Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

powder question

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
    The New Jersey's accuracy should not gaged upon her Beruit firing. She did the job given to her. Perhaps not as accurate as many would like.
    I don't gauge the jerseys shooting just by her performance in the root. I also controlled fires in the late 80s. While better they were still not up to standards.

    And thats not just my opinion. Its the opinion of the Navy fire support community that assessed through BDA and surveyed plots how all ships shoot.

    Same as they did in Vietnam. Accuracy and cost were not good enough to bring her back for a second tour.

    Originally posted by Rusty
    In other words, if a missile launcher was not hit but had near misses around it, that's the way it was supposed to be.
    and that would count as having "Effect on target" Not as a miss.

    So, in my opinion those guns are the most accurate artillery pieces ever made.
    History doesn't bear that statement out.

    The 14/50s equipped BBs were the most accurate in WW2. The 8/55 Cruisers during Korea and Vietnam. This according to the US Navys Fire support studies during the mentioned time priod

    And the most accurate artillery piece was the M-110A2 8in Howitzer

    Comment


    • #17
      Guys,

      Really like to thank you all for this great thread.
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
        The other sisters had already been regunned with exception to Wisconsin and her barrels were cutlassed before putting her away in the 50's.
        Would you mind giving a quick explanation of "cutlassed"? Air Force guy here who never heard the term and my Google-fu is weak today, as I can only come up with definitions for the sword.

        Thanks
        "Bother", said Poo, chambering another round.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by tuna View Post
          Would you mind giving a quick explanation of "cutlassed"? Air Force guy here who never heard the term and my Google-fu is weak today, as I can only come up with definitions for the sword.

          Thanks
          "Cutlassed" is when the barrel liner protrudes from the muzzle do to the heat and expansion from firing the 16" guns for a prolonged period of time. When the barrel liner protrudes they attach a portable lathe or "cutlass" in parlayence to mill down the protruding barrel liner back to withinn specs for safe firing.

          As seen here aboard Wisconsin in the 1950's

          http://www.usswisconsin.org/Pictures...Turret%201.jpg
          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

          Comment


          • #20
            Thanks Dreadnaught.
            So the guns on the Wisconsin were properly cared for before she was put away?
            "Bother", said Poo, chambering another round.

            Comment


            • #21
              it seems from what i have read on the internet , that the iowa was very accurate so the crawl before you can walk senerio makes sense

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tuna View Post
                Thanks Dreadnaught.
                So the guns on the Wisconsin were properly cared for before she was put away?
                Yes, The Missouri and Wisconsin joined WWII very late in the game. Close to late 1944. Wisconsin was not regunned before being put away. Her guns were maintained until after the Korean War. When they rectivated Wisconsin in the mid 1980's, her guns were original to WWII.
                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                  Yes, The Missouri and Wisconsin joined WWII very late in the game. Close to late 1944. Wisconsin was not regunned before being put away. Her guns were maintained until after the Korean War. When they rectivated Wisconsin in the mid 1980's, her guns were original to WWII.
                  The Missouri is the only ship of the class that I know was re-gunned. I have the Norfolk instructions and a large binder full of photos.

                  The New Jersey was to be re-gunned during her Viet Nam deployment. Nine barrels were sent to Subic Bay, P.I. for the replacements. But the ship's mission was cut way too short (thank you Congress - take another look at that black wall outside your fancy offices to see how many may not have died should the ship remained in the Gulf).

                  The barrels remained at Subic until the Phillipine politicians decided to jack up the rent on the base. So we pulled out including our AFDB (Battleship Floating Dry Dock) and all nine gun barrels.

                  The barrels were stowed on the Mole of LBNS for a few years. Then the Navy declared them excess. Anybody could have one for free, but had to pay the postage. Only 3 were saved. One accidentally wound up on the side lawn of the Maritime Museum 5 miles away when the floating crane made a wrong turn. Two were sent to China Lake Naval Test Station in the Mojave Desert. The trailer each barrel was mounted on for the trip had 24 wheels. That was the trailer alone.

                  The other six barrels were chopped up with carbon arc cutters at a very high cost to the taxpayers. Just cutting a 3-foot long gash down from the muzzle cost $10,000 EACH. The rough hacking through the 49-inch diameter main bodies took several days EACH.

