Page 4 of 21 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 308

Thread: Big Battleship Doctrine

  1. #46
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,121
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    Well, i don't really agree with many of his ideas either(im sure if i looked hard enough i'd find one i did agree with).

    Right off the bat i told him his ship was completely undersized for the proposed armament.

    BTW I saw this a while back but never got to use it. From June 2000, concerns those spare barrels you were talking about.

    http://www.battleship.org/html/News/.../SpareGuns.htm

    The nine 16 inch Mark IV gun barrels that were being stored at the Long Beach California Naval Shipyard have been disposed of by the US Navy. These barrels, which have a length of 68’ and weigh 106 tons, are powerful symbols of the strength and engineering magnificence of the battleships.

    Of the nine barrels, two have been sent to China Lake Naval Air Test Facility for government tests. Six of the barrels have been cut in half for scrapping. Thankfully, one of the barrels has been saved and is now on display at the Los Angeles Maritime Museum. This will help give people a sense of how massive these ships actually are.

    The three key people at the Los Angeles Maritime Museum coordinating the exhibit are Dr. William Lee, Cdr. Tom Goodall USN (ret.) and Mr. I. Roy Coats.

    ICPA is helping to coordinate the donation of two 16 inch projectiles and 6 dummy powder bags. These are being obtained through the cooperation of Mr. Bob Sawyer of the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station and the U.S. Navy Supply Depot in Crane, Indiana. The combination of the barrel and the shells should make for an impressive display.



    I hope they got the Projos and bags. That would be awesome.

    For those that would like to read the BBs coming back (M21Sniper) vs Make razor blades out of them (GG) it starts about here.

    And to be honest, I figured that at any day I would get banned. These were some of my first post

    http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sho...9&page=4&pp=20

  2. #47
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Defcon 6
    Thats because it has a crew over 202+. All the living quarters needed for a 900+ crew isn't there anymore. Less food storage. Automated gun systems eliminate all the room needed under the turrets for stocking and loading ammo. Now the ammo stores and some hydraulic equipment handle the job. The VLS systems are peripheral, meaning they go around the outside of the deck. All around it, the entire thing. All the coal/oil bunkers are gone because nuclear power doesn't require it. So the 2,000 tons of coal is gone, and so is the space where it was stored.

    So no unreps of rounds?

  3. #48
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Are you referring to the turntable under the turret that rotates ammo into position?

  4. #49
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    No one here will ever ban a poster for disagreeing as long as they do so in an intelligent manner.

    As far as marines go, you're albert einstien.

  5. #50
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    Well, i don't really agree with many of his ideas either(im sure if i looked hard enough i'd find one i did agree with).

    Right off the bat i told him his ship was completely undersized for the proposed armament.
    Snipe. How can I get you on my side on this? With the anti's thumping around here I need some backup on the issue.

    A little about myself;
    I'm a grad school engineer. I've taken some classes on marine engineering. Seems interesting, thinking of specializing in naval architecture. So I do understand the design concepts. I actually contacted the pentagon last week through navy.mil, but when they responded I chickened out. You know, big guy at the pentagon asking me about qualifications and asking for the details of the thing. I don't know how to put together a detailed doctrine for them. Anyways, thats me. Nuff said I guess.

    So how about it?

  6. #51
    Resident Curmudgeon Military Professional Gun Grape's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 05
    Location
    Panama City Fl
    Posts
    9,121
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    No one here will ever ban a poster for disagreeing as long as they do so in an intelligent manner.

    As far as marines go, you're albert einstien.
    Remember, most of my "board" experence prior to this was Sparks run boards.
    And Strategy page.

    WOW the words "Intelligent" and "Marine" in the same post. Don't see that too often




    DefCon UnRep= Underway replenishment. Will the ship shoot her load and go home or will she be able to reload at sea. At sea reload is a manpower intense operation. Especially if you want to include munitions. Even more so since you have no flight deck for VertRep

  7. #52
    Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 05
    Location
    Oak Hill, VA
    Posts
    577
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape
    I know this was in answer to a B. Smitty post but I couldn’t help it.
    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. But then again I see that you visit Meyers site so it doesn’t surprise me.
    Caliber has everything to do with the 16 in measurement as well as the 50 cal measurement

    Caliber as your example of the “Desert Eagle .50 cal, is the inside diameter of the barrel measured between the lands. Normally used for Small arms

    In artillery it is the diameter of the projectile ie 155mm. Or 16”

    The Iowa guns are 16”/50cal
    The 50 cal in this case denotes the length of the barrel from breach to muzzle divided by its diameter.
    Ie 16 (diameter) x 50= 800 inches. The tube of the Iowa main batteries are 800 inches long.
    The M-109 howitzer with M185 tube is a 155/38cal.
    Ahh ok, now I understand what he was talking about.

    Yes, I misused the term 'caliber' when referencing the 16" gun. My mistake.

  8. #53
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    I don't agree with Meyers about a lot of things. And I know what a land is.

