Shock testing

[elc32955]

I saw a recent video that featured at-sea shock testing for a Tico and was curious... with the strength of the Iowas were they subjected to the routine shock tests in the 80's and if so how did they conduct the testing? Probably a lot of explosives had to be detonated close aboard to generate enough of a shock to provide a good test for the systems.... ?

Eric

[RustyBattleship]

I saw a recent video that featured at-sea shock testing for a Tico and was curious... with the strength of the Iowas were they subjected to the routine shock tests in the 80's and if so how did they conduct the testing? Probably a lot of explosives had to be detonated close aboard to generate enough of a shock to provide a good test for the systems.... ?

Eric

We did not do Grade A shock testing of the Iowas when we reactivated them in the 1980's. Although any new motors, machinery, electronic consoles, etc. we installed were mounted for Grade A shock, we did not change out the mountings of anything that didn't need upgrading. A preliminary analysis was done of the mountings of the main machinery and it was found they would meet Grade A shock requirements.

The new antennas and the new weapons (CIWS, Tomahawk & Harpoon launchers) were already built to Grade A shock requirements and tested on other ships. As for the hull, a shock test might pop a few rivets, but that would only affect the outer tanks. But time was of the essense to get all four Battleships out and running within 6 years.

No time for dramatic shock tests. New Jersey was sent to Lebanon. Iowa was sent to chase the Soviet fleet back out of the North Atlantic (just as her first deployment was to bottle up the Tirpitz in Norway). Missouri and Wisconsin pounded Iraq.

No shock tests were needed. THEY provided the shock needed -- at the other end.

[blidgepump]

We did not do Grade A shock testing of the Iowas when we reactivated them in the 1980's. Although any new motors, machinery, electronic consoles, etc. we installed were mounted for Grade A shock, we did not change out the mountings of anything that didn't need upgrading. A preliminary analysis was done of the mountings of the main machinery and it was found they would meet Grade A shock requirements.

The new antennas and the new weapons (CIWS, Tomahawk & Harpoon launchers) were already built to Grade A shock requirements and tested on other ships. As for the hull, a shock test might pop a few rivets, but that would only affect the outer tanks. But time was of the essense to get all four Battleships out and running within 6 years.

No time for dramatic shock tests. New Jersey was sent to Lebanon. Iowa was sent to chase the Soviet fleet back out of the North Atlantic (just as her first deployment was to bottle up the Tirpitz in Norway). Missouri and Wisconsin pounded Iraq.

No shock tests were needed. THEY provided the shock needed -- at the other end.

Would this be an illustration of the "shock testing provided by an Iowa Class BB?
A series of fresh Washington Navy Yard photo's from Building # 76 to follow> > >

[RustyBattleship]

No it isn't. Seriously. This is direct hit testing that may be more damaging but even less local than Grade B which would be an underwater shock test simulating a nearby miss or a bomb or exploding a close-in mine. The shock area from Grade B is much more localized than a Grade A shock that hits the whole length of the ship within micro seconds.

However, the photo is very intesting depicting the inability of that type of armor plate to resist a direct hit of major caliber of an armor piercing shell from a Battleship.

[Dreadnought]

That would be from the Yamato, Musashi, Shinano set of armor plating found in Japan and brough back after WWII and tested upon with an Iowa. Much speculation about that piece of armor plate as I remember reading the articles.

Some background info on the armor and its testing.

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-040.htm

[rickshaw92]

So thats what the side of a ship looks like after getting shot? Cool.

[Dreadnought]

U.S. Navy 2700-lb 16" Mark 8 Mod 6 AP with inert filler ("BL&P") (last version of this projectile manufactured during WWII)

From the article I posted the link too. One of the problems I have is that the above shell was "inert" in other words no explosives, basically a full sized/weight dummy shell however assembled just like a real one. I posted a pic of one of these on the Visiting NJ thread. What happens when approximately 40.5 pounds (thats what the 2,700 lb AP shell carried in combat) of high explosives detonate after striking/penetrating at that stated velocity in the test. If the inert shell penetrated and no "bang" then a real one loaded to spec could possibly produce different results. Guess we wont ever know.

These are some of the questions left unanswered and maybe perhaps untested. Keep in mind the AP shells were designed to penetrate into a target first and then go off as per their fuse setting/settings or could go off on impact if using different fuses. Also keep in mind that it does not take a hit to the faceplate to render a turret out of operation. A strike to the barbette or armor deck surrounding it can also render it out of operation such as in Bismarks case with Rodney exchanging gunfire.

Below is a pic I posted of the BL&P shells delivered to the New Jersey.

