Update: Actually, you don’t as it turns out. It just looks that way.
(H/T to Galrahn, who actually had a serious point to make.)
|
|||||
Hot MicBloggers in Arms
BlogrollContinuous WavePaid to BlogReciprocating EnginesSmarter'n MeWingmen
OmakaseAmazon Search |
What Happens When You Fire Nine Sixteen-inch Guns Simultaneously?By lex, on October 14th, 2008
48 comments to What Happens When You Fire Nine Sixteen-inch Guns Simultaneously? |
Targets of Opportunityblog advertising is good for you Credo"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones "Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra" "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche "A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier "Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas "Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex Amazon AssociateFor the Effort!Winnar! Subscribe CategoriesPagesTagsacademy
afghanistan
Araby
Blogging
buffoonery
culture
Defense Industry
economy
Flying
Friday Musings
geopol
Gratuitous slap
GWOT
Headlines
health care
History
iran
iraq
issues
libya
Media
Memory Lane
Military
Navy
norks
Oz
pakistan
piracy
politicians
politics
Politics and Culture
prc
pundits
science
sea stories
silliness
Small Stuff
SoCal
Tech Lust
technology
UAVs
UK
usaf
usmc
weapons
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2012 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
so i’m thinking the rudder dude would need to steering the boat a wee bit to the right to compensate for that..
I just got back from visiting the battleship USS Missouri. Had not realized the “Mighty Mo” saw action in the Gulf War! And, put those 16 inchers in to action. Wow!
Two recollections of that class.
1. Flying over Long Beach NavSta when Missouri and New Jersey were in adjoining drydocks undergoing refit. Very impressive. I had a giddy moment thinking ” Hell’s acomin’ boys!”
2. Met a neighbor’s brother who was a GM2 on the New Jersey. Nice to see a sailor who simply gushed pride when he talked about his job; non-stop grin on his face.
I always loved that pic. One shudders to think what it’s like to be on the receiving end…
Newton’s Third Law exeplified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dad was on the ground in Korea in 50 and 51. He said the salvos coming overhead were the most amazing sound. He also said the geography would change upon impact along with a LOT of dead Chicoms.
I’ll be in my bunk.
One word: COOL
Good story EXCEPT for the fact that the ship isn’t lightly floating on top of the water, it extends something like thirty feet or so below….and the recoil of the guns does NOT move the ship laterally (sideways) through the water. I was given this bit of information by the Executive Officer on board the USS New Jersey while it was still commissioned an in dry dock in Long Beach, CA. He also told me that photos, such as the one in this post, one of which I was given during my visit, show the effects of the pressure wave from the firing of the guns making it look as though the ship is making leeway. Not so, however.
I’m no physicist, but “equal and opposite reaction” -type analysis would go something like, X pounds of metal leaving the ship in one direction, with explosive force propelling that X pounds of metal, would have to be a much larger number than the weight of the ship with a factor for the resistance of 30 or so feet of steel wall sticking straight down into the water, for the ship to be forced to move laterally through the water. Lex can do that kind of calculation, no doubt…I cannot.
How to parallel park a battleship
Another thing: Did you know that the bridge windows on Iowa class BB’s all cranked up and down? Really thick glass, too. Used handles very similar to old cars to crank them up and down. No, it was not for nice days at sea, but for when the big guns were being used so as to avoid concussion blowing the windows out. I saw it all for myself and axed about it.
I was fortunate to get a fairly complete tour of the USS New Jersey and to be invited to attend the re-commissioning ceremony of the USS Missouri. I got to walk around the Missouri main and upper decks for some hours. Just WOW.
I have heard the same thing as Steve C… but I have also heard that in a full broadside the the planks on the deck open up quite a bit and then close. Doesn’t sound quite right – wouldn’t the barbette have to actually shift with respect to the rest of the ship for that to happen?
Barbette? If you can answer my question, you will know what it is… the biggest goddam thing what ever had a name ending in “-ette” that’s for sure!
From my Air Force limited knowledge, I’m thinking it’s the frontal armor mechanism thru which the guns protrude
and which rotates up and down (or maybe not-my memory fades) with the angle of the guns, no?
Two points.
First, I still believe the Navy will move gunfire support to aircraft, something akin to a carrier based AC-130, now that the DDG-1000 hit an iceberg.
Second, it wasn’t me. I’ve brought in more forces to expand the conversation now that the blog has established its reputation. New blog author “The Custodian” is running that conversation.
