to see those being made at watervliet.

Fellow Mech-E or later on in your career Sir?

That plant gives one hell of a tour...And the Colonel that runs it is the only Soldier on post.

Posted: 10/16/2011 9:30:32 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Notice the wakes at the waterline - that's the ship going SIDEWAYS from the recoil

The battleships do not go "sideways" from a 9 gun salvo.
Google it up and repent before Dport gets here....

Posted: 10/17/2011 5:35:54 AM EDT

[#50]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Nothing says FUCK YOU, TOJO better than a full broadside from one of the old battle wagons... The sheer shock of it would hit you in the chest like a baseball bat times 9. Notice the wakes at the waterline - that's the ship going SIDEWAYS from the recoil

No, it isn't. It's the shockwave from the muzzle blasts.

This

I can't believe this crap is still being parroted on the internet!

ETA: Just kidding.

To be fair, I was told by a USMC officer at NGF school at NAB Little Creek that it indeed caused an Iowa Class BB to "slide" when a full broad side was fired. I believed it for years, until dport schooled me. Damn you Capt Quail.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Naval guns were big. (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us