Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ask An Expert- Battleships

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

  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Rusty, having dealt with the Iowa transfer can answer these questions better (and correct the things I get wrong) but this is what I gathered from reading various GAO reports.

    The Navy went to Congress and this is the plan. Propellant and ammo were scrapped because it cost a whole bunch to properly store. What they did was get the Army Ammo Plant in McAllister Ok, to certify that they can start (restart?) the manufacturing line for 16" in 3 months. The did the same with propellant. The idea being why store old shit that may have reliability problems (its over 70 yrs old) when you can have brand new rounds packed with modern stable fillers rolling off the line in less time then it takes to reactivate the ships that will fire them.

    For spare parts and barrels, reading the 2006 Congressional Record 152, part V Dated Sept 26, the plan for spares, including barrels and unique parts is to rape the other 2 ships if they ever have to be recalled. The Navy did that when bringing them back in the 80s. Taking parts from the North Carolina, Alabama and the rest of the museum fleet..

    Thats what I gather anyway. Thats how the donations can comply.

    (edit- wrong reference for the barrels, that the original transfer of the first 2 Iowas)
    Actually, you have more intel than I have. I had to concentrate on just getting the Iowa out of the ghost fleet and into a safe home before San Francisco forced it to be cut up into Toyota car frames.

    We can make the ammo all right, because that is relatively small size production. It's the gun barrels themselves probably cannot be made again. And to have so many cut up, there are not enough for replacements should the Battleships be reactivated. For example, one barrel that was slated for the carbon arc cutting was actually marked for the USS Iowa. One of our team members of the Pacific Battleship Center (formerly the Iowa Class Preservation Association) found that barrel before cutting and had the muzzle cut off and had it shipped to San Pedro. Our machinists trimmed it down and it is on display in our museum area on the Second Deck.

    An interesting aside here about cutting up Battleships. The heavy Class A and Class B armor is DISASSEMBLED in its intact sections and returned to the Navy. From there it is used to build underground laboratories to try to catch extremely rare neutrinos passing through the planet Earth. The reason why is because all of the iron mined for the armor was used to make such high grade steel BEFORE the first atomic bomb was set off. All atomic bomb tests (and the two used against Japan) have irradiated our planet and the residual effects are found in iron ore that was exposed to it.

    A valiant effort of course, but ironically a Neutrino was finally tracked on BOTH sides of the Earth in underground Salt mine laboratories that just happened to be activated at the same time (they only turn on the instruments for about 15 minutes with quite a delay and not necessarily in tune with each other).

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Rusty, having dealt with the Iowa transfer can answer these questions better (and correct the things I get wrong) but this is what I gathered from reading various GAO reports.

    The Navy went to Congress and this is the plan. Propellant and ammo were scrapped because it cost a whole bunch to properly store. What they did was get the Army Ammo Plant in McAllister Ok, to certify that they can start (restart?) the manufacturing line for 16" in 3 months. The did the same with propellant. The idea being why store old shit that may have reliability problems (its over 70 yrs old) when you can have brand new rounds packed with modern stable fillers rolling off the line in less time then it takes to reactivate the ships that will fire them.

    For spare parts and barrels, reading the 2006 Congressional Record 152, part V Dated Sept 26, the plan for spares, including barrels and unique parts is to rape the other 2 ships if they ever have to be recalled. The Navy did that when bringing them back in the 80s. Taking parts from the North Carolina, Alabama and the rest of the museum fleet..

    Thats what I gather anyway. Thats how the donations can comply.

    (edit- wrong reference for the barrels, that the original transfer of the first 2 Iowas)
    Very interesting! Especially the part about being able to certify they can restart shell production. Thank you!

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    Originally posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
    I've seen it mentioned in a number of news articles that the Iowa has to be kept ready for possible recall until 2020. Who picked that date, and why? Why would the ship need to be kept in that condition if all the gun barrels and ammunition is being scrapped? Does that 2020 date apply to the Wisconsin, too?