It would appear to me to be more of a Rock ‘n Roll type of motion.
I have always believed that if you have a very finite number of expensive weapon platforms, due to various constraints, you should always load up those limited platforms with a plethora of serious weapon systems.
They’re made for a purpose, right? So don’t short-change them.
The Soviets during the Cold War had weapon platforms that bristled with an amazing, wide variety of offensive and defensive weapons. But we were more selective. We built extremely expensive weapons platforms – whether it was a fighter-without-a-gun, a ship with a formidable missile and little else, or a sub with little weapons available except the Armageddon ones – with extremely selective and therefore limited capabilities.
The sight of a battleship broadside warms my heart’s cockles. But although they can put a 2,000 pound HE round into a cave better than today’s JDAM, they are still sadly, (almost) obsolete.
But as impressive as they were, the multiple 16-inchers were not her only weapons. She bristled with a wide variety of formidable firepower. The BB may be obsolete, maybe. But there is a lesson to be learned about loading up a scarce and expensive weapon platform with a wide variety of weapons and capabilities, to meet any and all threats, large and small. IOW, one-gun-ships suck.
Saw Mighty Mo in the gulf while exiting Bahrain after GWI.
Now that’s how a man o’war should look.
From 5nm away,
I felt the heat from 1 (one) 16 inch gun firing,
I watched the shell arch towards the target,
from 15nm away
I saw the single 16 inch shell hit the beach,
I heard the explosion,
I felt the heat from the explosion.
I felt pity for the Iraqi troops on the beaches of Kuwait in 1991, those poor souls endured 30 days of watching 2 battleships sending 16 inch shells towards their positions.
fliterman,
Am in total agreement with you about difference in armament philosophy as between the Soiviets and us. We sacrificed hull space for weapons to provide for superior crew quarter comforts. The SU “hot-bunked” their crews as they were not a true deep blue water Navy, so didn’t provide for creature comforts for prolonged sea-keeping.
As for the BBs, their hull design is still
among the most advanced in the world and they are also among the fastest ships of any Navy. And their armor plating still makes them among the world’s most survivable ships extant. What sunk them was the bean-counters and the “promise” of the follow-on
“monitor” shore bombarbment ships.
It wasn’t even the salaries of the 1,500+
sailors it took to man them–it was the fact we couldn’t (didn’t want to) afford the braces for the teeth of the dependents of the supply types at NAS
Memphis or wherever. Dependent medical, housing and allowance costs are what sunk the BB. They had the hull space for almost infinite modification.
Fliter, you have a point. Might I counter that when The President is woken up his first words are, “Where are the carriers?” Note he doesn’t first ask, “Where are the Marines?”
That’s likely because he needs to know where the instruments of projecting US Power are at, and his first concern is power available, later the nuances and how subtle it can be.
Marines owe nothing to nobody when it comes to projecting force in an area. Give them a target, you get a body count and boots on soil.
Hoo-Rah! Task the Army with the same job and you’re going to have support bases, heavy weapons unused but shiny, half an army group 60 miles away as the ready reserve…
Difference between tactics and strategy, the Marines are lean and mean and the Army is trying to fight based upon a fizxed plan. Army sits around consolidating gains, Marines are so far in the enemy rear the enemy thinks it has lost before the Army has arrived.
A generalization, but tell it to the Marines.
Now then, my point here is if you sail a carrier battle group into,, say, the waters of Syria you’re a threat for 500 miles every direction. You patrol more water than most countries can lay claim to. And you’re a couple of squadrons of airborn whup-ass ready on the decks.
Park an Iowa-class at the 12-mile line and you’re only a threat to the 12 miles you’re looking at inland. Youve armor to take anything a Somali pirate or some bomb-wearer in a rowboat can do, and in spite of your 16″ 50-calibers and their ability to do some intensive gardening inside of 30 miles you’re no threat outside that region.
Park it off Lebanon and Egypt doesn’t need to get excited. Send Marines to Lebanon and there’s no greater sight they’d rather see than an Iowa-Class opening the hole for them.
Different roles, different missions, rather than disparage the battlewagons we should be able to agree that as tactical ships they’ve no equals.
– Max
A guy I dated before I met MacGyver had a brother who was on the ‘Mo in Desert Storm. When they came home, we were treated to a tour on her and it was AMAZING.
I cannot imagine how awesome it would have been to have been on board when those bad boys fired off.
We’ve been able to tour her now that she’s here on display but it isn’t the same. She’s still amazing though!
