Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Firing delay to reduce stress on hull?

  1. #1
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Aug 10
    Posts
    39

    Firing delay to reduce stress on hull?

    I've read some reports that on an Iowa, firing a full 9 gun broadside requires delaying the firing sequence so that in each turret, the barrels would firing at half second intervals to reduce stress on the hull. Is this true? I originally though the delay was 0.06 seconds and it was meant improve dispersion?

  2. #2
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    8,837
    Its False. Has nothing to do with reducing stress. Just another BB myth
    All about better accuracy.
    Its called Tourist Season. So why can't we shoot them?

  3. #3
    Contributor bbvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 14
    Location
    near Wallburg, NC
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Its False. Has nothing to do with reducing stress. Just another BB myth
    All about better accuracy.
    Totally correct - our last day on the gun line in Vietnam we fired one 9 gun salvo headed north, turned around and fired one 9 gun salvo headed south. No delay in firing, all guns fired simultaneously.

  4. #4
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Aug 10
    Posts
    39
    Huh, okay thank you for the clarification.

    I've also heard a podcast regarding a picture where the New Jersey fired a full broadside, but with the #1 and #3 turret starboard and #2 turret port. Apparently this wasn't authorized because it caused too much shearing stress on the hull by having the guns firing in opposite directions simultaneously? Is that true?

  5. #5
    Patron Michigan_Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Feb 07
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    218
    Quote Originally Posted by Radical View Post
    Huh, okay thank you for the clarification.

    I've also heard a podcast regarding a picture where the New Jersey fired a full broadside, but with the #1 and #3 turret starboard and #2 turret port. Apparently this wasn't authorized because it caused too much shearing stress on the hull by having the guns firing in opposite directions simultaneously? Is that true?
    No, certainly not true. Actually, the main (and secondary for that matter) batteries were designed to be able to fire at different targets when needed.
    "If a man does his best, what else is there?"
    -General George Patton Jr.

  6. #6
    Contributor bbvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 14
    Location
    near Wallburg, NC
    Posts
    304
    Radical wrote:
    I've also heard a podcast regarding a picture where the New Jersey fired a full broadside, but with the #1 and #3 turret starboard and #2 turret port. Apparently this wasn't authorized because it caused too much shearing stress on the hull by having the guns firing in opposite directions simultaneously? Is that true?
    Podcasts, Wikipedia, all a bunch of b.s. IMHO - similar in fictitious content to the movie Midway, in which a clip of MISSOURI is shown firing a main batter turret as ANTI-AIRCRAFT guns (I saw this movie in San Diego in 1966 on "C" Street in a matinee full of sailors - we booed and catcalled the stupidity of so much in that film!!! - almost got thrown out), the main battery of battleships is single purpose - ship to ship or shore bombardment. Various targets can be tracked, plotted, and fired on by all three turrets either in combo or singularly. The 5"/38 dual mounts are DUAL PURPOSE - AA and ship to ship or shore targets. With 10 mounts (original configuration) various targets could be taken into account simultaneously.

    I think you've been "stressing" too much - you might want to peruse old copies of Our Navy and All Hands magazines (which are, by the way - available online) INSTEAD of all this podcast crap and Wikipedia b.s. Articles in those two magazines highlight(ed) not only actual events in U.S. Naval history, but also give the reader a month to month digest of what was current at that time in history in our navy. Much more informative IMHO than your current viewing selection.

    I don't recall any time during my tenure aboard NEW JERSEY that we fired a 9 gun salvo split the way you describe.

    Anchors aweigh!
    Last edited by bbvet; 22 Jul 17, at 04:07. Reason: clarification

  7. #7
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Aug 10
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by bbvet View Post
    Radical wrote:

    Podcasts, Wikipedia, all a bunch of b.s. IMHO - similar in fictitious content to the movie Midway, in which a clip of MISSOURI is shown firing a main batter turret as ANTI-AIRCRAFT guns (I saw this movie in San Diego in 1966 on "C" Street in a matinee full of sailors - we booed and catcalled the stupidity of so much in that film!!! - almost got thrown out), the main battery of battleships is single purpose - ship to ship or shore bombardment. Various targets can be tracked, plotted, and fired on by all three turrets either in combo or singularly. The 5"/38 dual mounts are DUAL PURPOSE - AA and ship to ship or shore targets. With 10 mounts (original configuration) various targets could be taken into account simultaneously.

    I think you've been "stressing" too much - you might want to peruse old copies of Our Navy and All Hands magazines (which are, by the way - available online) INSTEAD of all this podcast crap and Wikipedia b.s. Articles in those two magazines highlight(ed) not only actual events in U.S. Naval history, but also give the reader a month to month digest of what was current at that time in history in our navy. Much more informative IMHO than your current viewing selection.

