Big Battleship Doctrine 2

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

Theres nothing to understand. I wasn't wrong to begin with. I doubt you have any clue as to how stable any of those HE compounds are under g-load


Let me put it in terms you can understand.
TNT is cool. HE can be used in shells. I'm guessing you don't know much about g-force stress on tritonol.

Well actually I do. I taught this stuff for a few years at USAFAS And not only do I know but the people that make gun munitions know also. Please show me a gun launched projectile that is not either TNT or Comp B filled. This includes the Unitarian warhead on Excaliber and ERGM.
NONE of the composition explosives that you mentioned meet the strict military standards for ground weapon for handling, storage or shock resistance.

And oh yeah, bombs don't perform suppression since the plane has to leave the area after dropping it's payload. makes it rather hard to you know...suppress anything.

This statement shows that you don't know what you are talking about as it relates to the chart you posted in your first post. Suppression means that you interupt the enemy from completing a task, or produce approx 10% casualties to degrade his ability to conduct operations.

I'll use the named example of a suppression mission from your chart. SEAD. Once the Front Door SEAD F-16/F-18 fires off a HARM the radar missile site is suppressed. If he hits it or not. Then while the radar is off, strike mission puts BoD, Then the Back door SEAD can follow up with a dumb bomb, PGM or CBU while the strike force egresses. Tgt suppressed.

Or without dropping any munitions, same target, the EA-6B assigned to the package jams the radar to the point that they either have to turn it off or he burns it up. Or just jams it to the point of screen whiteout while strike force is over the tgt area.

And even if you were going to use a number of aircraft...why bother when you could have a ship thats already in the area fire the munition instead? Thus doesn't need to burn expensive jet fuel, and doesn't need to enter hostile areas either.

So is she sitting dead in the water with no systems running?h
What is the cost per hour for BB operations? Pay for 1500 personnel, upkeep and maint, DFM, other POL, and chow. Or did you only want to factor those things in on the other side of your argument?

DFM consumption rate for Missouri was from 813 gallons per hour at 1 kt to 10,584 gallons per hour at 32 kts.

Incorrect. (not smart?)
You'd better go review the mission effects/requirements.
It doesn't have anything to do with personel unless that was the target. Last time I checked such a mission effect could apply to a multitude of systems. In which case aerial dropped bombs are not effective.

And did you notice that I listed munitions for both personnel and antimaterial?
LOOK at my post.

Why don't you give an example of each mission that you think the BBs could excell in and I will then show you the systems that are present that do the mission.

Maybe later this evening I will sit down and list the reasons that Bbs are a bad buy (something the Navy knew in 1942) and DDX is a much better buy.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by TopHatter

I'm going to quote myself from another thread as an example of how valuable even a single battleship could have been off Vietnam:

Originally Posted by TopHatter
I'm going to quote myself from another thread as an example of how valuable even a single battleship could have been off Vietnam:
In 1972, during Operation Linebacker I, Air Force F-4s dropped the Dragon’s Jaw Bridge with 24 laser guided bombs.
..
"USS New Jersey could have dropped that bridge and levelled everything around it with a day's work."..

Sorry Top Hatter but FACTs get in the way of that statement. Jersey did fire on that target during Operation Sea Dragon. And didn't/couldn't drop her.

http://www.dd-692.com/sea1.htm

The world's only active battleship at the time spent a month with Sea Dragon causing havoc along the North Vietnamese coast. Logistic complexes, troop concentrations, fortified caves, watercraft, the famous Thanh Hoa Bridge, and Hon Mat Island's coastal artillery fell victim to New Jersey's 1,900-pound shells. When Washington enacted the November 1, 1968, moratorium on attacks in the North, the battleship moved south to provide heavy naval gunfire support until she left Vietnam in April 1969.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

And wondering whether they would make it to what was it....40 sorties? After which they were free to go home? Salute them all you want, because they never came home. Because some idiot had them go waste their lives when priority targets wern't on the "strike list" so to speak.