Virgil X,
The barbette on a warship is the circular and thick ring of steel that runs from the main deck down about 5 decks. The main turret rides on the barbette, hence its ability to rotate. If you were to turn the ship upside down the entire turret would fall from the ship. Photos of sunken capitol ships demo that fact.
Virgil: Crew costs were certainly one of the things that sank the Iowas, but there was another: gun sleeves and other consumable supplies. The fast battleships of WW2 increased barrel life on their main guns by casting the barrels as unrifled, then installing rifled sleeves made of softer metal inside the barrel. Those sleeves are eroded by repeated firing, and eventually need replacement. No existing factory can make sleeves for 16-inch guns. There are other material problems too — for example, recall that after Iowa‘s gunnery accident in 1989, the Navy found it had neither the tools nor the parts to repair the damaged No. 2 turret. I think that’s the main reason she was mothballed again soon afterward.
A general note on gun recoil: AIUI, the concussion from a full main battery broadside could do quite a bit of minor damage throughout the ship.
I’ve never been aboard an Iowa, but I did visit the slightly smaller Massachusetts at Battleship Cove a couple of years ago. Just wow. Floating fortress. Shipbuilding and gunnery on a scale that’s Just Not Done anymore.
Barbette: Bill C is the winner IMHO, although I must concede that the original use of the term, from the 19th century French, is indeed more a reference to the rampart-like structure in which guns that were mounted out in the open on deck were nestled for protection.
I have read that there were some British warships from the era that actually used muzzle-loading guns, where the muzzles were dropped down into a receptacle on deck, from which the powder bags and shells were rammed home by steam pistons below decks. Of course the guns would have had to be swung off target and centered, depressed, loaded, then re-elevated, and re-laid on target. Rate of fire must have been problematic.
BTW can anyone recommend a good layman’s book on naval guns and fire-control systems through history? And by “good” I mean lots of cool diagrams!
God I love the sight of sending 9 volkswagen beetle-sized objects supersonic. What’s more, the knowledge that no matter what those poor sods on the beach do, inertia will prevail (as opposed to shooting down a cruise missile for example).
What looks like a side-ways wake is just the water being broiled up by the muzzle blasts. The ship doesn’t move an inch or even heel from a broadside.
Explained further on the navweaps.com website, with all the math to back it up. (mass, velocity, recoil, etc.)
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm
Wolfwalker is right re the inability to repair 16 inch barrels in the USA. Perle Mesta, the WWII “hostess with the mostest” in Washington DC got her money from her husband who owned or controlled the Mesta Iron & Steel Works out in Western Pennsylvania. Mesta Iron & Steel made most of the 14 and 16 inch barrels installed on U.S. battleships in the 1930′s and 40′s. But Mesta and its rolling and tube (read gun barrels) works was out of business by the mid 1950′s.
Now if someone in the petrochemical industry in the US needs a high pressure large diameter pressure vessel, you go to Japan, and more recently to Korea where the capacity to make such things still exists. Of course we’re still pretty good at doing software to control smaller weapons.
Sherlock:
Naval gunnery, naval gunnery … hmmm …
I don’t have one book that covers the subject, but I do have two that, put together, give a decent summary.
WEAPONS: An International Encyclopedia from 5000BC to 2000AD is exactly what the title says it is: a gigantic compendium of weapons technology, from basic clubs and staves all the way up to smart-bombs. Almost entirely illustrations with informative captions. It includes a few pages on naval weaponry. My copy dates from 1991. As far as I can tell it hasn’t been updated since.
THE LORE OF SHIPS is what They had in mind when They coined the term coffee-table book. It examines all facets of boat and ship technology, from hull design to navigation to sails and rigging. Again, it’s almost all illustrations and captions, very little block text. One whole chapter deals with naval armament, from early iron-bound cannon to ship-mounted missiles. It’s relatively old as reference works go — copyright date 1975 — but it’s very, VERY thorough in the material it covers.
As for fire-control, for most of history there isn’t much to tell: it was ye olde Mark One Eyeball, b’guess and b’God, and correcting by watching your salvo splashes. That’s when you bothered with aiming at all — in the days of fighting sail, with smoothbore cannon that had a maximum range of a mile or so and little more accuracy than a musket, “fire control” meant “gun-crew discipline,” seeing that they were firing more or less together, delivering full broadsides on target rather than a scattering of individual shots. Not until over-the-horizon gunnery became possible, in the 1890s or thereabouts, did warships begin carrying fire-control computers.
Sherlock,
If you have one of the classic used/old bookstores in your town you might check it for:
NAVEDTRA 14324, GUNNER’S MATE and
OP4 Ammunition and Explosives afloat.
I remember 25 years ago reading navy publications that had fairly comprehensive information on USN weapons ranging from 20mm up through 8 inch and 16 inch weapon systems.
One of the crewmen of the New Jersey told me in the late 80s/ early 90s that another problem was that the hulls were basically rotting out.
Dunno how much there was to that though.
As an aside, sections from surplused 14 and 16 inch barrels were (are?) frequently used as shielding for radiation detectors that analyze samples, since the steel was forged prior to the advent of atmospheric atomic testing, and contain no fallout components to affect the count results. Had a 14 inch section, approx. 30 inches long, in the counting room I used to operate, and it was one massive chunk of metal (mounted on a custom poured concrete pedestal).
I kinda doubt the hull is in that bad. It’s pretty thick stuff. Where you get into expensive trouble is the 1200 pd steam plants. Those things are simply stupid expensive. If we decided to bring one back today, the first thing we’d have to do is scrap damn near the whole fireroom and then hire at $100+ an hour boiler makers. Then you’d have to train a bunch to operate the steam system, since steam pretty much runs everything, including the auxiliries.
There’s a reason why all the surface warfare ships (with rare exceptions like the minesweeps) are all gas turbine powered. A turbine cough it’s guts up? No problem, yank it and install another, send the bad one to GE to be fixed. Takes about 24 hours on a Fig.
Forgot something…the BB’s biggest enemy is not missiles. It is not large caliber shore artillery. The most damaging weapon is the torpedo. A spread of those whacking big carrier killers the Russians have (and many of their customers) will blow the bottom right out of a BB.
This brings back both pleasant and sad memories. Seeing , I think New Jersey, unleash her mighty power in both Viet Nam and off of Lebanon, and then having to coordinate the return of remains from the Iowa accident in the PR Op area.
I had the occasion to see the IOWA in P’Goula coming back into service.
Rode her for a few hours in August ’86 for an Operational Test Launch (OTL) of a T’Hawk when Larry Seaquist was CO.
Damn near was able to hitch a ride in early ’91 to the Gulf to be part of a four man team (CNO directed) to confirm they were safe to shoot, but the &*&^%&^& AOIC made it back from leave in time to catch the lift out of Chambers to the PG. They left me in charge back at the office. Consolation prize, ya know.
Later did the CSA on the WISCONSIN and had the occasion to discuss the ops in Desert Storm with the Ops Boss, who I had relieved at a prior job. He told of watching Iraqis standing outside their bunkers, hands over their heads, with upturned faces. They had learned the “timeline” after they heard the droning of the drones high above….
Got a personal tour of Main Plot. All those gears and interlocks designed in days gone by that could put a round where they wanted it 23 nm away…pretty impressive.
Byron,
believe the Iowa and her sisters had 8 boilers, 600# M type Babcock Wilcox. Thats the same monsters I worked with on the CORAL SEA, except we had 12 of them, plus lots other machinery spaces. Lots of them. And yes, we had to rebrick 1C Fireroom after the firemain let go. Heck of a plant. We had almost 900 people in engineering and that was our COB, not our BA. I remember on one of the boilers, it had BW, manufactured 1936. Thats a loooong time ago for a 18 year old FR.
Either way, had some good times on that boat, other than when stuff was either flooding, on fire, or blowing up. it was exciting at the time.
Claudio
claudio is right, they were 600# systems. In fact, the plant built for the Montana was split and put into AOE-1 and 2.
Byron is correct, built something that heavy, that rigid, the best way to kill it is to blow the supporting water out from under it. She’ll break her back without support.
As for the guns, it’s not that we can’t build them any longer, it’s that there’s no wish to. Same with the Saturn V rocket that put our men on the moon. Unless there’s a need and hence a way to make the investment in tooling and smelting profitable, nobody is going to keep a plant on-line to make it happen.
Which sort of explains why the Iowa-class were mothballed. Unless there’s a need, why keep a tool you’re not going to use?
I still think they’re useful due to their limited range, but that’s just me.
– Max
I stand corrected, 600 vice 1200. Principle is the same: No one left hardly in the civilian world to work on them, and no one in the Navy. Personally, I HATE firerooms.
xairboss (alias E YAT)
You and I must have shared some of the same airspace (although probably not at the same time) as I overflew the NJ a couple of times out of DaNang–was an awe inspiring sight! Like being in a movie about history itself……..
You guys don’t ever forget those times! I fear we’ll soon have a generation that knows not what great ships looked like, and these great old gals will just rot away…
Sigh.
I think as we move on through history, we’re not trying to fight harder, but smarter. Byron, I really think, you’re right on the money. Virgil and Jim Shawley, you both share a love for history. Virgil, you talk about flying out of Da Nang over the NJ. You write, “Like being in a movie about history itself…” The problem is this, it was not about history, but is in fact, it was history. Virgil, I want to bring Jim into the discussion. The Battleship and her crew became a members of the families to those who served upon them. The experiences of the crew, while being a part of history, will never be forgotten.
Let’s remember the past, but put our focus on the future.
Jim Shawley,
Another awe-inspiring memory of naval bombardment in Vietnam was when I “stowed away” as a young 1lt with a DaNang FAC in an O-2 along with the I-Corps NGLO for the last “shoot” of all three (in unison) surviving rocket LST’s in existence on a fire mission off Hue Phu-Bai. THAT was something to see! I can say that I was (besides the sailors involved)
one of the last three people on earth to witness such a sight! Alas, that capability has gone away also. (Of course, was a common sight in WWII– I understand also that rockets are far more effective than arty for beach landing site prep, i.e., destruction of barbed-wire & assoc. entanglements, angle irons and triggering of land-mines, etc.–even underwater teller mines.)
Grumpy,
You’re so right. I’m sure that at one time or another most who post here have felt as the poet Virgil once said of the Mayor of Athens during the Peloponnesian Wars: “History, is what Alcibidades lived and suffered!”
Note: Most spell the poets name as Vergil, sorry, force of habit.
MaxDamage: “Byron is correct, built something that heavy, that rigid, the best way to kill it is to blow the supporting water out from under it. She’ll break her back without support.”
Huh? I’ve never heard that a torpedo, or even a spread of torpedoes, could do that to any ship. It takes a gigantic explosion to really displace much water — much bigger than any torpedo I ever heard of. The Mark-6 magnetic exploder was designed to produce “keelbreaker” hits, where the force of the explosion vented upward and buckled or broke the target’s keel, but even that was only effective against lightly built ships like merchantmen and destroyers. Battleships were a whole ‘nother story. The builders of the Iowas were well aware of the danger from torpedoes, and gave the class a phenomenal level of anti-torpedo armor. Every square inch of their hulls were armored, above and below the waterline.
Wolfwalker,
Actually, Max’s statement is what I remember from my Weapons class in NROTC. The torpedo explodes, creating a void below the ship; the ship basically falls into the hole, and the keel breaks from the ship’s own weight. That being said, you could be right that it would take a massive torp to create a hole big enough for a BB to worry about; it’s been a long time since NROTC.
This reminds me of the talks about nuclear depth charges; the explosion was so tremendous that when the void collapsed, the kinetic energy would actually cause the water to compress and rebound like a spring, so that if the first shock wave didn’t get you, the next nine would.
Wolf, Bruce echoes my own recollections. From a physics standpoint, a torpedo has a limited payload. So you can waste it trying to punch a 6″ hole through 3′ of armor below the waterline and if successful you might cause them to fire up the pumps. Terribly embarrassing, getting a hit and the target trundles on. Had to be a better method.
On the other hand, you’ve a couple hundred thousand tons of steel supported by water. Get rid of the water, you place a serious strain on that supporting steel.
See the wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald in lore, a ship’s weakest spot is her keel. Especially if there’s no water in the middle of it. Once that keel bends, over 30% of the strength is gone. Wave action alone will do the rest.
Not that these are sure things, you understand, but it’s a lot easier to introduce air and steam into water than it is to punch through a belt of armored steel.
Even easier to drop a bomb through the deck, as Yamato found. It’s a classic gambit, the more one protects the more the enemy seeks ways around it.
– Max
I was on a DDG, and our carrier group sank an old helicarrier. I never saw it, but they’re big. After ten Harpoons, 5 inch fire and aircraft bombing runs, a sub sank it with a torp. I think they are more than capable of nailing a BB. They do displace some water, but a lot is also vaporized. It doesn’t take a big void to crack that spine. I had the chance to go on an active attack sub, and was shocked at the size of the torps. At lest three feet tall and 16 to 20 feet long. There’s a lot of explosive in there.