BB's during the Gulf War

[Gun Grape]

A 12 year old Freeper post. One so full of half truths that it could only come from someone like Carlton Myers/ Mike Sparks or the now defunct US Naval Gunfire Support Association.

[USSWisconsin]

again you guys now wayyyy more then me ,RUSTY & MR DREADNOGHT:wors: so im sure you will find out if it indeed is true or not heres were i saw it

Reactivate the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin to fight terrorists!

This is from 2002, a time of great patriotic enthusiasm, sadly most the info isn't true - i.e. one BB can deliver more ordinance than 12 supercarriers? Comparing the number of tanks destroyed in Kosavo to the tanks destroyed in Korea? The using these numbers to "show" that we are unable to destroy as many tanks?

[kato]

One question.

I have read that during the Gulf War the Iowas were restricted to firing HE only. This was supposedly due to the powder used, which was originally intended for 16"/45 guns instead of 16"/50, and showed too high barrel pressure when used with the 2,700-lb AP shell. The different - faster-burning? - powder was used as stocks of the original powder did not keep as well since the 50s. Trials to under-load with five bags per shot (how would that have worked with the cans?) were deemed negative in the mid 80s.

Is this version mostly true? Or complete bullshit?

[Stitch]

One question.

I have read that during the Gulf War the Iowas were restricted to firing HE only. This was supposedly due to the powder used, which was originally intended for 16"/45 guns instead of 16"/50, and showed too high barrel pressure when used with the 2,700-lb AP shell. The different - faster-burning? - powder was used as stocks of the original powder did not keep as well since the 50s. Trials to under-load with five bags per shot (how would that have worked with the cans?) were deemed negative in the mid 80s.

Is this version mostly true? Or complete bullshit?

I don't know about the reasoning for firing HE only, but I'm guessing there really weren't any targets that REQUIRED an AP shell anyway; an HE shell probably fulfilled the requirements for any given fire mission during the Gulf War. All of the hard targets were too far inland (like, Baghdad), an HE shell would do just fine for anything within the BB's range.

[Dreadnought]

They would not have restricted them from shooting AP rounds if they had a target they felt suited for them. There is little doubt they would have carried them aboard as a standard load out however the HE shell would have no doubt been more abundent in the magazines. The HE round is for shore bombardment or no armored targets, it carries a higher explosive charge and does not require the mechanical resistance that the AP round does for detonation. If it does not meet a hardened surface then it will pass clear through with detonating. This is why 99% of land targets warrant the HE round.

[Dreadnought]

They would not have restricted them from shooting AP rounds if they had a target they felt suited for them. There is little doubt they would have carried them aboard as a standard load out however the HE shell would have no doubt been more abundent in the magazines. The HE round is for shore bombardment or no armored targets, it carries a higher explosive charge and does not require the mechanical resistance that the AP round does for detonation. If it does not meet a hardened surface then it will pass clear through with detonating. This is why 99% of land targets warrant the HE round.

However, it is very possible that the newer rounds in development at the time "could" have been tested however they never made fleet wide issue and therefore would not be aknowledged.

[Dreadnought]

One question.

I have read that during the Gulf War the Iowas were restricted to firing HE only. This was supposedly due to the powder used, which was originally intended for 16"/45 guns instead of 16"/50, and showed too high barrel pressure when used with the 2,700-lb AP shell. The different - faster-burning? - powder was used as stocks of the original powder did not keep as well since the 50s. Trials to under-load with five bags per shot (how would that have worked with the cans?) were deemed negative in the mid 80s.

Is this version mostly true? Or complete bullshit?

*All powder must be remixed, rebagged and tested before issue. When the Gulf War came about they were already using additives in the powder mixture, powder bag jackets and different methods of purging the gun after each shoot. Barrel wear as compared to what it was before was no longer a factor as it was improved at minimum two fold. In addition to this, different powder blends were in testing at the time. Some Captains restricted the guns from using 5 bag loads due to safety concerns. The 16/45 older powder blends and newer generation 16/50 powders were more then likely blended together lots.

[RustyBattleship]

Half truth: The Battleships fired "ONLY HE" rounds.

Full truth: Most rounds fired only required HE. The anti-personnel rounds (Bouncing Betty's and/or Flechette) were not needed as there were never a mass gathering of the enemy in open fields within range of the guns.

Full truth: I got a phone call from Bob Ballinger, one of the NAVSEA program managers in Washington. He was laughing his head off. He asked me, "Have you heard about Sadaam Hussein bragging about his bunkers that had 12 foot thick reinforced concrete walls?"

"No Bob, I haven't yet."

"Well, Dick, I was aboard the Wisconsin when she blew up Japanese bunkers that had 16 foot thick concrete walls. So we just sent a message to the Wisky if she wanted a little bit of Deja Vu."

Well, a couple of hours later after firing a few 2,700 lb AP's, Sadaam's bunkers were just piles of rubble.

Last full truth: The 5" guns were only fired for practice. They were never fired for litoral support because the ships were too far out in order to stay clear of the mine fields. Many of the mines were free-floaters and I have seen photos of an Ordnance team from one of the BB's carefully planting an explosive charge to the side of a mine to be blown up from a distance.