Battleships... do we still build them? - Page 5

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Battleships... do we still build them? (Page 5 of 7)

Posted: 7/27/2011 3:24:08 PM EST

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I do wonder however if one modern Ticonderoga class cruiser with it's anti air, anti submarine, and anti surface capability could in fact defend itself and actually sink say the entire Japanese Navy of WWII (assuming it had a resuply ship to rearm).

Obviously it would be able to see the Japanese ships and planes long before they could see it. The Tomahawk and Harpoon missles would prove devistating (even if they didn't use nukes) but without other assets their range would be limited. The big question is could these missles actually penetrate and sink a heavly armored battleship? My guess is that they would not be able to do so at least not without using up a ton of missles so resuply would be critical or the battleships might well close to firing range and they could blast the modern Aegis cruser out of the water - but then the crusier could out run these ships and it wouldn't need to refuel.

Using Midway OOB...could a Tico take 60-70 divebombers and 50-60 torpedo bombers alone? Not to mention 80-90 Zeros.

You're in a prop-driven fighter or bomber. You're flying in close formation. All of a sudden you see a white streak and two of your buddies, without warning, are vaporized. You scramble your formation, but you keep pressing the attack. Two more are blotted from the sky, hardly a warning from your attacker.

Do you:
-continue on without knowing what lies ahead and with your comrades falling out of the sky?
-turn around and try to survive?

Most Japanese pilots weren't Kamakazis.

Posted: 7/27/2011 3:27:04 PM EST

[#2]

Quoted:

Somewhere in VA, sitting quietly in a peaceful, spacious study room filled with the aromatic scent of fine pipe tobacco, complete with volumes of literature written about NSW sitting on custom-made hardwood shelves in the background-while wearing an expensive smoking jacket and sipping on a glass of golden, liquid wisdom-I can see a face turning purple and a head exploding.....

It's nice to see I'm loved.

Posted: 7/27/2011 3:28:02 PM EST

[#3]

<–––– we really need this emoticon added to the list

Posted: 7/28/2011 8:11:36 AM EST

[#4]

Quoted:
You're in a prop-driven fighter or bomber. You're flying in close formation. All of a sudden you see a white streak and two of your buddies, without warning, are vaporized. You scramble your formation, but you keep pressing the attack. Two more are blotted from the sky, hardly a warning from your attacker.

Two? Ripple fire a bunch and really screw up the formation.

Posted: 7/28/2011 8:38:48 AM EST

[#5]

Quoted:
I found one of these in a warehouse

http://i53.tinypic.com/2vteb6f.jpg

That's a breech plug from a 16" Mk7 for anyone that doesn't know. Imagine how much a new one of those would cost!

Where do you work, the warehouse they stashed the Ark of the Covenant in after the end of Indiana Jones?

Posted: 7/28/2011 8:55:43 AM EST

[#6]

Planes rule today and for the last 70 years because they are relatively hard to shoot down with a battleship gun.
Just like the rules changed with the invention of airplanes, new technology could easily move planes, missles, drones into the past as well.
As soon as they perfect a laser powerfull enough, and a targeting system accurate enough, any physical weapon approaching will be vaporized at a safe distance.
The only thing that would help is armor, which isnt suited to air based weapons.
At which time, battleships will again become the flagship, except they will be paired between ballistic weapons (power or rail) and line of sight energy weapons.
The will burn anything they can see down, have enough armor to accept hits from energy weapons, and use ballistic weapons to lob over the line of sight.
there would be no since in lobbing missles, because if the enemy had energy weapons they could not reach their target, but missles may still be usefull against inferior enemies.
aircraft will be obselete when energy weapons are ready.
additionally , a energy beam weapon capable of vaporizing incomming planes, missles, shells , etc will be plenty powerfull enough to vaporize targets in orbit.
thusly tactics will again resemble pre-sky warfare.

Posted: 7/28/2011 9:01:44 AM EST

[#7]

Quoted:
Regardless, that is not even close to being correct. Steel, left out and unpreserved, will (and does) rust. Even in Nevada where our humidity is low.

What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place? Do you think the Navy was going to wait and protect only when it mounted on a battleship, that they would take them straight from the foundry and send them to storage? And once such an item is properly "mothballed" for storage, it's not like some part-time fork lift driver is going to unwrap it on his coffee break. Who's going to go messing around with a 67' long 16" diameter barrel?

