Big Battleship Doctrine 2

[Bill]

The *goofy* figures are not mine, there are from the US Navy Tech Memo K-26-67 "Naval Gunfire Dispersion".

The Mark-8 AP bullet is NOT a *sub-MOA* projectile, except in your wildest dreams.

I guess you should read the official DoD Document i posted the link to, because the Mk8AP projectile is a sub-MOA shell.

Here's that pesky link again:
http://www.usnfsa.org/DOD%20Documen...Battleships.pdf

BTW, Still claiming MOA is irrelevant to indirect fires?

[Bill]

The *goofy* figures are not mine, there are from the US Navy Tech Memo K-26-67 "Naval Gunfire Dispersion".

The Mark-8 AP bullet is NOT a *sub-MOA* projectile, except in your wildest dreams.

I could, but given your ******* like behaivour, i aint gonna. Look it up yourself if you want to confirm my figures, or just dismiss them.

I don't care, it makes no difference to me.

[Shipwreck]

See my screen name? It's not just a cool sounding name i picked out of the blue. It reflects my former profession in the US Army. I also have extensive REAL WORLD experience in calling/plotting and adjusting all manner of indirect fires.

I see an image that says *M21 Sniper* and shows a rifle that is NOT an M21 by any stretch (perhaps this is humor).

And NO, it is NOT irrelevant to indirect fire you ignorant fool. Of course i shouldn't be surprised when such comments come from the same poster who said "Whatever lethal fragmentation radius" is.

Sorry but :

1. There is no such thing as *lethal fragmentation radius*.

2. MOA is not relevant when discussing indirect fire.

[Bill]

FROM GAO REPORT:

Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM):

The Navy's ERGM is a rocket-assisted projectile that is fired from a
gun aboard ships. It can be guided to targets on land at ranges of
between about 15 and 50 nautical miles to provide fire support for
ground troops. ERGM is expected to offer increased range and accuracy
compared to the Navy's current gun range of 13 nautical miles. ERGM
requires modifications to existing 5-inch guns, a new munitions-
handling system (magazine), and a new fire control system. We assessed
the projectile only."

http://www.gao.gov/htext/d04248.html

So those costs DO NOT include the new firing control system, the new magazine/ammunition handling equipment, or the actual PLANNED inventory of warfighting rounds.

Get it?

[Bill]

I see an image that says *M21 Sniper* and shows a rifle that is NOT an M21 by any stretch (perhaps this is humor).




Sorry but :

1. There is no such thing as *lethal fragmentation radius*.

2. MOA is not relevant when discussing indirect fire.

I am well known personally to many of the moderators on this board. Try asking around before you make an even bigger ass of yourself and get yourself banned.
The Image was MADE FOR ME by another poster here hence the dragunov in the foreground, and yeah, the soldier lying prone IS using an M-21.

Lethal radius is THE OFFICIAL MILITARY TERM. "fragmentation" is superfluous in the title, but is what is actually being measured.

MOA is completely relevant to indirect fire, particularly if it's your job to figure out firing tables for a given projectile. Further, if i am calling in a strike, i can use either mils or minutes of arc(the 'other' MOA) to accurately adjust the fire. Of course, if you weren't a moron, you'd already know that.

[Shipwreck]

I guess you should read the official DoD Document i posted the link to, because the Mk8AP projectile is a sub-MOA shell.

Here's that pesky link again:
http://www.usnfsa.org/DOD%20Documen...Battleships.pdf

BTW, Still claiming MOA is irrelevant to indirect fires?

Still claiming that :

1. MOA is not relevant to indirect fires.

2. The 16" Mark-8 AP is not a *sub-MOA* projectile.

Here is a link to the DoD document :
http://www.usnfsa.org/DOD%20Document...attleships.pdf

Page 4 of this document :
"The range error for Iowa (which had the best gunnery) was .3% or 120 yards at maximum range (...). Iowa's deflection error (i.e. dispersion left or right) was .75 mil, or 30 yards at maximum range".

Which is consistent with the 95 yards range error and 25 yards deflection error at 40,000 yards for the Mark-8 AP with the Mark-7 16"/50 gun per Tech Memo K-26-67. At 42,345 yards (maximum range for the Mark-8 AP with the Mark-7 16"/50 gun), range dispersion is 93 yards and deflection dispersion is 28 yards.

Are you claiming that a 120 yards range error is good enough for a *sub-MOA* projectile ?

[Bill]

If you had a brain you'd realize that 1MOA is a much greater distance at 40,000 yards than it is at 100(1 moa is 1.0471680":100yards). You'd also realize that the tests(all of them) were conducted in the great outdoors, and that the projectiles were subject to random atmospheric conditions that affect the flight of each of the individual projectiles. Further, you'd realize that actual attained results are also a reflection of deficiencies in both the fire control system and the accurate plotting of the firing platform's exact position. The Mk8 PROJECTILE itself is a sub-moa capable projectile, but when measured against the TOTAL GUN SYSTEM, it does not achieve that level of accuracy.(This would be similar to firing .5 moa capable match grade ammunition in a 2.5 moa rifle. You would obviously not achieve .5 moa in such a setup).

