being realistic about reactivation

[maximusslade]

I just want to say that, just because a guy was a New Jersey crew member doesn't mean he knows squat about gunnery. It would my being on my submarine and telling the FTs up forward that torpedos must suck cause they missed a target.

It seems to me that there is a lot of statements that such and such document definiatly says that BB guns are innacurate or vice versa, all from supposedly credible sources. In my somewhat limited experience with government agencies and just plain being married, I have learned that any "fact" can be made to say one thing or another, so this is my line of thinking about BB guns.

If you look at the "gun" you will find that it is very much a rifle in every sense of the word. It has a groved bore with which to stablize projectiles along their journey, they have a solid breach, all the things I think are required to make for an accurate weapon. Most importantly I look at what the weapon is designed to do. The weapon must be fired from a moving target that moves across terrain that causes the platform to move up and down and back and forth and is firing said ordinance against a target that is also moving back and forth and up and down. Now, if this weapon was sooooo inaccurate it couldn't do that job efficently, why in heck would they put that weapon into service in the first place?? I know that someone out there will tell me that there have been many instances in wars past that armies have fielded POS weapons. But I would like to site a different example. In the case of the Bismarck, if one were to look at her wreck they will find something I find to make for the big BB guns. If you look at photos of the wreck you will find that most of the holes you see in her deck are in very close proximity (or right smack on) critical points on the deck, these points being barbettes, and gunnery control stations (you wont see hits on the turrets themselves due to the fact that they had fallen out of the ship when she rolled over and sank, they are now deeply implanted in the mud). Granted that the British were not firing at maximum range, but if you look the footage of the day of the sinking you will find that the seas weren't exactly calm.

I guess all I am saying is that with proper gunnery skills, big bore guns have the ability to be more than accurate enough to do the jobs they are tasked to do.

In closing, I am no expert, but in regards to the Jersey in the 80's, wasn't the navy having a problem with shoddy powder being used. Again I am no expert, but just perhaps sub par powder would lead to rounds being off the mark? As my chief always said,"Sh*t in, sh*t out."


P.S. Just an after thought on the Navy using substandard munitions. Didn't something similar happen to the Forrestal during Vietnam? Something about using WWII vintage bombs that were prone to exploding whether they were exposed to heat or not? Again, what do I know?

[RustyBattleship]

Fitz and Dread: COOL IT.

Whether the guns can shoot like Ed McGivern or Annie Oakley is NOT the point. "Point" is a good word here because the ships were NOT designed to shoot at POINT blank range and sighted in by an Olympic Champion target shooter. They are not "line of sight" guns as on a tank. They are ARTILLERY for long distance shooting.

The "point" is, they shoot big, really big, shells of various types and lots of them in a short time.

I will just say this (which I think I mentioned in another post some time ago), when I was assigned to be the project leader for the structural design section of LBNSY to reactivate the New Jersey, I had a tee shirt made up with an attacking Eagle on it with BB 62 below it.

One evening when my wife and I were at the grocery store, the manager looked at my tee shirt and asked about it. I told him that she was coming on down to Long Beach to be reactivated and I was one of the design people going to work on her (I already ship checked her in Bremerton).

He said, "Well, next time you board her, give her a kiss for me. I was in Nam and if it wasn't for her I wouldn't be alive today".

That's all he said. No details. You don't ask a Vet for details like that in public. As for what gunfire occasion that was, I don't care. It may have been the one where she gave covering fire with Mk 19 (now Mk 144) Firecracker rounds that EACH throws out 400 Bouncing Betty's. You guys can figure it out for yourselves. But it helped give me a tad more incentive to put that ship back out to sea.

[fitz]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

It seems to me that there is a lot of statements that such and such document definiatly says that BB guns are innacurate or vice versa, all from supposedly credible sources. In my somewhat limited experience with government agencies and just plain being married, I have learned that any "fact" can be made to say one thing or another, so this is my line of thinking about BB guns.

