IJN Yamato vs. USS Iowa - Page 2

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - IJN Yamato vs. USS Iowa (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 8/12/2011 8:23:19 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Iowa.

Hands down.

Superior radar, Superior fire control systems, 16" guns that hit almost as hard as Yamato's 18" guns.

The Iowas were the APEX of battleship design.

And, based on the evidence presented by the 26" thick piece of Yamato-class turret noted above, that's MORE than enough.

Note, in that report, it says that a second 16 inch projectile to be used in that testing was recovered UNDAMAGED except for damage to the windscreen
and AP nose assembly. After punching 28 inches of decent armor.

Has a 16 inch gun's projectile ever actually been fired into another ship during war? I'm have to guess the answer is yes, since the Ohio battleboats
got their hands dirty in WWII on several occasions, but I don't know if they've actually put 16 inch projectiles into enemy ships or not.

I'd like to see the resulting damage to those ships, if so.

CJ

The super-heavy armour piercing 16" rounds have been used on other warships. A Jap light cruiser, a French battleship, and a Jap battlecruiser are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Of those three, the first was sunk, the second was sunk in port (I think; it may just have suffered flooding) and had its main battery neutralized, and the third was neutralized and placed in a sinking condition, which was sped up by later attacks. Only the first involved that projectile and the Mk 7 gun; the other two involved the Mk 6 gun which is 45-calibre rather than 50-calibre like the former is. I know that isn't the full list; I'm pretty sure destroyers were hit by such projos in the engagement with the light cruiser (which involved the Iowa and New Jersey) which involved the longest range hits on an enemy warship by gunfire, if I remember correctly.

It was the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in 1940, during the sinking of HMS Glorious and her two destroyer escorts. KMS Bismarck hit the HMS Hood in a few salvoes, Germans had some bad ass optics or something, maybe just luck, who knows?

Posted: 8/12/2011 8:44:22 PM EDT

[#2]

Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required

to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something

like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)

barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

Posted: 8/12/2011 10:45:36 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required
to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something
like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)
barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630858.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630829.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630839.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34678/34677569.jpg

Not sure I'd want to shoot through those anyways....

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:07:00 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:
Well the reality is that the Yamamoto had to come out and fight first...just saying, you can have the biggest sumo around, but you got to want to put him in the ring.

While Isroku was a formidible foe and all, he was no sumo, much less a battleship.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:12:49 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required
to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something
like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)
barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630858.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630829.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630839.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34678/34677569.jpg

Not sure I'd want to shoot through those anyways....

Get the jumbo bore snake and some CLP, you'd be in business in no time.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:19:03 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required
to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something
like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)
barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630858.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630829.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630839.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34678/34677569.jpg

We also only have one plant (maybe zero now) that can make hypoid gears for differentials and other equipment. Lots of our institutional knowledge as well as tooling has been moved overseas.

P.S. I love these threads.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:25:51 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required
to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something
like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)
barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630858.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630829.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630839.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34678/34677569.jpg

I've heard that Watervliet still has some of the infrastructure for at east relining the barrels. I read that when the Iowas were active the last time the plan was to reopen and use that facility for anything having to do with 16" barrels.

I'm pretty sure the industrial infrastructure for manufacturing heavy armour plate has been gone for a long time as well, since the '60s or '70s, I think.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:27:43 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required
to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something
like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)
barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630858.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630829.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630839.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34678/34677569.jpg

I've heard that Watervliet still has some of the infrastructure for at east relining the barrels. I read that when the Iowas were active the last time the plan was to reopen and use that facility for anything having to do with 16" barrels.

I'm pretty sure the industrial infrastructure for manufacturing heavy armour plate has been gone for a long time as well, since the '60s or '70s, I think.

Chobam II warship armor.........................

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:29:39 PM EDT

[#9]

You did not mention if it was the 1984 refit Iowa/

Sea Sparrows FTW.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:45:00 PM EDT

[#10]

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:51:29 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
You did not mention if it was the 1984 refit Iowa/

Sea Sparrows FTW.

Sea Sparrow was part of the modernization planned for the 1990s that was cancelled (Missouri and Wisconsin got the first stage of it before going to the Gulf War). I believe four of the Mk29 launchers for the Sea Sparrow were to be fitted as well as VLS for Tomahawks replacing the ABLs; the VLS was going to be armoured including a retracting armoured hatch for each group of cells, among other things, such as extended range projos and computers to go with them, a hangar for helicopters, additional splinter protection, upgraded electronics, and even replacing the 5"/38 with the 5"/54 guns used on the Midway class (using the twin mount designed for the Montanas; the hoists would have been redesigned to accomodate the newer projectiles). I think there was even some thought to partial automation of the main engineering plant to reduce manpower.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:52:13 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Iowa.

