Any Life Left!?

[RustyBattleship]

Bella:

You make some excellent points. But as a person VERY experienced in the Iowa class Battleships I must admit that age is irreversible. Take my knees and ankles for example and look at my Avatar. You think I could climb up on that propeller shaft again with a chronic kidney disease that is causing uric acid crystals to build up in my joints? Or having survived a class A congestive heart failure (drove myself into emergency as I was already on the road)?

Steel work hardens. But not as fast as Bronze (propellers and valves) age harden and become brittle.

I absolutely LOVE those ships and even have a set of ORIGINAL arrangement drawings showing how to put 96 VLS tubes on one of them.

But it might be like me trying to fire a Ruger .45 Long Colt with +P rounds. "Hey doc, any chance of putting my forearm back where it belongs?"

Found that out last year riding my daughters Segway. It stopped, I didn't. Dislocated the middle finger of my left hand at the middle knuckle. Looked like a check mark on a test paper. I popped it back myself but there is still some swelling and I can't do a proper Vulcan salute anymore.

But I DO believe in the big guns.

I DO believe in the massive hull size (or bigger).

I DO believe in the heavy armor (or spaced armor).

I DO believe in that pulse Laser that can shoot 8" artillery shells out of the sky. Good back up OR replacement for a CIWS.

I'm not so sure about nuclear propulsion, but the gas turbines used on the Perry's, Spruances, Kidds, Tycos, etc. can give you the power you want. Especially with a better designed variable pitched propeller.

So, what I'm saying is; We need a NEW Battleship. And if Congress and NAVSEA ever came up with funding to design one --- the line forms behind me.

[fitz]

To me "steel on target" suggests that you get what you call for when you call for it. If there is another term you would like to use so that everybody can recognize it I'm all for it.

"Steel on target" has nothing whatsoever to do with "effectiveness." U.S. Navy studies of NGFS in Korea and Vietnam showed that 5-inch guns were used in 95% of fire support missions and were most effective against area targets, troops in the open, etc (due partially to shortcomings in fire control). 6-inch and 8-inch guns were judged about equally effective and 16-inch gunfire was most valuable (and most used) for targets beyond the range of 8-inch guns. Solve the range problem and the argument for big guns diminishes greatly.

[Dreadnought]

"Steel on target" has nothing whatsoever to do with "effectiveness." U.S. Navy studies of NGFS in Korea and Vietnam showed that 5-inch guns were used in 95% of fire support missions and were most effective against area targets, troops in the open, etc (due partially to shortcomings in fire control). 6-inch and 8-inch guns were judged about equally effective and 16-inch gunfire was most valuable (and most used) for targets beyond the range of 8-inch guns. Solve the range problem and the argument for big guns diminishes greatly.

Put up the stats. No just opinion as in relation to post #84.

One thing I do want to state is this:
It is widely known that the 5" guns were the ones of choice for close engagements (10 miles perhaps slightly further) and a vast majority of the ships carried them making the the most used weapons on board ship for the Korean conflict. They were the lead weapon for the DD's as well as the seconday weapons for the Cruisers and Battleships as well. So its a given that they expended more 5" rounds then anything else as far as the ships are concerned.

What we are after is to prove the 16"/50 hitting power, accuracy, eyewitness accounts and efficiency as well as low casuality ratings etc since these threads are full of naysayers and everybody seems to like to see them scrapped among other subjects we can show with some patience the reasons why they were commisioned and retired so many times and have lasted some 65 years to date.

[SteaminDemon]

You have neither the authority nor the knowledge to tell me what I can comment or not.

I feel all the more comfortable commenting on USS Frank Cable as the recommendations endorsed by Command Submarine Group, Pacific Fleet were published in Stars & Stripes on 13 May 2007 and are available on-line :

Stars and Stripes: Report calls for review of USS Frank Cable officers' actions

Have you seen the BIRMIS report? No. Have you seen the actial report in detail on the Frank Cable? No, just the one from the link you provided. So that is why I said do not comment on something you have no clue about.

[Dreadnought]

"Steel on target" has nothing whatsoever to do with "effectiveness." U.S. Navy studies of NGFS in Korea and Vietnam showed that 5-inch guns were used in 95% of fire support missions and were most effective against area targets, troops in the open, etc (due partially to shortcomings in fire control). 6-inch and 8-inch guns were judged about equally effective and 16-inch gunfire was most valuable (and most used) for targets beyond the range of 8-inch guns. Solve the range problem and the argument for big guns diminishes greatly.

However what is also failed to mention is that the 5" guns were so successfull that they found their way aboard almost all navy ships during/since WWII. We are talking about four ships of one class not 100 ships of 2 or 3 classes.

The only way you are solving that "range problem" is either moving closer to shore or sending an aircraft. I believe the casuality ratings on the ships listed prior as well as the downed aircraft listings show
reasoning as to why the 16"/50 were invaluable.

Its no myth that during some of these conflicts many aircraft were lost to a target the 16's could have easily taken care of without the lost aircraft nor pilot.

[SteaminDemon]

I don't have a POG book for specific 1200 systems, but as I remember, the 1200 lb system on a Leahy and Belknap "CG or DLG", the feed pumps are run by main steam. It would also include the 1200 systems on an Adams class, which have virtually the same layout. On 600lb systems on auxiliary ships, it's auxiliary steam that feeds MFP's as I remember.

I pulled out Principles of Naval Engineering and on pg 212 it confirms my memory of 1200 systems. The layout is for a "DLG 14 and 15" which was a 1200 system with the same layout as the "DLG 16 and DLG 26" class ships, the MFP's are fed by main steam. On the DLG 14 and 15. In the forward fireroom of that class, the MFP's are fed by MS 11, MS 13 and MS 15 valves.

