mayse@cs.uiuc.edu (Chip Mayse) (09/29/90)
From: Chip Mayse <mayse@cs.uiuc.edu>
Regarding the whereabouts of formerly-active U. S. battleships, I believe
that the North Carolina and the Alabama are also on exhibit in their
namesake states, though I don't know in what ports. Of the six non-
Iowa-class BB's built during WW2, this leaves the Washington (NC class)
and the South Dakota and Indiana (SD class) unaccounted for, and
presumably scrapped. Does anyone else "out there" know?
cmayse@ncsa.uiuc.edu
[mod.note: USS Washington was broken up in 1961. South Dakota was
scrapped in '62, and Indiana in '64. Alaska and Guam were broken up
in '61, as well. - Bill ]craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Craig R Albrechtson) (10/03/90)
From: craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Craig R Albrechtson) On the subject of battleships, in addition to the USS Arizona the USS Utah is also sitting on the bottom of perl harbor. The Uss Utah on Dec 7th was sitting in carrier row and the attacking Japaneese thought it was a Aircraft Carrier and sank it, and it remains there to this day. Craig Albrechtson-University of Wisconsin Milwaukee
craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Craig R Albrechtson) (10/11/90)
From: craiga@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Craig R Albrechtson) On the subject of battleships I heard that the U.S.S New Jersey is going to be decomsisioned. I heard this from a friend of mine whos brother was stationed aboard the ship. The New Jersey is currently located in Los Angeles at the preasent time. I have no idea what the Navy plans to do with the vessel.
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (10/15/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> Both the New Jersey and the Iowa (BB's 61 & 62) are to be returned to mothballs at Bremerton, WA. The New Jersey is currently at San Diego having most of its weaponry (CWIS, Harpoon, Tomahawk) stripped off for use on other vessels. The Iowa is currently in Norfolk. Allan
mayse@cs.uiuc.edu (Chip Mayse) (10/15/90)
From: Chip Mayse <mayse@cs.uiuc.edu>
Decommissioning the Iowa and New Jersey was one of the cost-saving measures
being discussed a few months back, during all the talk of cutting back the
size/cost of the post-Cold-War armed forces. Presumably the logic is that
the Missouri and Wisconsin are newer, and therefore the ones to leave in
service. (The Iowa may also still have some unrepaired damage from its
turret fire). I haven't heard anything about this (or, for that matter,
about the "peace dividend") since early August.
Chip Mayse
cmayse@ncsa.uiuc.eduklb@pegasus.att.com (Kevin Blatter) (10/16/90)
From: klb@pegasus.att.com (Kevin Blatter) I noticed recently when reading the article on the USN Battleships that only two BB's were sunk during combat (and stayed that way). The only two that I recall from the list were the USS Arizona and the USS Utah, both of which are collecting barnacles at Pearl Harbor. Could this really be true? How come the US never lost any other BB's? Good tactics? Kevin L. Blatter AT&T - Bell Labs Lincroft, NJ [mod.note: More like good luck, I guess. Our entry into WWI didn't come until the British navy defeated the Germans at Jutland; there were no big naval fights after that. We didn't get involved in the early WWII fighting in the Atlantic, where ship-to-ship gunnery did occur, and in the Pacific, the prime targets were (after Pearl Harbor) always carriers. There were, of course, some battleship gunnery fights in the Pacific, but excepting Yamato and Musashi, our battleship line was superior to that of the Japanese; and the Yamatos were both sunk by aircraft. - Bill ]
phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) (10/18/90)
