Live fire U.S.S. Wisconsin

Jim,

Au contrere, mon frere.

http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks for the links - very interesting reading! I guess I should take a hint from the invitation to join AARP as a sign that I've become a certifiable "old phart" now. :)

Last I'd heard, the USN had managed only 38 miles out of their 16" guns by reducing the payload. This shows that I've fallen behind the times. :cool:
 
I was in the Navy during Desert Shield/Storm. Whenever the battle group transited the Straits of Hormuz there would be a BB right next to the CV, between the threat (Iranian Silkworm sites) and the carrier. The battleship with its incredible armor plating could absorb a hit far better than the thin-skinned carrier.

As we went through the straits the battleship's guns were kept constantly trained on the missile sites and the carrier had F-18's sitting on the catapults loaded for air-ground. There was a lot of speculation as to which would put ordnance on target first if the threat radar started lighting us up - would the battleship's salvos get done bracketing and fire for effect before the Hornets got there?

Never found out.
 
It's kind of ironic that the main rap on battleships is they still use oil for power. Wouldn't it be a great idea if they went nuclear? Swap in a nuclear engine for the current ones, and the cost of operation drops a lot.

Also, it would seem a battleship would easily be fitted to launch missles.

We really need to be as bad as everyone says, and just go in and take the Iraq and Iranian oil, and the profits from it.
That would finance a battleship for a long time...
 
The battlewagons did have missles added, had a heavy payload. The plain fact is, they're wearing out. Would you drive a tank built in 1933 into battle today? The battleships are the single most awesome sight afloat, and I had the honor of re-arming one at sea, (those 16" shells come two to a pallet!), and there is nothing ever like the sight of a battleship at sea.
 
Would you drive a tank built in 1933 into battle today?
Click to expand...
The question really is would you drive an updated version of that 1933 (or 1943) tank into battle today. Which we do, in essence. The M1 Abrams is fairly close to being a modernized King Tiger and so far advanced that its features weren't even wet dreams for the Tiger's designers.

The same could be said for the battlewagons. How would you design a modern battleship? It would include capabilities never dreamed of in the 1940's.

The downside, of course, is that certain realities need to be recognized. When deployed against countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, etc. they can be effective. But when deployed against countries with modern weapons, especially either a navy or air force, the BB's become big tagets just like the carriers.

Admiral Rickover said there were two types of warships in the oceans. Submarines and targets.

He also estimated both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. surface fleets had a life expectancy counted in days if a major war broke out.

Personally, I like the battleships, but always had a large affection for heavy cruisers too.
USSToledo-JuneauJapan1950.jpg
 
I have a Mosin Nagant 44 built about that time. I'd take it to war, and, I use it to protect my house. John Browning designed the 1911 in the early part of the last century. They are still going to war. Likewise the M14, etc.

Genius doesn't come around on our time table...Problem with subs is they tend to be a weapon you launch once, and, that's it baby, we are ALL gone...
 
Genius doesn't come around on our time table...Problem with subs is they tend to be a weapon you launch once, and, that's it baby, we are ALL gone...
Click to expand...
Not quite. The 14 Ohio-class SSBN's carry 24 nuclear Trident missles with up to 12 MIRV'd warheads each. Launches can be individual or sequential, depending upon misson orders. The 4 SSGN's have 22 launch tubes for Tomahawk cruise missles with capacity to carry 154 onboard. That's quite a few "targets of opportunity" or specific targets provided in misson orders. For seagoing targets, the subs still have their 4 21-inch torpedo tubes.

Nor can we overlook the fast-attack sub fleet that carries both torpedoes and cruise missles (launched via torpedo tube or dedicated vertical tubes). The LA-Class (45 subs) is giving way to the newer Virginia class (5 subs, plust 3 building) with 12 cruise missle tubes and four 27.5-inch torpedo tubes.

So to day that Subs will "shoot their wad" in one all-out session isn't really correct. One SSBN can have up to 288 warheads. I doubt you could find that many worthwhile targets in a country like Iran.

Though, I do agree with you that if those subs do make enmasse launches... well, the Norse call it Ragnarok (twilight of the Gods).
 
