Are battleships obsolete?

[FOG3]

Didn't the Soviets develop some shaped charge warhead equipped missile that blew clear threw a dreadnought in testing? Styx, or something?

To be fair, that's like talking about a M-4 Sherman in terms of technological capability instead of an updated M-1 Abrams with the possibility of active defense suite. Never the less with such capability like the heavy tank the concept seems obsolete.

More ships mounting the necessary guns, if needed, should give greater survivability in the same way a artillery battery as opposed to one superheavy tank should. Aircraft carriers need to be a certain size to accomodate their carrier function, with a battleship you have to justify why you're putting so many eggs in one basket if it can't really survive retaliatory fire. That's my take on the obsolesence of battleships.

[gunnut]

Didn't the Soviets develop some shaped charge warhead equipped missile that blew clear threw a dreadnought in testing? Styx, or something?

To be fair, that's like talking about a M-4 Sherman in terms of technological capability instead of an updated M-1 Abrams with the possibility of active defense suite. Never the less with such capability like the heavy tank the concept seems obsolete.

More ships mounting the necessary guns, if needed, should give greater survivability in the same way a artillery battery as opposed to one superheavy tank should. Aircraft carriers need to be a certain size to accomodate their carrier function, with a battleship you have to justify why you're putting so many eggs in one basket if it can't really survive retaliatory fire. That's my take on the obsolesence of battleships.

I agree.

The battleship is too easily countered with modern technology while not giving enough back in operation capabilities.

Carriers are useful because of all the planes they carry. They are giant multi-function forward air bases.

Battleships are armored gun platforms. They have minimal air defense, minimal sub defense, minimal missile defense, while perform 2 functions of shore bombardment and short/medium range surface warfare.

We have to provide both with escorts. Yet the carriers will have a much better return on the dollars invested in their multi mission profile.

Let's say we have the budget and we want to design a modern battleship in the mold of the Iowa, maybe smaller. A 35000t ship with 6 16" guns, 6 5" Mk 45s, 4 RAM, a helo hanger, basic air/sea search gear, gas turbine power plant, and armor similar to the Iowa.

The opponent could just enlarge their missiles to defeat this armor. Then we will need to provide her with escorts. These escorts are expensive and could serve better to protect our carriers while are way more expensive and way more useful.

I think it's an intriguing concept. It would be nice to build a few just to test the theory of "modern battleships." But no one can afford $10 billion on 2 ships just to see if they work. Not even the USN.

[Defcon 6]

I agree.

I don't.

The battleship is too easily countered with modern technology while not giving enough back in operation capabilities.

Maybe an Iowa. If you were going to design a modern BB it could be designed with modern capabilities.

And a modern BB could give plenty back in the form of modern capabilities.

Carriers are useful because of all the planes they carry. They are giant multi-function forward air bases.

They also carry 6,000+ crew, 12 B dollar pricetags and what else? The DD(X) proves that gunned ships can have greatly reduced crews. I believe this is a superior concept to that of a bunch of carriers. A 300 crew battleship anyone?

How about this?

30,000 tons
x9 6.1" guns in 3x3 turrets
x12 5" Mk-45's in 12x1 turrets
x185 VLS cells.

Battleships are armored gun platforms. They have minimal air defense, minimal sub defense, minimal missile defense, while perform 2 functions of shore bombardment and short/medium range surface warfare.

Not a modern one. You'd have adequate air defense, adequate sub defense, adequate missile defense. And it could perform modern mission profiles.

We have to provide both with escorts. Yet the carriers will have a much better return on the dollars invested in their multi mission profile.

You also have to buy the expensive planes that go ontop of it. So not really.

Let's say we have the budget and we want to design a modern battleship in the mold of the Iowa, maybe smaller. A 35000t ship with 6 16" guns, 6 5" Mk 45s, 4 RAM, a helo hanger, basic air/sea search gear, gas turbine power plant, and armor similar to the Iowa.

Why build armor similar to the Iowa? Why not something new and innovative?

And steam power is better than gas turbines. We'll just stick with steam power. The trend the current Navy is pursuing is silly in it's application. Steam power is better.

The opponent could just enlarge their missiles to defeat this armor. Then we will need to provide her with escorts. These escorts are expensive and could serve better to protect our carriers while are way more expensive and way more useful.

