Quote:
Originally Posted by Shipwreck
Where is it that Muir suggests that NJ's *barrel wear was at 42% (...) could very possibly account for her inaccuracy* ?
Since you started to quote Muir, would you mind telling the audience what the 2nd paragraph of page 31 says on the Iowas being such superior sea boats ?  |
It does not exactly state that this "wear" caused her inaccuracy.
I guess what it is i'm trying to say is that if in 1981 the battleships (not condusive to which but a generalization of all as he writes) had approximately 42% wear according to Muir, we know which dates New Jersey fired upon Lebannon (1983) and then stated that a rifle was changed in Long Beach in 1984 for the first time in years. Was any work done to her rifles or powder/projectile tests conducted between the years of 1981 and 1983? If nothing was done during refit but make the turrets operational as far as they go this "wear" could easily have factored into her accuracy.
If the rifle in 1984 that was removed suffered from flame wash its a tell tale sign of heavy wear on the liner do you not agree?
Actually at this time I am away from my library (but will post for all to see as I return home) It is well know that the ships (a majority of the battleships of all nations) were wet upfront and amid with the Iowas being no acception to the rule. They did however survive quite a few beatings weather wise registering some pretty extreme rolls in pretty foul weather during the war years. If not mistaken at one point taking 26 degrees (will check the actual figure). And did survive a few typhoons in which other ships were completely lost and some badly damaged.
If memory serves Muir also discussed how agile they were at speed in open water as opposed to the clumseyness of them at slow speeds in shallower waters.