No, In vietnam they were there for 100 missions. An AF study during the time noted that in accomplishing those missions a 105 pilot would be shot down twice and picked up once.

And they didn't "Waste" their lives. Thats the most insulting thing I have ever heard anyone say. If I didn't think it would get me kicked off this board I'd tell you how wrong that statement is. With words that only Gunnys and Boatswain Mates use.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

I don't need to do some reading.

They do use AAA fire and other direct AA fires. So I was right.

You haven't proven anything. Your talking technical aspects now. But, regardless, your talking technical aspects of an inferior threat! The fact that Iraq got steamrolled is proof of that. Are you trying to tell me that their defenses rivaled the current defenses of Russia, the U.K or the U.S??

Yeah sure! They did indeed have an inferior threat capability. Regardless of their C3 facilities. I wonder what M21 would have to say about that little tidbit. SA-6, SA-8 and SA-13 are still greatly inferior and aren't sophisticated by any means.

Anyone who disagrees can take a look here:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ia/missile.htm

By todays standard, but in 1991 they were rated in the top 5. Not sure how old you are but the MSM and military pundits were all talking about the "HUGE" losses that the US military was going to have.

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

And yet in ODS and later wars we routinely see bridges dropped or severely damaged by a single bomb. Technology has come a long ways since Vietnam.

Um, yeah I know that . that whole paragraph was in response to your post here:

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

The whole argumet was sort of a waste. Now if you want to put it in more specific terms as applicable to BB reactivation it might mean something.

As an example, of the 400 F-105s, that were lost how many were striking targets within range of a BB when and if one was avaliable? Of those targets , how many were engagable by BB? Was the target within range and not terrain masked.
Those are the ones you amke a BB argument on.

Those 105 pilots had great big gonads. And I salute every one of them. We have the best airborne SEAD due to their sacrifices. And the guys kept getting in those cockpits and doing it day after day.

In fact, as my quote pointed out (i.e. the Dragon's Jaw being dropped by a single sortie carrying PGMs), technology came a long way even during Vietnam, let alone since then
The whole point was that dozens, if not hundreds of aircraft could have been spared had one or more battleships been used off Vietnam.....WITHOUT political restrictions. The air campaign as well would have shown vast dividends as well.

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

But how many likely scenarios WOULD show battleships to their full potential?

That's not my arguement, I'm simply providing facts to back up...well, everybody here.

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

But what got there first? Airpower.

Had Saddam wanted to, he could've headed south into Saudi Arabia long before battleships arrived on scene.

Again, not my arguement. I was simply pointing out the role that the battleships played during Desert Storm.
I freely admitted that it was not their show. It was an airpower theater through and through. But they still had a role to play.

[Gun Grape]

Hey Top Hatter, Those arn't my quotes.!!

(OK the second one is)

Did you OD on Cheetos again? Or is this Cheeto DTs

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

A Mk7 AP projectile is a sub-MOA projectile even with the currently worn barrel liners

That's a gross overstatement.

At 40,000 yards, range dispersion is 95 yards and deflection dispersion is 25 yards for the US 16"/50 Mark-7 gun firing the 2,700 lbs Mark-8 APC shell at a Muzzle Velocity of 2,500 fps (new gun).

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Sorry Top Hatter but FACTs get in the way of that statement. Jersey did fire on that target during Operation Sea Dragon. And didn't/couldn't drop her.

http://www.dd-692.com/sea1.htm

The world's only active battleship at the time spent a month with Sea Dragon causing havoc along the North Vietnamese coast. Logistic complexes, troop concentrations, fortified caves, watercraft, the famous Thanh Hoa Bridge, and Hon Mat Island's coastal artillery fell victim to New Jersey's 1,900-pound shells. When Washington enacted the November 1, 1968, moratorium on attacks in the North, the battleship moved south to provide heavy naval gunfire support until she left Vietnam in April 1969.

