Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

16-in Guns vs Hard Targets : A Reality Check

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Naval Bombardment of Saipan and Tinian, 13 June 1944

    Task Force 58 under the command of Vice Admiral Mitscher was comprised of the following battleships :

    * USS North Carolina : 9 x 16"/45 guns, 20 x 5"/38 guns
    * USS Washington : 9 x 16"/45 guns, 20 x 5"/38 guns
    * USS South Dakota : 9 x 16"/45 guns, 16 x 5"/38 guns
    * USS Indiana : 9 x 16"/45 guns, 20 x 5"/38 guns
    * USS Alabama : 9 x 16"/45 guns, 20 x 5"/38 guns
    * USS Iowa : 9 x 16"/50 guns, 20 x 5"/38 guns
    * USS New Jersey : 9 x 16"/50 guns, 20 x 5"/38 guns

    Ammunition expenditure on D-2 Day bombardment was :

    * 16-inch : 2,342 HC rounds
    * 5-inch : 12,544 rounds

    Comment


    • #77
      Naval Bombardment of Saipan and Tinian, 13 June 1944

      From the Report By Special Staff Officers on Forager, Headquarters Expeditionary Troops, Task Force 56, September 1944, page 10 :

      b. The effectiveness of the bombardment was somewhat limited, however, by a number of factors, including the following :

      (1) Lack of training and experience on the part of the fast battleships, as a group, as compared with many older ships of the same type, in shore bombardment. This type of firing, involving slow, patient adjustments on specific targets, is fundamentally different from the firing necessary to succeed in an engagement at sea, and the effectiveness of a shore bombardment has considerable limitations where the ships have not had specific training for this mission.

      (2) Lack of training on the part of the air spotters in recognizing important targets ashore. A study of intercepted radio transmissions shows that, in general, spotters concentrated on buildings of any type at all, rather than on the many camouflaged and semi-concealed positions of definite military significance, especially gun positions.

      (3) Lack of coordination between air spotter and ship. In several cases, when the spotter transmitted his spot to the ship, the ship shifted fire to a now target without ever applying the spot, even though some of these targets were important.

      (4) The fact that it was felt necessary to direct these ships to deliver all fires from beyond the range of enemy shore batteries. This order resulted in the delivery of the entire bombardment at ranges in excess of 10,000 yards, with a consequent reduction in its effectiveness.

      (5) Some battleships fired 5"/38 caliber at ranges in excess of 16,000 yards. Firing on point targets such as coast defense guns and AA batteries at such ranges is considered to be ineffective.

      Comment


      • #78
        Naval Bombardment of Saipan and Tinian, 13 June 1944

        From History of United States Naval Operations in World War II. Vol. 8: New Guinea and the Marianas: March 1944-August 1944 by Samuel Eliot Morison :

        Sad to relate, the bombardment of 13 June was a failure. These fast battleships simply did not know the technique. (...)

        The result was that most of the 16" and 5" shells went completely wild, and the only targets destroyed were large, conspicuous, and of no military value, such as farmhouses and the Charan Kanoa sugar mill. (...)

        There was much truth in a humorous bluejacket's description of this bombardment as "a Navy-sponsored farm project that simultaneously plows the fields, prunes the trees, harvest the crops, and adds iron to the soil."
        Last edited by Shipwreck; 19 Jun 08,, 21:31.

        Comment


        • #79
          Iwo Jima, February-March 1945

          Naval Ammunition Expenditures (in rounds), D minus 3 Day to D plus 35 Day :

          16" HC : 2,400
          14" HC : 5,700
          12" HC : 1,400
          8" HC : 11,700
          6" HC : 8,400
          5" AAC : 152,000
          5" Star : 17,700
          5" rockets : 12,000
          4.5" rockets : 10,000
          4.2" mortar : 70,000

          EQUIVALENT IN TONS : 14,250 (compared with 10,965 tons at Saipan)

          Source : Amphibious Operations : Capture of Iwo Jima, 16 February to 16 March 1945, COMINCH P-0012, United States Fleet, Headquarters of the Commander in Chief, 17 July 1945.
          Last edited by Shipwreck; 19 Jun 08,, 22:48.

          Comment


          • #80
            Okinawa, March-June 1945

            Naval Ammunition Expenditures (in rounds), March-June 1945

            16" HC : 4,411
            14" HC : 16,046
            12" HC : 2,700
            8" HC : 32,150
            6" HC : 46,020
            5" AAC : 432,008 (~25% to 30% of which for NGFS)
            5" Star : 66,653

            EQUIVALENT IN TONS : 31,900 (of which 24,000+ for NGFS) (compared with 14,250 tons at Iwo Jima and 10,965 tons at Saipan)

            Source : Tenth Army Action Report Ryukyus, 26 March to 30 June 1945, Volume I, Chapter 11, Section V, page 19.
            Last edited by Shipwreck; 20 Jun 08,, 11:50.