I think we are going overboard with the accuracy thing. I mentioned it merely in the context that there is documentary evidence in WWII that the old battleships which did NGFS as their bread-and-butter were better shooters than the Iowa's (as a group). The reason is the Iowa's simply didn't have the opportunity to practice as much - they were busy with carrier screen duties. The old battleships on the other hand got it down to an art because they had more opportunity to do so.

I brought this up ONLY in the context of a claim made by the author of the above study that the Iowa's took part in every major amphibious operation of WWII - a claim that isn't true on the face of it anyway. On its own the gunnery accuracy thing is nothing to get too worked up about.

[maximusslade]

Well, yeah. Naval gunnery is like any other form of shooting in that you have to practice, practice, practice!

[Dreadnought]

Personally, I think a few here have a guilty conscience. I have pointed to ABSOLUTELY no party at all. But yet already its because somebody is right and I'm wrong or vice versa or that I use my heart and another uses fact?
That particular point makes me laugh uncontrollably.

What I DONT LIKE is before somebody criticises perhaps they should consider the opposite side of the coin. Namely are we actually reading the truth or are we reading and reciting rehashed stories, politics and other non important issues concerning the BB's.

*Posting, One of the very main reasons why I would choose not to post is because of the fact that the material is NOT mine. Now since this material does not belong to me and was passed on to me it doesnt make it ok for me to put it out there and have the author/authors called a liar or exagerating a point nor have his name plastered all over a board posting. The man/men shared his/their experience and I was happy with just that to listen and respect him/them for making myself a party to it.

Does some of this information disagree with some of the gunnery accuracy information posted here so far. Yes it does but this information comes from a person that was there not a book nor official report and therefore not mentioned in print.

Further, I certainly wont stand by nor contribute while somebody criticises an entire crew in other threads for whatever reasons. Call it what you want I call it disrespect wether you agree or not I DONT CARE!, A crew is not just made up by its gunnery division aboard. Its made up by many many more men that do their different jobs and do it VERY well and many different divisions.

It quite easy to sit back and criticize and point fingers and quote other peoples opinions and books. These have been re-wound time and time again and the majority from the very same sources and all focus in the very same areas and soo many have had political motivations behind them time and time again that many fail to realize there is much more to be gleaned if we just listen, take it in and discuss.

When this thread was created it had very few that would post here (more that would view) and I bet I could name probably 8 or the 10 original guys that ran with this thread before it blossumed into what we have now. A full blown politically motivated, I-dotting,T-croosing warzone for BB arguments.

It was not supposed to become this. It was to be a place that could dicsuss features,engineering, operations, ideas and experiences etc. Instead it always became a pissing match for people who couldnt stand to here the word "Battleship" as if it insulted all other ships and navies but yet would spend their "valuable" time trolling here to create riffs and basically they broke up a good thing IMO. Its easier to get sucked into the trolling here then it is to hold good open opinioned conversation anymore about the BB's.

Comments:
I going to take a wild guess that I am the troll he is referring too. Dreadnought doesn't like me and I suspect it bugs him very much when I am right and he is wrong.

No Fitz, When you came into the other thread and could "judge" my character since I pulled a fast one with you because you attempted to be snotty with me from there I left it go. Enough said.

GG:

You mean like us trolls that have seen them fire?
Negative GG. Like was mentioned before a family member served three wars the first i am unsure of if he encountered them. The second I know he did and the third I know he did. And his views of them are much different then yours in the 80's. And yes he was a Marine and in the field.

Or us trolls that have called in fire from their 16in guns?
(See above)

By US Navy documents on NGF support from both WW2 and Vietnam, the Iowas were not good shooters.
(By other accounts they were good shooters so one should not negate the other) (Vietnams deployment saw some very strange gunnery accounting)

And from personal experience, and Navy documentation that will back it up, They shot like Crap in the 80s.
(I have seen documentation for this yet I have not seen an actual explanation as to the why.)