Gunny, this is perhaps the first time that I've ever done this on the WAB, but I am going to have to say your source is flat out wrong.
The Thanh Hoa Bridge was located too far north (politically) for the New Jersey to be able to hit.
That was the great excitement during her reactivation, that she would turn the Dragon's Jaw into scrap metal. In fact, New Jersey's CAPT Richard G. Alexander was repeatedly told while she was being reactivated: "If you take out the Thanh Hoa, you'll bring back the big gun".
Alexander and the New Jersey didn't do this for 2 reasons.
Number 1, CAPT Alexander was "asked" to "step down" from command after his overzealous conduct during the "Arnheiter Affair"
Number 2, even before she deployed to Vietnam, all targets north of a certain latitude were forbidden to her by the Johnson Administration.

My source on this is Paul Stilwell's incomprable Battleship New Jersey.
I'm rather ashamed to say I don't have it at hand (it's my lunchtime reading material at work...and it's still at work ) else I could supply more details.

In addition, your source says that the Thanh Hoa bridge "fell victim" to the New Jersey's guns. This doesn't make a bit of sense.
It implies that the bridge was destroyed, when in fact we both know it was the new PGMs that did it.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Not sure how old you are but the MSM and military pundits were all talking about the "HUGE" losses that the US military was going to have.

Not sure about him, but boy oh boy do I remember that. Every macabre and grisly event was looked at by the MSM with overtly ominous tones. Hospital ships heading to the PG, their bed capacity....body bags being ordered.
Even as a high school teenager I was sickened by the blood-sucking media and their pundit talking heads during the run-up to Desert Storm

[TopHatter]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Hey Top Hatter, Those arn't my quotes.!!

(OK the second one is)

Did you OD on Cheetos again? Or is this Cheeto DTs

Specifically which quote wasn't yours?? (this seems to be happening a lot lately.... )
EDIT: Man did I screw up those quotes!!
All fixed now, and apologies all around.

And it's the Cheeto DTs and I'll thank you to mind your own business because I don't have a problem, OK?. I don't need your help...I don't need anybody's help.... *hands shaking uncontrollably while I look for a half-opened bag*

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by B.Smitty

It maybe a very accurate dumb projectile, but when the USMC is talking about minimizing collateral damage, I assume they mean being able to "hit a house and not damage the mosque next door". (Disclaimer: I have not seen any official collateral damage requirements)

No dumb projectile will do that. Even GPS-guided projectiles may have problems. A 10m CEP still leaves a large margin for error.

The USAF has gone to the extreme of adapting BAT anti-armor munitions with SALH seekers for use on UAVs, in part to have a way of minimizing collateral damage. The resulting munition (Viper Strike) has a near zero CEP and a tiny 4lb HEAT warhead. The are also developing another small munition called, appropriately enough, the Very Small Munition for use on tacair. It's small enough that an A-10 could carry up to 36 to 54 of them.

So if the USMC is looking for Viper Strike-level collateral damage reduction here, then there's no way even a GPS-guided 16" round will suffice. (of course, neither will a GPS guided 5" or 155mm).

But all else being equal, a 5" or 155mm round will have a smaller damage footprint than a 16" round.

No thats not what the Collateral Damage parameters are.

[Defcon 6]

Well actually I do. I taught this stuff for a few years at USAFAS And not only do I know but the people that make gun munitions know also. Please show me a gun launched projectile that is not either TNT or Comp B filled. This includes the Unitarian warhead on Excaliber and ERGM.
NONE of the composition explosives that you mentioned meet the strict military standards for ground weapon for handling, storage or shock resistance.

This statement shows that you don't know what you are talking about as it relates to the chart you posted in your first post. Suppression means that you interupt the enemy from completing a task, or produce approx 10% casualties to degrade his ability to conduct operations.

B.S, I never said they didn't use TNT in gun launched projectiles. You put those words in my mouth.