Furthermore, the barrel was chrome plated for the first 86% of it's length. Last I checked, chrome doesn't corrode very much.

Posted: 7/28/2011 9:49:03 AM EST

[#8]

Quoted:This one is true, but falls well short of 200nm. More like ~60nm (goal range). But hey, being off by a factor of three is close, right?

This was the initial program in the early 60's. There wer emore to follow. Some bantered around a range of 500 miles for the SCRAMJET round program in the 90s, but thats probably too good to be true.

60K meters. So you're still at less than the 60's experimental program range, and more than a factor of three off of your 200nm number.

200miles was to be hit with the SCRAMJET round. As I've told you before. Perhaps, before you sling that "dense" label around, you might try remembereing what you have already been informed about.

They "were" working on rail guns in the 70s, and again in the 80s. We are working on them again now. Progress is being made, but after 50 years, were' not there yet.

When you retire the platform, and stop the programs for upgrades, progress does rather stop, doesn't it?

Anyone see problems with a gun-launched scramjet? I can see several. Expense. Modification of the gun barrel. Modification of the gun itself. Throw in a guidance system, an exotic propulsion system and modifications to the gun, which has to be manned, what do you get? A more expensive alternative to a missile system. Only you get more maintenance out of the deal.

Until you build one, you won't know what the costs are. For short range, you can't switch a missle to a cheaper conventional round - you expend the whole thing.

Posted: 7/28/2011 9:53:24 AM EST

[#9]

Quoted:

I would respond to the personal attack, but I'm still waiting to here from the FBI or your chain of command, or mine, since you decided to accuse me of social engineering to solicit classified information from you. That is a MANDATORY reporting event, yes? Still waiting...

I apologize. I have since realized that you are indeed that dense.

Oh, no.

That won't cut it.

My dense ass has to go to the same DOD security briefings you have to.

Attempts to solicit classified information by unofficial means are MANDATORY reporting events - you should have talking to your security officer, NOT accusing me of it in a post on ARFCOM. Yet you did not.

So which is it? Were you derelict in your duty, and ignoring regs, or were you being libelously snarky and lieing in an argument? Neither one reflects much credit on you....

Posted: 7/28/2011 9:53:32 AM EST

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Regardless, that is not even close to being correct. Steel, left out and unpreserved, will (and does) rust. Even in Nevada where our humidity is low.

What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place? Do you think the Navy was going to wait and protect only when it mounted on a battleship, that they would take them straight from the foundry and send them to storage? And once such an item is properly "mothballed" for storage, it's not like some part-time fork lift driver is going to unwrap it on his coffee break. Who's going to go messing around with a 67' long 16" diameter barrel?

Furthermore, the barrel was chrome plated for the first 86% of it's length. Last I checked, chrome doesn't corrode very much.

It's not valuable if it has no purpose, and I've seen the pictures.

Posted: 7/28/2011 9:55:37 AM EST

[#11]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Regardless, that is not even close to being correct. Steel, left out and unpreserved, will (and does) rust. Even in Nevada where our humidity is low.

What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place? Do you think the Navy was going to wait and protect only when it mounted on a battleship, that they would take them straight from the foundry and send them to storage? And once such an item is properly "mothballed" for storage, it's not like some part-time fork lift driver is going to unwrap it on his coffee break. Who's going to go messing around with a 67' long 16" diameter barrel?

Furthermore, the barrel was chrome plated for the first 86% of it's length. Last I checked, chrome doesn't corrode very much.

I wish chrome lined gun barrels didn't corrode very much

The pictures I saw, the exterior of the barrels were practically orange, and the muzzle and breech were not plugged. They were partially wrapped, but all that means is water gets trapped under the covering.

I wonder if there are any functional gauges anywhere? I can't even imagine star gauging that fucker. Must take a week

Posted: 7/28/2011 9:57:41 AM EST

[#12]

Quoted:
What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place?

You're new to the feds, aren't you?

Anyway, the barrels were stored in the open air.

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/04/its-enought-to-make-navy-veteran-cry.html

Posted: 7/28/2011 12:31:50 PM EST

[#13]

Quoted:

I would respond to the personal attack, but I'm still waiting to here from the FBI or your chain of command, or mine, since you decided to accuse me of social engineering to solicit classified information from you. That is a MANDATORY reporting event, yes? Still waiting...

I apologize. I have since realized that you are indeed that dense.

Oh, no.

That won't cut it.

