Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bring Back The Iowa Class Discussion And Debate

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by M21Sniper
    "

    The USN funded two programs to develop a scramjet powered missile capable of point intercepts from the 1950s until 1986. The project "SCRAM" engine was succesfully tested in the late 1970s.

    Scramjet technology is all about the engine, what the platform you put it in's role is has very little to do with the engine itself. Just like any other engine type...

    Tell that to the typical M-1A2 gunner who can kill you over 2 miles away with an APFSDSDU 120mm main gun round....on the first shot, while you're both moving at 40mph.

    "2. The HARP 16" gun was the longest in the world,100 Cal long (2 barrels welded together)"

    It's also very old technology

    "Longer barrel, longer time to build up to speed so lower forces on round compared to launching the same round from a conventional 16/50 to get the same range results."

    Shockproofing has come a long way in the last 20+ years. So has miniturization, powder technology, metallurgical technology, and propulsion technology.

    Hence the US Army starting a new collaboration for a 120mm scramjet powered tank round, and the USAF demonstrating a close to operationally useful sized(for the B-52) scramjet powered missile. Time for the USN to hop on board. It's not like it would be new for them, the funded scramjets for about 40 years.

    And let's compare an ERGM with a 16" scramshell for a moment.

    ERGM has a conventional sustained rocket motor, fuel, guidance, and warhead all stuffed into a 5" frame(albeit a long one). Because it needs rocket motor sustain to achieve it's specified range(oops, it doesn't come close to meeting it's range specs), it requires a lot of fuel.

    A 16" scramshell would be able to dispense with the warhead entirely. The sheer KE generated upon impact ensures that it would be far more powerful than any amount of HE you could actually jam into a 16" round. That saves you about 150lbs right there vs a conventional HC round, and a lot of internal space.
    By volume, a 16" round has what, 1000% more internal volume than a 5" ERGM round(wild guess, i suck at volume equations, lol)?

    Finally, if you can make a big scramjet engine, you can make a small one. You do not need as much thrust to propel a 7 or 800lb low drag projectile as you do to propel a "12 ft long 5ft wide 2ft high 3000 lb vehicle", so you don't need as much engine. And all it needs is about a 10 second burn time to achieve the kinds of performance the eggheads are looking for. Even a 5 second burn time would triple the range of an equivelant ballistic projectile(Scramjets accelerate fast)

    BTW, the only reason he compares HARP to modern rounds at all is to counter the Admirals shock damage claims. And he is quite right, the HARP project did loft sensitive electronics at extreme velocities, and they did prove capable of surviving the shock. And that that was decades ago.
    Scramjets were proven in the lab in the 70s. The X-43a was the first time they ever worked outside of a lab. So 40 yrs to get them to work in a lab, another 30 to get a real world workable project.

    120mm tankk guns.

    1. accuracy - they shoot at what 3-5k meters. A 1 mil error = 3-5 meters.
    (1 mil = 1 meter at 1000 meters) Now work that out to those 100 mile ranges.

    2. It would be alot easier to develope a scramjet round for a tank. ScramJet requires Mach 5 for ignition. Mach 5= 1701mps M829A1M/V= 1690mps (we have faster only one I could find M/V) 11 mps more and we are at base line ignition speed.
    I can see this being developed within 1-5 yrs.

    16" HC round best M/V from warships1/navy weapons = 820mps so must more than double that m/v while using the same powder chamber and recoil tolerances of the gun mount.

    Martlet 3A/B out of a 16.5 /100 cal smoothbore and reduced air pressure in tube
    depending on payload M/V was 1371 -1585mps

    I cannot find a TFT for 155

    Comment


    • (Shek)
      "1. What are the dimensions of the airspace coordination area that would need to be cleared to prevent fratricide from the incoming NGF, especially at extended ranges?"

      (GG)

      Same air space restrictions as with any other long range gun. Max ord for fliers.
      Don't think you will do any Front door/back door CAS with the size of the frag area of the 16".

      Would have to deconflict that area with the AF. They believe in the "Little sky, big bullet" theory.

      As far as special coordination, the FSC/FSCC the rounds that M21 suggest, RAP/SABOT/SCRAMjet would all be treated like artillery RAP and Illum. Have to make allowances for RAP motor failure. No troops within the DC zone for rocket failure or beyond that. So RAP and Scramjet would be theater level targets only. Thats why arty uses the 1/3 range behind friendlies for gun positions. allows 2/3s range and ability to fire RAP and Illum. We must be able to shoot with rocket failure being past the FLOT

      SABOT would have to be treated like an Illum. Must know where the SABOT falls when discarded. Allow for deviation for partial, late or no release. Like firing copperhead. Big problem with fins deploying we try to make a buffer zone for worse case.