No it doesn't. Go find the correct definition and then relate how a bomb will do a better job. Meanwhile, it doesn't fill the NSFS gaps. But nevertheless you still haven't grasped the idea of making an arguement. Quit fishing.

So is she sitting dead in the water with no systems running?h
What is the cost per hour for BB operations? Pay for 1500 personnel, upkeep and maint, DFM, other POL, and chow. Or did you only want to factor those things in on the other side of your argument?

Not really. Take into account the fact the Iowa's couldn't serve more than 15 yrs if reactivated. Then consider that the running costs of both ships for that 15 yrs might come close to the unit price of one DD(X).

DFM consumption rate for Missouri was from 813 gallons per hour at 1 kt to 10,584 gallons per hour at 32 kts.

Steam power is pretty efficient nevertheless.
If you bothered to read the GAO report you would know that they would plan to take out the old propulsion and install modern equipment.

Why don't you give an example of each mission that you think the BBs could excell in and I will then show you the systems that are present that do the mission.

Your fishing again. I like your quote, you come here, fish all day and seem to drink beer all day too. Make a point or an arguement.

Maybe later this evening I will sit down and list the reasons that Bbs are a bad buy (something the Navy knew in 1942) and DDX is a much better buy.

Hey, your the one without an arguement for or against here. Do whatever you want.

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

No, In vietnam they were there for 100 missions. An AF study during the time noted that in accomplishing those missions a 105 pilot would be shot down twice and picked up once.

And they didn't "Waste" their lives. Thats the most insulting thing I have ever heard anyone say. If I didn't think it would get me kicked off this board I'd tell you how wrong that statement is. With words that only Gunnys and Boatswain Mates use.

Whatever. Hey, I'm straight up and down conservative, but I wouldn't have sent those boys to fight a war with both hands tied behind their backs! If we were so afraid of soviet incursion we should have avoided the war alltogether.

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Gunny, this is perhaps the first time that I've ever done this on the WAB, but I am going to have to say your source is flat out wrong.

The Thanh Hoa Bridge was located too far north (politically) for the New Jersey to be able to hit.

Number 2, even before she deployed to Vietnam, all targets north of a certain latitude were forbidden to her by the Johnson Administration.

Not while she was assign to TF 77 and Operation Sea Dragon.. Those restrictions were lifted when various ships (I can get the names later) were painted by NVN radar.

In addition, your source says that the Thanh Hoa bridge "fell victim" to the New Jersey's guns. This doesn't make a bit of sense.
It implies that the bridge was destroyed, when in fact we both know it was the new PGMs that did it.

I see that as a little creative writing from the editor of Vietnam Mag. Don't think he meant to imply that the bridge was dropped but that it was engaged.

Now I can give you blurps that say that the NJ fired at bridges above the DMZ.

This one from the Navy

http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/coldwar-1.htm
As in Korea and World War II, Navy warships were on hand in the Vietnam War to project their firepower ashore. Battleship USS New Jersey (BB-62), 8-inch and 6-inch gun cruisers, and destroyers poured a deluge of fire on bridges, radar sites, rail lines, and coastal artillery positions in North Vietnam

and other lnks that would alloy someone to make as assumption that she shot at the Dragons Jaw but if you don't believe the first link, without the firing records for the day its all supposition. Which source do you believe. No big

[Gun Grape]

Originally Posted by Defcon 6

No thats not what the Collateral Damage parameters are.

So what are they?

Us mortals don't know because they havn't been stated in the MC “Initial Capabilities Document for Joint Fires in Support of Expeditionary Operations in the
Littorals” (2005-Draft)" is just that a draft. What are the CD parameters stated in it?

[Defcon 6]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

By todays standard, but in 1991 they were rated in the top 5. Not sure how old you are but the MSM and military pundits were all talking about the "HUGE" losses that the US military was going to have.

I stand by my statement.

Who cares what they said, they were wrong. We steamrolled Iraq.

So those HUGE losses never happened. And incidentally it did indeed turn out their surface to air systems were not sophisticated enough.