My dense ass has to go to the same DOD security briefings you have to.

Attempts to solicit classified information by unofficial means are MANDATORY reporting events - you should have talking to your security officer, NOT accusing me of it in a post on ARFCOM. Yet you did not.

So which is it? Were you derelict in your duty, and ignoring regs, or were you being libelously snarky and lieing in an argument? Neither one reflects much credit on you....

I'd love for you to post a link to that thread. I don't think I said what you think I said, but without the link you can make accusations without having to be grounded in reality.

Who says I didn't go to my security officer? How do you know? Simply put, you don't.

Posted: 7/28/2011 12:43:48 PM EST

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place?

You're new to the feds, aren't you?

Anyway, the barrels were stored in the open air.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/TbJNnjLupHI/AAAAAAAAJKU/AG7ScJ1NPWA/16-inch%20guns%204.jpg

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/04/its-enought-to-make-navy-veteran-cry.html

Is it me, or are those tubes visibly drooping? I know arty tubes like our main gun on the Abrams do to some degree, but I can't imagine a long steel tube like those of a 16" gun didn't to a much greater degree.

Another thing that's interesting is how much longer the tube is as opposed to what we see projecting from the turret.

ETA: Weren't gun tubes of that size lined, and the lining could be replaced?

Posted: 7/28/2011 12:49:22 PM EST

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did.

Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false.

You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal.

That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in inventory.

Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out.

Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place.

Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors.

they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades.

What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r

Would modern missiles even be effective against the heavy armor of a battle ship, they have inches of steel every where about the water line and torpedo blisters under it? Most modern missiles are designed to tahe out lightly armored ships like AC's, destroyers, and such.

Yes.

This was thought of and specifically dealt with by modifying attack profiles of missiles during their terminal flight profile to attack from above into the lightly armored decks and upper decks. All that armor and torpedo blister don't do squat against that kind of threat. BB armor was designed to resist AP shells coming in at a 45 degree angle. A straight on attack makes it more vulnerable and the Iowa class had approx 11 in of deck armor compared to 18 in on the side plate and turrets.

Remember you don't always have to have a complete kill to take a ship out of the fight. You only have to do enough damage to CNC or power plants to take a ship out of immediate action.

I think there was a study that showed that subsonic missiles in a pop up mode or otherwise.wouldn't penetrate the armor, supersonic was another story.

Uh yeah OK. Lets take a stroll down memory lane to Dec 7, 1941. A boat load of dumb bombs drop directly onto the armored decks of several battleships managed to penetrate the armored decks of BB's with bombs in the 200-500lb range.

A harpoon missile has a 490lb warhead on it and a quantity of jet fuel that will ignite after detonation.

I think I'll stick with the first hand experience of several sunk ships with a similar attack pattern that a harpoon missile can have.

I believe it was a NAVSEA study. So It's not mine.

Posted: 7/28/2011 12:53:39 PM EST

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

True they are, but the Aegis ship is an easy to mission kill.

I guess you and I have different definitions of easy.

Yup. FAC/FIAC was my biggest fear as a TAO.

You're afraid of FAC/FIAC? I'm not.

More afraid of that than a missile. I believe the last AEGIS ship was mission killed by a small craft. Now send out 100's in the Gulf. Plus our tactics for dealing with them are well...........

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:15:41 PM EST

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place?

You're new to the feds, aren't you?

Anyway, the barrels were stored in the open air.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/TbJNnjLupHI/AAAAAAAAJKU/AG7ScJ1NPWA/16-inch%20guns%204.jpg

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/04/its-enought-to-make-navy-veteran-cry.html

Is it me, or are those tubes visibly drooping? I know arty tubes like our main gun on the Abrams do to some degree, but I can't imagine a long steel tube like those of a 16" gun didn't to a much greater degree.

Another thing that's interesting is how much longer the tube is as opposed to what we see projecting from the turret.

ETA: Weren't gun tubes of that size lined, and the lining could be replaced?

Correct, the barrels had a replaceable liner

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:20:28 PM EST

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

True they are, but the Aegis ship is an easy to mission kill.

I guess you and I have different definitions of easy.

Yup. FAC/FIAC was my biggest fear as a TAO.

You're afraid of FAC/FIAC? I'm not.

More afraid of that than a missile. I believe the last AEGIS ship was mission killed by a small craft. Now send out 100's in the Gulf. Plus our tactics for dealing with them are well...........