      (Shek)
      "2. If the round were laser guided, is there a way to direct its path to the target so that the round will get a good lock on the lase"

      (G G)

      As M21 mentioned the Mk 7 guns have a max angle of 45 deg. Not a real big deal as Copperhead is fired at less than 45 degs. Observers has to be w/in 800 mils left or right of the Gun/target line and must have a good reflective target. From the 6-30 on Copperhead/laser guided restrictions.

      Laser designation requires an uninterrupted line of sight between the designator and the target. Anything that obstructs or weakens the laser signal will cause a significant decrease in the performance of the Copperhead round. On the battlefield, the terrain, vegetation, fog, smoke, dust, cloud height, and general battlefield turbulence all obstruct visibility of the target. The minimum visibility for effective Copperhead use is 5,000 meters. Soon after occupying a position, the observer should sight through the G/VLLD, range the farthest visible terrain feature, and determine its distance. If the distance measured by the G/VLLD is 5,000 meters or greater, the minimum visibility requirement for Copperhead is met. Minimum visibility should be rechecked periodically.

      The optimum limit of engagement of the Copperhead round is called a footprint. Footprints are roughly oval in shape and form around the target location sent in by the observer. Although a round can maneuver to the outside limits of the footprint, the greatest chance of hitting the target is when it is at or near the target location sent to the FDC. The greater the target location error, the lower the probability the round will hit the target. The outer boundary of the footprint represents a 50-percent probability of hit; the location sent to the FDC has a hit probability substantially higher than 50 percent. The size and shape of the footprint are affected by the target cloud height, the GT range, visibility, and the angle of fire (high or low).

      Because Laser guided munitions have a low hit probability, as demonstrated by the 50-60% hit rate of LGBs in ODS and around a 30-40 % for copperhead, all missions are allocated 2 rds. Standard mission Special Instructions is "By Round At My Command" This is also the reason that we use to prime the Copperhead target with command det charges at Ft Sill. Copperhead use to miss so much for the D&P shows that when the announcer said "Observe the XX tgt at XX Direction. The finger would be on the switch. Generals like to see a "Boom" when its suppose to happen. No "It didn't track", "Fin didn't deploy" ect....

      (SHek)
      "3. Does the Navy require specialized training in NGF in order to call for it (like the AF, who qualifies their JTACs and runs the JFCC that FOs can go to)?"

      Yeah. It's called Anglico. GG put the acronym in one of the various BB threads.


      (GG)

      Anglico Marines are just 0861s (Fire Support Men) that go to the Army and foreign services to call in NAvy/Marine fire support. All Marine FOs are qualified to call in NGF. Its the 2d half of FO school. Located in Coronado Ca . There is also one in Little Creek Va. The Army sends some people to that one.


      (Shek)
      "4. At the extended ranges, would the explosive payload suffer due to having to add weight for the fuel/rocket engine/etc.? How would that payload compare to an ATACMS? What would be the equivalent JDAM?"


      (G G)

      It depends on how they designed the shell. So no one knows. Here is the current capabilities

      16" Mk 144 400 APICM (Bouncing betties)

      MLRS 644 DPICM

      ATACM 950 DPICM

      TLAM-D 166 DPICM

      155 & ERGM 72 DPICM


      If a saboted round was used in the 16" than the # of submunitions would go down.

      I disagree with M21s campairing a BB with 1 MLRS launcher shooting ATACM.
      All the BBs mags will not be filled with ICM shells and more than 1 M270 will be in theater. Instead of shooting 2 ATACMs they can shoot 12 regular rounds that are guided and have 244 more, and better submunitions. So throw weight goes to MLRS, especially if there is a batterys worth.


      As far as getting 16". Even during WW2 it was used as pre invasion bombardment. Then the ships would pull closer and use the 5/38s for direct support and 16" for what would now be called battlefield interdiction.
      Last edited by Gun Grape; 20 Jun 05,, 04:00.

      Comment


      • "Scramjets were proven in the lab in the 70s. The X-43a was the first time they ever worked outside of a lab. So 40 yrs to get them to work in a lab, another 30 to get a real world workable project."