The friggin link i just posted to the DoD report got parsed and isn't working right now, or i'd quote you the part of the report that states the Mk8AP achieved .75MOA in actual accuracy testing. I'll try to refind and repost the link.(EDIT TO ADD: Your link to the site i posted is working).

And um, no, once again, MOA is not irrelevant to indirect fire, ESPECIALLY if you're formulating the firing tables for a given projectile. Further, MOA(minute of arc) can be used to call for fire if you don't have an accurate device to measure mils, provided you know the conversion factor.

EDIT TO ADD: From the DoD report:

"The range error for Iowa was .3%, or 120yds at maximum range. One range error is a standard deviation, ie, 68% of rounds will impact within +/- one range error, 95% within two range errors. Iowa's deflection error was .75 mil, or 30 yards."

LOL, damn, i thought the report had said MOA, but it says Mils. My bad(g-damned bad memory!).

[Shipwreck]

If you had a brain you'd realize that 1MOA is a much greater distance at 40,000 yards than it is at 100(1 moa is 1.0471680":100yards).

Range Dispersion : 95 yards @ 40,000 yards = 3,420 inches @ 40,000 yards = 8.55 inches @ 100 yards (8.55 = 3,420 / 400), i.e. ~ 8.17 MOA.

Deflection Dispersion : 25 yards @ 40,000 yards = 900 inches @ 40,000 yards = 2.25 inches @ 100 yards (2.25 = 900 / 400), i.e. ~ 2.15 MOA.

IOW, the Mark-8 AP bullet is NOT a *sub-MOA* projectile.

[Shipwreck]

LOL, damn, i thought the report had said MOA, but it says Mils. My bad(g-damned bad memory!).

Once again, MOA is not relevant when discussing indirect fire dispersion.

[Bill]

Why do you keep disingeneously keep referring to the SYSTEM when i am referring to a COMPONENT of that system? Why are you also ignoring the obvious affects of atmospheric conditions on the flight of a projectile? Normally when determining absolute accuracy wrt projectiles it is done in a scientific environment- ie indoors- either in a wind tunnel(for large projectiles) or from a pressure barrel. OBVIOUSLY one cannot reproduce such conditions for a 16" gun system firing in the great outdoors.

And further, why do you keep stating "MOA is irrelevant to indirect fire" when i've given you two clear examples that show your statement to be utterly false?

I am forced to conclude it's cause you're a moron....

BTW, the Mk8 is not a 'bullet', it is a shell.

Artillery projectiles are not called bullets...

[Shipwreck]

Why do you keep disingeneously keep referring to the SYSTEM when i am referring to a COMPONENT of that system? Why are you also ignoring the obvious affects of atmospheric conditions on the flight of a projectile? Normally when determining absolute accuracy wrt projectiles it is done in a scientific environment- ie indoors- either in a wind tunnel(for large projectiles) or from a pressure barrel. OBVIOUSLY one cannot reproduce such conditions for a 16" gun system firing in the great outdoors.

Figures from Tech Memo K-26-67 are True Mean Dispersion (TMD), TMD being a measure of the inherent accuracy of guns.

As clearly shown by the figures already provided, the Mark-8 AP bullet fired from a 16"/50 Mark-7 gun is NOT a *sub-MOA* projectile.

BTW, the Mk8 is not a 'bullet', it is a shell. Artillery projectiles are not called bullets...

Naval gun projectiles are frequently called bullets. For one example, see S.E. Morison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Vol. XII. pp. 190 et. seq., "The proportion of 8-inch bullets in the heavy cruisers was 66 per cent."

And further, why do you keep stating "MOA is irrelevant to indirect fire" when i've given you two clear examples that show your statement to be utterly false?

I have yet to see one document where dispersion for indirect fire is measured by means of MOA.

If you know of any such document, feel free to post it.

[Shipwreck]

Try asking around before you make an even bigger ass of yourself and get yourself banned.

You are the one launching personal attacks and I should be the one banned for correcting some of the numerous inaccuracies/fallacies in your posts ???

[Shipwreck]

Lethal radius is THE OFFICIAL MILITARY TERM. "Fragmentation" is superfluous in the title,

Superfluous, exactly.

The so-called *Lethal Fragmentation Area* is nothing more than some pedantic expression made up by some failed naval writer and pundit.

[Defcon 6]

The so-called *Lethal Fragmentation Area* is nothing more than a pedantic expression made up by some failed naval writer and pundit.

I get along with the term pretty well. I think I'll just keep on using it.

[B.Smitty]

ERGM is NOWHERE near ready for primetime, and even if it was, it is WHOLLY UNSUITED for most NGFS roles due to it's extremely low flight speed of 500kts. Further, even if it did work(which it does not), it has ALREADY cost MORE than the cost of fully modernizing and reactivating the two remaining Cat B Iowas. ANSR is an AGS munition, which means it will not be in the fleet until AGS is in the fleet, and AGS won't be in the fleet until DDX is in the fleet(2013 at the soonest).

ANSR has been reborn as BTERM, and both were/are 5" rounds. LRLAP is the 155mm AGS round.

http://www.atk.com/AdvancedWeaponSys...tems_bterm.asp

The nice thing about BTERM is it flies a ballistic trajectory (significantly faster than 500kts).

BTERM also won the Navy's Extended Range Munition competition (ERGM lost).

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...c&modele=jdc_1