[blidgepump]

U.S. Navy 2700-lb 16" Mark 8 Mod 6 AP with inert filler ("BL&P") (last version of this projectile manufactured during WWII)

From the article I posted the link too. One of the problems I have is that the above shell was "inert" in other words no explosives, basically a full sized/weight dummy shell however assembled just like a real one. I posted a pic of one of these on the Visiting NJ thread. What happens when approximately 40.5 pounds (thats what the 2,700 lb AP shell carried in combat) of high explosives detonate after striking/penetrating at that stated velocity in the test. If the inert shell penetrated and no "bang" then a real one loaded to spec could possibly produce different results. Guess we wont ever know.

These are some of the questions left unanswered and maybe perhaps untested. Keep in mind the AP shells were designed to penetrate into a target first and then go off as per their fuse setting/settings or could go off on impact if using different fuses. Also keep in mind that it does not take a hit to the faceplate to render a turret out of operation. A strike to the barbette or armor deck surrounding it can also render it out of operation such as in Bismarks case with Rodney exchanging gunfire.

Below is a pic I posted of the BL&P shells delivered to the New Jersey.

On the flip side.... of the bullet hole
Something cut like butter and the factures stayed mostly together,,,,

[RustyBattleship]

I have the data and chemical/hardness ratings of the Yamato armor thanks to Nathan Oakun, an armor expert, up at Port Hueneme who provided all the info I needed for what our armor was made of. The steel companies that made it in WW II no longer had any technical records.

The armor plate was originally to be installed on the 3rd ship of the Yamato class but it was converted into an Aircraft Carrier instead. The 2700 lb inert AP round fired at it was NOT from one of our Battleships. It was fired by the 16"/50 gun at Dahlgren. An inert round was used because we only wanted to test the penetration capability and not blow up anything else down range in Virginia.

[blidgepump]

Well you have seen the IJN armor illustrations

Now the SIAM BB Class samples are submitted for your inspection

Note: The thinner chuck of steel was mislabled and is side armour above the waterline for the SIAM's

[Stitch]

So thats what the side of a ship looks like after getting shot? Cool.

Yes, the inside; notice the spalling on the inside (downrange) side of the armor. The loose, supersonic pieces of armor caused almost as much damage as the projectile, just like the inside of a tank.

[Ken_NJ]

The questions come to my mind, what was the distance from the gun to the sample of armor, and how do they aim the barrel in such a way that it hit this, what 5x5 foot section of armor dead center?

[blidgepump]

The questions come to my mind, what was the distance from the gun to the sample of armor, and how do they aim the barrel in such a way that it hit this, what 5x5 foot section of armor dead center?

That would definately be a Dahlgren Weapons Test Question.

I desired to try for a tour at Dahlgren, but Hurricane Irene kept pushing me along

[Dreadnought]

This facility, approximately 50 miles down the Potomac River from Washington, DC, has operated for over 80 years. Originally established for the testing of major naval ordnance (including battleship main battery armament of 16" and larger caliber), its mission has evolved to include a wide variety of weapons related T&E functions. NSWC Dahlgren, however, retains its "gun line", associated downrange impact area (a 20 mile long test firing area is available), and Restricted Areas R-6611, R-6612 and R-6613 to accommodate this mission. The airspace is now activated infrequently, following DoN/FAA discussions held to reduce its impact on civil traffic flows, especially around the Washington/Baltimore terminal complexes. In recognition of the overlapping areas of geographic interest and the limited aviation focus of NSWC Dahlgren, FACSFAC VACAPES now serves as the RAC for the installation.

*Thats not to give an answer of the distance on the firing line for that particular test. Just to give an idea of the range distance available to them at the installation.

Now if you can imagine the effects of 40.5 lbs of high explosive in the 2700 AP shell instead of 0 lbs in an "Inert" 2700 lb round fired at the same taget , Just imagine if they removed the high explosives from say an 1900 lb HC (High Capacity) round which carried approximately 153 lbs of high explosives and jammed it into the AP round and fired it at the same target. Or the shells designed in the 1980's for the Iowas actually went into full service which we know they did not becuase they were removed from service before they could make their way into the fleet outside of test instances.

As Rusty mentioned they were testing for pure penetration of the target armor plate, not destruction of it.

[BB61Vet]

As a former Iowa crewmember, I don't recall learning anything of any kind of shock testing done to the Iowas when they were recom'd. I do, however, remember the Germans detonating an underwater mine about 100 yards off our port side during Med '89. She shook pretty nicely but no damage that was announced or fed to the crew via scuttlebutt. Later that same day we performed a full power run and the Great Lady did admirably, although she sounded like a giant jackhammer when she got up to speed.