Hands down.

Superior radar, Superior fire control systems, 16" guns that hit almost as hard as Yamato's 18" guns.

The Iowas were the APEX of battleship design.

And, based on the evidence presented by the 26" thick piece of Yamato-class turret noted above, that's MORE than enough.

Note, in that report, it says that a second 16 inch projectile to be used in that testing was recovered UNDAMAGED except for damage to the windscreen
and AP nose assembly. After punching 28 inches of decent armor.

Has a 16 inch gun's projectile ever actually been fired into another ship during war? I'm have to guess the answer is yes, since the Ohio battleboats
got their hands dirty in WWII on several occasions, but I don't know if they've actually put 16 inch projectiles into enemy ships or not.

I'd like to see the resulting damage to those ships, if so.

CJ

The super-heavy armour piercing 16" rounds have been used on other warships. A Jap light cruiser, a French battleship, and a Jap battlecruiser are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Of those three, the first was sunk, the second was sunk in port (I think; it may just have suffered flooding) and had its main battery neutralized, and the third was neutralized and placed in a sinking condition, which was sped up by later attacks. Only the first involved that projectile and the Mk 7 gun; the other two involved the Mk 6 gun which is 45-calibre rather than 50-calibre like the former is. I know that isn't the full list; I'm pretty sure destroyers were hit by such projos in the engagement with the light cruiser (which involved the Iowa and New Jersey) which involved the longest range hits on an enemy warship by gunfire, if I remember correctly.

It was the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in 1940, during the sinking of HMS Glorious and her two destroyer escorts. KMS Bismarck hit the HMS Hood in a few salvoes, Germans had some bad ass optics or something, maybe just luck, who knows?

Those engagements had nothing to do with the guns or projectiles in question.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:55:38 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required
to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something
like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)
barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630858.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630829.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630839.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34678/34677569.jpg

Not sure I'd want to shoot through those anyways....

No kidding.

WE'RE NEVER BRINGING THE BB'S BACK DAMN IT.

Nobody gives a flying fuck what happens to a bunch of spare 16" barrels for a weapon system that's been outdated since the 1940's.

Posted: 8/12/2011 11:59:29 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
which involved the longest range hits on an enemy warship by gunfire, if I remember correctly.

It was the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in 1940, during the sinking of HMS Glorious and her two destroyer escorts. KMS Bismarck hit the HMS Hood in a few salvoes, Germans had some bad ass optics or something, maybe just luck, who knows?

Those engagements had nothing to do with the guns or projectiles in question.

But it does have something to do with your last sentence

Posted: 8/13/2011 12:18:04 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
which involved the longest range hits on an enemy warship by gunfire, if I remember correctly.

It was the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in 1940, during the sinking of HMS Glorious and her two destroyer escorts. KMS Bismarck hit the HMS Hood in a few salvoes, Germans had some bad ass optics or something, maybe just luck, who knows?

Those engagements had nothing to do with the guns or projectiles in question.

But it does have something to do with your last sentence

Had to break out the reference books...

Anyhow, I was thinking of the action off of Truk. It was the longest shots fired at an enemy warship, but not the longest ranged hits; the destroyer, the Nowaki, was fired upon while fleeing at 35,000 yards with the guns under optical controul. Controul was switched to the radar and the Nowaki was straddled multiple times at over 39,000 yards. The destroyer was faster as fouling of the hull had reduced the speed of both the Iowa and New Jersey so she was able to get away. In this engagement the Jap cruiser Katori was sunk by the Iowa using both the 16" and 5" guns; that took about 11 minutes. The New Jersey engaged and sank a destroyer and a minesweeper in this engagement with her 5" batteries. I'm looking at photos of the event right now. Pretty good pictures and you can see the battleships and the enemy warships in the same shot; the minesweeper in the picture is an inferno and is straddled by shells. The surviving Jap warship, the Nowaki, would sink in the presence of the Iowa in the San Bernardino Strait at the Battle of Leyte Gulf due to the damage incurred as a result of American cruiser gunfire. She was the tail end of Kurita's retreating force and was caught by the Task Force sent by Halsey to aid the escort carriers and sunk.

Posted: 8/13/2011 5:48:31 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required

to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something

like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)

barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630858.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630829.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34631/34630839.jpg http://www.govliquidation.com/aucimg/photos/34678/34677569.jpg

Not sure I'd want to shoot through those anyways....

Why not? They're new old stock, unfired (if not proof tested, which I can't know about, but proof testing would have been an event just to set up!)

and covered in cosmoline. Even if they had a little rust on them, hey, they're NAVAL gun barrels. They were built to handle a little rust and a lot

more thick grey paint!