Armor isn't about being making the ship invulerable, it's about reducing damage in the event of a hit. Making it more survivable. Armor belts aren't the way of the future. Ceramic+Kevlar+E.R.A? Thats an interesting idea.

I think it's an intriguing concept. It would be nice to build a few just to test the theory of "modern battleships." But no one can afford $10 billion on 2 ships just to see if they work. Not even the USN.

That's what the Navy's doing with the DD(X). about 5 B a ship to see if they work. let's not forget abot the wasteful SSN-21 program. And the wasteful DD(X) program. And the...uh...lets just stop there. It's ridiculous how much money the Navy flushes down the toilet.

[SnowLeopard]

They also carry 6,000+ crew, 12 B dollar pricetags and what else? The DD(X) proves that gunned ships can have greatly reduced crews. I believe this is a superior concept to that of a bunch of carriers. A 300 crew battleship anyone?

Well, on that point about manning, a couple of things. Thirty years ago or so, a tanker captain wrote in Proceedings about how it was possible to man a ship with a small crew ......... when everything worked properally. If things started breaking down, if you needed to fight fires, then you were going to be hard pressed.

Twenty years ago or so, a DDG in shipyard had a partial flooding. Why? The general consensus was that since they had gone to something like a 5 section watch, they had less people on the watch, not enough people watching what was suppose to be watched, and the flooding happened.

A and B. A: We like to say that with our modern technology that we can have less people to man a ship (makes it an interesting point about we then need a RIO in the modern aircraft, but that's another story). Taken as a given, what do we do out in the middle of the big blue when we take a major hit and the technology is knocked out? That's the gist of it from just about any angle that one approaches ship life: out in the big blue, it's just you and you better be ready to handle all and every operation, normal and otherwise.

B: By having less people, do we wear them thin? Think about it for a moment, which is better? A PROPER 5 section watch where those in the section go from a day of work, work thru when the rest of the ship rests, and goes into another day of work OR a 3 section watch where there is enough manning so there is an allowance for some people to get some rest some of the time, so one doesn't go critical when someone breaks a leg and has to be taken with an escort off the ship to the base hospital.

The above is debatable and here is probably not the place to go into it. But warships are in the business of being where there is going to be shooting, something is going to get hit, and to think that our technology will cover all the situations in that is rather foolhardy.
----------------------------------------------------------------
("Sooner or later, you have to put down the guns and pick up the hoses and try to save the ship."--axiom about SSDF and the fire party, (wtte))

[gunnut]

They also carry 6,000+ crew, 12 B dollar pricetags and what else? The DD(X) proves that gunned ships can have greatly reduced crews. I believe this is a superior concept to that of a bunch of carriers. A 300 crew battleship anyone?

How about this?

30,000 tons
x9 6.1" guns in 3x3 turrets
x12 5" Mk-45's in 12x1 turrets
x185 VLS cells.

Why so many 5" and then top it off with 6.1", which is not much bigger than the 5"? Looks like overlapping to me.

Not a modern one. You'd have adequate air defense, adequate sub defense, adequate missile defense. And it could perform modern mission profiles.

So what you're proposing really is the CG21 with a bigger hull and more small caliber guns?

You also have to buy the expensive planes that go ontop of it. So not really.

Yes, but airplanes from carriers are not the same as any other ships at sea. Nothing can replace a carrier and its flexibility, except for another carrier.

Why build armor similar to the Iowa? Why not something new and innovative?

I was aiming at something close to the original, since this is about "battleships" so I proposed something like the Iowa.

And steam power is better than gas turbines. We'll just stick with steam power. The trend the current Navy is pursuing is silly in it's application. Steam power is better.

I don't know about this one. I thought Rusty said something about steam power being difficult to handle. Besides, boiler and steam turbine might require more man power to operate, opposite your "small crew" concept.

Armor isn't about being making the ship invulerable, it's about reducing damage in the event of a hit. Making it more survivable. Armor belts aren't the way of the future. Ceramic+Kevlar+E.R.A? Thats an interesting idea.

Sure, I'm open for suggestions.

That's what the Navy's doing with the DD(X). about 5 B a ship to see if they work. let's not forget abot the wasteful SSN-21 program. And the wasteful DD(X) program. And the...uh...lets just stop there. It's ridiculous how much money the Navy flushes down the toilet.

I agree. The navy is trying to do too much, cram too many things, use too many unproven technology all on the same ship. There's a point where the constant pursuit for high tech just might backfire.