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) In article <1990Oct16.010804.10809@cbnews.att.com> klb@pegasus.att.com (Kevin Blatter) writes: > > >From: klb@pegasus.att.com (Kevin Blatter) > >I noticed recently when reading the article on the USN Battleships that only >two BB's were sunk during combat (and stayed that way). The only two that I >recall from the list were the USS Arizona and the USS Utah, both of which are >collecting barnacles at Pearl Harbor. > >How come the US never lost any other BB's? Good tactics? > >Kevin L. Blatter >AT&T - Bell Labs >Lincroft, NJ > >[mod.note: More like good luck, I guess...] USS Oklahoma is listed as a war loss. As the article said, she was refloated but never repaired or recommissioned. At the time of her loss, USS Utah was not a battleship -- she had lost her main armament and was used as an AA training ship and, with her AA guns covered, a target. USS Wyoming served thru WWII with a bizarre asymmetrical AA battery for training, but was not used as a battleship. USS Maine was, of course, blown up in Havana in 1898. She was only sort of a battleship, though, and the explosion was as likely an accident as a mine. So I see our total battleship losses as two -- Arizona and Oklahoma. The salvage job on the Oklahoma's hulk is worth an article by itself. phil -- | phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG | Phil Gustafson | {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil | UNIX/Graphics Consultant | sgi!gsi!phil | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126 | phil@gsi | 408/286-1749
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (10/24/90)
From: richard welty <welty@lewis.crd.ge.com> From klb@pegasus.att.com (Kevin Blatter) >I noticed recently when reading the article on the USN Battleships that only >two BB's were sunk during combat (and stayed that way). The only two that I >recall from the list were the USS Arizona and the USS Utah, both of which are >collecting barnacles at Pearl Harbor. >Could this really be true? >How come the US never lost any other BB's? Good tactics? >[mod.note: More like good luck, I guess. ...] a big part of it was that the survivors of Pearl Harbor were immediately withdrawn to convoy escort between Hawaii and the west coast, and were not returned to service in the more dangerous areas of the Pacific until the new BBs and the newer CVs were ready; when returned they were primarily treated as floating shore bombardment platforms. this was done because Kimmel, and his replacement, Nimitz, both recognized that the 22knot top speed of these older ships was tantamount to a death warrant if they were ever placed up against the Japanese carrier units. Kimmel may have been caught by suprise at Pearl Harbor, but the man wasn't stupid. he completely understood the implications of the nature of the attack. richard
swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) (10/25/90)
From: swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) >From klb@pegasus.att.com (Kevin Blatter) > >>How come the US never lost any other BB's? Good tactics? The battleships never got to be the "stars" in the World War II, especially in the Pacific Theater; the aircraft carriers became the most important offensive pieces. Not surprising, since the battleships have a "hitting radius" of about 20 miles, whereas the aircraft carriers could strike at targets up to 350 miles away. If I am right, there was no battle between the American and Japanese battleships in World War II. Since the battleships were too vulnerable to air attacks from aircraft carriers, their movements were limited (i.e., the battleships generally avoided the enemy aircraft carriers and enemy-held islands that had airfields). [mod.note: This is incorrect. There were Japanese-American battleship duels off Guadalcanal and at the Suriagao Straight. - Bill ] The American battleships were used mainly in naval bombardment during offensive invasions of islands, and they also were used to provide antiaircraft screen for aircraft carriers - the battleships carried a lot of antiaircraft guns. This probably explains why U.S. didn't lose any other battleships.
khai@uunet.UU.NET (S. Khai Mong) (10/29/90)
From: mailrus!sharkey!amara!khai@uunet.UU.NET (S. Khai Mong)
In article <1990Oct25.145356.29834@cbnews.att.com> swilliam@dtoa1.dt.navy.mil (Williams) writes:
(about Japanese-American battleship duels)
[mod.note: This is incorrect. There were Japanese-American battleship
duels off Guadalcanal and at the Suriagao Straight. - Bill ]
The battle of Suriagao Strait was a no-contest, though. The Japanese
fleet coming up the strait was not the best the Japanese had to offer
plus, given the geography, they were almost on a suicidal mission. In
fact, it was one of the few times in history that the classic "T" was
crossed, where the entire broadside of the American battleship line
was brought to bear on an advancing Japanese fleet. The disastrous
results for the Japanese would have been worse if the American ships
hadn't been low on armor piercing rounds.