                  So, by my observations, the Iowa and Wisconsin still have their WW II first issue barrels. New Jersey had only one barrel replaced after her return from Lebanon. Missouri had all nine replaced in 1955.
                  Able to leap tall tales in a single groan.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                    I don't gauge the jerseys shooting just by her performance in the root. I also controlled fires in the late 80s. While better they were still not up to standards.

                    And thats not just my opinion. Its the opinion of the Navy fire support community that assessed through BDA and surveyed plots how all ships shoot.

                    Same as they did in Vietnam. Accuracy and cost were not good enough to bring her back for a second tour.



                    and that would count as having "Effect on target" Not as a miss.



                    History doesn't bear that statement out.

                    The 14/50s equipped BBs were the most accurate in WW2. The 8/55 Cruisers during Korea and Vietnam. This according to the US Navys Fire support studies during the mentioned time priod

                    And the most accurate artillery piece was the M-110A2 8in Howitzer
                    Your assesments of accuracy are not necessarily infinite by BDA standards. In just one report, by Maj. Gen Donald M. Weller (USMC) that does mention "accuracy" reported from 1st Div Marines during Korea and Vietnam it was found that in previous conflicts that "organic" spotting from the ships own helicopter dropped her shell expedature on the average by 13 rounds as compared to spotting from carrier based air spotting or ground spotting. In was found in several instances that "inorganic" spotting (others spotting for the ship such as ground spot and carrier based aircraft) were found to have "unsatifactory" results.

                    One could only imagine having todays satellite and drone live feed on how much accuracy could improve. You remove mistakes, misunderstandings, human error and panic.

                    High level bombing as shown in most instances in this report was nowhere near as accurate as comapred to NGF for many targets that land based artillary or howitzers could not touch.

                    The report also entails 1st Marines Division assesment. The numbers are there.

                    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA051873

                    And the cruisers were not as accurate as you may think when they expend almost twice the amount of rounds as compared to the BB's.

                    I might also note that one (either battleship or heavy cruiser) were to stay with the carrier battle group at all times for AA protection as per doctrine. So in other words they all took turns and this removed them from the firing line for a period of time

                    New Jersey was not removed for inaccuracy, there are far too many reports and numbers that mathematically conclude she was worth every penny of her Vietnam cruise. These statements and reports come from all areas of the service in theatre USMC, US Army, USN Fleet Command.

                    To the point that they kept her steaming in circles for over a week and a half instead of sending her home. That alone costs in crew pay, fuel, food, armament loading (for over 10 hours), time taken away from the ships that refueled and rearmed her prove the point that it was never about the money.

                    If it was about money then the USAF should have been pulled long before that for the amount of money expended on destroyed planes and lost pilots which surpassed by far any operating expense of the BB beyond doubt and reason.

                    http://www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/1204vietnam.pdf

                    Reference pg 25 of that report to show losses from 62-73.
                    One can only imagine the cost in aircraft. Astronomical!

                    It definately was not about the accuracy according to reports that I have read and those I have spoken too.

                    Nothing but pure US Politics. Plain and simple.
                    Last edited by Dreadnought; 13 Jun 13,, 23:25.
                    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by RustyBattleship View Post
                      The Missouri is the only ship of the class that I know was re-gunned. I have the Norfolk instructions and a large binder full of photos.

                      The New Jersey was to be re-gunned during her Viet Nam deployment. Nine barrels were sent to Subic Bay, P.I. for the replacements. But the ship's mission was cut way too short (thank you Congress - take another look at that black wall outside your fancy offices to see how many may not have died should the ship remained in the Gulf).

                      The barrels remained at Subic until the Phillipine politicians decided to jack up the rent on the base. So we pulled out including our AFDB (Battleship Floating Dry Dock) and all nine gun barrels.

                      The barrels were stowed on the Mole of LBNS for a few years. Then the Navy declared them excess. Anybody could have one for free, but had to pay the postage. Only 3 were saved. One accidentally wound up on the side lawn of the Maritime Museum 5 miles away when the floating crane made a wrong turn. Two were sent to China Lake Naval Test Station in the Mojave Desert. The trailer each barrel was mounted on for the trip had 24 wheels. That was the trailer alone.

                      The other six barrels were chopped up with carbon arc cutters at a very high cost to the taxpayers. Just cutting a 3-foot long gash down from the muzzle cost $10,000 EACH. The rough hacking through the 49-inch diameter main bodies took several days EACH.