[FOG3]

And a modern BB could give plenty back in the form of modern capabilities.

Lets say it does. Now unless I'm mistaken no one in current employ has actually designed and built a battleship. Particularly with whatever armor combination you want to stick on the thing. Seems as how you're taking the DDX's AGS systems instead trying to strap 16" guns on it, at least we can avoid all the work on modernizing the 16" guns. Given the serious R&D into the relatively common 155mm, that's probably not insignificant, especially seems as how you'll probably have to redo the manufacturing process.

They also carry 6,000+ crew, 12 B dollar pricetags and what else? The DD(X) proves that gunned ships can have greatly reduced crews. I believe this is a superior concept to that of a bunch of carriers.

Okay, you now have no air cover, which pretty much means you die giving the enemy a nice PR victory if nothing else.

A 300 crew battleship anyone?

How about this?

30,000 tons
x9 6.1" guns in 3x3 turrets
x12 5" Mk-45's in 12x1 turrets
x185 VLS cells.

Seems as how one of the big reasons for switching to the AGS instead of just continuing with the 5" is the Navy's stated need to do over the horizon coastal bombardment some reason there's any 5" guns and no 57mm defense weapons on this thing? The AGS apparently is roughly equivalent to a 8" WW2 shell which, in one of your previous threads someone noted was found to better for coastal bombardment by the US Navy in WW2 then other guns. Plus why the 3 gun turrets? The days of doing broadsides within visual range, or needing to throw a lot of ordinance in one direction because your manual targetting isn't so hot went out with the invention of the RADAR, the modern computer, and modern targetting computers. We've switched from the big nukes to smaller nukes with better guidance for much the same reason.

I see an unnecessary concentration of eggs in one basket, leading to other issues, compared with the DDX if it makes specifications. Plus unlike say 4 DDXs it can't exactly imatate the artillery battery scatter maneuver if someone decides to shoot back.

Not a modern one. You'd have adequate air defense, adequate sub defense, adequate missile defense. And it could perform modern mission profiles.

And unless you're willing to sink a lot more significant BILLIONS into its design it'll still be a bigger more obvious target then the DDX, which in turn means it'll draw more fire. In the time it'd take you to deploy this BBX do you really believe they couldn't easily design HEAT or otherises missiles to sink her and have them already deployed?

You also have to buy the expensive planes that go ontop of it. So not really.

So you want to be out in the water without those expensive planes providing air cover? I suppose if you were on the Yamato's bridge she'd have triumphed, right?

Query: Does this battleship of yours have a _wood_ deck like all its predecessors?

I kind of prefer a vessel thats not pretty much maxed out its weight to displacement, and isn't offering much protection if someone gets the bright idea to hit the top instead of slamming stuff into the side. Especially with guided missiles these days.

Why build armor similar to the Iowa? Why not something new and innovative?

Well for starters: $$$

Armor isn't about being making the ship invulerable, it's about reducing damage in the event of a hit. Making it more survivable. Armor belts aren't the way of the future. Ceramic+Kevlar+E.R.A? Thats an interesting idea.

Okay... From what I understand Kevlar isn't exactly great at lasting that long under normal conditions, and sweat isn't exactly good for it. It can't imagine it'd like seawater very much. Plus seems as how I see no metal the structure of that is a ceramic. Evidence ERA mounted on the exterior of a seagoing vessel wouldn't have issues with degrading.

[Shipwreck]

USS New Jersey Gunnery Performance of Lebanon

I'll stick with what I've always said. She shot like crap. Yes it looked and sounded cool but as the Riflemans Creed states "My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count."

Here is what a former turret captain of USS New Jersey has to say about the *outstanding* 16" gunnery performance off Lebanon (highlights and smilies are mine).

It would be hillarious if it wasn't so sad...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, April 30, 2001

Officer returns to battleship

By CAROL COMEGNO
Courier-Post Staff
CAMDEN

A mist swirled close to the wet, warped deck of the battleship USS New Jersey as the sun evaporated a cool morning rain.

On a recent damp day, Robert Lian of of Westampton walked aboard the ship, which was once his home at sea, for the first time in 15 years.

He climbed up one deck on the bow and stepped up into Turret No. 2, which holds three of the ship's nine now silent 16-inch diameter guns. The most powerful U.S. naval guns ever built, they could hurl their shells more than 20 miles.