            Comment


            • #81
              Okinawa, April-June 1945

              Ammunition Expended by XXIV Corps (in rounds), 4 April - 21 June 1945 :

              8" Howitzer : 19,008
              155mm Gun : 79,888
              155mm Howitzer : 278,946
              105mm Howitzer : 792,371
              75mm Howitzer : 179,977
              75mm Gun : 104,893
              57mm Gun : 21,997
              37mm Gun : 87,193
              81mm Mortar : 443,589
              60mm Mortar : 521,301

              EQUIVALENT IN TONS : 62,650

              Source : Personal records of Colonel G. F. Powell, Ordnance Officer, XXIV Corps, U.S. Tenth Army.
              Last edited by Shipwreck; 20 Jun 08,, 11:35.

              Comment


              • #82
                Shipwreck,

                You should start a website or blog -lots of interesting stuff here!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Korea, June 1950 - July 1953

                  Naval Ammunition Expenditures (in rounds), June 1950 - July 1953 :

                  16"/50 : 20,424
                  8"/55 : 80,961
                  6"/47 : 34,375
                  5"/38 : 871,406
                  3"/50 : 97,585

                  EQUIVALENT IN TONS : 50,300

                  Source : Operational Experience of Fast Battleships: World War II, Korea, Vietnam, by John C. Reilly, Naval Historical Center, 1989 Edition.
                  Last edited by Shipwreck; 26 Jun 08,, 23:43.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Shipwreck, here is an interesting breakdown from Vietnam i found. 72.7% of 16" missions were utilized for destruction and 27.3% for harassment. The majority of 5"54 missions were used for harassment. So, the effect of destruction utilizing the 16" projectile was far greater than the 8" and 5" projectiles.

                    Also, the pictures with damage caused by the 16" HC and so on....what effect would the 8" or 5" have had?

                    None the less, this thread is a good read. I especially like this one

                    CO of a battleship : 'I can't take my ship in that close.'

                    RADM Turner: 'What's your armor for? Get in there!
                    Attached Files

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by SteaminDemon View Post
                      Shipwreck, here is an interesting breakdown from Vietnam i found. 72.7% of 16" missions were utilized for destruction and 27.3% for harassment. The majority of 5"54 missions were used for harassment.
                      1. The table is from CINCPACFLT Analysis Staff Study 3-69, page 10.

                      2. The 5" missions listed in this table are for a single 5"/54 ship, USS Davis (DD-937)for the period from September 1968 to February 1969.

                      3. As noted in the aforementioned study, "there is some ambiguity in the definition of a harassment mission" (paragraph 34). As a result, the data given in Table 5 is somewhat misleading.

                      4. "The following table [Table 6] avoids this ambiguity by presenting the data in terms of numbers of rounds" (paragraph 34) :

                      16"/50 :
                      * destruction : 2,914 rounds (90.2%)
                      * harassment : 315 rounds (9.8%)
                      * prep-fire : 0 (0%)
                      * others : 0 (0%)

                      8"/55 :
                      * destruction : 3,989 rounds (69.9%)
                      * harassment : 1,506 rounds (26.4%)
                      * prep-fire : 209 (3.7%)
                      * others : 0 (0%)

                      5"/54 :
                      * destruction : 2,791 rounds (37.7%)
                      * harassment : 4,538 rounds (61.3%)
                      * prep-fire : 68 (0.9%)
                      * others : 10 (0.1%)


                      Originally posted by SteaminDemon View Post
                      So, the effect of destruction utilizing the 16" projectile was far greater than the 8" and 5" projectiles.
                      1. *Far greater* is the kind of blanket statement that doesn't bring anything on the table.

                      2. You cannot make a judgement on the relative effectiveness of each caliber on the sole basis of Table 5 anyway.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Shipwreck View Post




                        1. *Far greater* is the kind of blanket statement that doesn't bring anything on the table.

                        2. You cannot make a judgement on the relative effectiveness of each caliber on the sole basis of Table 5 anyway.
                        Well, I was not making my basis on table 5, the laws of physics is where the basis comes from and clearly the 16" delivers far more KE than any of the the mentioned projectiles. The 5", ERGM and the 8" does not even come close to the available kinetic energy at the target compared to the 16" projectile.

                        Thank you for the other table as well. Even with the numbers (alot of projectiles fired by all), the Jersey was only one ship carrying the 16" guns.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by SteaminDemon View Post
                          Well, I was not making my basis on table 5, the laws of physics is where the basis comes from and clearly the 16" delivers far more KE than any of the the mentioned projectiles.
                          You're (once again) being disingenuous here. What you said earlier was :

                          Originally posted by SteaminDemon View Post
                          72.7% of 16" missions were utilized for destruction and 27.3% for harassment. The majority of 5"54 missions were used for harassment. So, the effect of destruction utilizing the 16" projectile was far greater than the 8" and 5" projectiles.
                          IOW you've explicitely inferred that 16" projectiles were more effective than 8" and 5" on the basis of the stats contained in Table 5.

                          Originally posted by SteaminDemon View Post
                          The 5", ERGM and the 8" does not even come close to the available kinetic energy at the target compared to the 16" projectile.
                          There is MUCH MORE to effectiveness than just kinetic energy.

                          You've claimed that the effect of 16" projectiles was *far greater* than that of 8" and 5" projectiles.