--
Sao Khai Mong: Applied Dynamics, 3800 Stone School Road, Ann Arbor, Mi48108
(313)973-1300 (uunet|sharkey)!amara!khai khai@adi.comscottmi@ncar.UCAR.EDU (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) (10/29/90)
From: boulder!boulder!scottmi@ncar.UCAR.EDU (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Off Guadalcanal the USS Washington and USS South Dakota engaged IJN Kirishima.
South Dakota was crippled early in the fight when the blast from one of the
5"/38's damaged an electrical conduit, shorting the ship's entire electrical
system out. Kirishima fired at South Dakota during this time, causing lots of
superficial damage (no belt or turret penetrations, though.) Washington fired
75 16-inch shells at Kirishima, and nine of these hit. Wrecked by these hits,
Kirishima was scuttled by its crew.
At the Surigao Straits, a total of six US battleships, including California,
Maryland, West Virginia, Tennessee (and I believe Idaho and Mississippi - I'm
working from memory here), backed up by cruisers and destroyers, destroyed
almost all of Admiral Nishimura's forces, including the battleships Fuso and
Yamashiro. IJN Fuso was destroyed by torpedos from US destroyers, while IJN
Yamashiro was destroyed by the overwhelming concentration of American gunfire on
it (the six US battleships mounted a total of 48 14-inch and 16 16-inch guns.)
Additionally, USS Massachusetts shelled the incomplete Vichy French battleship
Jean Bart, (which had been firing it's few operational 15-inch guns at Allied
ground formations) until its fire ceased. Jean Bart was not an operational
battleship at this time, but the three Japanese battleships sunk in the two
engagements mentioned above were.
"Organize for Anarchy." -E. Clark henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (10/30/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) In article <1990Oct29.024749.5785@cbnews.att.com> mailrus!sharkey!amara!khai@uunet.UU.NET (S. Khai Mong) writes: >plus, given the geography, they were almost on a suicidal mission. In >fact, it was one of the few times in history that the classic "T" was >crossed, where the entire broadside of the American battleship line >was brought to bear on an advancing Japanese fleet... And to cap it off, this was a night battle and some of the US battleships had fire-control radar. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (11/01/90)
From: fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <1990Oct30.050136.3942@cbnews.att.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > > From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) > In article <1990Oct29.024749.5785@cbnews.att.com> mailrus!sharkey!amara!khai@uunet.UU.NET (S. Khai Mong) writes: > >plus, given the geography, they were almost on a suicidal mission. In > >fact, it was one of the few times in history that the classic "T" was > >crossed, where the entire broadside of the American battleship line > >was brought to bear on an advancing Japanese fleet... > > And to cap it off, this was a night battle and some of the US battleships > had fire-control radar. The Imperial Navy put in a lot of time training for night surface actions, and expected to have a distinct edge over the US Navy in such engagements. Actually, it worked pretty well as planned several other times. Good night vision just isn't enough of a counter to reasonable radar. (The Japanese Navy did have radar, but it was too little, too late, and not effective enough.) -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
tm1y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas A. McGowan) (12/09/90)
From: "Thomas A. McGowan" <tm1y+@andrew.cmu.edu> > From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) > In article <1990Oct29.024749.5785@cbnews.att.com> > mailrus!sharkey!amara!khai@uunet.UU.NET (S. Khai Mong) writes: > >plus, given the geography, they were almost on a suicidal mission. In > >fact, it was one of the few times in history that the classic "T" was > >crossed, where the entire broadside of the American battleship line > >was brought to bear on an advancing Japanese fleet... > And to cap it off, this was a night battle and some of the US battleships > had fire-control radar. This is not entirely true. In 1905 the Japanese fleet "crossed the T" on the Russia fleet and gave it a good pasting! This got japan recognized as a naval power. But the "T" is not perfect. In the battle of Trafalgar (sp), admiral Nelson of the Royal Navy blasted the spanish by charging into the "T" with two groups. This effectively split the spanish fleet into three groups. This also allowed him to bring both sets of broadsides to bear from both groups. This let two Spanish "thirds" get plastered with one set each while the middle third got two sets of broadsides. I guess you could call this the "H" Lastly, the battle you refer to above is the battle of Serigaro (sp) strait, which was a part of the battle of "Lettye Gulf" (sp). The best part of this was these were the battleships that were sunk at Pearl Harbor (less three". So it was even sweeter revenge. --Andy "Hydran Commander" --Andy "Hydran Commander" [mod.note: On spelling, "Surigao" and "Leyte", respectively. Trafalgar is correct. - Schoolmarm Bill ]