It was familiar territory for the Lockheed Martin chemical engineer and former Navy lieutenant. He was the officer in charge of that turret from 1981 until after the ship's mission off Lebanon in 1983, when a suicide terrorist bomb explosion killed 241 U.S. Marines and sailors at the Marine barracks at Beirut International Airport.

While stepping up into the turret from a hatch on its underside, Lian's first reaction was, "smells the same," noticing the scent of an oil-based preservative used to coat metals on the ship.

He felt at home standing at his former command station. He wore one of his original ship hats and recounted procedures and commands used to load and fire the guns in his turret.

"It's like I never left. It's pretty scary I remember so much," said Lian, 48.

"I realized the dangers of the job because of the potential for explosions inside the turret, but it was the closest I could come to having a command. It was fun and a challenge to make sure the guns operated safely."

The 59-year-old ship, one of the most highly decorated in the Navy, is now undergoing a $7 million restoration in Camden in preparation for opening as a floating naval museum this fall on the downtown Waterfront.

Inside the turret, Lian detailed his mission off Lebanon, the time the center gun in his turret was replaced and a test firing at sea over the rear of the ship instead of to the side as usual.

"It was President Reagan who reactivated the battleships, but there was always political rivalry between the surface Navy and the air Navy flying planes off aircraft carriers," he said. "I saw this firsthand in discussions in the ward room of our ship where the offices gathered. Secretary of the Navy (John) Lehman (Jr.) was upset over these internal disputes and wrote about them later in a book.

"At first we were not allowed to fire our guns on Lebanon because Adm. Gerry Tuttle, who was in charge of our battle group aboard the carrier Eisenhower, favored air strikes and arbitrarily decided our guns were not accurate enough," Lian recalled. "He believed battleships took military money away from aircraft, so we just sat and sat and sat offshore for weeks, becoming a joke.

"We finally fired the guns on Lebanon after the Syrians captured a radar operator from an Eisenhower aircraft that went down. The pilot had been killed."

Then, in February 1984, when the rest of the Marines left Lebanon, the battleship fired its massive guns again. " We fired almost blindly because air would not give us any spotting data for targets and we had to rely on Israeli target information that was not all that accurate . Supposedly we hit an ammo dump and took out a Syrian general, but we never got verification . However, the Marines met no resistance as they left," he said.

He said the turret crew was lucky to fire the gun once every five minutes.

"The advertised rate of fire in our books was two rounds per minute, but it was hard to sustain that because the powder bags are so heavy and had to be handled all by hand . The projectiles were all from World War II and some of the powder was also," he recalled.

During that Lebanon incident, the ship could only fire an 8-gun volley (from the nine guns of the three main battery turrets). Our center gun was deemed unsafe to fire because of wear," he recalled.

His last duty on the ship was to help supervise removal of the center rifle barrel in 1984 and install one that had been used for test firing at Dalgren, Va.

One firing that stood out in Lian's mind was when the gunnery officer wanted to see the effect of the guns firing to the rear and ahead instead of broadside.

"The blasts from Turret 3 scorched the after deck and pushed in by 6 inches a deck motion picture projection booth that had been used years before to show films to the crew. It also sheered the bolts off the top of the brass line-handling capstan," Lian said, referring to the device used for hoisting heavy objects such as an anchor. "The boatswain wasn't too happy about that but at least his crew didn't have to polish the brass anymore," he said.


Copyright 2005 Courier-Post.

http://www.southjerseynews.com/battleship/m043001d.htm

[Shipwreck]

Erratum

I finally had a chance to check some of my archives, so I might as well post the following corrections :

15 January 1984 : USS New Jersey delivers second 16-inch gunfire strike against ennemy positions (5 rounds IIRC, gunnery logs to be checked).

* USS New Jersey actually appears to have been in a *pop-gun* mood that day, and didn't not use her 16" guns, firing her 5"/38s instead.

* USS Tattnall (DDG-19) joined the shooting with her 5"/54s.

8 February 1984 : USS Moosbrugger did all the pop-gun shooting that day, in addition to more mundane FC tasks for USS New Jersey's pyrotechnic prowesses.

* it was USS Caron (DD-970) that did the 5"/54 shooting (about 300 rounds) on February 8, 1984.

* USS Moosbrugger (DD-980) followed up with another 150 rounds or so on February 9, 1984.

[Dreadnought]

Here is what a former turret captain of USS New Jersey has to say about the *outstanding* 16" gunnery performance off Lebanon (highlights and smilies are mine).