        Yep, and technology is not progressing in a linear fashion, but rather an exponential one. As every year goes by our potential for invention is increasing at an ever increasing rate.
        Give a company like P&W 10 years to work on a project with today's technology, and they're going to make tremendous progress.

        120mm tankk guns.

        "1. accuracy - they shoot at what 3-5k meters. A 1 mil error = 3-5 meters.
        (1 mil = 1 meter at 1000 meters) Now work that out to those 100 mile ranges."

        I think i've read that the M829A3 APFSDSDU round has a .5 MOA due to it's approx. 17.5:1 aspect ratio, the extreme dimensional quality control of the 22.5mm penetrator, the very low velocity standard deviation, and the close chamber tolerances of the Rheinmetal 120mm tank gun, but that figure is just from memory, so it could be off by a little, but probably not much. Just the nature of the round itself dictates it will possess excellent aerodynamic properties.

        At 5000 meters/5468yds(the useful edge of the M-1 Abrams BCs effective range IIRC), a .5 MOA projectile would achieve a standard pattern variation of 27.34 inches.

        That is what i call serious accuracy.

        Just for spits and giggles, a .75MOA 11.5" saboted RAP projectile at it's anticipated max range of 90 nautical miles(182,406yds) would have a standard pattern variation of 1,368 inches, or just slightly over 38 yards.

        The same projectile at the USMCs stated 41nm(83,096yds) minimum range requirement would give a standard pattern variance of 17.31yds(623 inches).

        The kicker of course is the effect of atmospheric conditions on the trajectory of the projectile. At 41nm, let alone 90nm, the effects would be very substantial. Unfortunately they're impossible to predict without precise velocity retention and projectile mass data.

        It would be significantly more accurate than a Mk8, but outside of approx 40-45nm a saboted 11.5" RAP projectile would almost certainly require precision guidance to achieve an acceptable CEP. At the current max range of the existing Mk8 projectile an 11.5" saboted RAP munition with a .75 MOA would just under 25% more accurate than the Mk8.

        "2. It would be alot easier to develope a scramjet round for a tank. ScramJet requires Mach 5 for ignition. Mach 5= 1701mps M829A1M/V= 1690mps (we have faster only one I could find M/V) 11 mps more and we are at base line ignition speed.
        I can see this being developed within 1-5 yrs."

        Agreed. APFSDS rounds are really close to having the neccesary velocity now. The trick will be fitting the neccesary fuel and injection system inside so small a projectile.

        5 years sounds like a very reasonable timetable for having a production ready working prototype.

        "16" HC round best M/V from warships1/navy weapons = 820mps so must more than double that m/v while using the same powder chamber and recoil tolerances of the gun mount."

        Well there's really no reason that we'd be required to use the same propellant, and technology has also progressed steadily in that field. RAP and saboting will be neccesary if we're to get to the required velocities IMO.
        The M829A3 uses a 22.5mm penetrator in a 120mm bore, slightly more than 1/6th the diameter of the bore, but it does not have rocket assist. To equte that to a 16" bore, your penetrator would end up as about a 70mm projectile without RAP. Figure such a projectile to weigh in at roughly 150lbs.
        However, if RAP is figured in, one can probably exceed 1/6th of the bore by a pretty large amount. Probably the upper limit of projectile diameter with a powerful state of the art solid rocket booster to reach Mach 5 is about 90-100mm, and a projectile weight of maybe 200-250 or so lbs.

        Of course the beauty of designing sub caliber projectile is that you design a projectile that gets you the desired effects, and just add a sabot around it.

        One thing that might be a neccesity is to switch to a smooth bore configuration(of course ideally you'd want to do that anyway).

        Comment


        • "Don't think you will do any Front door/back door CAS with the size of the frag area of the 16"."

          LOL, i don't think so either.

          "As far as special coordination, the FSC/FSCC the rounds that M21 suggest, RAP/SABOT/SCRAMjet would all be treated like artillery RAP and Illum. Have to make allowances for RAP motor failure. No troops within the DC zone for rocket failure or beyond that. So RAP and Scramjet would be theater level targets only."

          Agreed. Scramjets especially would be theater level assets just because of their range and lethal radius. And you wouldn't want to drop a scramjet projectile any closer than a minimum of about 700 meters to friendlies.