I would not have any reason to question their shootable condition, lacking any deeper knowledge of them.

CJ

Posted: 8/13/2011 6:27:14 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
which involved the longest range hits on an enemy warship by gunfire, if I remember correctly.

It was the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau in 1940, during the sinking of HMS Glorious and her two destroyer escorts. KMS Bismarck hit the HMS Hood in a few salvoes, Germans had some bad ass optics or something, maybe just luck, who knows?

Those engagements had nothing to do with the guns or projectiles in question.

But it does have something to do with your last sentence

Had to break out the reference books...

Anyhow, I was thinking of the action off of Truk. It was the longest shots fired at an enemy warship, but not the longest ranged hits; the destroyer, the Nowaki, was fired upon while fleeing at 35,000 yards with the guns under optical controul. Controul was switched to the radar and the Nowaki was straddled multiple times at over 39,000 yards. The destroyer was faster as fouling of the hull had reduced the speed of both the Iowa and New Jersey so she was able to get away. In this engagement the Jap cruiser Katori was sunk by the Iowa using both the 16" and 5" guns; that took about 11 minutes. The New Jersey engaged and sank a destroyer and a minesweeper in this engagement with her 5" batteries. I'm looking at photos of the event right now. Pretty good pictures and you can see the battleships and the enemy warships in the same shot; the minesweeper in the picture is an inferno and is straddled by shells. The surviving Jap warship, the Nowaki, would sink in the presence of the Iowa in the San Bernardino Strait at the Battle of Leyte Gulf due to the damage incurred as a result of American cruiser gunfire. She was the tail end of Kurita's retreating force and was caught by the Task Force sent by Halsey to aid the escort carriers and sunk.

Thamks for ruining the end of my book.

I knew I shouldn't have clicked.....

"Last of the tin can sailors" Great read.

Posted: 8/13/2011 7:23:11 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
the naval equivalent of a 9mm vs .45 thread...

lol. Can't say it isn't true.

Posted: 8/13/2011 7:24:56 AM EDT

[#19]

Asians are smarter than white people

Posted: 8/13/2011 7:27:01 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
the naval equivalent of a 9mm vs .45 thread...

Posted: 8/13/2011 7:27:46 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
5 nm away parallel courses who wins?

At 5 NM, clear visibility, Daylight...Yamato

The Iowa Class was for speed and being narrow enough to get through the Canal.
For slugging it out toe to toe...with the Yamato and Musashi..that was supposed to have been the Montana Class

Posted: 8/13/2011 11:43:31 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required
to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something
like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)
barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

snip

Not sure I'd want to shoot through those anyways....

Why not? They're new old stock, unfired (if not proof tested, which I can't know about, but proof testing would have been an event just to set up!)
and covered in cosmoline. Even if they had a little rust on them, hey, they're NAVAL gun barrels. They were built to handle a little rust and a lot
more thick grey paint!

I would not have any reason to question their shootable condition, lacking any deeper knowledge of them.

CJ

That nice brown line at the 6 o'clock position in the bore is most likely not just dirt. It's where water has pooled up for years and years. I'd wager that the bore has a nice "divot" running right down that line. It may not be enough to see (or it might, i don't know) but I doubt that it would gauge "sat"

It's been a while since I've pulled out my gun barrel inspection manual, but I'm sure there are a few more things wrong with them.

ETA: I've seen a breech plug that's been sitting inside for the past 40 or so years, and it has a decent amount of corrosion. The threads on the tube itself are probably in much worse condition.

Posted: 8/13/2011 1:45:03 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required
to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something
like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)
barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

snip

Not sure I'd want to shoot through those anyways....

Why not? They're new old stock, unfired (if not proof tested, which I can't know about, but proof testing would have been an event just to set up!)
and covered in cosmoline. Even if they had a little rust on them, hey, they're NAVAL gun barrels. They were built to handle a little rust and a lot
more thick grey paint!

I would not have any reason to question their shootable condition, lacking any deeper knowledge of them.

CJ

That nice brown line at the 6 o'clock position in the bore is most likely not just dirt. It's where water has pooled up for years and years. I'd wager that the bore has a nice "divot" running right down that line. It may not be enough to see (or it might, i don't know) but I doubt that it would gauge "sat"

It's been a while since I've pulled out my gun barrel inspection manual, but I'm sure there are a few more things wrong with them.