Let's stop there.

We can move back to battleships, but TTP for dealing with FAC/FIAC is not cool

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:25:43 PM EST

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:

True they are, but the Aegis ship is an easy to mission kill.

I guess you and I have different definitions of easy.

Yup. FAC/FIAC was my biggest fear as a TAO.

You're afraid of FAC/FIAC? I'm not.

More afraid of that than a missile. I believe the last AEGIS ship was mission killed by a small craft. Now send out 100's in the Gulf. Plus our tactics for dealing with them are well...........

That was a force protection failure, and it won't happen again.

Using that to suggest small boats are a significant threat to a DDG underway is absurd.

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:26:46 PM EST

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place?

You're new to the feds, aren't you?

Anyway, the barrels were stored in the open air.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/TbJNnjLupHI/AAAAAAAAJKU/AG7ScJ1NPWA/16-inch%20guns%204.jpg

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/04/its-enought-to-make-navy-veteran-cry.html

Is it me, or are those tubes visibly drooping? I know arty tubes like our main gun on the Abrams do to some degree, but I can't imagine a long steel tube like those of a 16" gun didn't to a much greater degree.

Another thing that's interesting is how much longer the tube is as opposed to what we see projecting from the turret.

ETA: Weren't gun tubes of that size lined, and the lining could be replaced?

Correct, the barrels had a replaceable liner

The close tolerances that must be involved boggles my mind. Somewhere around here, I have a paper from the Master Gunner School for armor on Gun Tube Technology as it is at Watervliet Arsenal in NY. I should scan it and post it. How arty tubes are manufactured is quite a science.

BBs represented such incredible industrial capability on a scale that almost-if not outright-approaches the fantastic. I think that's why I'm such a proponent.

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:27:14 PM EST

[#21]

Quoted:

Quoted:

True they are, but the Aegis ship is an easy to mission kill.

I guess you and I have different definitions of easy.

Yup. FAC/FIAC was my biggest fear as a TAO.

You're afraid of FAC/FIAC? I'm not.

More afraid of that than a missile. I believe the last AEGIS ship was mission killed by a small craft. Now send out 100's in the Gulf. Plus our tactics for dealing with them are well...........

Let's stop there.

We can move back to battleships, but TTP for dealing with FAC/FIAC is not cool

I don't want to go back to battleships.

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:28:57 PM EST

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

True they are, but the Aegis ship is an easy to mission kill.

I guess you and I have different definitions of easy.

Yup. FAC/FIAC was my biggest fear as a TAO.

You're afraid of FAC/FIAC? I'm not.

More afraid of that than a missile. I believe the last AEGIS ship was mission killed by a small craft. Now send out 100's in the Gulf. Plus our tactics for dealing with them are well...........

That was a force protection failure, and it won't happen again.

Using that to suggest small boats are a significant threat to a DDG underway is absurd.

Did you really state that? I guess my last strike commander didn't think that way.

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:29:10 PM EST

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did.

Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false.

You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal.

That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in inventory.

Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degredation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out.

Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place.

Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors.

they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades.

What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r

Would modern missiles even be effective against the heavy armor of a battle ship, they have inches of steel every where about the water line and torpedo blisters under it? Most modern missiles are designed to tahe out lightly armored ships like AC's, destroyers, and such.

Yes.

This was thought of and specifically dealt with by modifying attack profiles of missiles during their terminal flight profile to attack from above into the lightly armored decks and upper decks. All that armor and torpedo blister don't do squat against that kind of threat. BB armor was designed to resist AP shells coming in at a 45 degree angle. A straight on attack makes it more vulnerable and the Iowa class had approx 11 in of deck armor compared to 18 in on the side plate and turrets.

Remember you don't always have to have a complete kill to take a ship out of the fight. You only have to do enough damage to CNC or power plants to take a ship out of immediate action.

I think there was a study that showed that subsonic missiles in a pop up mode or otherwise.wouldn't penetrate the armor, supersonic was another story.

Uh yeah OK. Lets take a stroll down memory lane to Dec 7, 1941. A boat load of dumb bombs drop directly onto the armored decks of several battleships managed to penetrate the armored decks of BB's with bombs in the 200-500lb range.

A harpoon missile has a 490lb warhead on it and a quantity of jet fuel that will ignite after detonation.

I think I'll stick with the first hand experience of several sunk ships with a similar attack pattern that a harpoon missile can have.