          "This is also the reason that we use to prime the Copperhead target with command det charges at Ft Sill. Copperhead use to miss so much for the D&P shows that when the announcer said "Observe the XX tgt at XX Direction. The finger would be on the switch. Generals like to see a "Boom" when its suppose to happen. No "It didn't track", "Fin didn't deploy" ect...."

          The Marines did that too eh?

          "155 & ERGM 72 DPICM"

          Just a FYI, the ERGM warhead has been redesigned to a 27lb unitary(anyway, that was the last i heard).

          "I disagree with M21..."

          There's a first. ;)

          "All the BBs mags will not be filled with ICM shells"

          No, probably no more than 20%, or 260rds per ship.

          "and more than 1 M270 will be in theater."

          Most certainly, but at any one time no single Bn TF is likely to have more than 3 ATACM equipped SPLLs tasked(1 MLRS battery, 6 ATACMs), if even that.
          ATACM is normally employed as a Bde CO's personal shotgun.

          "16" Mk 144 400 APICM (Bouncing betties)"

          You forgot to mention the other operational 16" DPICM shell, the Mk146, which contains a mix of over 500 Mk24 and Mk46 submunitions.(not sure on the exact count, sorry- it's probably on the USNFSA site)

          "Instead of shooting 2 ATACMs they can shoot 12 regular rounds that are guided and have 244 more, and better submunitions."

          If within range, of course. Also, as you pointed out the 16" Sabot round is notional, so one would assume that they'd use the latest CEMs.

          "So throw weight goes to MLRS, especially if there is a batterys worth."

          Actually the FFE effectiveness advantadge would go to the Iowa if firing Mk146 ICM shells(slightly over 500 M42 and M46 munitions per). One 9 gun salvo of Mk146s delivers about 4600 submunitions simultaneously, whereas the MLRS- even ripple firing- would require about 30 seconds to fire it's full 12rd magazine.

          "As far as getting 16". Even during WW2 it was used as pre invasion bombardment."

          And a deep interdiction weapon.

          "Then the ships would pull closer and use the 5/38s for direct support and 16" for what would now be called battlefield interdiction."

          LOL...guess i shoulda finished reading your statement. ;)
          Last edited by Bill; 20 Jun 05,, 08:30.

          Comment


          • Here's a very indepth and illuminating USN report on NGFS and battleship fire, with a full background on WWII on up NGFS effectiveness and systems, etc.

            It's written by a USN Lt.Commander, and all his sources are documented:

            http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...t/1991/KMC.htm

            It was written in 1991 just prior to the deactivation of the Iowas, and it's conclusion was that they should be retained.

            Lots of very interesting data in the report.

            Comment


            • "Armor belt was 1.7 inches thicker than Iowa."

              And made of inferior steel. And not as sloped. And not triple layered. And not dual spaced.

              They're not even remotely comparable armored schemes. The Roma was obsolete before the war even started.

              "A 3,00 lb bomb flying at 630Mph. Hum SS-N-12 with 1K KG warhead hits at Mach 2.5"

              There are exactly zero operational warships in the world that fire the SS-N-12.

              "The American bombs had no trouble penetrating Japanese ships like the Yamato"

              Yeah, and it only took 27 direct bomb hits and several torpedo hits(9 IIRC) to sink it.

              What a vulnerable ship.....???

              LOL

              Need i remind you that post WWII in atomic bomb tests that battleships with inferior armor schemes than the Iowas SURVIVED Nuclear detonations INTACT?

              "Of course you will say that Iowa armor was better steel"

              It was, though the Yamato had a better TDS, the overall Iowa scheme was better.

              "In 1944 the Navy determined that it would take five WWII-vintage 2,000lb GP bombs (roughly equivilant in explosive power to P-15/20/HY-2 but without the ability to penetrate the armored deck and without the incendiary effect) to mission-kill an Iowa."

              It took more hits than that to sink an obsolete unarmored LPD in B-52 2,000lb JDAM testing just six months ago.

              Someone is way off with their estimates, especially when one considers what it actually did take to sink the only ships with comparable protection to the Iowas that were lost....the Yamatos.

              "GBU-28 , nothing more than an old 8" tube with a laser guidance seeker and fins strapped on, could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete and more than 100 feet of earth. But I believe you. It would just bonce off the Iowa."

              It would never get anywhere near it's launch window against a US BBBG(Battleship Battle Group), so that's pretty irrelevant, eh?