    Also I've asked this before but didn't get a satisfactory answer, but how does the navy's decision to scrap the barrels, shells and other infrastructure not run afoul of the 2006 DOA that said that capacity had to be maintained? What authority superseded that statute?

    http://www.dailybreeze.com/article/Z...NEWS/120608737

    "The ships, however, are not particularly tourist-friendly, Horn said, with tight spaces and little open deck room. Under the donation agreement with the Navy, the ship cannot be significantly altered and - though unlikely - needs to be kept available until 2020 for possible recall to duty in the event of a national emergency."
    Rusty, having dealt with the Iowa transfer can answer these questions better (and correct the things I get wrong) but this is what I gathered from reading various GAO reports.

    The Navy went to Congress and this is the plan. Propellant and ammo were scrapped because it cost a whole bunch to properly store. What they did was get the Army Ammo Plant in McAllister Ok, to certify that they can start (restart?) the manufacturing line for 16" in 3 months. The did the same with propellant. The idea being why store old shit that may have reliability problems (its over 70 yrs old) when you can have brand new rounds packed with modern stable fillers rolling off the line in less time then it takes to reactivate the ships that will fire them.

    For spare parts and barrels, reading the 2006 Congressional Record 152, part V Dated Sept 26, the plan for spares, including barrels and unique parts is to rape the other 2 ships if they ever have to be recalled. The Navy did that when bringing them back in the 80s. Taking parts from the North Carolina, Alabama and the rest of the museum fleet..

    Thats what I gather anyway. Thats how the donations can comply.

    (edit- wrong reference for the barrels, that the original transfer of the first 2 Iowas)
    Last edited by Gun Grape; 30 Jan 16,, 17:04.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    I've seen it mentioned in a number of news articles that the Iowa has to be kept ready for possible recall until 2020. Who picked that date, and why? Why would the ship need to be kept in that condition if all the gun barrels and ammunition is being scrapped? Does that 2020 date apply to the Wisconsin, too?

    Also I've asked this before but didn't get a satisfactory answer, but how does the navy's decision to scrap the barrels, shells and other infrastructure not run afoul of the 2006 DOA that said that capacity had to be maintained? What authority superseded that statute?

    http://www.dailybreeze.com/article/Z...NEWS/120608737

    "The ships, however, are not particularly tourist-friendly, Horn said, with tight spaces and little open deck room. Under the donation agreement with the Navy, the ship cannot be significantly altered and - though unlikely - needs to be kept available until 2020 for possible recall to duty in the event of a national emergency."

    Leave a comment:


  • DonBelt
    replied
    Came across this on FB, thought it was interesting: Click image for larger version

Name:	alabama.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	149.8 KB
ID:	1468063

    Leave a comment:


  • ChrisV71
    replied
    Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    All 40mm guns were removed and sent to Crane as well EXCEPT for the two Quad Forties from turrets II & III on the Missouri when we reactivated her in the 1980's. When I reviewed the removal drawing I had a note added in that those two mounts should be saved intact for possible museums. A couple of other supervisors higher than me didn't think that was "legal" to say that on an official Navy Drawing, but they shared my enthusiasm anyway
    When Texas had her dry-docking and overhaul in the late 80's, she got a whole batch of 40mm quads installed that seemed to be in fairly good shape. They said they had come from the Missouri and had been removed when she was reactivated about 2-3 years prior. So I think I know where those mounts may have wound up. Prior to that, Texas had a bunch of 1.1" Chicago Piano's and more single 3" guns than she has now filling the tubs where the quad 40's are now. I'd be curious where those 1.1" quads wound up going...

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Originally posted by ArmorPiercing88 View Post
    So have all the powder and shells for the battleships been disposed of by now? I know Congress said they had to be maintained, but once they started scrapping the remaining gun barrels I assume that is now moot...though I don't understand how it's legal.

    When do we get to the point, national emergency or not, that the Iowas can't be considered recallable assets even in a WWIII scenario? Probably not more than a few years, right?
    To my knowledge, all 16 inch projectiles were shipped to Crane, Indiana for "de-nutting" (removing any explosive material and classified fuse mechanisms). BLP rounds (Blind Loaded Plugs a.k.a. inert practice) were merely stored away. Authorized museums and museum ships (such as the Iowas) can have as many as they want for display. BUT, the shipping is at THEIR cost, not Crane's.