That 490lb warhead also has a copper shaped charge perpetrator that can punch through several FEET of hardened armor. I actually attended a lecture about the software used to model the dispersion of the copper jet that punched through the armor while in college. I spoke with one of the lead researchers that helped design those weapon systems.

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:29:36 PM EST

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place?

You're new to the feds, aren't you?

Anyway, the barrels were stored in the open air.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/TbJNnjLupHI/AAAAAAAAJKU/AG7ScJ1NPWA/16-inch%20guns%204.jpg

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/04/its-enought-to-make-navy-veteran-cry.html

Is it me, or are those tubes visibly drooping? I know arty tubes like our main gun on the Abrams do to some degree, but I can't imagine a long steel tube like those of a 16" gun didn't to a much greater degree.

Another thing that's interesting is how much longer the tube is as opposed to what we see projecting from the turret.

ETA: Weren't gun tubes of that size lined, and the lining could be replaced?

Correct, the barrels had a replaceable liner

The close tolerances that must be involved boggles my mind. Somewhere around here, I have a paper from the Master Gunner School for armor on Gun Tube Technology as it is at Watervliet Arsenal in NY. I should scan it and post it. How arty tubes are manufactured is quite a science.

BBs represented such incredible industrial capability on a scale that almost-if not outright-approaches the fantastic. I think that's why I'm such a proponent.

I read a really neat article about the construction of the Mk7 guns, but I can't seem to find it. It's quite neat how they do it, and I can't even begin to think about the cost of replicating the procedure today.

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:32:10 PM EST

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

We don't build battleships anymore.

But it's worth noting that the Navy still maintains an inventory of 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 barrels, along with lots of shells and propellant.

The Navy knows that *IF* they decide to put a battleship back into service, the means to manufacture such items is no longer available. Retooling would have to occur, which would take a lot of time and $$$, a luxury that you often don't have when pressed into war.

No, we do not maintain those things. The last of the barrells are sitting down at Hawthorne awaiting demil (if they haven't been already), the powder is long gone (proven dangerous after the Iowa incident), and I doubt the shells are around either.

Then I stand corrected, but this is something that has happened recently. The Navy kept those in inventory for many years after the last Iowa class was decommissioned in 1992.

As far as I know, the only thing that we kept around were the barrels, and they weren't really preserved –– they were pretty much left out to rot.

Exactly where were they left? If it was anywhere with low humidity, no "preservation" is needed.

Well, I already said they were at Hawthorne Army Depot, which is in Hawthorne, Nevada.

Regardless, that is not even close to being correct. Steel, left out and unpreserved, will (and does) rust. Even in Nevada where our humidity is low.

IIRC, there were some in VA as well.

There isn't anywhere left to make new ones either. From what I've read, it's a pretty neat process though

We have 8 of them in Portsmouth at Saint Juliens Creek Annex. They are all rusted to hell and can't be moved since the railroad tracks were ripped up.

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:46:19 PM EST

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What leads you to believe Uncle Sam would ever store such a valuable item without protecting it from corrosion in the first place?

You're new to the feds, aren't you?

Anyway, the barrels were stored in the open air.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/_kIWY2DV0KnE/TbJNnjLupHI/AAAAAAAAJKU/AG7ScJ1NPWA/16-inch%20guns%204.jpg

http://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2011/04/its-enought-to-make-navy-veteran-cry.html

Is it me, or are those tubes visibly drooping? I know arty tubes like our main gun on the Abrams do to some degree, but I can't imagine a long steel tube like those of a 16" gun didn't to a much greater degree.

Another thing that's interesting is how much longer the tube is as opposed to what we see projecting from the turret.

ETA: Weren't gun tubes of that size lined, and the lining could be replaced?

Correct, the barrels had a replaceable liner

The close tolerances that must be involved boggles my mind. Somewhere around here, I have a paper from the Master Gunner School for armor on Gun Tube Technology as it is at Watervliet Arsenal in NY. I should scan it and post it. How arty tubes are manufactured is quite a science.

BBs represented such incredible industrial capability on a scale that almost-if not outright-approaches the fantastic. I think that's why I'm such a proponent.

I read a really neat article about the construction of the Mk7 guns, but I can't seem to find it. It's quite neat how they do it, and I can't even begin to think about the cost of replicating the procedure today.

I toured the MO when she was Bremerton, WA in the early '70s. It was ok, but you couldn't go below deck-everything was sealed.