              A BLU-109B(the penetrator for the above named bomb, and a massive weapon only capable of being embarked on the F-15E, B-1, B-2, and B-52) would certainly penetrate an Iowas triple layered deck, but unless it hit a magazine it's explosive force(the BLU-109 only has a 370lb HE warhead) would be contained in the thick steel armored compartment it exploded in. The Iowas have massive compartmentalization for exactly that reason- in case the armored scheme is penetrated.
              OTOH, a BLU-109B would probably not penetrate the 19" Class B armor conning tower or communications tube at all, and you can forget about the armored belt(even if you could get a low deflection impact).

              "It took 3 days to design, think the chinese or some other "enemy" doesn't have some spare arty tubes lying around."

              I don't think bomb carrying tactical fighters can get anywhere near release range against a USN BBBG, so i think it's quite irrelevant.

              "How about those 2Kt/Blu-109 JSOW with MSTE. Or an AGM-130."

              Which of our enemies is it exactly that have comparable systems...and what would one of those munitions do to a Burke or a Tico?

              "Heck I'm betting the 250Kg shape charge hitting at Mach 1 from a 70s AS-30 will penetrate that armor."

              I'm betting you're nuts. Armor spacing kicks the hell out of the shaped charge jet of a HEAT round. Dual armor spacing is just that much tougher. And the spacing between layers on an Iowa is immense, with as much as 30 foot spacing in some places.

              "you have already put forth the idea in another thread that a carrier battle group is vunerable and that the carrier could be sunk because of no F-14s. When that same "mass" of planes that overwhelm the burkes and ticos strike a BB outcome is the same."

              Depends. I have no illusions whatsoever that a SS-N-19 or AS-6 would do serious damage to an Iowa, just as it would to an armored Carrier(our carriers are pretty heavily armored in their own right), but one SS-N-19 hit wouldn't sink one either, and only the Russians have those- they've never sold the Shipwreck to anyone.

              A Shipwreck would break a Tico or Burke in two. All hands lost kind of damage if one of those took a hit.

              A BB or Carrier would probably take about 500 casualties from a Shipwreck or Kingfish hit, and would probably still have emergency power and limited propulsion. No doubt ALL the electronics on either would get whacked though. Lots of shock damage from a 700(SS-N-19) or 1000kg(AS-6) warhead.

              Fortunately for us, only the Russians use either.

              The Chinese and Indian Backfires all use the older(and much easier to intercept) AS-4 Kitchen.

              Modern AShMs almost without exception are designed to kill destroyer sized vessels because that's the biggest ship that 98% of the worlds navies can field.

              If you were designing an AShM specifically to kill a BB it would be the size of an SS-N-19 with massive tandem HEAT warheads, and it would be very, very expensive, and very, very large.
              Last edited by Bill; 20 Jun 05,, 09:02.

              Comment


              • " When were you with 2/2 armor? On the bad side of the tracks
                I was there in 87 for BNCOC. (waste of time) and again in 91-94 as an instructor."

                4/31 Infantry, Polar Bears.

                Comment


                • "(GG)
                  Observer position is only given in the initial fire command if firing a "Shift from known point" or a "Polar" mission. Its not so the FDC can decide if the mission is safe or not but because of the types of missions. Observer position is only given in a grid mission for corrections.

                  It has nothing to do with determining the "Safety " of the mission but determining the relationship of Up/Down/Left/Right on the OT line to the adjustments needed on the GT line."

                  I'm gonna adress all that in a separate post below:

                  "(GG)
                  Its from higher HQ. The Movie " VT on Me. Its my call" request sounds real good. But doen't happen like that. DC request go up the chain for authorization. And the FDC will use the FM 6-30 ranges for DC. DC will also have the FDC compute and fire subtenths def/quad for greater accuracy. Vice rounding up to the next higher full value."

                  Again, i will adress this in a later post.

                  "(GG)
                  I assumed you would give an example of one that WORKED. Thought you understood that."

                  You made no stipulations, you just said name any naval round with GPS guidance.

                  WRT one that works, ERGM sort of works, it just doesn't meet it's specified range requirements(nor come close). Inside it's ballistic range it is actually an extremely accurate high velocity projectile. It's at it's 'extended powered flight' ranges that it's speed drops down to 500kts and it becomes something else entirely. I can't remember what ERGMs ballistic range is though, something like 15 miles i think.