    As for Smitty, check that link that Snipe or grape gave. It also reaffirms a lot of what I've said.
    Last edited by Defcon 6; 20 Sep 05, at 04:01.

  9. #54
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    " Remember, most of my "board" experence prior to this was Sparks run boards.
    And Strategy page. "

    LOL, sparks will ban anyone that doesn't call the Stryker a truck.

    I used to actually write for Meyers site, i just couldn't take his paranoid nonsense anymore, so i disassociated myself from him.

  10. #55
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Yeah, the guy's a jerk too. Not to mention he claims the Iraqi's shot down cruise missiles with machine guns. Quack quack.

  11. #56
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Grape
    Remember, most of my "board" experence prior to this was Sparks run boards.
    And Strategy page.

    WOW the words "Intelligent" and "Marine" in the same post. Don't see that too often




    DefCon UnRep= Underway replenishment. Will the ship shoot her load and go home or will she be able to reload at sea. At sea reload is a manpower intense operation. Especially if you want to include munitions. Even more so since you have no flight deck for VertRep
    There has to be another way right? What about a built in loading system? A crane?

  12. #57
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    "Snipe. How can I get you on my side on this? With the anti's thumping around here I need some backup on the issue."

    Show me 500 billion of money in the USN budget you can dedicate to the development and construction of six of these ships, and then listen to me when i tell you the ship is simply about 40% too small by displacement to effectively deploy 12x 16"/50 guns.

    LOL...at the displacement you propose the ship will be top heavy as Dolly parton. Sure, a lot of weight is freed by going nuke, etc....but you NEED that weight below the waterline to make the ship stable.

    You've got well over 1/2 of the ship's mass above the waterline, that will never work. Ships are not tanks, you can't just start adding a lot of mass up high on the ship or it will be prone to capsizing.

    You tout the ship you envision as having a double hull. Great....the 60yo Iowas have a triple layered armored hull with spacing as wide as 10 feet in many places.

    About materiel', Steel is not steel. The Iowas use Class A, Class B, and STS(Special Tempered Steel) Plating in their armored scheme.

    To be honest, the Iowas are capable of being much better ships than what you're proposing IMO.

  13. #58
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by M21Sniper
    "Snipe. How can I get you on my side on this? With the anti's thumping around here I need some backup on the issue."

    Show me 500 billion of money in the USN budget you can dedicate to the development and construction of six of these ships, and then listen to me when i tell you the ship is simply about 40% too small by displacement to effectively deploy 12x 16"/50 guns.

    LOL...at the displacement you propose the ship will be top heavy as Dolly parton. Sure, a lot of weight is freed by going nuke, etc....but you NEED that weight below the waterline to make the ship stable.

    You've got well over 1/2 of the ship's mass above the waterline, that will never work. Ships are not tanks, you can't just start adding a lot of mass up high on the ship or it will be prone to capsizing.

    You tout the ship you envision as having a double hull. Great....the 60yo Iowas have a triple layered armored hull with spacing as wide as 10 feet in many places.

    About materiel', Steel is not steel. The Iowas use Class A, Class B, and STS(Special Tempered Steel) Plating in their armored scheme.

    To be honest, the Iowas are capable of being much better ships than what you're proposing IMO.
    The armor holds it down. As for making it bigger, I could but that makes it more expensive. I could make it bigger, but thats more I have to armor down. I also wanted a smaller ship to fit the navy's big idea for their future fleet.

    The Iowa's from what I understand wern't actually double hulls. They had multiple layers of armor on a single hull design. Am I right?

    Anyways, I don't even know how to reply to the 500 billion dollars thing. I'm gettin stressed about this. I tried defensetalk.com, but the anti-BB trolls over there beat me over the head.
    Last edited by Defcon 6; 20 Sep 05, at 04:18.

  14. #59
    Staff Emeritus
    Join Date
    03 Aug 03
    Posts
    16,429
    I don't know how you'd classify the Iowa hull, but it has three watertight layers of widely spaced armor.

  15. #60
    Contributor
    Join Date
    13 Sep 05
    Location
    Illinois, U.S
    Posts
    659
    Not a double hull. It's just got layered armor. The difference being that a hull helps support the super structure. Armor is more or less attached to the hull.

    Are you still pro-BB? Well just to give my opinion, the Iowa's won't work. Too old, gutting them and rebuilding them would cost a lot of money. The best way is to design a totally modern high tech battleship from scratch. Listen, I understand the engineering aspect behind building the gun systems I talked about and what not. I would like to help. I can design a ship with the basics. Don't know what else I can do here.

    Really it comes down to the simple question, will the Navy favor a bigger ship? I'm looking at this in a serious light. A serious proposal. Anyone who wants to post feel free.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 125
    Last Post: 21 Jun 08,, 04:33
  2. Battleship History Article
    By rickusn in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 17 Jan 07,, 16:16
  3. Big Battleship Doctrine 2
    By Defcon 6 in forum Battleships Board
    Replies: 581
    Last Post: 16 Jun 06,, 21:37

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
  •