And if I'm not mistaken, the other person that posted on this forum that was in Beirut agreed that the Jersey shot like crap. And he was a Jersey crew member.
(And thats all good with me.)

Post those letters. Try to change some minds.
(I dont wish to change anybodys mind, I do not wish to argue BUT I also dont want to watch people post judgements based upon not all the facts, Perhaps they see no gray but only black and white. Who knows)

[Dreadnought]

Im going to ask a question of you GG. Only you since from what I understand you have plenty of experience in this field.


When the main battery (in this case 16"/50,aged,worn etc. actually 1969) from xxxx amount of yards out puts its opening salvo within 100 yards of its target and walks right in on it is that not acceptable gunnery to you?


And if you could please explain for accuracy the testing they must go through off (california) in your case and does this happen every time they put to sea for conflict (i know most times it does but not if always). The East coast location is different if it is still in use if need be. This way those who view but dont understand will have an idea of what accuracy really is.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by RustyBattleship

Whether the guns can shoot like Ed McGivern or Annie Oakley is NOT the point. "Point" is a good word here because the ships were NOT designed to shoot at POINT blank range and sighted in by an Olympic Champion target shooter. They are not "line of sight" guns as on a tank. They are ARTILLERY for long distance shooting.

The "point" is, they shoot big, really big, shells of various types and lots of them in a short time.

The Mean Point of Impact (MPI) is central in such concepts as ACCURACY and PRECISION, the former being related to the distance being the MPI and the desired aimpoint, the latter being related to the tightness of the dispersion pattern around the MPI.

Such notions as ACCURACY and PRECISION remain central in indirect fire, even when shooting *big bullets*.

That's the reason why improving both ACCURACY and PRECISION was central in the gunnery test program conducted aboard USS Iowa between 1984 and 1988 and implemented after the poor gunnery performance of USS New Jersey off Lebanon in 1983-84.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by eocoolj

For example, the USS Iowa was decommissioned, but still on the naval register, from 1990 through 2006.

That's incorrect.

USS Iowa was stricken from the Navy List on 12 February 1995, reinstated on the NVR on 4 January 1999, then stricken again from the list on 17 March 2006.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Im going to ask a question of you GG. Only you since from what I understand you have plenty of experience in this field.


When the main battery (in this case 16"/50,aged,worn etc. actually 1969) from xxxx amount of yards out puts its opening salvo within 100 yards of its target and walks right in on it is that not acceptable gunnery to you?

Can they repeat that every time? In all conditions? If they cannot then no, that is not acceptable gunnery.

And I know you don't know the answer,I'm assuming this is a story you heard. If they are within 100yds first round why are they walking rounds closer? Its a waste of ammo. They have effect on target.

And depending on the range PE will have you chasing rounds trying for that elusive "Bullseye"

If you are citing, or just thinking of a gunnery exercise at San Clemente, Subic Bay or Viegas it isn't a good example of real world shooting. Even though ships of every size screw it up all the time.

It is a "Canned" exercise. More useful in getting everyone talking and crews getting the kinks worked out and drill down pat.

And if you could please explain for accuracy the testing they must go through off (california) in your case and does this happen every time they put to sea for conflict (i know most times it does but not if always). The East coast location is different if it is still in use if need be. This way those who view but dont understand will have an idea of what accuracy really is.

Not sure what you mean by "For accuracy"? Are you wanting me to scrape those barnacles off the braincells and give you the "Standards" to be certified for deployment? Or are you wanting a "How close do they have to come to the target?" or "How many rounds/How much time do they have to achieve that standard?"

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by maximusslade

I just want to say that, just because a guy was a New Jersey crew member doesn't mean he knows squat about gunnery. It would my being on my submarine and telling the FTs up forward that torpedos must suck cause they missed a target.

not the case with the guy I'm talking about. From his introduction

My name is Fred Ralston. I served aboard the New Jersey from 1981-1984. As a FTG, performed most of the 16" firing from forward plots' stable vertical. This included all test firing as well as live fire NGFS (Beirut). .