    I don't recall any time during my tenure aboard NEW JERSEY that we fired a 9 gun salvo split the way you describe.

    Anchors aweigh!
    This podcast though was by Vice Admiral Douglas Katz, who was one of the commanding officers of the New Jersey in the 80s. He mentioned something about the picture of shooting full broadsides in opposite directions not authorized due to stress. Podcast is here.

    https://thewarshipspodcast.simplecas...tz-usn-retired
    Last edited by Radical; 22 Jul 17, at 07:05.

  8. #8
    Contributor bbvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 14
    Location
    near Wallburg, NC
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by Radical View Post
    This podcast though was by Vice Admiral Douglas Katz, who was one of the commanding officers of the New Jersey in the 80s. He mentioned something about the picture of shooting full broadsides in opposite directions not authorized due to stress. Podcast is here.
    Very interesting indeed. Thanks for the link - he was CO from '87 to '89. I served aboard in 1968-69. IOWA's Turret #2 explosion occurred in 1989 and after that event all (4) IOWAs were for a time under orders not to fire their 16" guns until further notice while the investigation into IOWAs accident was underway. I would surmise that when the order was lifted, it was accompanied by further firing restrictions as a result - perhaps that is the context of what you heard. I recall that in 1995 during our ship's reunion in Norfolk, VA that Adm. Snyder (CO, BB-62 1967-69) and I had a lengthy conversation regarding the IOWA explosion, it's cause, etc. and nothing was ever brought up regarding restrictions on how main battery fire was to be limited, etc. Adm. Snyder was an expert in large caliber bag guns [he began his career in USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38)]. We didn't discuss the regulations handed down after the IOWA event, only the possible causes of it and why the Navy's policies at the time (1980's, etc) were partially at fault and what could have been done to have prevented it from happening in the first place.

    Perhaps one of really dedicated forum historians will delve into this and find the Navy Reg that spells out this firing directive as you describe. Without a doubt, NARA II in College Park, MD will have a copy!!!

  9. #9
    Regular Tom24's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jul 13
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by bbvet View Post
    Very interesting indeed. Thanks for the link - he was CO from '87 to '89. I served aboard in 1968-69. IOWA's Turret #2 explosion occurred in 1989 and after that event all (4) IOWAs were for a time under orders not to fire their 16" guns until further notice while the investigation into IOWAs accident was underway. I would surmise that when the order was lifted, it was accompanied by further firing restrictions as a result - perhaps that is the context of what you heard. I recall that in 1995 during our ship's reunion in Norfolk, VA that Adm. Snyder (CO, BB-62 1967-69) and I had a lengthy conversation regarding the IOWA explosion, it's cause, etc. and nothing was ever brought up regarding restrictions on how main battery fire was to be limited, etc. Adm. Snyder was an expert in large caliber bag guns [he began his career in USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38)]. We didn't discuss the regulations handed down after the IOWA event, only the possible causes of it and why the Navy's policies at the time (1980's, etc) were partially at fault and what could have been done to have prevented it from happening in the first place.

    Perhaps one of really dedicated forum historians will delve into this and find the Navy Reg that spells out this firing directive as you describe. Without a doubt, NARA II in College Park, MD will have a copy!!!
    Hank,
    Have you ever considered writing a book about your time on New Jersey? I'd definitely buy a copy!

  10. #10
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Aug 10
    Posts
    39
    Quote Originally Posted by bbvet View Post
    Very interesting indeed. Thanks for the link - he was CO from '87 to '89. I served aboard in 1968-69. IOWA's Turret #2 explosion occurred in 1989 and after that event all (4) IOWAs were for a time under orders not to fire their 16" guns until further notice while the investigation into IOWAs accident was underway. I would surmise that when the order was lifted, it was accompanied by further firing restrictions as a result - perhaps that is the context of what you heard. I recall that in 1995 during our ship's reunion in Norfolk, VA that Adm. Snyder (CO, BB-62 1967-69) and I had a lengthy conversation regarding the IOWA explosion, it's cause, etc. and nothing was ever brought up regarding restrictions on how main battery fire was to be limited, etc. Adm. Snyder was an expert in large caliber bag guns [he began his career in USS PENNSYLVANIA (BB-38)]. We didn't discuss the regulations handed down after the IOWA event, only the possible causes of it and why the Navy's policies at the time (1980's, etc) were partially at fault and what could have been done to have prevented it from happening in the first place.

