Ask An Expert- Battleships

[RustyBattleship]

Gun Grape said: You understand that in describing the blank firing adapter that it acts in the same way that the projectile does in creating recoil don't you? No pressure=No recoil.
The weight of the projectile plays a part in that a heavier projectile will need more pressure to get it moving/expel it from the barrel. More pressure=more recoil

Try shooting a blank through a rifle/pistol that isn't outfitted with a blank firing adapter. There will be no recoil. Consequently powder ignited through a unrestricted single diameter tube will not cause any force to be exerted to that tube. No pressure will accumulate. No recoil.

The projectile is like the BFA in that it allows pressure to be built up in the chamber, However once the pressure reaches a certain level the projectile is discharged.

I believe that is exactly what I said. It's the amount of gas pressure built up inside the barrel that is suddenly released through the muzzle after the bullet exits. The same with a blank firing adapter. The smaller the hole, the higher the pressure.

The most important thing is that all (or most) of the pressure is down to ambient by the time the bolt opens to eject the casing.

[Gun Grape]

Gun Grape said: You understand that in describing the blank firing adapter that it acts in the same way that the projectile does in creating recoil don't you? No pressure=No recoil.
The weight of the projectile plays a part in that a heavier projectile will need more pressure to get it moving/expel it from the barrel. More pressure=more recoil

Try shooting a blank through a rifle/pistol that isn't outfitted with a blank firing adapter. There will be no recoil. Consequently powder ignited through a unrestricted single diameter tube will not cause any force to be exerted to that tube. No pressure will accumulate. No recoil.

The projectile is like the BFA in that it allows pressure to be built up in the chamber, However once the pressure reaches a certain level the projectile is discharged.

I believe that is exactly what I said. It's the amount of gas pressure built up inside the barrel that is suddenly released through the muzzle after the bullet exits. The same with a blank firing adapter. The smaller the hole, the higher the pressure.

What you are saying now goes against what you said earlier

BUT, recoil is NOT the effect of a 1900 lb Hi-Cap or a 2700 lb AP leaving the muzzle. It's the "rocket" blast of the propellant being expelled out of the muzzle.

On this

The most important thing is that all (or most) of the pressure is down to ambient by the time the bolt opens to eject the casing.

Blanks have a reduced charge to keep pressure down. A full service round with the projectile removed would do nasty things to a gun with a BFA

[RustyBattleship]

GG said: Blanks have a reduced charge to keep pressure down. A full service round with the projectile removed would do nasty things to a gun with a BFA

No argument there. BUT, you have to be careful with what type of blank you are using as well. Blanks with the red plug in them are OK. But those with a crimped neck are to be used ONLY for firing a rifle grenade. However, I have noted that some of today's rifle grenades can be launched with a standard round with a bullet. I think FN was one of the earlier (if not the first) weapons company that came up with that design. Though its purpose was to "save" the soldier time and weight not having to carry special blanks to launch a grenade, it still leaves me a tad queezy about having something that solid in front of a live round. And what if supply issued out the old types of grenades?

[Sanjac]

Here's a better picture that shows the pattern made by the pressure wave from the muzzle.

[RustyBattleship]

Oh yeah. Just recalled one other thing about firing the 16-inhers.

In WW II and Korea, when the order went out to fire full salvos, all three guns in each turret would fire at once. Though the ship didn't move, the turret foundations and roller tracks took up the punishment. Although the barrels could be elevated to a full 45 degrees, restrictions were issued to elevate the guns only 42 degrees (43 Max under special circumstances).

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.

So when we reactivated the ships in the 1980s, the firing order programmed a one quarter second delay between each barrel to allow the turret to recover from recoil. But even that was not enough time so the delay circuitry was increased to a one-half second delay starting with the center gun then the left gun and finally the right gun. But remember, that delay doesn't start until the center gun has fired so therefore all three guns have fired within only one second.

This can also produce some overlapping shock waves in the water as you can see in the photo above.

[Sanjac]

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?

[Gun Grape]

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

[Gun Grape]

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.

[DonBelt]

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.

[Stitch]

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.

[85 gt kid]

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?

[Stitch]

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

[RustyBattleship]

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.

[ArmorPiercing88]

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?

[RustyBattleship]

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.