It is true that they are eclipsed by modern weapons, but it is really interesting reading about the history and use of the 16"x50 caliber guns.

damage.jpg


The plate in this photo is a face plate from a Yamato Class battleship turret (yard item) and is 26 inches thick. The plate was pierced by a 2,700 lbs projectile simulating an impact at about 30,000 yards of range. Wow 17 miles away! 26 inches of solid steel, now thats penetration.

From this site I obtained the following info.

The Armor Piercing (AP) shell fired by these guns is capable of penetrating nearly 30 feet (9 m) of concrete, depending upon the range and obliquity of impact. The High Capacity (HC) shell can create a crater 50 feet wide and 20 feet deep (15 x 6 m). During her deployment off Vietnam, USS New Jersey (BB-62) occasionally fired a single HC round into the jungle and so created a helicopter landing zone 200 yards (180 m) in diameter and defoliated trees for 300 yards (270 m) beyond that.

I'm all in favor of modern technological improvements, but we need to keep at least a couple of these old battle wagons running, if for no other reason than the cool factor.:)
 
To paraphrase a quote, nothing says "We're really interested in changing your national policy" quite as eloquently as the sight of an Iowa class battleship.

USSIowaInAction01.JPG
 
To paraphrase a quote, nothing says "We're really interested in changing your national policy" quite as eloquently as the sight of an Iowa class battleship.
Click to expand...

Nothing says "regime change" like seeing this sight off your coast in the morning... :D
BattleshipFleet.jpg



American for "muzzle blast"
US-Navy-Battleship-2.jpg
 
For as cool as they are, and as much psychological weight that they carry, the facts are the for the most part, a few predators or Global hawks or some of the other unnamed new drones can deliver the same Effective payload, with no one in harms way, for a few hundred dollars a day in JP5 vs the 4 million dollars a day the BB's cost now.

I recently saw a flight of 4 unmanneds fly by in formation near an unnamed based. they look like a mix between the F117 and a B2, and they were very hard to pick up against the back ground.

Global hawks can fly from Guam and cover all over the middle east for up to 2 days. autonomously,
 
Part of the deterrence factor is that "psychological weight" and that plays a very important part in how the projection of force is perceived.

When the U.S. carrier fleets "project power" they often do high speed flights as close to another country's territory as possible so that people on the ground see/hear those jets. It is a reminder that the fleet is out there, ready to strike. A battleship can sit several miles off the coast and still be visible on the horizon - an ever present reminder that it's just waiting for orders to lob high explosive Volkswagens up to 30 miles.

With UAV's, their cost is low, but the sudden explosion of a weapon on the ground is like a gas main blowing up. There's no warning and people aren't sure of what happened.

I worked with an English woman who's parents survived the Blitz. Her father was part of Operation Market Garden in the ill fated "bridge too far" regiment. The Nazi V1 "Buzz Bomb" was much more of a terror weapon than the V2. The V2 arched up high and simply fell like a big bomb. The V1's, with their distinctive buzzing motor sound could be heard for miles. It was when that motor started popping as it's fuel ran out that people became afraid... because they then knew it was coming down somewhere but not exactly where.

Having a BB off your coast is similar to the V1 buzzing over head.
 
"...The answer is "Quite a few"..." The answer is none. Yamato's 18" guns would have sunk any destroyer long before said destroyer would have gotten close.
"...From what I was told back then the shells were every bit as precise..." Read an article, long ago, when Iowa, I think, was recommissioned, that said the mechanical gun laying computers were more accurate than the PC's of the time.
 
Yes, what I was told in Gunners' Mate "A" School in 1986 was the BBs gun computers were the same ones they used in the war. Newer digital ones just weren't any improvement.
I was wrong about the date, 1942 for the Iowa.
BillCA, I'd love to see a Tiger built to today's standard, but that's the point- they AREN'T. You can add missles, update the guns, but the hull, turrets, armor belt, decks, etc, are the same as they were 60+ years ago. If I put a new engine in a Panther, and update the ammo, I still have a tank that will die moments on a modern battle field.
What I would love to see is an even older design updated to modern specs - the Pocket Battleship. The Graf Spee died being scuttled in a nuetral port, because the 5 inch thick armor belt wasn't enough to stop British heavy cruiser shells, but the armament package was good. Yes, I know it was a Nazi ship, but leaving politics behind, the Pocket Battleship was a nifty design, and with modern armor/engines/etc., could be one heck of a wonder.
I loved the battlewagons, and wish someone would build a new one, but Obum will never entertain the thought.
 