                  "(GG)
                  Now your smoking crack. Life doesn't work that way, no one would shoot it and they would be inaccurate as hell if anyone did try."

                  Actually, that is EXACTLY the same thing that's done in modern muzzleloader sabot rounds, which use JHP pistol bullets of varying calibers(depending on manufacturer) encased in a sabot and fired from largebore muzzleloaders.
                  And yes, compared to full bore balls and projectiles, the muzzleloader sabots are considerably more accurate.

                  Here's a link to several examples of pistol bullets used in blackpowder muzzleloading sabot rounds:

                  http://www.gunnersden.com/index.htm....s-bullets.html


                  (Note how in the above image the sabot is a one piece design that extends well beyond the base of the projectile to provide the neccesary projectile length for proper firing stabilization).

                  There's absolutely no reason whatsoever you could not sabot a US Army 8" round with a sufficiently sized wad(similar to what's used in a shotgun round) provided that the Mk7's rifling rate is capable of properly stabilizing an 8" projectile(which honestly, i don't know).

                  Seriously though bro, these things have been very popular with blackpowder hunters and shotgun hunters for over a decade. You need to get out more. ;)

                  "Oh I did leave out another landing that the BBs were absent from. Inchon"

                  Probably because Inchon was lightly unopposed, had been pounded for 2 days by heavy cruiser 8" fire(we dont have those either anymore btw, lol), 4 rocket ships(no more of those either), 10 destroyers, with massive Corsair CAS, and also because the Jersey was preoccupied raising hell in support of other UN forces at the time.

                  "June-September, 1951 Repeated shelling against targets in support of United Nations troops in Wonsan, Yangyang and Kansong. Displayed her reputation for perfect firing in July with the demolition of five gun emplacements executed with direct hits.



                  October 1, 1951 General Omar Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Matthew B. Ridgeway, Commander-in-Chief Far East, came aboard to confer with Admiral Martin.

                  October 16, 1951 A target spotter over the Kansong area reported on New Jersey’s firing: "beautiful shooting -- every shot on target -- most beautiful shooting I have seen in five years."

                  http://www.battleshipnj.org/chronology.html

                  The Missouri had worked the same area earlier in 1951, and this was one of her typical firemissions:

                  30 January 1951

                  0800(I) Latitude 38° 26.2' N Longitude 129° 34.0' E
                  1200(I) Latitude 38° 26.0' N Longitude 128° 34.3' E
                  2000(I) Latitude 38° 27.4' N Longitude 128° 57.3' E

                  Steaming with elements of TF 95 enroute vicinity of KANSONG, KOREA in special
                  cruising formation composed of MISSOURI (CTG 95.3) (OTC), MANCHESTER on line of
                  bearing 2000 yards distance, and DD's FRANK KNOX, LOFBERG (CDS7), JOHN A. BOLE,
                  MASSEY, ENGLISH (CDS16), and WALLACE L. LIND in closed concentric circular screen.

                  At 0205I ZELLERS (DD777) joined formation and took station in screen.
                  CHARLES S. SPERRY (DD697) joined formation and took screening station at 0235I.
                  At 0600I detached screen for fire mission at KANSONG, KOREA. For bombardment,
                  in accordance CTF 95 directive., C.O. MISSOURI assumed tactical command of
                  TG 95.2, Light Bombardment Group, composed of ENGLISH (CDS16)(CTG 95.2), MASSEY,
                  WALLACE L. LIND, ZELLERS, CHARLES S. SPERRY, LOFBERG (CDS7) and JOHN A. BOLE.
                  DIXIE (CTF 95), TACOMA (PF3) GALLUP (PF47), CARMICK (DMS33) DOYLE (DMS34), and
                  mine-sweeping group (TG 95.6) composed of COMSTOCK (LSD19), LST Q007 and
                  MinDiv32, were also present in the operating area. Purpose of the operation is
                  to create a diversion by simulating an amphibious landing.