    All 40mm guns were removed and sent to Crane as well EXCEPT for the two Quad Forties from turrets II & III on the Missouri when we reactivated her in the 1980's. When I reviewed the removal drawing I had a note added in that those two mounts should be saved intact for possible museums. A couple of other supervisors higher than me didn't think that was "legal" to say that on an official Navy Drawing, but they shared my enthusiasm anyway.

    The quad forty from T-II is up in Bremerton, Washington. The quad forty from T-III is about a 20 minute drive north of my home. I've been trying to get it back (shield and all) to display either on the pier by the Iowa or actually mount the gun in the port stern tub. But they claim the Navy owns the gun. Though the museum (actually an extension of the Los Angeles City tank museum) welded the gun shield back together just fine. But they only have 3 "Navy" type barrels with their water jackets so they have "Army" type barrels mounted and aimed south along the Whittier Narrows wilderness and half covered by bushes.

    Oh, yeah, the four 5"/38 twin mounts from EACH Iowa class that were removed in way of Tomahawk installation were also sent to Crane. Those mounts weigh about 85 tons each. So if you want one, you need a BIG crane and a BIG truck. Actually, a truck wouldn't do it.

    You need a FREIGHT TRAIN.

    Leave a comment:


  • ArmorPiercing88
    replied
    So have all the powder and shells for the battleships been disposed of by now? I know Congress said they had to be maintained, but once they started scrapping the remaining gun barrels I assume that is now moot...though I don't understand how it's legal.

    When do we get to the point, national emergency or not, that the Iowas can't be considered recallable assets even in a WWIII scenario? Probably not more than a few years, right?

    Leave a comment:


  • RustyBattleship
    replied
    Originally posted by Stitch View Post
    I had heard that another reason for the staggered firing order was so that the supersonic shock waves from the individual shells would not interfere with one another in flight.

    BTW, Rusty, while sleuthing around the internet, I stumbled upon a website that admits (quite proudly, I might add) to "plagiarizing" you, and it was about this very subject!

    http://web.archive.org/web/200805090...h/tech-022.htm
    Ah! Another item to add to my list of fame. That is until I study the meaning of the word.

    And as you said, the delay in firing inadvertantly picked up a second benefit by giving each round in a salvo almost normal air resistance with little or no side wind from the earlier guns firing.

    Now for use of 2700 lb AP's used for coastal targets:

    In Korea, many of the enemy railroads were built alongside steep hills and mountains, thus leaving a cliff on one side of the tracks. Normally, HE rounds would dig up a lot of track and bust apart bridges. But for railroad lines along the edge of a cliff, the Battleships borrowed a method used by Army tanks. It was called the "Pick and Shovel" where an AP round (the "Pick") was drilled into the side of a bunker and then followed up in the same hole with an HE round (the "Shovel").

    So at least one enemy RR was subjected to the same type of "neutralization". The opening rounds of the BB were 2700 lb APs hitting several feet BELOW the tracks. They they were followed up by HE rounds which would bring the entire cliff side down, railroad tracks, track ties, tie ballast, signal poles etc. The enemy could not just fill in some holes and replace the tracks. And rebuilding the side of the cliff during that time was totally out of question.

    As for other bunker busting, during Desert Storm I got a phone call from Bob B------, a good friend of mine in NAVSEA.

    He said, "Dick. Have you heard about Saddam Hussein bragging about how his coastal bunkers had 12 foot thick reinforced concrete walls?"

    I answered the I had heard such bunkers existed but no other details.

    Bob went on to say, "Well, if you remember, I served aboard the Wisconsin in WW II and we took out Japanese bunkers that had 16 foot thick concrete walls. So we just sent a message to "Wisky" asking if they would like to have some Deja Vue."

    Needless to say, by the time the Sun had set in the Gulf, those bunkers were just piles of rubble.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
    Well, that's all fine and dandy but still having all three guns fire at the same time put lots of stress on the turret and turret foundation.
    I had heard that another reason for the staggered firing order was so that the supersonic shock waves from the individual shells would not interfere with one another in flight.