I would donate to this effort

There is an ongoing effort to raise and restore the Graf Spee and I applaud that effort. The most difficult part will be emptying the magazines of their still-live ammo.

It is amazing that she sank nine merchant ships with not a single fatality on the allied side. All of the sailors were disembarked and captured prior to the ships being sunk.

The Graf Spee was likely the most beautiful ship of the line ever built. Compare the lines of the Graf Spee with the battleship HMS Resolution and the battlecruiser HMS Hood in the background.

Graf_Spee_at_Spithead.jpg

WARSHIPS AT THE SPITHEAD FLEET REVIEW OF
1937, The German heavy cruiser ADMIRAL GRAF SPEE
anchored off Spithead for the 1937 Fleet Review.
In the background are the battleship HMS RESOLUTION
and the battlecruiser HMS HOOD.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_pocket_battleship_Admiral_Graf_Spee

Salvage

Immediately after the scuttling in shallow water, much of the ship's superstructure remained above water level, but then over the years the wreck subsided into the muddy bottom and today only the tip of the mast remains above the surface.

The first salvage from the ship was most likely carried out by Royal Navy intelligence teams which recovered the highly advanced Seetakt radar not destroyed in the scuttling. In late January 1940, the wreck was boarded by US Navy sailors from the light cruiser USS Helena.


Graf Spee's salvaged telemeterIn February 2004 a salvage team began work raising the wreck of the Admiral Graf Spee. The operation is in part being funded by the government of Uruguay, in part by the private sector, as the wreck is now a hazard to navigation. The first major section, a 27-ton gunnery range-finding telemeter, was raised on 25 February 2004. It is expected to take several years to raise the entire wreck. Film director James Cameron is filming the salvage operation. After it has been raised, it is planned that the ship will be restored and put on display at the National Marine Museum in Montevideo.

On 10 February 2006, the 2 metres (6.6 ft) eagle figurehead of the Admiral Graf Spee was removed from the stern of the ship and recovered.[24] To protect the feelings of those sensitive to Nazi Germany, the swastika at the base of the figurehead was covered as it was pulled from the water.
Click to expand...
 
In addition, troops can fire back at aircraft and ground pieces, but they can only hide and wait for the battleships to go away.
Click to expand...
Sheesh. So many experts here, so few thinking men. Haven't you folks ever heard of Exocet, Avocet, or Tomahawk missiles? They can hit a battleship from farther away than the ship can shoot. Yes, we have Phalanx guns, but if the enemy fires enough missiles they can overwhelm the Phalanx's capabilities. You think it's demoralizing watching a battleship firing at your people? How do you think it feels to watch your own battleships burning? Ask anyone who was around in 1941, if you want to know. Battleship are a very large, very expensive, and very vulnerable military asset. As much as I hated to see them retired, they represent a strategic mindset that can no longer compete in martial exercises.
 
Scorch

The same could be said about our aircraft carriers. Lucky for us nobody has had the ability AND motivation to sink them.

However, the newer AIP subs, like the Gotland class, simply can't be found if they don't want to be. (Our navy rented one and tried.) AIP subs are the best of both worlds, the quietness and simplicity of a Diesel with the long underwater endurance of a nuke boat. The Gotland class has an official underwater endurance of 14 days at 5 knots. The German Type 212, 3 weeks.

If these subs become common, things will get interesting.
 
Exocet, Avocet, or Tomahawk missiles?
Click to expand...

Yes, I've seen them in action, when a US ship, the USS Stark, caught an Exocet, and made it port under her own power. Barely, welded patches over the cracks in the deck, and ran lines fore and aft with turnbuckles to keep her together, but unlike the Sheffield off the Falklands, she DID make port. Hit an Iowa class battle wagon amidships with an Exocet, and you MIGHT leave a dent. That's 18 inches of cold rolled steel.
That's why I suggested the Pocket Battleship design, it's made to carry 5 inches of cold rolled steel armor, but with modern armor, could be upgraded considerably. Yes, Exocet, Silkwork, all great missles against todays 99% thin skinned navies. None of them were designed to deal with heavy armor, as the super expensive short range power projection battleships were phased out forthe much longer range power projection thin skinned aircraft carriers, which depends almost completely on it's air wings and escorts for protection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top