                  MISSOURI went to General Quarters at 0615I. Launched helicopter at 0646I
                  to spot fire mission. At 0700I commenced 16" and 5"/38 bombardment in vicinity
                  of KANSONG, KOREA, in accordance with CTF 95 Bombardment Plan. At 0800I ceased
                  fire; completed first fire mission. Ammunition expended:

                  102 HC 16"/50 projectiles
                  102 reduced non-flashless 16" powder charges
                  918 AAC 5"/38 projectiles
                  918 non-flashless 5" powder charges

                  At 0842I recovered helicopter. At 1015I General Quarters. Launched helicopter
                  for spotting purposes at 1046I. At 1106I resumed 16"/50 and 5"/38 bombardment
                  of KANSONG. At 1350I recovered helicopter. At 1358I ceased fire; fire mission
                  completed. Ammunition expended:

                  98 HC 16"/50 projectiles
                  38 reduced non-flashless 16" powder charges
                  60 reduced flashless 16" powder charges
                  618 AAC 5"/38 projectiles
                  618 non-flashless 5" powder charges

                  The following results of the day's bombardment were observed. 1 highway bridge
                  destroyed; 1 railway bridge, 2 spans demolished and approaches heavily damaged;
                  and beach area neutralized."

                  http://www.ussmissouri.com/KoreaWarDiary/61.htm



                  The above is an image from the following mission, just 40 miles from the Soviet border:

                  "October 21, 1950 photo shows the Missouri (BB-63) bombarding Communist positions off Chong Jin, Korea. She is only about forty miles from theSoviet border, so all hand are at General Quarters. Being the only Iowa class ship that wasn't put into reserve after WW2, the Missouri was immediately sent to the far east at the beginning of the war. Official U.S. Navy Photograph, now in the collections of the U.S. National Archives. USNHC # 80-G-K-12603"

                  http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/63g.htm

                  A very cool picture of Missouri in the Wonsong region Feb 1941 training her turret for a combat firemission against DPRK targets:



                  Missiouri firing on target in Korea, same day, Feb 1941



                  The performance of the Iowa class battleships in both Korea and Vietnam were by all accounts, excellent.

                  The 16"s got a bad rap in Lebannon by being commited with worn barrel liners and no UAVS, but still completed several firemissions that were deemed either too dangerous for airpower, or where US planes had either been unable to nuetralize the targets or had lost planes trying.

                  In ODS the Iowa's performance was solid when teamed up with their own onboard compliment of UAVs, especially given the advanced state of wear of the barrel liners by that time, and the fact that they were firing shells of 1940s vintage with reduced powder charges.

                  Korea and Vietnam showed what the Iowas could do with new barrel liners, and they were extremely effective in both campaigns, especially in Vietnam where the NV actually withdrew from the Paris peacetalks in protest of the presence of the USS New Jersey.

                  The NV could shoot down B-52s and tactical fighters, could attack US firebases, and could ambush US ground forces.
                  But they had absolutely no counter whatsoever for the USS New Jersey, and she made them pay for it.
                  Last edited by Bill; 20 Jun 05,, 19:48.

                  Comment


                  • DC fires:

                    From FM 6-30:

                    "b. Danger Close. If the adjustment of fires brings impacting rounds within danger close distance during the conduct of the mission, the observer must announce DANGER CLOSE to the FDC. The observer, using creeping fire (paragraph 5-6d), makes corrections from the round impacting closest to friendly troops. If the adjustment of fire moves the round outside the danger close distance, the observer transmits CANCEL DANGER CLOSE.

                    d. Creeping Fire (Danger Close). The creeping method of adjustment is used during danger close missions. The observer should make range changes by creeping the rounds to the target, using corrections of 100 meters or less, rather than making large range corrections."

                    -More on Creeping fire below.

                    I just was also reading the Naval gunfire procedures as set forth in FM 6-30, and it states that the FO should always state range to targetted grid for DC missions.

                    " (1) The observer reports DANGER CLOSE followed by a cardinal direction and a distance in meters from the target to the nearest friendly position. The observer also designates the place where the first salvo is to impact. The first salvo can be either offset or directed at the target.

                    (a) The first salvo should be offset to impact on the opposite side of the target from the friendly position. This is done by making a normal correction (left or right, add or drop) in relation to the OT direction or by giving a cardinal direction. The offset between the nearest friendly position and the first salvo can be any distance specified by the observer. However, it is normally used to place the first salvo at least the applicable danger close distance (Table 8-2) from friendly troops. "

                    That's exactly how we were trained to do it for all DC fire missions, and for all training firemissions when working with USAFAC trainees.

                    More on creeping fire:

                    "(2) The creeping method of adjustment is always used in danger close missions. The observer makes corrections by moving each round toward the target in increments of 100 meters. The combined effect of each correction should not exceed 200 meters. If more than one gun is to fire for effect, the observer should check the mean point of impact of all guns to be used before entering fire for effect.