Then I got to see the Alabama in Mobile in '80 or so. That was better, because you could go below deck and also get into the turrets.

In 2006 I saw the North Carolina in Wilmington. Being a tank crewman, seeing the turret put things in context (watching Victory at Sea helped to, when they showed the Sailor using hand and arm signals to orchestrate the loading of a projectile followed by bag after bag of propellant). Damn, those things were cramped.

One word I can think of to describe the whole ship: IMPRESSIVE.

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:47:30 PM EST

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

True they are, but the Aegis ship is an easy to mission kill.

I guess you and I have different definitions of easy.

Yup. FAC/FIAC was my biggest fear as a TAO.

You're afraid of FAC/FIAC? I'm not.

More afraid of that than a missile. I believe the last AEGIS ship was mission killed by a small craft. Now send out 100's in the Gulf. Plus our tactics for dealing with them are well...........

That was a force protection failure, and it won't happen again.

Using that to suggest small boats are a significant threat to a DDG underway is absurd.

Did you really state that? I guess my last strike commander didn't think that way.

When, exactly, was this? It boggles my mind that as an Aegis TAO you think small boats are a threat. I've never heard anyone else say that.

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:53:21 PM EST

[#28]

Quoted:
I toured the MO when she was Bremerton, WA in the early '70s. It was ok, but you couldn't go below deck-everything was sealed.

Then I got to see the Alabama in Mobile in '80 or so. That was better, because you could go below deck and also get into the turrets.

In 2006 I saw the North Carolina in Wilmington. Being a tank crewman, seeing the turret put things in context (watching Victory at Sea helped to, when they showed the Sailor using hand and arm signals to orchestrate the loading of a projectile followed by bag after bag of propellant). Damn, those things were cramped.

One word I can think of to describe the whole ship: IMPRESSIVE.

If you get the chance, check out the New Jersey. It's been about 5 years since I've been there, but they had done a really nice job. they had some incredibly ambitious plans for the future, too. They wanted to restore her as much as possible from foc'sle to fantail, even down to the original power distribution system. I'm curious to see how they are coming. They had a lot closed off while doing restorations (in fact, they had a ton of electricians working on the power system while I was there)

I was stationed just across the Delaware from her in Philly, and I always meant to go volunteer there helping restore her but I never got around to it. Now I'm trying to get some time off to work on the Ingham in Key West to keep me amused.

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:55:06 PM EST

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:

True they are, but the Aegis ship is an easy to mission kill.

I guess you and I have different definitions of easy.

Yup. FAC/FIAC was my biggest fear as a TAO.

You're afraid of FAC/FIAC? I'm not.

More afraid of that than a missile. I believe the last AEGIS ship was mission killed by a small craft. Now send out 100's in the Gulf. Plus our tactics for dealing with them are well...........

That was a force protection failure, and it won't happen again.

Using that to suggest small boats are a significant threat to a DDG underway is absurd.

Did you really state that? I guess my last strike commander didn't think that way.

When, exactly, was this? It boggles my mind that you claim to have been an Aegis TAO, and you think small boats are a threat. I've never heard anyone else say that.

2008. Have you been a TAO? It actually boggles my mind that you think the small boat is not a threat in the Gulf. I know we trained quite a bit on it and I as a WEPS and TAO took it very seriously.

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:55:33 PM EST

[#30]

Should we be discussing current threats and Navy preparations for them, positive or negative?

Posted: 7/28/2011 1:56:29 PM EST

[#31]

Quoted:
Should we be discussing current threats and Navy preparations for them, positive or negative?

Not one tactic has been mentioned.

Posted: 7/28/2011 2:00:06 PM EST

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Even if a supersonic missile did penetrate the compartmentalization would prevent it from taking out the ship leaving it still fighting. Those missiles give up payload for speed and or range.

There's some big missiles with good range and good speed out there....

Yes there are. It amazes me when people talk about shit they don't know.

And, oh by the way, how do people think BBs will hold up against things like ASBMs?

Better than an aircraft carrier

Posted: 7/28/2011 2:00:13 PM EST

[#33]

Quoted:

2008. Have you been a TAO? It actually boggles my mind that you think the small boat is not a threat in the Gulf. I know we trained quite a bit on it and I as a WEPS and TAO took it very seriously.

No, not a TAO –– just have never heard anyone say they think that's the threat before.