It would be hillarious if it wasn't so sad...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monday, April 30, 2001

Officer returns to battleship

By CAROL COMEGNO
Courier-Post Staff
CAMDEN

A mist swirled close to the wet, warped deck of the battleship USS New Jersey as the sun evaporated a cool morning rain.

On a recent damp day, Robert Lian of of Westampton walked aboard the ship, which was once his home at sea, for the first time in 15 years.

He climbed up one deck on the bow and stepped up into Turret No. 2, which holds three of the ship's nine now silent 16-inch diameter guns. The most powerful U.S. naval guns ever built, they could hurl their shells more than 20 miles.

It was familiar territory for the Lockheed Martin chemical engineer and former Navy lieutenant. He was the officer in charge of that turret from 1981 until after the ship's mission off Lebanon in 1983, when a suicide terrorist bomb explosion killed 241 U.S. Marines and sailors at the Marine barracks at Beirut International Airport.

While stepping up into the turret from a hatch on its underside, Lian's first reaction was, "smells the same," noticing the scent of an oil-based preservative used to coat metals on the ship.

He felt at home standing at his former command station. He wore one of his original ship hats and recounted procedures and commands used to load and fire the guns in his turret.

"It's like I never left. It's pretty scary I remember so much," said Lian, 48.

"I realized the dangers of the job because of the potential for explosions inside the turret, but it was the closest I could come to having a command. It was fun and a challenge to make sure the guns operated safely."

The 59-year-old ship, one of the most highly decorated in the Navy, is now undergoing a $7 million restoration in Camden in preparation for opening as a floating naval museum this fall on the downtown Waterfront.

Inside the turret, Lian detailed his mission off Lebanon, the time the center gun in his turret was replaced and a test firing at sea over the rear of the ship instead of to the side as usual.

"It was President Reagan who reactivated the battleships, but there was always political rivalry between the surface Navy and the air Navy flying planes off aircraft carriers," he said. "I saw this firsthand in discussions in the ward room of our ship where the offices gathered. Secretary of the Navy (John) Lehman (Jr.) was upset over these internal disputes and wrote about them later in a book.

"At first we were not allowed to fire our guns on Lebanon because Adm. Gerry Tuttle, who was in charge of our battle group aboard the carrier Eisenhower, favored air strikes and arbitrarily decided our guns were not accurate enough," Lian recalled. "He believed battleships took military money away from aircraft, so we just sat and sat and sat offshore for weeks, becoming a joke.

"We finally fired the guns on Lebanon after the Syrians captured a radar operator from an Eisenhower aircraft that went down. The pilot had been killed."

*Ships history called them Syrain missle sites as stated below.

Then, in February 1984, when the rest of the Marines left Lebanon, the battleship fired its massive guns again. " We fired almost blindly because air would not give us any spotting data for targets and we had to rely on Israeli target information that was not all that accurate . Supposedly we hit an ammo dump and took out a Syrian general, but we never got verification . However, the Marines met no resistance as they left," he said.

He said the turret crew was lucky to fire the gun once every five minutes.

"The advertised rate of fire in our books was two rounds per minute, but it was hard to sustain that because the powder bags are so heavy and had to be handled all by hand . The projectiles were all from World War II and some of the powder was also," he recalled.

*108 pound bags are so heavy? The only "lifts" are from storage to elevator. Maybe somebody didnt have their Wheaties that morning?

During that Lebanon incident, the ship could only fire an 8-gun volley (from the nine guns of the three main battery turrets). Our center gun was deemed unsafe to fire because of wear," he recalled.

His last duty on the ship was to help supervise removal of the center rifle barrel in 1984 and install one that had been used for test firing at Dalgren, Va.

*Rusty can you verify this since you went on her trials? Was she deficient one gun for Lebannon operation?

One firing that stood out in Lian's mind was when the gunnery officer wanted to see the effect of the guns firing to the rear and ahead instead of broadside.

"The blasts from Turret 3 scorched the after deck and pushed in by 6 inches a deck motion picture projection booth that had been used years before to show films to the crew. It also sheered the bolts off the top of the brass line-handling capstan," Lian said, referring to the device used for hoisting heavy objects such as an anchor. "The boatswain wasn't too happy about that but at least his crew didn't have to polish the brass anymore," he said.