                    (3) In a danger close situation, the fires may be crept to within minimum safe distance of friendly positions. Recommended minimum safe distance for an adjusted salvo of a 5-inch gun is 200 meters when firing parallel to the front lines, or 350 meters when not firing parallel to the front line. The ship normally advises the observer when a predicted fall of shot approaches minimum safe distance."

                    That's pretty much exactly what i was saying earlier in this thread when i said you could call fire well inside the DCZ, why you gave your direction and distance to target, and how you can call for adjusted fire right on top of your own position if neccesary, which is further supported below:

                    From FM 7-13:

                    "c. The Protection of his Unit as the Rounds are Impacting. If in well-prepared defensive positions with overhead cover, an FPF could be adjusted very close (Just beyond bursting range). If required, the CO could even call for artillery fires right on his company position using proximity or time fuses for air bursts."

                    In an FPF mission specific authority for the mission belongs to the on-scene unit commander or on scene FO/FIST-V or team, no higher command approval is required for a FPF DC fire.

                    So therefore, all the things i stated were consistent with standard FO and DC procedures.
                    Last edited by Bill; 20 Jun 05,, 19:55.

                    Comment


                    • How would an Iowa do against an SSK's Torpedo. Hypothetically speaking? I am thinking of 'under the keel' explosions. Would that not break such a ship in half?
                      "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

                      Comment


                      • Break it in half?

                        No.

                        The Iowa has a triple keel.

                        A torpedo would do the most damage to a BB though. The bigger threat is actually the soviet wakehoming torpedos, which destroy the props and pop the seals on the shafts.

                        Of course a carrier or other surface vessel is just as vulnerable to one of those as a battleship is.

                        Comment


                        • If I recall my lessons correctly, if you break the keel on any surface vessel, than whatever its size the vessel will snap in half.
                          "Any relations in a social order will endure if there is infused into them some of that spirit of human sympathy, which qualifies life for immortality." ~ George William Russell

                          Comment


                          • The Iowa has three keels.

                            You'd have to break all three to get it to 'snap in half'.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by M21Sniper
                              "The American bombs had no trouble penetrating Japanese ships like the Yamato"

                              Yeah, and it only took 27 direct bomb hits and several torpedo hits(9 IIRC) to sink it.

                              What a vulnerable ship.....???

                              LOL

                              Need i remind you that post WWII in atomic bomb tests that battleships with inferior armor schemes than the Iowas SURVIVED Nuclear detonations INTACT?
                              I might add to Sniper's comments by adding that Yamato and Musashi were both:

                              1. Equipped with a numerically large but qualitatively inferior AA outfit, both in terms of ROF and fire-control.

                              2. Manned by gunners that had little to no practical experience in defending against aircraft. They had only one thing really going for them, their courage. They had this in spades.

                              3. Were attacked by literally hundreds of aircraft in constant waves.

                              4. As Sniper pointed out, absorbed more bombs and torpedoes than any other other warship. (except maybe Tirpitz' case, a 12,000 pounder)
                              Supporting or defending Donald Trump is such an unforgivable moral failing that it calls every bit of your judgement and character into question. Nothing about you should be trusted if you can look at this man and find redeemable value

                              Comment


                              • The following says it all about the protection level and ability to withstand damage of all 20th century US battleships:

                                USS New York(launched Oct, 1912): " Here she prepared to serve as target ship in Operation Crossroads, the Bikini atomic tests, sailing 4 March 1946 for the West Coast. She left San Francisco 1 May, and after calls in Pearl Harbor and Kwajalein, reached Bikini 15 June. Surviving the surface blast 1 July and the underwater explosion 25 July, she was taken into Kwajalein and decommissioned there 29 August 1946. Later towed to Pearl Harbor, she was studied during the next two years, and on 8 July 1948 was towed out to sea some 40 miles and there sunk after an eight-hour pounding by ships and planes carrying out full-scale battle maneuvers with new weapons."

                                http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...k/bb34-ny.html

                                Survived two nuclear blasts, and took EIGHT HOURS of continuous air and naval combined arms POUNDING before she succombed and went down.

                                That is absolutely awe inspiring survivability.

                                The Iowas are substantially better protected(and oh yeah, armed) than the New York Class battleships. And much faster. With longer range.

                                During the 1980s reactivation the four Iowas even recieved some additional spall lining ballistic protection in mission critical areas.

                                Exocet my eye... ;)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X