Posted: 7/28/2011 2:00:30 PM EST

[#34]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should we be discussing current threats and Navy preparations for them, positive or negative?

Not one tactic has been mentioned.

Saying that we aren't prepared for a specific threat or our tactics suck, especially talkign about and area where that is a major threat, isn't a smart idea.

Of course, I get a little sensitive about the FAC/FIAC topic since it's something I've dealt with quite a bit

Posted: 7/28/2011 2:00:34 PM EST

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Even if a supersonic missile did penetrate the compartmentalization would prevent it from taking out the ship leaving it still fighting. Those missiles give up payload for speed and or range.

There's some big missiles with good range and good speed out there....

Yes there are. It amazes me when people talk about shit they don't know.

And, oh by the way, how do people think BBs will hold up against things like ASBMs?

Better than an aircraft carrier

No, actually they won't.

Posted: 7/28/2011 2:05:08 PM EST

[#36]

Quoted:

Quoted:

2008. Have you been a TAO? It actually boggles my mind that you think the small boat is not a threat in the Gulf. I know we trained quite a bit on it and I as a WEPS and TAO took it very seriously.

No, not a TAO –– just have never heard anyone say they think that's the threat before.

I took it pretty seriously. My CO did too. Do I tthink he DDG could deal with it, yes. But It was a threat I didn't take lightly the battlefield is littered with the dead who took their enemy lightly.

Posted: 7/28/2011 2:08:07 PM EST

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

2008. Have you been a TAO? It actually boggles my mind that you think the small boat is not a threat in the Gulf. I know we trained quite a bit on it and I as a WEPS and TAO took it very seriously.

No, not a TAO –– just have never heard anyone say they think that's the threat before.

I took it pretty seriously. My CO did too. Do I tthink he DDG could deal with it, yes. But It was a threat I didn't take lightly the battlefield is littered with the dead who took their enemy lightly.

I think we're at odds over terminology then, not ideology. I would concur that taking any threat lightly isn't a good idea.

Posted: 7/28/2011 2:08:58 PM EST

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should we be discussing current threats and Navy preparations for them, positive or negative?

Not one tactic has been mentioned.

Saying that we aren't prepared for a specific threat or our tactics suck, especially talkign about and area where that is a major threat, isn't a smart idea.

Of course, I get a little sensitive about the FAC/FIAC topic since it's something I've dealt with quite a bit

I get sensitive about it too. I have not mentioned one thing that isn't on an open source. We trained hard and were ready to deal with it as a unit and a battle group.

Posted: 7/28/2011 2:10:49 PM EST

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Our "little" missile boats have more firepower than BBs ever did.

Your point may be apt but this statement is still woefully false.

You park a Battleship in Shanghai harbor and cut it loose on the city and you will have a landscape that resembles ancient Carthage after the Romans were done with it after 24 hours, you put an Arleigh burke in the same mission and it could only knock down a handful of structures and would be much less lethal.

That is the fact that made the Battleship such a potent weapon and tool of diplomacy, one which is not rivaled by anything we currently have in inventory.

Which represents a newer, worse paradigm of precision engagement. Precision is a good thing, and it can be a hell of a force multiplier. However it is wrong to assume that all of our future engagements are going to be relatively civil affairs where the enemy can be dissuaded by the degradation of his infrastructure or combat forces. Thinking so is the modern "big Wing" Carrier admirals fallacy and a good example of them fighting the last war. There is no certainty that the next war will not require Genocide and depredation to an extent that only the Battleships could carry it out.

Perhaps as surface combatants they have been overshadowed, but as tools of Foreign Policy, Terror Weapons, and Annihilative engines they still have a place.

Right up until someone puts a missile through one. then you just have a useless hunk of metal and a lot of dead sailors.

they aren't worth the amount of money it would take to get one back in fighting shape. Not to mention you would need to train a few hundred people on the guns. What are the condition of those guns anyways? Having seen a breech plug in person, you are NOT making a replacement quickly. I can't even imagine how much a new breech plug would cost. What's the condition of the barrels? There is no facility int he country to make one, and I'm not sure I'd trust the spares that have been sitting around exposed to the elements for decades and decades.

What are the boilers like? Electrical systems? Electronics?r

Would modern missiles even be effective against the heavy armor of a battle ship, they have inches of steel every where about the water line and torpedo blisters under it? Most modern missiles are designed to tahe out lightly armored ships like AC's, destroyers, and such.