phil@hpsmdca.corp.hp.com (Philip Walden) (12/12/90)
From: phil@hpsmdca.corp.hp.com (Philip Walden) >From: "Thomas A. McGowan" <tm1y+@andrew.cmu.edu> > > But the "T" is not perfect. In the battle of Trafalgar (sp), admiral >Nelson of the Royal Navy blasted the spanish by charging into the "T" Spanish? Trafalgar? Perhaps you have the wrong battle or Country. Nelson fought the French fleet at Trafalgar. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Philip Walden Hewlett Packard Product Generation Processes Lab Integrated Product Engineering Systems 3155 Porter Drive, M/S 28AQ Palo Alto, CA 94304-1213 (415) 857-3899 FAX (415) 857-7499 --------------------------------------------------------------------------
tm1y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas A. McGowan) (12/13/90)
From: "Thomas A. McGowan" <tm1y+@andrew.cmu.edu> This post is in regard to my error in a previous post. Mr. Walden was quite correct in pointing out my error. The English pounded the FRENCH at Trafalgar. Please excuse my error. The only thing I can say in my defense is that it is exam time. (oh well) --Andy "Hydran Commander"
janesdc@uunet.UU.NET (Dave Janes @ SCD) (12/13/90)
From: eplrx7!janesdc@uunet.UU.NET (Dave Janes @ SCD) In article <1990Dec12.032833.12370@cbnews.att.com> phil@hpsmdca.corp.hp.com (Philip Walden) writes: > >Nelson fought the French fleet at Trafalgar. Actually, Nelson fought the combined Spanish-French fleet, and the largest ship present at Trafalgar, the Santissma Trinidad (sp?) was a part of the Spanish fleet. See Keegan's _The_Price_of_Admiralty for a good overview of the battle and the events leading up to it. Dave Janes janesdc%esvax@dupont.com
madmax@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) (12/13/90)
From: madmax@tartarus.uchicago.edu (Max Abramowitz) In <1990Dec12.032833.12370@cbnews.att.com> phil@hpsmdca.corp.hp.com (Philip Walden) writes: >Nelson fought the French fleet at Trafalgar. Actually, Admiral Nelson fought the both the French and the Spanish; they were allies during the Napoleonic Wars. Max Abramowitz madmax@gargoyle.uchicago.edu These are my opinions.
thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) (12/14/90)
From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) [mod.note: Followups to soc.history, please. I think this clarifies the situation enough for sci.military. - Bill ] In article <1990Dec12.032833.12370@cbnews.att.com> phil@hpsmdca.corp.hp.com (Philip Walden) writes: > > >From: phil@hpsmdca.corp.hp.com (Philip Walden) > >>From: "Thomas A. McGowan" <tm1y+@andrew.cmu.edu> >> >> But the "T" is not perfect. In the battle of Trafalgar (sp), admiral >>Nelson of the Royal Navy blasted the spanish by charging into the "T" > >Spanish? Trafalgar? Perhaps you have the wrong battle or Country. > >Nelson fought the French fleet at Trafalgar. > You're both right :-), it was a mixed French-Spanish force. Nelson split his fleet into two columns, essentially giving the allies the crossing to two British Ts simultaneously. Had the French and Spanish been prepared (in various senses of the word) to use this opportunity, Nelson's force as well as Nelson would have been toast. The moral of this engagement is not "Be aggressive," but rather "Know your enemy." What Nelson succeeded in doing was to split the allied force into separate parts, and overwhelm the upwind parts before the downwind parts could get back into action, a plan of battle not suited for later wars (he also relied on the short effective range of gunnery of his day - much has been said about ship's armor, but the ships of Nelson's day were much better armored against their own guns than ships of almost any later period). DHT
jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) (02/14/91)
From: jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) The news reported that the Missouri shelled Iraq, and not many shells were reported. Then it was reported as replaced by the Wisconsin, and today I read that the Missouri is back. Is there some feature of battleships that limits the number that can be fired or limits the time the battleship can spend in the place from which it fires?