                          Now, rather than trying to get away with it and invoke some hypothetical *laws of physics*, you should back up your claim and :

                          1. Quantify what you mean by *far greater*, which so far is nothing but a blanket statement that has no place on a prominent military-centric forum like WAB.

                          2. Submit the empirical evidences that support your claim, sothat they can be examined by the perspicacious audience of this great board.

                          Originally posted by SteaminDemon View Post
                          Even with the numbers (alot of projectiles fired by all), the Jersey was only one ship carrying the 16" guns.
                          The fact that USS New Jersey was the only ship to carry 16" guns in Vietnam is not disputed by anyone. In fact, it's common knowlegde.
                          Last edited by Shipwreck; 02 Jul 08,, 16:20.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            You're (once again) being disingenuous here. What you said earlier was :


                            IOW you've explicitely inferred that 16" projectiles were more effective than 8" and 5" on the basis of the stats contained in Table 5.
                            No, did not just on the basis of table 5.


                            There is MUCH MORE to effectiveness than just kinetic energy.
                            Yes there is, chemical and kinetic energy among other things.


                            You've claimed that the effect of 16" projectiles was *far greater* than that of 8" and 5" projectiles.
                            Yes it is. Will show you below.

                            Now, rather than trying to get away with it and invoke some hypothetical *laws of physics*, you should back up your claim and :
                            How is it hypothetical, and how am I trying to "get away" from anything?

                            1. Quantify what you mean by *far greater*, which so far is nothing but a blanket statement that has no place on a prominent military-centric forum like WAB.
                            Will do. It is not a blanket statement, just something you fail to realize. If you think that ERGM, and the 8" can deliver more MJ's at the target which it seems you do, then theres something wrong.

                            2. Submit the empirical evidences that support your claim, sothat they can be examined by the perspicacious audience of this great board.
                            Will do.

                            16" Mk-13 HC:

                            Available chemical energy 154.8 LB, 3,789 Joules per gram for explosive D = 264,334,584 Joules. At maximum range @ 1552 FPS it gives the projectile 96,452,984 Joules of kinetic energy. Total energy (both chemical and kinetic) at the target is about 361 MJ

                            (being generous, ERGM has about 24.4 MJ of chemical
                            energy and 0.5 MJ of kenetic energy at the target)

                            Looking at the NRAC chart, you can clearly see that none of those projectiles even come close. So there is the information for you and all to see.




                            The fact that USS New Jersey was the only ship to carry 16" guns in Vietnam is not disputed by anyone. In fact, it's common knowlegde.
                            What was the for? Many people know, some don't

                            Special thanks to Zen
                            Attached Files
                            Last edited by SteaminDemon; 04 Jul 08,, 19:11.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by SteaminDemon View Post
                              (being generous, ERGM has about 24.4 MJ of chemical energy and 0.5 MJ of kenetic energy at the target)

                              Looking at the NRAC chart, you can clearly see that none of those projectiles even come close. So there is the information for you and all to see.
                              A mere look at the difference between the *figures* you came up with using your *method* (i.e. 24.9 MJ for ERGM) and the so-called *available energy on target) given in the NRAC chart (i.e. 7 MJ for ERGM) should be sufficient to question the validity of your *method* and the *results* you came up with.

                              Originally posted by SteaminDemon View Post
                              Yes there is, chemical and kinetic energy among other things.
                              There is MUCH MORE to effectiveness than just kinetic and chemical energy...

                              In fact, suggesting that effectiveness is proportional to the sum of kinetic and chemical energies is nothing but MICKEY MOUSE PHYSICS...

                              Originally posted by SteaminDemon View Post
                              Will do. It is not a blanket statement, just something you fail to realize.
                              It is such a BLANKET STATEMENT that you've so far failed to quantify what you meant by *far greater*...

                              Furthermore, I did ask you to submit the empirical evidences that would support your claim and what you've posted so far has nothing to do with empirical evidences...

                              Whenever time permits, I'll be posting such data on KOREA and VIETNAM. And yes, I mean empirical evidences (i.e. based on actual observations).

                              Originally posted by SteaminDemon View Post
                              If you think that ERGM, and the 8" can deliver more MJ's at the target which it seems you do, then theres something wrong.
                              When exactly did I suggest that ERGM and the 8-inch *can deliver more MJ at the target* ?

                              Should you fail to point out when I did, wouldn't it be legitimate to consider that you're being a DISINGENUOUS TROLL ?


                              Originally posted by SteaminDemon View Post
                              What was the for? Many people know, some don't
                              You're kicking in open doors, hence the appropriate emoticon...

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Shipwreck View Post
                                When exactly did I suggest that ERGM and the 8-inch *can deliver more MJ at the target* ?

                                Should you fail to point out when I did, wouldn't it be legitimate to consider that you're being a DISINGENUOUS TROLL ?
                                You didn't, I was just assuming like you do with other people ;). Troll? No. Just clearing some things up. All of them came in handy and helped save lives.
                                Last edited by SteaminDemon; 04 Jul 08,, 19:17.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X