Yes.

This was thought of and specifically dealt with by modifying attack profiles of missiles during their terminal flight profile to attack from above into the lightly armored decks and upper decks. All that armor and torpedo blister don't do squat against that kind of threat. BB armor was designed to resist AP shells coming in at a 45 degree angle. A straight on attack makes it more vulnerable and the Iowa class had approx 11 in of deck armor compared to 18 in on the side plate and turrets.

Remember you don't always have to have a complete kill to take a ship out of the fight. You only have to do enough damage to CNC or power plants to take a ship out of immediate action.

I think there was a study that showed that subsonic missiles in a pop up mode or otherwise.wouldn't penetrate the armor, supersonic was another story.

Uh yeah OK. Lets take a stroll down memory lane to Dec 7, 1941. A boat load of dumb bombs drop directly onto the armored decks of several battleships managed to penetrate the armored decks of BB's with bombs in the 200-500lb range.

A harpoon missile has a 490lb warhead on it and a quantity of jet fuel that will ignite after detonation.

I think I'll stick with the first hand experience of several sunk ships with a similar attack pattern that a harpoon missile can have.

That 490lb warhead also has a copper shaped charge perpetrator that can punch through several FEET of hardened armor. I actually attended a lecture about the software used to model the dispersion of the copper jet that punched through the armor while in college. I spoke with one of the lead researchers that helped design those weapon systems.

The decks on Pearl Harbor ships wasn't armored, so using that as a gauge doesn't work. Also the copper penetrator makes a very small hole through armor leaving the fuel in no way useful. The penetrator would have to hit a powder magazine, fuel storage or something else to do any structural damage to have any useful effect too. Just punching a 1/4" hole through the armor doesn't do much good. Not to mention a BB nowadays would have all the protection of a modern ship, do you really think we would just leave one out crusing all by it's self?

Posted: 7/28/2011 2:11:14 PM EST

[#40]

Anyway being a SWO on a BB would of been awesome.

Posted: 7/28/2011 2:11:32 PM EST

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Uh yeah OK. Lets take a stroll down memory lane to Dec 7, 1941.

Yes, lets....

A boat load of dumb bombs drop directly onto the armored decks of several battleships

...along with aerial torpedoes, as well as quite possibly torps off of midget subs...

...managed to penetrate the armored decks of BB's....

...WWI design battleships, which were not built with an aerial bomb threat taken into consideration of their design. WWI design battleships tied up, in peacetime, with unmanned AA weapons and water-tight doors open.

Exactly how well would an aircraft carrier fared under such conditions? Or any ship, for that matter? Suprise attacks are a bitch....

.... with bombs in the 200-500lb range.

???

No.

Not even.

The bombs that the Japanese dropped at Peal Harbor were actually armor-piercing battleship gun rounds, 16.1 inch Type 99 (Model 1939) No 80 Mark 5. Fitted with fins, these were AP rounds for the guns on the Nagato, and weighed 1,641 pounds.

A

Type 99 No 80 Mark 5 Bomb

Some of the APC shells for these guns were converted into aircraft bombs and then designated as Type 99 (Model 1939) No 80 Mark 5. It is believed that one of these destroyed USS Arizona BB-39. In 1942 the design was modified and bombs built to this new design were designated as Type 2 (Model 1942) No 80 Mark 5 Model 1.

Posted: 7/28/2011 2:16:15 PM EST

[#42]

ALSO interesting read on the gun tubes in nevada

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/capital-land/2011/03/marshall-dont-sell-those-gun-barrels

Posted: 7/28/2011 2:56:33 PM EST

[#43]

I love the BB's. Too bad they are no longer of much use.

Posted: 7/28/2011 3:31:04 PM EST

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:

True they are, but the Aegis ship is an easy to mission kill.

I guess you and I have different definitions of easy.

Yup. FAC/FIAC was my biggest fear as a TAO.

You're afraid of FAC/FIAC? I'm not.

More afraid of that than a missile. I believe the last AEGIS ship was mission killed by a small craft. Now send out 100's in the Gulf. Plus our tactics for dealing with them are well...........

Got SIPR?

Without going SIPR, I'd say that as a navy our perception of the threat tends to be analytical to the extreme. The threat isn't pure numbers.

I'd also say that with the current armament, I'm not scared of FAC/FIAC.

Posted: 7/28/2011 3:34:57 PM EST

[#45]