Copyright 2005 Courier-Post.

http://www.southjerseynews.com/battleship/m043001d.htm

I dunno I have to question few accounts of this story namely.......

1) Discussing politics, (including naval, the president etc) religion or crew disputes in the Officers Ward is a big time no no and a serious offense meeded out by normally the XO instead of the captain. If it happened im sure he would remember the punishment recieved by those present.

2) If they only fired those guns one every five minutes then the gun crews blow half heartedly. The powder bags for her (6 in total) weight 108 pounds each and come up from powder elevator three at a time and all that happens is that they fall/hand rolled into the tray so many are rammed and then the patch is inserted behind the second to last bag and then rammed home, breach closed/rotated and "lit" on the tree for the turrent captains visual and then fired not by the turrent but by gun plot several decks below. They are really only lifted per say from the handling room to the elevators. If you cant lift the minimum of your body weight (especially in the powder handling room) you have no place in that turrent/gun crew line and somebody was overly foolish to let such a person have such responsibility when it comes to firing.

3) Im told they hardley ever fire dead ahead or dead astern because of the internal damage to the ship and its "expansion" joint would occur not to mention the possible buckling of the deck and helo facility from the recoil. (48" recoil in the turrent from the 16"/50's (IICR) but that says nothing for the shockwave encountered along the axis of the centerline. (All turrents aligned on center)

Why would they not do this on sea trials but yet do it during live fire?

* There was no deck aft turrent three it was a helo pad up to the gun tubs on her stern with few feet of teek before the tubs.

4) He should also well know his nomenclature well for being a turrent captain... The capstan he refers to is not for the anchor in any way shape or form. The "Wildcat" is the mechanism used to lift or lower the anchors ( The Iowas only have forward port and starboard anchors there is not an anchor on the stern anywhere and as forementioned the capstans have nothing to do with the anchors) depositing the chain into the chain locker room.. The capstans are used to pull the ship pierside via electric rotating motor/brake by mooring lines and davits or used as a "loop" for unway replentishment or for use during "highwire" transfers

I dont question the total article but there a few holes in it from what I can see read or heard obvioulsy the gun crews were novice if only one salvo per five minutes either that or they were in absolutely no hurry at all.

As far as accuracy from what I understand, have heard and been told and have read she is more accurate then most have told in many posts here on the WAB and for as many articles that say different there are reports that say other but it seems everbody runs with the critics. no surprise

An excert from ships history:

NEW JERSEY was on a three-month shakedown cruise to the Western Pacific, with scheduled stops in Pearl Harbor, Manila, Singapore and Pattya Beach Thailand. Enroute to Hong Kong, political flare-ups in Central America that demanded her attention. After nearly three months off the coast of Central America, the Beirut crisis began. She transited the Panama Canal, having been designed to do so with a clearance of approximately two feet. NEW JERSEY remained on station with the Sixth Fleet for six more months in support of U.S. Marines in the Multi-National Defense Force. On three occasions, she fired her 16-inch guns in defense. On February 8, 1984 she fired 288 rounds into the surrounding hills to effectively knock out Syrian anti-aircraft missile sites. The accuracy of the guns was questioned by some critics, but the mission was clearly accomplished. Toward the end, volunteers began relieving many of the crewmembers, but in May, 1984, eleven months after departure, NEW JERSEY returned home.

* Note that was 11 months after departure not 6 months as the normal CV group is deployed and relieved. Id say they got more for their manpower then the carrier groups eh?

NEW JERSEY proved herself during that deployment. Her presence in tandem with aircraft carrier groups was significant in that it couldn't be countered. Her rounds weren't flown in by vulnerable pilots in expensive jet aircraft, and a one ton bullet could hardly be deterred from its target. Had the Syrians had the capability, conventional countermeasures against the ship would meet extreme resistance, and if not shot down, they would meet with armor over a foot thick in many places. It was generally thought that an Exocet missile of the type that split the HMS SHEFFIELD during the Falklands War, would merely bounce off the battleship armor, causing the ship to conduct "sweepers." While this may sound far-fetched, it does make a significant point: short of a direct nuclear hit, a battleship is likely to sustain relatively significant damage and keep operating. The history of battleships supports this.

*Not saying all is wrong Im saying there alot of questions that would need to be answered before i believe this story.

The aft deck:

[Dreadnought]

"During that Lebanon incident, the ship could only fire an 8-gun volley (from the nine guns of the three main battery turrets). Our center gun was deemed unsafe to fire because of wear," he recalled.