plague@milton.u.washington.edu (Jack Brown) (02/15/91)
From: plague@milton.u.washington.edu (Jack Brown) > >today I read that the Missouri is back. Is there some feature of >battleships that limits the number that can be fired or limits the >time the battleship can spend in the place from which it fires? Not particularly. It's just that they don't _need_ to fire very many rounds. It doesn't take very many Volkswagen Beetle sized shells to mess up whatever you're shooting at. Jack Brown aka plague@milton.u.washington.edu
cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) (02/15/91)
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold) > The news reported that the Missouri shelled Iraq, and not many shells > were reported. Then it was reported as replaced by the Wisconsin, and > today I read that the Missouri is back. Is there some feature of > battleships that limits the number that can be fired or limits the > time the battleship can spend in the place from which it fires? From the descriptions, I would guess that the BBs were doing a bit of OJT - firing at live (real) targets as a means to train the gun crews, fire control teams, liaison people, etc. They fired at least one 9-gun "broadside" each. This will also test out the entire ship's systems - any weak pipes, valves, electrical connections, etc. will tend to fail during firing due to the shock and vibration. The BBs can fire at a sustained rate until the magazines are empty. I don't know the rate offhand; it must take about 4-5 minutes to get all three tubes reloaded. [mod.note: Rate of fire for the Iowa class (and most WWII-era battleships) is about 2 rounds per minute. All tubes can be loaded simultaneously, so that can mean 2 broadsides, 18 rounds, per minute. - Bill ]
phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) (02/15/91)
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) In article <1991Feb13.220636.4720@cbnews.att.com> jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes: >From: jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) >The news reported that the Missouri shelled Iraq, and not many shells >were reported. Then it was reported as replaced by the Wisconsin, and >today I read that the Missouri is back. Is there some feature of >battleships that limits the number that can be fired or limits the >time the battleship can spend in the place from which it fires? The limits to battleship fire are set by their ammunition capacity and the guns' barrel wear. Battleship loads were traditionally calculated to include 100 rounds per main-battery gun (1,100+ tons of projectiles for the Iowas!) and were routinely exceeded in wartime. 16" guns have to be relined every 200-300 rounds, depending on the size of the charges and projectiles used. A battleship can stay wherever it likes as long as it doesn't run out of fuel or food and nobody sinks it. Given two BB's in a relatively small place, and given the need of only one ship on any given day, it seems sensible to let them take turns. It equalizes magazine exhaustion, gun wear, and crew stress between the ships. -- | phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG | Phil Gustafson | {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil | UN*X/graphics consultant | sgi!gsi!phil | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126 | phil@gsi | 408/286-1749
phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) (02/19/91)
From: phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) In article <1991Feb18.052418.9551@cbnews.att.com> steve@nuchat.sccsi.com (Steve Nuchia) writes: >phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes: >>for the Iowas!) and were routinely exceeded in wartime. 16" guns have >>to be relined every 200-300 rounds, depending on the size of the charges >>and projectiles used. > >I was told that during 'Nam they were worried about using up the >last of the liners and discovered that a teflon garbage bag "condom" >on the shell reduced the wear to just about zero. > >Could have been a sea story, but it sounded plausible, and I know >the U.S. no longer has any plant that makes 16" barrel liners. Phil, >was your statement a general one or do you have up-to-date info >on the estimated life of the BB gun liners? My statement was general. Next trip to the library I'll see whether I can find any specific info. The use of Hefty bags as projectile comdoms is a new one on me. The only detailed