But I would like to site a different example. In the case of the Bismarck, if one were to look at her wreck they will find something I find to make for the big BB guns. If you look at photos of the wreck you will find that most of the holes you see in her deck are in very close proximity (or right smack on) critical points on the deck, these points being barbettes, and gunnery control stations (you wont see hits on the turrets themselves due to the fact that they had fallen out of the ship when she rolled over and sank, they are now deeply implanted in the mud). Granted that the British were not firing at maximum range, but if you look the footage of the day of the sinking you will find that the seas weren't exactly calm.

Went far to the right on this one. As Fritz said its not all BB guns that are being called inaccurate. Just those on the Iowa class ships.

In closing, I am no expert, but in regards to the Jersey in the 80's, wasn't the navy having a problem with shoddy powder being used. Again I am no expert, but just perhaps sub par powder would lead to rounds being off the mark? As my chief always said,"Sh*t in, sh*t out."

They had a lot of different problems with the guns. And bad powder did have something to do with her bad shooting. But, even after the powders were reblended she and her sister ships continued to have accuracy problems. Some could have been caused by mechanical problems and some of the problems had to do with training.

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Can they repeat that every time? In all conditions? If they cannot then no, that is not acceptable gunnery.

And I know you don't know the answer,I'm assuming this is a story you heard. If they are within 100yds first round why are they walking rounds closer? Its a waste of ammo. They have effect on target.

And depending on the range PE will have you chasing rounds trying for that elusive "Bullseye"

If you are citing, or just thinking of a gunnery exercise at San Clemente, Subic Bay or Viegas it isn't a good example of real world shooting. Even though ships of every size screw it up all the time.

It is a "Canned" exercise. More useful in getting everyone talking and crews getting the kinks worked out and drill down pat.



Not sure what you mean by "For accuracy"? Are you wanting me to scrape those barnacles off the braincells and give you the "Standards" to be certified for deployment? Or are you wanting a "How close do they have to come to the target?" or "How many rounds/How much time do they have to achieve that standard?"

* GG, If a 16"/50 round can estimately blow a hole in the ground 20'x 50' (pending the round) and you came within 100 yards of being on target would "effect" negate wanting the target destroyed or in this case would they have walk even closer to certify target destroyed?

I do know that the firing range is as you say a canned exercise and more or less for training purposes. I did not know that alot of ships screw it up.

Not sure what you mean by "For accuracy"? Are you wanting me to scrape those barnacles off the braincells and give you the "Standards" to be certified for deployment? Or are you wanting a "How close do they have to come to the target?" or "How many rounds/How much time do they have to achieve that standard?"[/quote]

If possible could you post the second part the "How".

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

If a 16"/50 round can estimately blow a hole in the ground 20'x 50' (pending the round) and you came within 100 yards of being on target would "effect" negate wanting the target destroyed or in this case would they have walk even closer to certify target destroyed?

1. Initial Salvo Error

Of the ~50 main battery missions fired by USS New Jersey on San Clemente during the week of 27 July 1968, 16 had an estimated Initial Salvo Error (ISE).

All but three of the 16 reported missions were fired at ranges comprised between 8,000 and 12,000 yards. For those 13 missions, mean ISE was 115 yards (std dev. = 71 yards).

Three of the reported 16 missions were fired on 30 July 1968 at ~20,000 yards ranges. For those 3 missions, mean ISE was 268 yards (std dev. = 103 yards).

2. Cratering Effectiveness

During the week of 27 July 1968, USS New Jersey also fired four rounds (either quick or base detonating fuzing) to obtain the dimensions of the craters produced by 16" HC projectiles.