Thanks RAL's, My fault. I was commenting about the 600 (and also 700) lb systems. The 1200's were different animals. Utilization of main steam differs on some ships. Some use Main steam for soot blowers (reduced down to 300 and 150) and for other systems as well, and some use auxiliary steam. However there are the Desuperheaters that take 1200 LB main steam and reduce the temperature (not pressure) of the Steam to utilize it for auxiliary equipment. On the D-types the Navy used the utilization of the desuperheater serves two purposes. One, it enables the superheater outlet temperature to remain fairly constant throughout the entire load range and two saves money (don't have to worry about building the turbine to withstand 1100 Deg).

[Dreadnought]

Thanks RAL's, My fault. I was commenting about the 600 (and also 700) lb systems. The 1200's were different animals. Utilization of main steam differs on some ships. Some use Main steam for soot blowers (reduced down to 300 and 150) and for other systems as well, and some use auxiliary steam. However there are the Desuperheaters that take 1200 LB main steam and reduce the temperature (not pressure) of the Steam to utilize it for auxiliary equipment. On the D-types the Navy used the utilization of the desuperheater serves two purposes. One, it enables the superheater outlet temperature to remain fairly constant throughout the entire load range and two saves money (don't have to worry about building the turbine to withstand 1100 Deg).

"Stand clear of boiler two while blowing soot!" "That IS" stand clear of boiler two while blowing soot.;)

[SteaminDemon]

Reduced O&M costs with a crew of 1,500+ ?

You really have NO CLUE...

:) You do know how much it costs to run a carrier right? Adding those four ships to the Carrier rotation would reduce the total O&M costs. The less underway time the Carrier has, the more money there is to be saved. It is rather simple. In place of the Carrier (that would have been deployed) you have a BB in place of that with a far lower O&M cost than that of the carrier.

[fitz]

The only way you are solving that "range problem" is either moving closer to shore or sending an aircraft. I believe the casuality ratings on the ships listed prior as well as the downed aircraft listings show
reasoning as to why the 16"/50 were invaluable.

Really? Then why is it that a decade ago the 5-inch gun could shoot to only 13nm and now it can shoot to 54nm?

Its no myth that during some of these conflicts many aircraft were lost to a target the 16's could have easily taken care of without the lost aircraft nor pilot.

I find it more than mildly amusing that while this was the logic behind reactivating USS New Jersey for Vietnam, on her very first gunfire support mission the A-4 Skyhawk that was spotting for NJ was shot down.

PS

The "evidence" you asked for earlier is in a document called "Experience of Fast Battleships..." (I forget the rest) which is readily available on the web or in your local library. It details naval gunfire support missions from late WWII through Vietnam.

[SteaminDemon]

"Stand clear of boiler two while blowing soot!" "That IS" stand clear of boiler two while blowing soot.;)

Soot blowin... I was up there training a U/I. He was working the endless chain when I heard something loud in the ventilation. I pulled him off of the chain, Then all of the sudden something came flying out, ricochet off of the boiler hit me and landed down on the deck grating on the burner front. Sure, I pull the guy away only to be hit with the damn thing anyway:P.

We resumed soot blowing and afterward went to have a look, it was a big chunk of metal. Wonder who in the hell threw that around the intake.

Scary moment, we had a flex fail on our stationary soot blower, I immediately passed the order to shut the root valve. I thought we had a head blow off at first.

[Dreadnought]

Really? Then why is it that a decade ago the 5-inch gun could shoot to only 13nm and now it can shoot to 54nm?

*We are talking about the years of conflict in question as in relation to Grapes posting. Not present day. I think I have been onboard a few modern DDG's to know better.

I find it more than mildly amusing that while this was the logic behind reactivating USS New Jersey for Vietnam, on her very first gunfire support mission the A-4 Skyhawk that was spotting for NJ was shot down.

*It is also in print (Muir) that jets that spotted for New Jersey during Vietnam could not be as accurate as her own helo's were. Perhaps moving to fast to sight coordinate or other reasoning.

PS

The "evidence" you asked for earlier is in a document called "Experience of Fast Battleships..." (I forget the rest) which is readily available on the web or in your local library. It details naval gunfire support missions from late WWII through Vietnam.

*I am well aware of John Reilly's texts.

[Dreadnought]

[QUOTE=fitz;469594]Really? Then why is it that a decade ago the 5-inch gun could shoot to only 13nm and now it can shoot to 54nm?

Really? Hows about a mach 7 railgun shot conducted just recently. Hows about 200 nm range for said railgun?

[Dreadnought]

Soot blowin... I was up there training a U/I. He was working the endless chain when I heard something loud in the ventilation. I pulled him off of the chain, Then all of the sudden something came flying out, ricochet off of the boiler hit me and landed down on the deck grating on the burner front. Sure, I pull the guy away only to be hit with the damn thing anyway:P.

We resumed soot blowing and afterward went to have a look, it was a big chunk of metal. Wonder who in the hell threw that around the intake.

Scary moment, we had a flex fail on our stationary soot blower, I immediately passed the order to shut the root valve. I thought we had a head blow off at first.

Dam soot blower poppet valves!:)) Nothing a good slug with a hammer wont fix. Unless ofcoarse the guts are wasted.

[fitz]

*I am well aware of John Reilly's texts.

Then what are you asking for?

[fitz]

[QUOTE=Dreadnought;469608]

Really? Then why is it that a decade ago the 5-inch gun could shoot to only 13nm and now it can shoot to 54nm?

Really? Hows about a mach 7 railgun shot conducted just recently. Hows about 200 nm range for said railgun?

What about it? I was merely responding to your statement that nothing could be done about the range problem.