description of 16" gun operation in modern times that I've come across was a report on the Iowa turret explosion. No plastic liner was used there, so it's at least not always done. This has come up before, but does anyone have any idea how many 16"/50's and liners still exist? Could we reline a gun if we had to? >[mod.note: I would presume they still have available 16" practice >ammunition. My reference (Friedman, _US Naval Weapons_ is on loan right >now, but as I recall this special round and powder charge increased >barrel life by an order of magnitude. - Bill ] Just using HE, rather than armor-piercing, ammo eases things on the gun a great deal. Seeing as there's no armor around to pierce, one suspects that that's what they're using. Practice ammo is just that -- it carries no explosive charge. Annoying if it actually hits you, but Mostly Harmless otherwise. Trivia for the day: On October 10, 1942, the _Idaho_ fired its forward magazines to exhaustion, more or less to prove that she could do it. 100 rounds each from six guns took 143 salvos (when firing time came, all the guns weren't always ready) and about three and a half hours. There were only thirteen misfires in 600 rounds. Must have been noisy. -- | phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG | Phil Gustafson | {ames|pyramid|vsi1}!zorch!phil | UN*X/graphics consultant | sgi!gsi!phil | 1550 Martin Ave., San Jose CA 95126 | phil@gsi | 408/286-1749
jimcat@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) (02/19/91)
From: jimcat@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) In article <1991Feb18.052418.9551@cbnews.att.com> steve@nuchat.sccsi.com (Steve Nuchia) writes: > >the U.S. no longer has any plant that makes 16" barrel liners. In fact, I think we still do. The Watervliet Aresnal (just across the river from here) still has the original equipment used to make the liners, although I don't think they can make new barrels. There are actually several spare barrels which are periodically rotated when one needs to be relined, so a BB doesn't have to sit idle or go out with a gun missing. Is Rich Welty still reading this group? He posted some useful information on the subject when people were asking 16" gun questions after the turret explosion on the Iowa. -- Jim Kasprzak kasprzak@mts.rpi.edu (internet) RPI, Troy, NY userfe0u@rpitsmts.bitnet "A spirit with a vision is a dream with a mission." -Rush
gkr@trout.nosc.mil (Gregory K. Ramsey) (02/20/91)
From: gkr@trout.nosc.mil (Gregory K. Ramsey) In article <1991Feb15.063834.6823@cbnews.att.com> plague@milton.u.washington.edu (Jack Brown) writes: >It doesn't take very many Volkswagen Beetle sized shells to mess up whatever ^^^^^ >you're shooting at. I realize that this might be nitpicking, but I would think that a group as knowledgeable as this would not blindly follow the news media into such an obvious error. The projectiles on the BBs have the mass of a Volkswagen, not the size. They are at most 16" in diameter and ~5 feet long depending on the the type of round. Greg greg@anacapa.ncel.navy.mil [mod.note: While I'm sure the author realized this, the message serves to point out that one shouldn't assume that the readers will correctly interpret a statement like this. - Bill ]
thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) (02/21/91)
From: plains!umn-cs!LOCAL!thornley@uunet.UU.NET (David H. Thornley) I found my references on battleship gun barrel life. Norman Friedman, _U.S._Naval_Weapons_, gives the 16" Mark 7 50-caliber gun (used on the _Iowa_ class) as having a barrel life of 300 rounds using the 2700lb shell fired at 2500 fps. Alternative rounds listed are the 1900lb 2690 fps service shell (0.43 full-round equivalents), the 1900lb 1900 fps HC round (0.03), and the 2700lb 1800fps target shell (0.08). Therefore, assuming the use of the HC round, each gun could fire 300/0.03 = ten thousand rounds. Maximum range would doubtless be reduced, due to the lower muzzle velocity and the lighter shell (and hence less cross-sectional density), from the 42,000 yards or so of the main shell. DHT [mod.note: According to Garzke, Dulin, and Sumrall in _Battleships, US Battleships in WWII_, the 1900-lb HC round had a range of 41,622 yards on normal (660-lb) charge and 27,350 yards on the 315-lb reduced charge. The 2700-lb AP round could reach 42,345 yards. - Bill ]
jmasly@mainz-emh2.army.mil (John Masly) (02/21/91)