The observed craters were shallow (max. depth at the center of 3 feet) and small (max. 27 x 7 feet), contrasting with the larger craters later observed in Vietnam.

This was probably due to the difference in soil consistency between the hard desert soil of San Clemente and the wet soil of Vietnam.

[Dreadnought]

Can they repeat that every time? In all conditions? If they cannot then no, that is not acceptable gunnery.

*GG This wouldn't be the first nor last time her accuracy was tested.
This time a moving target.

In 1944 She tested her accuracy upon the destroyer Lewis Hancock (DD-675) which was one of her two destroyer escorts from Pearl to Manus (Admirality Islands) after Halsey came back aboard to command Third Fleet.

The destroyer Lewis Hancock was told to run to the horizion (10-13 miles as we know it) upon which she opened with her first salvo and according to observers aboard the Hancock the very first shells landed in the wake of the moving destroyer. This test was focused upon checks in her gunnery calcs with certain adjustments for deflection and ofcoarse not to hit the destroyer..

[Dreadnought]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Im going to ask a question of you GG. Only you since from what I understand you have plenty of experience in this field.


When the main battery (in this case 16"/50,aged,worn etc. actually 1969) from xxxx amount of yards out puts its opening salvo within 100 yards of its target and walks right in on it is that not acceptable gunnery to you?


And if you could please explain for accuracy the testing they must go through off (california) in your case and does this happen every time they put to sea for conflict (i know most times it does but not if always). The East coast location is different if it is still in use if need be. This way those who view but dont understand will have an idea of what accuracy really is.

EDIT: That shot was from a two gun salvo 18 miles out and within 100 yards of target.
Confirmed by.
Capt. J Edward Snyder
Cmdr. Donald P. Roane

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

EDIT: That shot was from a two gun salvo 18 miles out and within 100 yards of target.
Confirmed by.
Capt. J Edward Snyder
Cmdr. Donald P. Roane

Here is what it says in the March 1969 article authored by R.D. Heinl and published in Proceedings (which, I suspect, is the source used) :

The best and most important news for the Navy about the USS New Jersey's first day on the firing line, 30 September 1968, is that the world's only active battleship did a beautiful job.

For this writer and battleship sailor ‑ (USS Idaho,1936) - it was a moment of poignancy and excitement when the 16-inch turrets trained out to port and the right gun of Turret 2 fired the New Jersey's first shot in anger in this war. Fifty‑four seconds later (it could have been 54 minutes to everyone in main battery control), in came the spot: "Left 100 . . . Drop 300." Again that jolting crash and searing blast of hot powder smoke. "Add 200 . . . Fire for Effect."

As the main battery rapped out thunderous two‑gun salvos, never missing a buzzer, Captain J. Edward Snyder allowed himself a small smile. Out of sight of the press, in main battery control, the gunnery officer, Commander Donald P. Roane, grinned all over.

It had to be explained to the reporters that dropping a one‑ton, 16‑inch shell within a hundred yards of an unseen target 18 miles away, on the opening round, represented superb shooting.

Those few on board who could remember the way the old battleships were shooting in 1945 were reminded of the magnificent bombardment gunnery of the Nevada, the West Virginia or the Mississippi. In those days, the new fast battleships, such as the New Jersey, were scorned for their lick‑and‑a‑promise shore bombardment gunnery, whereas the old battleships‑the survivors of Pearl Harbor and victors of Surigao Strait‑were champions of the Fleet.

(...)

According to the article, the first correction applied is "Left 100 . . . Drop 300", which suggests an ISE of ~315 yards.

Given the range involved (31,000 - 32,000 yards), this figure is fairly coherent with the ISEs observed during the main battery firings conducted on San Clemente in July 1968.

On a sidenote, USS New Jersey's first shot in anger during Vietnam was fired earlier in the day on 30 September 1968. Only one 16" bullet was fired (range = 29,850 yards) because bad weather caused the cancellation of this first gunfire mission.