    Perhaps one of really dedicated forum historians will delve into this and find the Navy Reg that spells out this firing directive as you describe. Without a doubt, NARA II in College Park, MD will have a copy!!!
    Actually, after listening to it again, it appears that Vice Adm Katz only said that firing in opposite directions was illegal and out of regulations but didn't really say why.

  11. #11
    Contributor bbvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 Apr 14
    Location
    near Wallburg, NC
    Posts
    304
    Quote Originally Posted by Radical View Post
    Actually, after listening to it again, it appears that Vice Adm Katz only said that firing in opposite directions was illegal and out of regulations but didn't really say why.
    That sounds like something the ersatz Navy of the 80's/90s would have come out with. No disrespect to the Adm. (Katz), but I seriously doubt that if a situation presented itself to Spruance, Halsey, Nimitz, or even our Capt. Snyder - they would have answered the call without question, and worried about the directives (and Washington brass) later. I guess the difference between those who are natural leaders and those who get their leadership out of a book (IMHO).

    Tom24 - Now, you know that I've been working on my model of NEW JERSEY since 2012, right? So, how do you think I would EVER get a book written, edited, and published before either of us croaks???? BTW, here's a pic of her in Dec. 16 taped together for a model club show - I've done a bit more on her since then!!!
    Name:  resized Mock-Up for Club Mtg_2.jpg
Views: 436
Size:  449.2 KB

    Now, doesn't that make you feel better?????

    Hank
    Last edited by bbvet; 22 Jul 17, at 21:52. Reason: punctuation

  12. #12
    Regular Tom24's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jul 13
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by bbvet View Post
    That sounds like something the ersatz Navy of the 80's/90s would have come out with. No disrespect to the Adm. (Katz), but I seriously doubt that if a situation presented itself to Spruance, Halsey, Nimitz, or even our Capt. Snyder - they would have answered the call without question, and worried about the directives (and Washington brass) later. I guess the difference between those who are natural leaders and those who get their leadership out of a book (IMHO).

    Tom24 - Now, you know that I've been working on my model of NEW JERSEY since 2012, right? So, how do you think I would EVER get a book written, edited, and published before either of us croaks???? BTW, here's a pic of her in Dec. 16 taped together for a model club show - I've done a bit more on her since then!!!
    Name:  resized Mock-Up for Club Mtg_2.jpg
Views: 436
Size:  449.2 KB

    Now, doesn't that make you feel better?????

    Hank
    Wow, looks fantastic so far! I'd love to that beast in person. As for writing a book, multitask, multitask! Lol

  13. #13
    Patron
    Join Date
    22 May 09
    Posts
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by bbvet View Post
    Radical wrote:

    Podcasts, Wikipedia, all a bunch of b.s. IMHO - similar in fictitious content to the movie Midway, in which a clip of MISSOURI is shown firing a main batter turret as ANTI-AIRCRAFT guns (I saw this movie in San Diego in 1966 on "C" Street in a matinee full of sailors - we booed and catcalled the stupidity of so much in that film!!! - almost got thrown out), the main battery of battleships is single purpose - ship to ship or shore bombardment. Various targets can be tracked, plotted, and fired on by all three turrets either in combo or singularly. The 5"/38 dual mounts are DUAL PURPOSE - AA and ship to ship or shore targets. With 10 mounts (original configuration) various targets could be taken into account simultaneously.

    I think you've been "stressing" too much - you might want to peruse old copies of Our Navy and All Hands magazines (which are, by the way - available online) INSTEAD of all this podcast crap and Wikipedia b.s. Articles in those two magazines highlight(ed) not only actual events in U.S. Naval history, but also give the reader a month to month digest of what was current at that time in history in our navy. Much more informative IMHO than your current viewing selection.

    I don't recall any time during my tenure aboard NEW JERSEY that we fired a 9 gun salvo split the way you describe.

    Anchors aweigh!
    Caption says it's the Iowa. I don't know from this angle, but at least one of them did it once:
    Name:  Xm0mK2O.jpg
Views: 425
Size:  177.7 KB

  14. #14
    Regular Tom24's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Jul 13
    Location
    Milwaukee Wisconsin
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacfanweb View Post
    Caption says it's the Iowa. I don't know from this angle, but at least one of them did it once:
    Name:  Xm0mK2O.jpg
Views: 425
Size:  177.7 KB
    That's New Jersey, 1980's.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Is stress something that we will never get away from?
    By Tamara in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09 Apr 14,, 07:25
  2. How much can you reduce radar cross-section
    By JA Boomer in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 14 Jul 07,, 20:50
  3. New Hull Form
    By JCT in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22 Sep 05,, 20:38
  4. US to reduce troops in Korea
    By Leader in forum East Asia and the Pacific
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01 Jun 04,, 05:04

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •