The BIG guns - 16" battleship cannons - Page 4

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - The BIG guns - 16" battleship cannons (Page 4 of 5)

Posted: 12/11/2012 4:39:16 AM EST

[#1]

I want a land-based version of this.

Posted: 12/11/2012 4:40:17 AM EST

[#2]

Too bad Battle Cruisers weren't still around

Posted: 12/11/2012 4:58:28 AM EST

[#3]

Quoted:

Cool. Where'd you find that? Also, to clarify-by 'three way delay' I meant that no two barrels fired at the same time rather than 'outers simultaneously then center'

I'm trying to find the pic since it's pretty cool.

This picture of the Big Mamie?

Posted: 12/11/2012 5:21:21 AM EST

[#4]

Awesome pic, and thread.

Posted: 12/11/2012 6:19:45 AM EST

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The 2700 lb 16" AP rounds did have an explosive filler. The whole point of an AP round was to defeat the armor and then explode deep inside the ship, wrecking things and starting fires. The AP cap was simply there to get the explosive through the armor. HC rounds were used for land targets and also for firing on lightly armored ships like destroyers, support ships and merchantmen. AP rounds would transit completely through the ships before functioning. AP rounds were base detonating whereas HC rounds were point detonating, IIRC.

I read of an instance that happened I think during Korea. One of the Iowa's was shelling some enemy concrete positions and the first round they fired was an AP round. They fired the round, observed the hit and it didn't go off like it should. They thought it was a dud and then it functioned and blew a concrete bunker off the cliff face. They decided it was an AP round accidentally fired in place of an HC round.

I just looked it up and the MK 8 AP round had a filler of 40.9 pounds of Explosive D. The small explosive fill was there to give the shell an added "kick" to punch through armor. There was no "solid" AP round for the 16"/50 MK 7 guns on the Iowa class.

I don't think it would give it much kick to get through armor, probably the opposite, as it would fracture the shell. Its probably there just to help insure ignition of fuel and ammo.

Posted: 12/11/2012 8:44:09 AM EST

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The 2700 lb 16" AP rounds did have an explosive filler. The whole point of an AP round was to defeat the armor and then explode deep inside the ship, wrecking things and starting fires. The AP cap was simply there to get the explosive through the armor. HC rounds were used for land targets and also for firing on lightly armored ships like destroyers, support ships and merchantmen. AP rounds would transit completely through the ships before functioning. AP rounds were base detonating whereas HC rounds were point detonating, IIRC.

I read of an instance that happened I think during Korea. One of the Iowa's was shelling some enemy concrete positions and the first round they fired was an AP round. They fired the round, observed the hit and it didn't go off like it should. They thought it was a dud and then it functioned and blew a concrete bunker off the cliff face. They decided it was an AP round accidentally fired in place of an HC round.

I just looked it up and the MK 8 AP round had a filler of 40.9 pounds of Explosive D. The small explosive fill was there to give the shell an added "kick" to punch through armor. There was no "solid" AP round for the 16"/50 MK 7 guns on the Iowa class.

I don't think it would give it much kick to get through armor, probably the opposite, as it would fracture the shell. Its probably there just to help insure ignition of fuel and ammo.

I've seen them after they functioned. The base is usually blown out, but the main body is still intact. 40lbs is not enough boom to create much hate and discontent, but it does help the armor penetration of the projo. FWIW, this round was engineered to be fired at high angles and come down on the deck plates. They were a bitch to dispose of because the projo was so thick, you couldn't counter charge it (blow it up conventionally). It usually took a shaped charge to the base to get it to function. Then you had to figure out how you were going to get rid of the sonofabitch because you now had a 2700lb (maybe minus a little for the base that was blown open) doorstop to get rid of.

If we have any EOD guys who worked Kahoolawe, they might be able to enlighten us on them.

Posted: 12/11/2012 9:13:57 AM EST

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The 2700 lb 16" AP rounds did have an explosive filler. The whole point of an AP round was to defeat the armor and then explode deep inside the ship, wrecking things and starting fires. The AP cap was simply there to get the explosive through the armor. HC rounds were used for land targets and also for firing on lightly armored ships like destroyers, support ships and merchantmen. AP rounds would transit completely through the ships before functioning. AP rounds were base detonating whereas HC rounds were point detonating, IIRC.

I read of an instance that happened I think during Korea. One of the Iowa's was shelling some enemy concrete positions and the first round they fired was an AP round. They fired the round, observed the hit and it didn't go off like it should. They thought it was a dud and then it functioned and blew a concrete bunker off the cliff face. They decided it was an AP round accidentally fired in place of an HC round.

I just looked it up and the MK 8 AP round had a filler of 40.9 pounds of Explosive D. The small explosive fill was there to give the shell an added "kick" to punch through armor. There was no "solid" AP round for the 16"/50 MK 7 guns on the Iowa class.

I don't think it would give it much kick to get through armor, probably the opposite, as it would fracture the shell. Its probably there just to help insure ignition of fuel and ammo.

I've seen them after they functioned. The base is usually blown out, but the main body is still intact. 40lbs is not enough boom to create much hate and discontent, but it does help the armor penetration of the projo. FWIW, this round was engineered to be fired at high angles and come down on the deck plates. They were a bitch to dispose of because the projo was so thick, you couldn't counter charge it (blow it up conventionally). It usually took a shaped charge to the base to get it to function. Then you had to figure out how you were going to get rid of the sonofabitch because you now had a 2700lb (maybe minus a little for the base that was blown open) doorstop to get rid of.

If we have any EOD guys who worked Kahoolawe, they might be able to enlighten us on them.

As noted by others in this thread, the charge was NOT to help propel the round...its a bursting charge, intended to frag the round after penetrating armor in order to cause additional damage.

Posted: 12/11/2012 9:33:41 AM EST

[#8]

Quoted:
Too bad Battle Cruisers weren't still around

Are you being a troll? There were battle-cruisers around during WWII and they didn't fare very well in battle. HMS Hood was sunk by the Prinz Eugen or the Bismarck and HMS Repulse was sunk by Jap aircraft along with the battleship Prince of Wales. Battlecruisers were not meant to go up against capital ships but to bring big guns to bear against cruisers and below. They were meant to be scouts and screening ships, not part of the battle line. Battle-cruisers almost always came out last in a fight against battleships.

We also had two ships that were called battlecruisers but were in fact large cruisers. Guam and Alaska were large cruisers armed with 12" guns built to defeat the Japanese Tone(?) class heavy cruisers. They entered service too late to see much action but they did serve well in the anti-aircraft screening role. The Jap cruisers they were meant to counter were pretty much all sunk in battle prior to their entering service. Their fatal weakness was their lack of significant armor protection below the waterline. Had a Jap torpedo or large caliber shell hit the ship below the waterline, it would have caused major, if not fatal, damage.

For a battlecruiser to survive against a capital ship, they had to close the range quickly and force the enemy guns to fire at a relatively flat trajectory. That's what the Hood was trying to do against the Bismark but the German gunnery officers were too quick. They couldn't close the range fast enough before a plunging German round penetrated the 4" magazine and functioned causing the 15" magazine to detonate. The deck armor on the Hood and previous British battleships was very thin so plunging fire was a huge danger.

Posted: 12/11/2012 12:45:23 PM EST

[#9]

Personally I think the way to dispose of all the surplus 16" shells (at least the ones with explosives in them) would have been

to fire them from a BB that is minimally reactivated just enough to get the job done. Get in some target practice, crew training,

and of course, awesome videos. Spectators permitted to watch from nearby if they sign a pain waiver.

I've heard of things like this, sort of. Such as people whose job it was to fire off all the surplus LAWs when they were finally

withdrawn from service. What a horrible job...to get paid to fire off rockets all day long.

Posted: 12/11/2012 12:50:26 PM EST

[#10]

Quoted:

Personally I think the way to dispose of all the surplus 16" shells (at least the ones with explosives in them) would have been

to fire them from a BB that is minimally reactivated just enough to get the job done. Get in some target practice, crew training,

and of course, awesome videos. Spectators permitted to watch from nearby if they sign a pain waiver.

I've heard of things like this, sort of. Such as people whose job it was to fire off all the surplus LAWs when they were finally

withdrawn from service. What a horrible job...to get paid to fire off rockets all day long.

Metal...

Posted: 12/11/2012 1:14:16 PM EST

[#11]

Quoted:
I love battleships, and I think the Iowa class battleships are the most beautiful warships ever made. I wish there was a reason to bring them back, and that it were cost effective to do so.

that topic always starts a shit storm but I agree. Nuclear power-plant, update the ship and use as a show of force.

Posted: 12/11/2012 2:17:21 PM EST

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I love battleships, and I think the Iowa class battleships are the most beautiful warships ever made. I wish there was a reason to bring them back, and that it were cost effective to do so.

that topic always starts a shit storm but I agree. Nuclear power-plant, update the ship and use as a show of force.

On a cost per pound of explosives delivered, a battleship has got to be tough to beat for any sort of sustained engagement. Assuming that engagement is within 24 miles - which maybe isn't the world anymore. Then again - one of these off Somalia would be impressive. Or Taiwan, or Chinese coast, or Cuba.

Posted: 12/11/2012 2:18:59 PM EST

[#13]

You fuckers are trying to ruin my holiday season, aren't you?

Posted: 12/11/2012 2:19:47 PM EST

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I love battleships, and I think the Iowa class battleships are the most beautiful warships ever made. I wish there was a reason to bring them back, and that it were cost effective to do so.

that topic always starts a shit storm but I agree. Nuclear power-plant, update the ship and use as a show of force.

One batch of 13th century throwbacks in a Zodiac with an Exocet will trump your show of force, and score a coup for some middle eastern cadre of

knuckledraggers. The Chinese would wet their pants at the prospect of donating a nuke Exocet clone to test against us.

You know they can't pass up a tempting target.

Posted: 12/11/2012 2:22:50 PM EST

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I love battleships, and I think the Iowa class battleships are the most beautiful warships ever made. I wish there was a reason to bring them back, and that it were cost effective to do so.

that topic always starts a shit storm but I agree. Nuclear power-plant, update the ship and use as a show of force.

One batch of 13th century throwbacks in a Zodiac with an Exocet will trump your show of force, and score a coup for some middle eastern cadre of
knuckledraggers. The Chinese would wet their pants at the prospect of donating a nuke Exocet clone to test against us.
You know they can't pass up a tempting target.

the explosive charge better be stronger than the kamikaze that hit the Mighty Mo, she shrugged that fucker off like it wasn't shit. a dent in the armor and minor damage was it.
ETA: reading is fundamental and I missed the whole nuke part.

that chain of thought would work against any US ship off shore... with a 24 mile range that zodiac better be moving fast in stealth mode.

Posted: 12/11/2012 2:31:27 PM EST

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I love battleships, and I think the Iowa class battleships are the most beautiful warships ever made. I wish there was a reason to bring them back, and that it were cost effective to do so.

that topic always starts a shit storm but I agree. Nuclear power-plant, update the ship and use as a show of force.

One batch of 13th century throwbacks in a Zodiac with an Exocet will trump your show of force, and score a coup for some middle eastern cadre of

knuckledraggers. The Chinese would wet their pants at the prospect of donating a nuke Exocet clone to test against us.

You know they can't pass up a tempting target.

the explosive charge better be stronger than the kamikaze that hit the Mighty Mo, she shrugged that fucker off like it wasn't shit. a dent in the armor and minor damage was it.

ETA: reading is fundamental and I missed the whole nuke part.

that chain of thought would work against any US ship off shore... with a 24 mile range that zodiac better be moving fast in stealth mode.

Half of a political 'Show of force' is done by steaming into port on display.

You steam one of those into some M.E. shithole - you don't have 24 miles, you have until just around the next freighter or tanker, or any warfside warehouse with a door facing the water.

Think of a U.S.S. Cole style attack (where our guys aren't weapons-free), but with a mushroom cloud at the end of the CNN news bulletin.

Posted: 12/11/2012 2:50:31 PM EST

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

I love battleships, and I think the Iowa class battleships are the most beautiful warships ever made. I wish there was a reason to bring them back, and that it were cost effective to do so.

that topic always starts a shit storm but I agree. Nuclear power-plant, update the ship and use as a show of force.

On a cost per pound of explosives delivered, a battleship has got to be tough to beat for any sort of sustained engagement. Assuming that engagement is within 24 miles - which maybe isn't the world anymore. Then again - one of these off Somalia would be impressive. Or Taiwan, or Chinese coast, or Cuba.

Scale this up a bit...

Posted: 12/11/2012 4:24:31 PM EST

[#18]

Battleship bump.

Posted: 12/11/2012 5:00:32 PM EST

[#19]

I had the distinct pleasure to call in some fire missions (250-300 rounds) from the New Jersey in December 1983 - January 1984 in Beirut. It was a beautiful thing. Cut way down on the incoming, while she was there.

Posted: 12/11/2012 5:03:35 PM EST

[#20]

Quoted:
You fuckers are trying to ruin my holiday season, aren't you?

No, we just love the BIG GUNS.

I know it is obsolete.

But it is still beautiful.

And a very Merry Christmas to you, and thanks for your service.

Posted: 12/11/2012 5:06:36 PM EST

[#21]

One of the turrets on the Alabama has a dent in the floor from a dropped shell. It is a distinct dent.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Posted: 12/11/2012 5:16:47 PM EST

[#22]

By the way, the picture above (from herc), showing the rounds all heading out - TOTALLY AWESOME

Battery Ashburn, in San Diego, CA.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcworshipperclan/4393825378/

Posted: 12/11/2012 5:21:06 PM EST

[#23]

Quoted:
I had the pleasure of touring the North Carolina when I was in Wilmington.I got to go inside a turret.Holy fuck is it cramped!I can't even imagine being in there
during firing.Claustrophobic as hell.

15 Battle Stars. Showboat is THE Battleship.

Fuck the Iowas.

Posted: 12/11/2012 5:25:44 PM EST

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Cool. Where'd you find that? Also, to clarify-by 'three way delay' I meant that no two barrels fired at the same time rather than 'outers simultaneously then center'

I'm trying to find the pic since it's pretty cool.

This picture of the Big Mamie?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/MassKamaichi.jpg

No, but that is even more awesome being a full broadside.

The pic I'm thinking of is just one turret firing so it's three shells in the air.

Where'd you find that picture, if you don't mind? I've never seen it before.

Posted: 12/11/2012 5:43:27 PM EST

[#25]

Omaha beach - that's what it looks after the anger of a few battleships. 60 years later!
Look at it. LOOK AT IT!

Just another picture showing the scale of this gun:

BB61 lighting it up. See the helo-pad on the back. Dude, it's modern! It's got an air force! Come on - bring 'em back!

The USS Massachusits. Note how the higher local taxes have caused one of the aft guns to falter...

A full charge. Interesting, because I think the powder/projectile ratio for most rifles is higher than this (i.e. rifles have more powder). Just an eyeball, not sure. I'm going to need a bigger scale...

This 16" cannon was sent to the bottom of the sea, when it's host battleship was destroyed by a nuclear explosion.

Posted: 12/11/2012 7:14:44 PM EST

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I love battleships, and I think the Iowa class battleships are the most beautiful warships ever made. I wish there was a reason to bring them back, and that it were cost effective to do so.

that topic always starts a shit storm but I agree. Nuclear power-plant, update the ship and use as a show of force.

On a cost per pound of explosives delivered, a battleship has got to be tough to beat for any sort of sustained engagement. Assuming that engagement is within 24 miles - which maybe isn't the world anymore. Then again - one of these off Somalia would be impressive. Or Taiwan, or Chinese coast, or Cuba.

I know, with the nuclear power plant, you could power a rail gun.

We are just screwing with Dport, right?

Posted: 12/12/2012 3:35:44 AM EST

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Cool. Where'd you find that? Also, to clarify-by 'three way delay' I meant that no two barrels fired at the same time rather than 'outers simultaneously then center'

I'm trying to find the pic since it's pretty cool.

This picture of the Big Mamie?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/MassKamaichi.jpg

No, but that is even more awesome being a full broadside.

The pic I'm thinking of is just one turret firing so it's three shells in the air.

Where'd you find that picture, if you don't mind? I've never seen it before.

I first saw it on board the Massachusetts, I stole it from Wiki to post it.

Those are believed to be the last 16" shells of the war.

Posted: 12/12/2012 3:56:39 AM EST

[#28]

Quoted:

You fuckers are trying to ruin my holiday season, aren't you?

It's really sad that they would piss all over an already cranky SWO's holiday season. I thought there was more support for the military here.

Posted: 12/12/2012 4:03:25 AM EST

[#29]

Quoted:
I want a land-based version of this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Iowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg

As I recall, after Pearl Harbor they removed the two aft turrets from the wreck of the Arizona and installed them on an artificial concrete island to cover the harbor. How's that for land based?

Posted: 12/12/2012 4:03:35 AM EST

[#30]

Man...

When I think about the sheer amount of weed that you could launch with those babies...

Posted: 12/12/2012 4:09:04 AM EST

[#31]

Quoted:
Man...

When I think about the sheer amount of weed that you could launch with those babies...

Not to mention the chemtrail cannisters...

Posted: 12/12/2012 4:37:24 AM EST

[#32]

Quoted:

I had the distinct pleasure to call in some fire missions (250-300 rounds) from the New Jersey in December 1983 - January 1984 in Beirut. It was a beautiful thing. Cut way down on the incoming, while she was there.

You know a Mustang Officer named Kowalski and a double wingy dingy named Quail?

Posted: 12/12/2012 4:39:25 AM EST

[#33]

Quoted:
You fuckers are trying to ruin my holiday season, aren't you?

At least you aren't in 7th Fleet right now, those guys are getting nothing but coal in their stockings.

Posted: 12/12/2012 8:31:07 PM EST

[#34]

Highest resolution vid I've found yet of a battle ship. As it's being towed - sigh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac2A5sFomEM

Posted: 12/12/2012 8:37:24 PM EST

[#35]

Quoted:
Highest resolution vid I've found yet of a battle ship. As it's being towed - sigh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac2A5sFomEM

she got cleaned up in my home town prior to her trip to LA,

I hate San Francisco and cannot believe they were so stupid they mixed politics and the oportunity to have a wonderful piece of history for a tourist attraction.

Posted: 12/12/2012 8:49:30 PM EST

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You fuckers are trying to ruin my holiday season, aren't you?

At least you aren't in 7th Fleet right now, those guys are getting nothing but coal in their stockings.

Tell me about it.

Posted: 12/12/2012 8:55:47 PM EST

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You fuckers are trying to ruin my holiday season, aren't you?

At least you aren't in 7th Fleet right now, those guys are getting nothing but coal in their stockings.

Tell me about it.

I'm using my GI Bill right now, but did my time in 7th Fleet (and loved it), but my buddies out there tell me they've gone full retard.

I feel bad for y'all, I remember a captain's call every time some dipshit fucked up in Roppongi but they've taken it to a whole 'nother level of draconian now.

Posted: 12/12/2012 8:59:32 PM EST

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You fuckers are trying to ruin my holiday season, aren't you?

At least you aren't in 7th Fleet right now, those guys are getting nothing but coal in their stockings.

Tell me about it.

I'm using my GI Bill right now, but did my time in 7th Fleet (and loved it), but my buddies out there tell me they've gone full retard.

I feel bad for y'all, I remember a captain's call every time some dipshit fucked up in Roppongi but they've taken it to a whole 'nother level of draconian now.

That about covers it.

I'm using my GI Bill as well, but while I'm on active duty. Starting back to school for my MS in a couple of weeks.

Posted: 12/12/2012 9:17:15 PM EST

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You fuckers are trying to ruin my holiday season, aren't you?

At least you aren't in 7th Fleet right now, those guys are getting nothing but coal in their stockings.

Tell me about it.

I'm using my GI Bill right now, but did my time in 7th Fleet (and loved it), but my buddies out there tell me they've gone full retard.

I feel bad for y'all, I remember a captain's call every time some dipshit fucked up in Roppongi but they've taken it to a whole 'nother level of draconian now.

That about covers it.

I'm using my GI Bill as well, but while I'm on active duty. Starting back to school for my MS in a couple of weeks.

Right on Chief. I made 2nd two years in and decided to move on. I loved 7th Fleet but it left a sour taste in my mouth.

Posted: 12/12/2012 10:33:44 PM EST

[#40]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You fuckers are trying to ruin my holiday season, aren't you?

At least you aren't in 7th Fleet right now, those guys are getting nothing but coal in their stockings.

Tell me about it.

I'm using my GI Bill right now, but did my time in 7th Fleet (and loved it), but my buddies out there tell me they've gone full retard.

I feel bad for y'all, I remember a captain's call every time some dipshit fucked up in Roppongi but they've taken it to a whole 'nother level of draconian now.

That about covers it.

I'm using my GI Bill as well, but while I'm on active duty. Starting back to school for my MS in a couple of weeks.

Right on Chief. I made 2nd two years in and decided to move on. I loved 7th Fleet but it left a sour taste in my mouth.

It leaves a sour taste in my mouth every day, and I'm not going to be able to leave for a while. At least the money is good.

Posted: 12/12/2012 11:45:19 PM EST

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You fuckers are trying to ruin my holiday season, aren't you?

At least you aren't in 7th Fleet right now, those guys are getting nothing but coal in their stockings.

Tell me about it.

I'm using my GI Bill right now, but did my time in 7th Fleet (and loved it), but my buddies out there tell me they've gone full retard.

I feel bad for y'all, I remember a captain's call every time some dipshit fucked up in Roppongi but they've taken it to a whole 'nother level of draconian now.

That about covers it.

I'm using my GI Bill as well, but while I'm on active duty. Starting back to school for my MS in a couple of weeks.

Right on Chief. I made 2nd two years in and decided to move on. I loved 7th Fleet but it left a sour taste in my mouth.

It leaves a sour taste in my mouth every day, and I'm not going to be able to leave for a while. At least the money is good.

The money is good and hopefully the food makes up for it a little bit; I'd kill for some beef bowl, sushi-go'round, or CoCo's right now.

7th Fleet is already hectic enough, I couldn't believe it when I heard that the new "liberty policy" applied to all Khakis, as if it wasn't bad enough already.

Posted: 12/12/2012 11:59:22 PM EST

[#42]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You fuckers are trying to ruin my holiday season, aren't you?

At least you aren't in 7th Fleet right now, those guys are getting nothing but coal in their stockings.

Tell me about it.

I'm using my GI Bill right now, but did my time in 7th Fleet (and loved it), but my buddies out there tell me they've gone full retard.

I feel bad for y'all, I remember a captain's call every time some dipshit fucked up in Roppongi but they've taken it to a whole 'nother level of draconian now.

That about covers it.

I'm using my GI Bill as well, but while I'm on active duty. Starting back to school for my MS in a couple of weeks.

Right on Chief. I made 2nd two years in and decided to move on. I loved 7th Fleet but it left a sour taste in my mouth.

It leaves a sour taste in my mouth every day, and I'm not going to be able to leave for a while. At least the money is good.

The money is good and hopefully the food makes up for it a little bit; I'd kill for some beef bowl, sushi-go'round, or CoCo's right now.

7th Fleet is already hectic enough, I couldn't believe it when I heard that the new "liberty policy" applied to all Khakis, as if it wasn't bad enough already.

Seventeen years in the Navy, never a liberty incident once, and I have a curfew just like a first-year seaman. Gotta love it.

Food's awesome, I'm doing tuna steaks tonight.

Posted: 12/13/2012 12:03:17 AM EST

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Highest resolution vid I've found yet of a battle ship. As it's being towed - sigh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac2A5sFomEM

she got cleaned up in my home town prior to her trip to LA,

I hate San Francisco and cannot believe they were so stupid they mixed politics and the oportunity to have a wonderful piece of history for a tourist attraction.

You're from Richmond? You poor bastard...

I drove out from the Central Valley to watch Iowa transit the Golden Gate that day. Saw her passing Angel Island as we crossed the Bay Bridge, and watched the Gate transit from Baker Beach, Battery Chamberlin, at the Presidio. Have some crappy cell phone pics around here somewhere, too

.
Worth the trip. Amazing and bittersweet.
BTW, she's looking pretty good at her new home, Ports-o-Call at the San Pedro waterfront, right below the Vincent Thomas Bridge. Haven't been aboard yet, though.

Posted: 12/13/2012 12:28:56 AM EST

[#44]

I guess I'm stuck in another era too, but I have heard that some of the current lighter auto-naval guns have difficulty sinking their targets-they can hit them but not sink them. This has got to pose a problem ultimately in any type of close in ship or harbor defense?

Great, every one on the enemy ship is dead, and it's on fire...but still steaming towards the (name the target of your choice).

I am just guessing that a modern, large bore gun with modern safety features could probably eek out 30 mile hits-if it had too.
Again, I guess I just feel that like every fighter jet, every naval ship should have at least one battery that packs a wallop on the cheap w/o a bazillion dollar missile fired instead.

Maybe reduce the size and make it a single/double barrel turret?

Posted: 12/13/2012 2:40:40 AM EST

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I always wondered how much trouble/what kind of task was involved with unloading a shell from the barrel.

I mean, you're engaging a target, you load/reload several times, and finally are told to stand down. You've got to have several barrels loaded at that point that need to be made safe....
And then you've got the rotator band engaging the rifling, I know it's got to be snug.

The only to get the shell out it to shoot it out once it's in the barrel.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

This is from very long memory, but when I first read about the explosion in that gun turret, they said something about putting a special oil down the barrel to remove a rammed round.

Maybe someone that knows can tell us. (Dport?)

No idea. I know I wouldn't want the job! I have images of Bugs Bunny hitting shells with a hammer and writing "Dud" on the side.

Typically you would just shoot it. Though during munitions testing in the past, there were a couple instances where we decided not to shoot after ramming the projectile. Due to the cost associated with these projectiles, we really wanted to extract them for later testing (this just requires replacing the obturatinig band that had been engraved). We were only successful once in extracing a rammed projectile, and it basically involved a "ram rod" and an extremely large mass (many tons) hitting the end. I won't even discuss the first two ideas that were attempted. BTW, the extracted projecitle was inert.

Posted: 12/13/2012 3:23:23 AM EST

[#46]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Updated the OP to add a few videos.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ea/BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg/470px-BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg

http://www.militarytimes.com/xml/offduty/travel/ordnance-on-display-dahlgrenmuseum-101810w/101810od_dahlgren_guns_800.JPG

Many people see many things when they see these pictures. As a reloader, one additional thing thing I see - questionable powder choice! Look at all that muzzle blast and smoke. Signs of using too slow a powder! I also see a bit of a half-hazard house-keeping with the shells in the proof house testing.

[Edit - rewritting this]
Well, someone on an earlier page posted the barrel length:bore diameter ratio for the 16"/50 as well as .223, .308, etc. and it turns out to be fairly short. IIRC the same 50-calibers-long bore in a .223 (.224 dia.) is 11.2", so that's part of it. It's actually a pretty short barrel, as are most naval guns--the WW2 standard gun for DE, DD's, and some CL's was 5"/38, which is analogous to a .223 with an 8.5" barrel.

Is the length to diameter ratio important? A 9mm and a .40 cal both have the same length barrel and same SAMMI pressure rating, but if you look up their respective common bullet weight with lets say Universal Clay's max charge, they both have the same muzzle velocity. Even though the .40 cal has a lower barrel length to diameter ratio.

You need enough barrel length to impart the rotation and stabilize the round - which generally isn't much length at all to do so. The rest is to allow more dwell time to continue acceleration of the round. But that's just a function of time, which is length.

Here is my best guess on what's going on. Let's start with a .223 round, for comparison. The below pressure graph shows that the round achieves real high pressure at first, and then the pressure tapers off pretty quick. The bullet is accelerating the whole time it's in the barrel (hence longer barrel gives higher velocity). And of course, the more pressure it has for the longer time, the more it's going to accelerate.

So the pressure starts really high, and hence the chamber area is always really thick, to handle it. And as the powder burns down (and the bullet moves down the barrel - letting the pressure come down from the expansion). A .223 round is pretty efficient, the cartridge size isn't so big. But a magnum round, they hold a lot more powder, so you can keep the pressure up real high, for longer. And you use a slower powder to do that, so the initial peak pressure doesn't go crazy. The trade off, is it's less efficient, so you end up burning a good portion of the powder after the bullet already left the barrel. But so what, powder is cheap.

So I'm guessing that's the deal with this cannon too. The put a crap load of powder in there, that burns really slow. So that yes, while much of it ends up wasted as smoke and fireball, you were able to keep pressure up real high the whole time, and thus get better velocity.

http://ar15barrels.com/tech/223plot.gif
(which is why barrels taper in thickness by the way. They can be thin out front because the pressure is so low by the time the projectile gets to that area, so that area never sees as high of a pressure spike).

This is typically what you would see in the past, but there has been quite a bit of work on progressive propellants...propellants that increase in rate of gas generation, not just burn rate. This is accomplished through the chemical composition (not always uniform through the grain) and the grain geometry. It's a challenge to design a propellant that can continue to fill the rapidly expanding cylinder behind the projectile (with gas), keeping the pressure high until the projectile leaves the barrel, without grenading the gun. Reliably and consistant.

Propellants exist that stretch out the high pressure peak a bit, but they are not simple. Also, the further you try to stretch and hold that peak (using primarily NG/NC based propellant), it starts getting a little risky. I've only seen one design so far that would do it fairly well, but I think the folks with the money weren't very comfortable with it, and it's understandable.

Posted: 12/13/2012 3:34:58 AM EST

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I want a land-based version of this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Iowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg

As I recall, after Pearl Harbor they removed the two aft turrets from the wreck of the Arizona and installed them on an artificial concrete island to cover the harbor. How's that for land based?

You're thinking of Ft Drum at the mouth of Manilla Bay in the Philippines. Though they did remove C and D turrets from the Arizona and install them as shore batteries, they were on the Hawaiian Islands themselves. They didn't build a concrete island just for them. I think only one battery was actually completed and test fired. After the war, both batteries were dismantled and scrapped.

Ft Drum is built on an existing coral island and contained two turrets, with two 14" guns each. It was built to cover the entrance to Manilla Bay and was often called the "concrete battleship" because it looked like a short, squatty battleship. It was a US Army facility built before WWII and it provided fire support for the troops on Bataan before it was surrendered to the Japs in May 1942 after emptying the recoil cylinders of fluid and firing the guns one last time to disable them. They also flooded the bottoms "decks".

US forces retook Ft Drum in April 1945 when they assaulted the fort and pumped a mixture of diesel fuel and gasoline belowdecks and ignited it thus killing the Jap garrison. Ft Drum never saw active service again and remains in Manilla Bay. It has been extensively "scrapped" by locals seeking steel and not much remains below decks. Even the two 14" turrets have been subjected to the scrappers torches.

Posted: 12/13/2012 3:37:31 AM EST

[#48]

Quoted:

You're from Richmond? You poor bastard...

I drove out from the Central Valley to watch Iowa transit the Golden Gate that day. Saw her passing Angel Island as we crossed the Bay Bridge, and watched the Gate transit from Baker Beach, Battery Chamberlin, at the Presidio. Have some crappy cell phone pics around here somewhere, too

.
Worth the trip. Amazing and bittersweet.
BTW, she's looking pretty good at her new home, Ports-o-Call at the San Pedro waterfront, right below the Vincent Thomas Bridge. Haven't been aboard yet, though.

wasn't easy being a white boy in that rat ass city, but Dad, Grandad and all my Uncles were/are employed by Chevron. I grew up in the house my Grandfather was raised in.

Posted: 12/13/2012 12:46:48 PM EST

[#49]

Sofa Painting of the Iowa leaving New York Harbor in 1943

Got it for my grandfather who served 46-48 on the Iowa 4 years ago for his birthday. When he passed last year he gave it to me.