From: John Masly <jmasly@mainz-emh2.army.mil> steve@nuchat.sccsi.com (Steve Nuchia) writes: >I was told that during 'Nam they were worried about using up the >last of the liners and discovered that a teflon garbage bag "condom" >on the shell reduced the wear to just about zero. While coating a projectile with Teflon may reduce the barrel liner wear somewhat, it does not bring it to 'just about zero'. There are usually two points on a projectile that cause friction wear; the rotating band and the bourolette (spelling?). Teflon would reduce the friction between the bourolette and the liner, but the force of driving the rotating band into the rifling would tend to quickly remove the Teflon coating at that point, so you would get little gain in that area. Also bear in mind that friction is only one source of wear in a barrel. The other major source of wear is the action of the hot propellant gasses on the metal. As the projectile accelerates down the tube, the gasses produced by the propellant also accelerate toward the muzzle. These hot gasses erode the metal of the liner, and by far are the most significant componant of total barrel wear. >This has come up before, but does anyone have any idea how many 16"/50's >and liners still exist? Could we reline a gun if we had to? The last I recall seeing them, there were about a dozen complete 16" tubes sitting on the ground at U.S. Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren VA. I believe that Watervliet Arsenal (Army) still retains the capability to reline gun tubes up to 16". >[mod.note: I would presume they still have available 16" practice >ammunition. My reference (Friedman, _US Naval Weapons_ is on loan right >now, but as I recall this special round and powder charge increased >barrel life by an order of magnitude. - Bill ] I would guess that this practice ammo was a good deal lighter than the projectiles used for battle, thereby allowing the use of a smaller propellant charge, and therefore reducing the erosion caused by the hot propellant gasses. >From phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson): >Just using HE, rather than armor-piercing ammo, eases things on the >gun a great deal. AP rounds should not cause any more (or less) wear than HE rounds, provided that the same powder charge is used in both firings.
msjohnso@ensub.Wichita.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson) (02/21/91)
From: msjohnso@ensub.Wichita.NCR.COM (Mark Johnson) Some notes of interest on the 16" rifles on the Iowa-class battleships: The last of the 1940's vintage projectiles were expected to be used up during 1990, and the production line was to start manufacturing new shells sometime during the middle of last year. This is the first all-new production since 1947. All intervening work has been remanufacturing, including both maintenance and upgrading. The 16" projectiles are produced at the Crane Naval Weapons Support Center in southern Indiana (yes, Virginia, there is a Naval base in Indiana), under supervision of the Army. That's right, the Army. All ammunition and artillery-related work at Crane is now operated by the Army, although the base command and ordnance support work is a Navy activity. (Author's note: I worked as a contractor at NWSC Crane during 1989-90; all the above information is out of local Indiana newspapers.) -- Mark Johnson WB9QLR/0 NCR Peripheral Products Division Mark.Johnson@Wichita.NCR.COM 3718 N. Rock Rd. (316) 636-8189 NAR #14025 Wichita, KS 67226
hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo) (02/23/91)
From: hhm@ihlpy.att.com (Herschel H Mayo) > > Just using HE, rather than armor-piercing, ammo eases things on the > gun a great deal. Seeing as there's no armor around to pierce, Quite to the contrary, I suspect that they are using armor piercing shells. After the invasion of Tarawa (I think) the Navy wondered why so many Japanese troops were able to survive after the island had been drenched with bombs and shell fire. They surveyed the Japanese bunkers, and built identical replicas of them for ballistic tests. Much to the horror of the researchers, they discovered that sand has an astounding ability to absorb shock, leaving the defenders in the bunkers unharmed. Further tests showed that armor piercing rockets and shells could cut through the sand and explode beneath the ground causing far more damage to enemy positions. I presume that this fact has not been forgotten. Larry