ETA: I've seen a breech plug that's been sitting inside for the past 40 or so years, and it has a decent amount of corrosion. The threads on the tube itself are probably in much worse condition.

we could just shoot it like a black powder cannon

Posted: 8/13/2011 3:09:49 PM EDT

[#24]

Bend that Yamato monster around and make Toyota's out of her FTW.

Posted: 8/13/2011 3:23:15 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:

5 nm away parallel courses who wins?

At 5 NM, clear visibility, Daylight...Yamato

The Iowa Class was for speed and being narrow enough to get through the Canal.

For slugging it out toe to toe...with the Yamato and Musashi..that was supposed to have been the Montana Class

Posted: 8/13/2011 3:27:46 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

We've done this before, and the consensus is that unless the Yamato got a lucky broadside in the Japanese ship would be disabled in 15 minutes or less.

ETA: At the Battle of Leyte Gulf the difference between the US and Japanese fire control systems was made clear.

At the Battle of Surigao Strait old US battleships blasted the Japanese fleet to smithereens while in the dark.

At the Battle off Samar, the Yamato had a hard time hitting slow-moving escort carriers in broad daylight.

Iowa wins, hands down.

That's all fine & dandy; but what happened at The Battle of Macho Grande?

Posted: 8/13/2011 9:25:38 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required
to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something
like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)
barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

snip

Not sure I'd want to shoot through those anyways....

Why not? They're new old stock, unfired (if not proof tested, which I can't know about, but proof testing would have been an event just to set up!)
and covered in cosmoline. Even if they had a little rust on them, hey, they're NAVAL gun barrels. They were built to handle a little rust and a lot
more thick grey paint!

I would not have any reason to question their shootable condition, lacking any deeper knowledge of them.

CJ

That nice brown line at the 6 o'clock position in the bore is most likely not just dirt. It's where water has pooled up for years and years. I'd wager that the bore has a nice "divot" running right down that line. It may not be enough to see (or it might, i don't know) but I doubt that it would gauge "sat"

It's been a while since I've pulled out my gun barrel inspection manual, but I'm sure there are a few more things wrong with them.

ETA: I've seen a breech plug that's been sitting inside for the past 40 or so years, and it has a decent amount of corrosion. The threads on the tube itself are probably in much worse condition.

If the liner is done for the gun can be re-lined. That was the plan for the Iowas eventually had they remained in service as long as had originally been intended the last time around (until 2015 or so, I think). Watervliet still has most of the infrastructure for re-lining the barrels.

Posted: 8/13/2011 9:39:47 PM EDT

[#28]

The German's minus hitler and his bad choices of course... ohh wait, wrong thread.

Posted: 8/13/2011 9:52:36 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required
to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something
like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)
barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

snip

Not sure I'd want to shoot through those anyways....

Why not? They're new old stock, unfired (if not proof tested, which I can't know about, but proof testing would have been an event just to set up!)
and covered in cosmoline. Even if they had a little rust on them, hey, they're NAVAL gun barrels. They were built to handle a little rust and a lot
more thick grey paint!

I would not have any reason to question their shootable condition, lacking any deeper knowledge of them.

CJ

That nice brown line at the 6 o'clock position in the bore is most likely not just dirt. It's where water has pooled up for years and years. I'd wager that the bore has a nice "divot" running right down that line. It may not be enough to see (or it might, i don't know) but I doubt that it would gauge "sat"

It's been a while since I've pulled out my gun barrel inspection manual, but I'm sure there are a few more things wrong with them.

ETA: I've seen a breech plug that's been sitting inside for the past 40 or so years, and it has a decent amount of corrosion. The threads on the tube itself are probably in much worse condition.

If the liner is done for the gun can be re-lined. That was the plan for the Iowas eventually had they remained in service as long as had originally been intended the last time around (until 2015 or so, I think). Watervliet still has most of the infrastructure for re-lining the barrels.

No shit? I thought they had to be put in the same pit they are made in to be relined, since the tube itself is basically "shrunk" around the liner. Honestly, I
l'm suprised they still have the stuff around to cut the rifling too

Posted: 8/13/2011 10:11:51 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Incidentally, the US does not at this time possess the technology required to make the 16 inch Mark 7 naval gun barrels, if we had to make new ones.

Barrel making equipment of that size and type no longer exists. If we had such a need, we'd have to start all over and build the machines required
to make and rifle the barrels.

It was only a few months ago that the Navy's stock of spare Mark 7 barrels was sold at government surplus. There were a LOT of them, something
like 120 or so in total, with an average weight per barrel of about 240,000 pounds apiece.

Due to demil requirement, the buyer had to torch cut them in sections prior to removal. Thus ensuring that no matter what happens, no new (or NOS)
barrels will EVER be placed on an Iowa battleboat no matter what happens.