    BTW, Rusty, while sleuthing around the internet, I stumbled upon a website that admits (quite proudly, I might add) to "plagiarizing" you, and it was about this very subject!

    http://web.archive.org/web/200805090...h/tech-022.htm

    Leave a comment:


  • 85 gt kid
    replied
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post

    Yes, you are looking at an inefficient powder/tube combo. Its 1930s tech. Modern propellants could eliminate the flash, lessen the recoil, contribute to accuracy.
    Could they have done that during the 80's? I know they reblended the powder bags leftover from Korea which I assume was more of a money thing then anything but the new propellant would have been good. Could help with barrel corrosion too correct?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stitch
    replied
    Originally posted by Sanjac View Post
    Is it normal to fire all nine guns at once during actual warfare? Do they fire continuously after the first salvo? (I'm imagining the guns being programmed to walk the shells along the target so that the HE rounds get spread along the target; but then, I really don't know what kind of targets these big ships shoot at.)

    Does all that visible fire come from powder continuing to burn after it leaves the barrel?
    I'm not a naval warfare expert, but from what I understand, the 16's were usually used against large industrial targets, like factories and railyards, using the HE round; and "hard" targets, like bridges and bunkers, using the AP round. And, no, they didn't typically fire off full broadsides during NGFS; they might do that to "bracket" an enemy ship, but in most scenarios (NGFS), the shooting was very deliberate, and adjustments were made after every shot to "zero" the shells in on the target.

    In Korea, they typically used a helicopter to "spot" the rounds, due to the rough terrain in that country; a spotter on the ship usually couldn't see the target (or the shells landing) due to the mountainous terrain in that country, so they either used a forward observer, a spotter plane from a carrier, or their own onboard HO3S-1 helicopters.

    Interestingly, the "heavy" Mk 8 Mod 0 AP rounds (2700 lbs. each) were originally designed to sink other ships, but a lot more of them ended up destroying hardened structures and bridges (especially railroad bridges) in Korea.

    Leave a comment:


  • DonBelt
    replied
    Most of the missions in which the battleships were used post WW2 were NGFS missions- shore bombardment in support of troops ashore or to target enemy supplies or installations or other resources near the coast line. Typically you have a call for fire or fire mission or you are engaging a pre-planned target. You fire a round at your coordinates and a forward observer or spotter on the ship if it is a direct fire mission, observes the fall of shot. The spotter calls out corrections if it is not within the effective blast area of the munition, if it is they call for fire for effect- a number of rounds fired that will given the margin for error have at least a couple of direct hits and have the target within the area of effect for most of the rounds. This was how we did it with MK 45 5" 54 and MK 86 GFCS and a couple of TDT's. Engaging a maneuvering surface target was much different and the gfcs did most of the work unless you used the ROS, but then it still did most of the work once you selected your target. 16 inch on the battleships would've been done much differently against surface targets than what I've experienced with the 86, but most of the careers of the Iowa's have been NGFS or shore bombardment of one sort or another and that hadn't changed that much by the 80's when I was in.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    Originally posted by Sanjac View Post
    Is it normal to fire all nine guns at once during actual warfare? Do they fire continuously after the first salvo? (I'm imagining the guns being programmed to walk the shells along the target so that the HE rounds get spread along the target; but then, I really don't know what kind of targets these big ships shoot at.)
    Sometimes but not often, the answer is dependent on what type of mission they are firing, size of target and a bunch of other stuff
    Does all that visible fire come from powder continuing to burn after it leaves the barrel?
    Yes, you are looking at an inefficient powder/tube combo. Its 1930s tech. Modern propellants could eliminate the flash, lessen the recoil, contribute to accuracy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gun Grape
    replied
    Originally posted by Sanjac View Post
    Here's a better picture that shows the pattern made by the pressure wave from the muzzle.

    You can see that only one tube from turrets 2 and 3 have fired in that pic.

    In the other pic all three turrets are firing and multiple tubes from each tube. That's why you get the chop
    Click image for larger version

Name:	800px-BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg
Views:	2
Size:	106.9 KB
ID:	1468034

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X