This below picture seems to show all firing with turrent 1 & 2 being the clearest just to rebuke the above statement as I shall look for others that are official.

Caption: USS New Jersey (BB-62) fires a salvo from her 16"/50 guns during a deployment off the coast of Beirut, Lebanon 9 January 1984 U.S. Navy Photo by PH1 Ron Garrison. Department of Defense number DN-SC-84-06362

[Ytlas]

On New Jersey's second sea trial in late 1982, all 16" guns were test fired individually except the center barrel on #2 turrret. A friend of mine in shop 36 was inside the turret during the test along with an admiral who decided to skip the middle barrel because it had a cracked liner. During the test firing of the forward guns, I was either on the tomahawk deck or on the 05 or 06 level looking out the "slits." I really don't remember when the middle barrel was changed out, but since the Jersey ended up on the coast of Beirut after being "hijacked" from it's "Liberty Cruise" first to go to South America and then Lebanon, I'd have to guess that the barrel was changed out after it got back although I don't know for sure.

[RustyBattleship]

It is true that the center gun of turret II was restricted from firing because of a large erosion pit in it. Ticked my neighbor off because he was the gun captain of that gun and wasn't allowed to shoot it.

We did recommend a maximum of 20 shots of reduced charge firings, but they were never carried out.

After New Jersey came back from Lebanon, we had a new barrel waiting for her at the pier. It took a lot of special staging, deck reinforcements, etc. to change out that barrel (I still have a copy of the procedures) and the huge German floating crane for the change-out. Each barrel weighs about 118 tons, without breachblock.

The reason for the erosion pit is that former ship commanders and/or gunnery officers always used the center barrel of turret II for their initial spotting rounds. Quite often they would get the call back that the spotting round had taken out the target and were given another target to "spot" in on. So that barrel got a lot more use than the other eight.

[Dreadnought]

It is true that the center gun of turret II was restricted from firing because of a large erosion pit in it. Ticked my neighbor off because he was the gun captain of that gun and wasn't allowed to shoot it.

We did recommend a maximum of 20 shots of reduced charge firings, but they were never carried out.

After New Jersey came back from Lebanon, we had a new barrel waiting for her at the pier. It took a lot of special staging, deck reinforcements, etc. to change out that barrel (I still have a copy of the procedures) and the huge German floating crane for the change-out. Each barrel weighs about 118 tons, without breachblock.

The reason for the erosion pit is that former ship commanders and/or gunnery officers always used the center barrel of turret II for their initial spotting rounds. Quite often they would get the call back that the spotting round had taken out the target and were given another target to "spot" in on. So that barrel got a lot more use than the other eight.

Thanks for the input Mr. L :) So the gentlemen in the article was your next door neighbor? And the accuracy was as poor as he claimed? And he supervised the replacement of rifle #2?

[Shipwreck]

Discussing politics, (including naval, the president etc) religion or crew disputes in the Officers Ward is a big time no no and a serious offense meeded out by normally the XO instead of the captain. If it happened im sure he would remember the punishment recieved by those present.

What *crew disputes* are you talking about ?

There was no deck aft turrent three it was a helo pad up to the gun tubs on her stern with few feet of teek before the tubs.

No deck aft Turret III ? ROFL

He should also well know his nomenclature well for being a turrent captain...The capstan he refers to is not for the anchor in any way shape or form.

Read the article again, and you'll find out that it is the journalist who refers to the anchor, not Robert Lian.

[Shipwreck]

3) Im told they hardley ever fire dead ahead or dead astern because of the internal damage to the ship and its "expansion" joint would occur not to mention the possible buckling of the deck and helo facility from the recoil. (48" recoil in the turrent from the 16"/50's (IICR) but that says nothing for the shockwave encountered along the axis of the centerline. (All turrents aligned on center)

Why would they not do this on sea trials but yet do it during live fire?

The following structural test firings were conducted for USS New Jersey :

1. November 1982

2. March 1983

3. April 1984


I suspect that the *experiment* mentioned in the article actually refers to the April 1984 test firings, which inflicted the most significant damages, on such equipement as the fuel-at-sea outrigger (5 stanchions pulled out from their foundations, service platform damaged, lighting equipment destroyed), the SPS-49 radar (elevation stabilization problems), SSR-1 SATCOMM (portside antenna broken) plus various other nuisances.