Some pics:

snip

Not sure I'd want to shoot through those anyways....

Why not? They're new old stock, unfired (if not proof tested, which I can't know about, but proof testing would have been an event just to set up!)
and covered in cosmoline. Even if they had a little rust on them, hey, they're NAVAL gun barrels. They were built to handle a little rust and a lot
more thick grey paint!

I would not have any reason to question their shootable condition, lacking any deeper knowledge of them.

CJ

That nice brown line at the 6 o'clock position in the bore is most likely not just dirt. It's where water has pooled up for years and years. I'd wager that the bore has a nice "divot" running right down that line. It may not be enough to see (or it might, i don't know) but I doubt that it would gauge "sat"

It's been a while since I've pulled out my gun barrel inspection manual, but I'm sure there are a few more things wrong with them.

ETA: I've seen a breech plug that's been sitting inside for the past 40 or so years, and it has a decent amount of corrosion. The threads on the tube itself are probably in much worse condition.

If the liner is done for the gun can be re-lined. That was the plan for the Iowas eventually had they remained in service as long as had originally been intended the last time around (until 2015 or so, I think). Watervliet still has most of the infrastructure for re-lining the barrels.

No shit? I thought they had to be put in the same pit they are made in to be relined, since the tube itself is basically "shrunk" around the liner. Honestly, I
l'm suprised they still have the stuff around to cut the rifling too

I know the gun pit at Watervliet is capable of use for re-lining Mk7 barrels. I know it was used for such a purpose for the Army's 16-inch barrels used in coast defence batteries, most of which were naval, albeit of an earlier model. I think Watervliet is preserved for historical purposes which is why the infrastructure remained intact; otherwise I'm sure it would have been done away with long ago, even before the Iowas were recommissioned.

Posted: 8/14/2011 9:54:28 AM EDT

[#31]

I have always found it rather interesting that the Japanese insisted on building the super battleship even after the attacks on Pearl Harbor had proven them to be obsolete.
In the US we at least had the capacity to build both battleships and carriers, Japan did not.
Much like carrying swords n the 20th century, sometimes old school is that way for a reason.

Posted: 8/14/2011 11:48:44 AM EDT

[#32]

Ladies and gents, in naval warfare who fires effectively first wins. At 5 nautical miles either ship was able to fire effectively first. If their crews were at their peak readiness it's a coin toss.

Quoted:
I have always found it rather interesting that the Japanese insisted on building the super battleship even after the attacks on Pearl Harbor had proven them to be obsolete.
In the US we at least had the capacity to build both battleships and carriers, Japan did not.
Much like carrying swords n the 20th century, sometimes old school is that way for a reason.

That may be because both ships were already launched at the time of Pear Harbor and one was commissioned only a week later. The third ship in the class, the Shinano, was converted to a carrier.

Posted: 8/14/2011 11:50:47 AM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:

Does the Iowa have rail guns?

Raccoon launchers?

Mine trebuchet?

Automatic tennis ball machine?

Posted: 8/14/2011 12:02:39 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:

Then how the heck did they end up 5 miles away without being spotted????

Iowa is 209 feet tall from keel to mast and her draft is 37 feet, this means a lookout would be 172 feet above sea level, at that height all of Yamato would have been visible at a range of 17.3509 miles.

I don't know Yamato's height above the water but if it were similar to Iowa's then Yamato's mast could have been spotted at a range of 34.7328 miles and she would definitely have been spotted by the time she was in range of Iowa's guns.

Iowa's guns have a range of 23.64 miles and vastly superior fire control, Iowa would be able to hit Yamato close to the maximum range and with Yamato only having 7.9 inches of deck armor she would be sunk before landing a shot on Iowa.

For comparison in 1942 the USS Massachusetts took on the French Battleship Jean Bart, using the same shells as Iowa (but an earlier gun and fire control) she landed hits from over 13 miles away, penetrating 6 inches of deck armor before passing a further 70 feet into the ship and exploding.

Well, in Star Trek II, Khan stole a federation ship, the Reliant, and tricked his way into getting close to the Enterprise. Plus ADMIRAL "must have been getting senile" Kirk did not order the Enterprise's shields raised when Reliant approached and did not establish communications. One big happy fleet, eh? Thank God for the prefix code.

Posted: 8/14/2011 12:17:32 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

I think Watervliet is preserved for historical purposes which is why the infrastructure remained intact; otherwise I'm sure it would have been done away with long ago, even before the Iowas were recommissioned.

Watervliet still makes every gun tube for the Army 60mm and above. The area that they made the 16" tubes in still exist, but IIRC the machinery isn't there.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - IJN Yamato vs. USS Iowa (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us