                      So, by my observations, the Iowa and Wisconsin still have their WW II first issue barrels. New Jersey had only one barrel replaced after her return from Lebanon. Missouri had all nine replaced in 1955.
                      i agree with her saving more lives had she stayed in the gulf & since it cost so much to cut up the barrels why didnt they just store them in the desert for basically free??

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        In that very same report you can see shore bombardment from D Day forward maps. You will also note the Texas bombardment assignments as compared to the cruisers. Notice the one area size as compared to the rest.

                        Nevada was by far the best but besides the point.

                        Reasons the older BB's were better at shore bombrdment as compared to the fast BB's. My Opinion.

                        *Gun certerline distance (The older BB's were not outfitted with the newer safety bulkheads and other obstructions in the turret between each gun)
                        The gun spacing much closer and therefore dispersion much better then the newer BB's. Closer impact patterns.

                        *In many cases (ship classes) four turrets. Closer grouping then the fast BB's who had only three turrets with all of the safety improvements. Two sets close together foward and aft as compared to the distance on the newer BB's with three, two foreward one aft.

                        *Single slide guns on the Pearl Harbor BB's. All guns in turret elevate at once instead of being elevated seperately as in the fast BB's.

                        The fast BB's didnt even start to bombard shores until the end of WWII and judging by the reports published by John C Reilly didnt do bad at all.

                        *Practice, Practice, Practice.
                        Last edited by Dreadnought; 13 Jun 13,, 22:37.
                        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by blackzz28 View Post
                          i agree with her saving more lives had she stayed in the gulf & since it cost so much to cut up the barrels why didnt they just store them in the desert for basically free??
                          *Agreed. They were delivered to Subic via USS Guston Hall on a barge loaded into her well deck.
                          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Your link is about the inadequacies of the 5/54.

                            So I'll givee. You guys are right.

                            All I have is 21 years of trained observation, and actual experience calling for fire from these ships with these lying eyes and Official US Navy Fire Support assessments to go on. many of those discussed in that long thread that I linked to.

                            Without them on station its a wonder the Navy even survives.

                            I'm done. And will stay out of the BB fanboy page threads from now on.
                            EOM

                            Gun Grape

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Not going to get in the middle of this save to say I served in three ships with 5" guns (both 38 and 54 Cal), had command of one, and was privileged to be riding Missouri when she shot during RIMPAC 90. I'm no expert save to say I've been on the shooting end of a lot of NGFS practice; mostly as a tactical communicator, when I wasn't in command. What I will comment on however is something that was alluded to in an earlier post, and that is the gimlet eye the Marine Corps keeps on US Navy gun tubes. They know better than we, what we have in our inventory. I spent three years as a strategic planner on the Joint Staff as a Commander/Captain, and you want to see a real food fight start, just talk about decommissioning a "shooter." The Corps becomes quite apoplectic. The Army does too, but to a much lesser extent. I don't blame either one. Like a lot of things in life, you don't miss it until you REALLY need it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                                Your link is about the inadequacies of the 5/54.

                                So I'll givee. You guys are right.

                                All I have is 21 years of trained observation, and actual experience calling for fire from these ships with these lying eyes and Official US Navy Fire Support assessments to go on. many of those discussed in that long thread that I linked to.

                                Without them on station its a wonder the Navy even survives.

                                I'm done. And will stay out of the BB fanboy page threads from now on.
                                EOM

                                Gun Grape
                                You'll forgive me Grape you are correct in that assesment. I was looking more at the shore bombardment content and the 8" & 16" use in that report. Not the 5/54 My bad.

                                I dont question your experience or knowledge and wish you would reconsider the above. I certainly wont call you a liar. I will put up a good argument against some general claims though wether these are just "thrown out" or sincere.

                                What I have been trying to state is that in the hands of a well trained crew the weapon is not inaccurate and no doubt could be improved upon with todays modern tech. The GAO reports on the ships training during the Iowa accident even stated that training the gun crews in the 1980's was very diffacult and not as good as it should have been since the need was not there for several years and much experience was lost from men no longer teaching or no longer alive. The budget and "working" or hands on classroom training just was not there in its entirety the way it should have been conducted. The handbook for the 16"/50 wasnt even produced until the late 1980's. Outside of the former NavOps manuals.
                                Last edited by Dreadnought; 14 Jun 13,, 15:20.
                                Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X