welty@sol.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (02/27/91)
From: welty@sol.crd.ge.com (richard welty) In article <1991Feb19.031700.16527@cbnews.att.com> phil@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Phil Gustafson) writes: >This has come up before, but does anyone have any idea how many 16"/50's >and liners still exist? Could we reline a gun if we had to? according to _The Iowa Class Battleships_ (Malcolm Muir, Blandford Press, UK, distributed by Sterling Press in the US), in addition to the 36 barrels on the 4 Iowa class ships, in 1981 there were 33 spare barrels which are ready for use; 24 at Hawthorne, Nevada, and 9 at Subic Bay in the Philipines. there were at that time 9 barrels at the Dalgren range, 3 in storage and 4 for testing, and there was an additional barrel at the Yuma Proving grounds. the book goes on to claim that the Watervliet arsenal could manufacture more barrels, which is not true; some of the equipment no longer exists. the Arsenal *can* reline barrels; the necessary lathes, shrink pits, and chrome pits still are in place and operational. as of 1981, there were 13 liner forgings at the Arsenal; more could be made. before Kuwait, the barrels were not being worn at that fast a rate, so i would expect that the figures are not significantly different today, although the locations of various materials may have changed. as far as this teflon business goes, here is the scoop: the silk propellant bags are wrapped in a jacket containing what is called `Swedish additive', which is titanium dioxide and wax. when fired, the additive forms a layer over the bore, which Muir says is ``rather like coating it with Teflon'. wear by an AP shell is cut by 75%; HC shells cause even less wear. cheers, richard -- richard welty welty@sol.crd.ge.com 518-393-7228, Infologic, 1400 Balltown Road, Niskayuna, New York
gkr@trout.nosc.mil (Gregory K. Ramsey) (02/28/91)
From: gkr@trout.nosc.mil (Gregory K. Ramsey) In article <1991Feb27.015634.19142@cbnews.att.com> welty@sol.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes: > > >From: welty@sol.crd.ge.com (richard welty) > >according to _The Iowa Class Battleships_ (Malcolm Muir, Blandford Press, >UK, distributed by Sterling Press in the US), in addition to the 36 >barrels on the 4 Iowa class ships, in 1981 there were 33 spare barrels which >are ready for use; 24 at Hawthorne, Nevada, and 9 at Subic Bay in the >Philipines. there were at that time 9 barrels at the Dalgren range, 3 in >storage and 4 for testing, and there was an additional barrel at the Yuma >Proving grounds. As of my last drill weekend (9-10 Feb) there were 6-9 16" barrels sitting in a storage lot on the Long Beach Naval Shipyard. (They can be seen from the city street along the front of the base) I was once told that these were the ones I saw in the Phillipines on my last WESTPAC in 1981, but I can't confirm that. Greg
rlevasse@boston.Prime.COM (Roger Levasseur) (03/01/91)
From: rlevasse@boston.Prime.COM (Roger Levasseur)
[Discussion of extra 16" 50 calibre gun barrels]
Please do not forget that there were 2 additional Iowa class
battleships that were canceled during their construction (by
which time WWII had ended). It would not surprise me if
many of these barrels were procured for those 2 battleships.
I would like to pose one question: during this most recent
reactivations of all 4 Iowa's, did all 4 of them ever link up
and steam together? I have seen a picture from the early 80's
when reactivations were being discussed that showed the last
time they all steamed together back in the early 50's (if I
remember the date correctly).
--
Roger M. Levasseur
Prime/Computervision
14 Crosby Drive { sun | decvax }!cvbnet!boston!rlevasse
Bedford, Mass. 01730 rlevasse@boston.prime.comhall@EBay.Sun.COM (Scott Hallmark) (03/05/91)
From: hall@EBay.Sun.COM (Scott Hallmark) In article <1991Mar1.051734.27852@cbnews.att.com>, rlevasse@boston.Prime.COM (Roger Levasseur) writes) >I would like to pose one question: during this most recent >reactivations of all 4 Iowa's, did all 4 of them ever link up >and steam together? No. All four Iowa class BB's have not steamed together since reactivation. The Missouri and New Jersey have steamed together off of Long Beach. And the Missouri did a hand off during the Iran/Iraq war with the Iowa. And now the Missouri and the Wisconsin are conducting Ops off the coast of Kuwait. Scott Hallmark ex-EW1(SW) USS Missouri BB-63 Plankowner