Every Grunt Appreciates Hvy Arty Support

[Bob Lamb]

Pound Wise & Penny Foolish ?

 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak05.html

 

I've never been on the receiving end of the big guns - but tales told of "no joy" at impact point

 

Here's some history - read down to Korea & Vietnam

 

http://navysite.de/bb/bb62.htm

 

The technology is time proven - plus add into today's UAV's - a spotter's dream.

 

Plus the big "tubs" hold a lot of cruise missles

[VABills]

Ding , Ding, Ding. Problem is a bunch of the senior navy brass don't think it's cool to dump 4000 rounds per minute of target from a big old ship. They want the new, DDX which looks cooler, employs newer technology buy with all guns can only do 400 rounds per.

 

The big guns on each do about 400 and 70 respectively.

 

Keep the battleship, because if they are ever scuttle, there would not be aenough steel, etc... available cheep enough to rebuild if the need ever arose.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Pound Wise & Penny Foolish ? 

 

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak05.html

 

I've never been on the receiving end of the big guns - but tales told of "no joy" at impact point

 

Here's some history - read down to Korea & Vietnam

 

http://navysite.de/bb/bb62.htm

 

The technology is time  proven - plus add into today's UAV's - a spotter's dream.

 

Plus the big "tubs" hold a lot of cruise missles

524506[/snapback]

 

Not that many cruise missiles, actually. One DDG holds more. And with the Ohio SSGN conversions planned to hold a ton more...the BBs are very superfluous as cruise missile carriers.

 

The problem with the battlewagons is that, frankly, they're old. They are a B word to maintain and operate. And while I think the ideas for replacing them in the fire support role (the new DD(X), with its rapid-fire, ultra-high-range, ultra-high-tech, ultra-accurate, ultra-expensive dual 5" guns that probably won't work as advertised, or the LCS, the weirdest idea to come out of the Navy in a LONG time) are BS, the simple fact is that keeping around 60 year old battleships running off old fuel oil boilers to push 16" of high-grade composite steel plate around the oceans, requiring heavy escort, all for the sake of carting around 9 16" guns is extremely uneconomical. The gunfire support would be nice to keep...but at this point the Navy would be better off designing a new heavy gun (heavier than that stupid 5" in the DD(X)) and a new ship around it, rather than keeping the old BBs around.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Ding , Ding, Ding.  Problem is a bunch of the senior navy brass don't think it's cool to dump 4000 rounds per minute of target from a big  old ship.  They want the new, DDX which looks cooler, employs newer technology buy with all guns can only do 400 rounds per. 

 

The big guns on each do about 400 and 70 respectively. 

 

Keep the battleship, because if they are ever scuttle, there would not be aenough steel, etc... available cheep enough to rebuild if the need ever arose.

524513[/snapback]

 

4000 rounds per minute? Not even your math's that bad; that's got to be a typo.

 

For the record...the best any 16"-armed American battleship ever did was two rounds per minute per gun (USS Washington, in '43-'44). 18 rounds per minute, total. The standard was 1 round a minute per gun.

 

18 16" shells, though, is about 48 thousand pounds. The DD(X), by comparison, will probably get 10-15 5" shells off per minute per gun, two guns per ship, about 50 lbs per gun...generously, call it 1500 lbs per minute.

[Wacka]

I have read that if all the big guns on a BB would fire at once, the recoil could capsize the ship. Is this true?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I have read that if all the big guns on a BB would fire at once, the recoil could capsize the ship.  Is this true?

524686[/snapback]

 

No, they were designed to fire a single broadside at once, and did when they were new. But with age, the ship's structure couldn't take the stress anymore. Now standard practice is to ripple-fire the guns (i.e. sequentially, one after another). If you look at pictures of "broadsides" nowadays, they're always firing only the outboard guns on each turret - it's the most they can fire simultaneously without over-stressing the ship, and they pretty much only do it for photo ops.

[VABills]

4000 rounds per minute?  Not even your math's that bad; that's got to be a typo.

 

For the record...the best any 16"-armed American battleship ever did was two rounds per minute per gun (USS Washington, in '43-'44).  18 rounds per minute, total.  The standard was 1 round a minute per gun.

 

18 16" shells, though, is about 48 thousand pounds.  The DD(X), by comparison, will probably get 10-15 5" shells off per minute per gun, two guns per ship, about 50 lbs per gun...generously, call it 1500 lbs per minute.

524682[/snapback]

I didn't say just the big guns. I was given the understanding talking with a naval officer the other day, with all the guns going that they could put out about 4000 rounds a minutes (although maybe it was per hour now that I think about it). but he said the DDX can only do 400 during the timeframe, whether that was per minute or per hour.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I didn't say just the big guns.  I was given the understanding talking with a naval officer the other day, with all the guns going that they could put out about 4000 rounds a minutes (although maybe it was per hour now that I think about it).  but he said the DDX can only do 400 during the timeframe, whether that was per minute or per hour.

524785[/snapback]

 

4000 per hour, total (combined 5" and 16" mounts) is probably pretty LOW, actually. The 5" mounts alone could put out a minimum of 8 rounds per gun per minute sustained fire, which is 4800 an hour on one side. The 16" mounts are easily another 400-500.

 

Which also doesn't change the fact that, as a method for putting 5000+ rounds on target, the BBs are grossly inefficient. Neither is the DD(X), for that matter (and I have the ROF specs for that gun somewhere around here...the key question is whether they're going to mount one or two on a ship, though. And whether the thing will work...the BS technology might break after 100 rounds, at which point the question's moot anyway.) The bottom line is: if the Navy wants to provide the Marines with fire support, they're better off scrapping the BBs and designing a ship specifically dedicated to fire support from the keel up. Or maybe from the deck up...a Burke-class DDG hull can probably take the strain of four 5" mounts firing, and maybe even a couple 8" as well, and it's got to be cheaper than either of the BBs or the DD(X).

[stuckincincy]

Burke-class DDG hull can probably take the strain of four 5" mounts firing, and maybe even a couple 8" as well, and it's got to be cheaper than either of the BBs or the DD(X).

524880[/snapback]

 

CTM, do you know if there was ever any effort to navalize the 155 mm cannon?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

CTM, do you know if there was ever any effort to navalize the 155 mm cannon?

524898[/snapback]

 

Having had the privilege of working with the Paladin...then the Army's most advanced self-propelled 155mm howitzer, I have to say that it would be foolish to attempt to use a 155mm howitzer on the sea.

 

Hell, I think the Army should have stayed with the old 8-inchers.

[stuckincincy]

Having had the privilege of working with the Paladin...then the Army's most advanced self-propelled 155mm howitzer, I have to say that it would be foolish to attempt to use a 155mm howitzer on the sea.

 

Hell, I think the Army should have stayed with the old 8-inchers.

524924[/snapback]

 

 

Hmmm...is there something inherent with the 155 that would inhibit its navalization?

 

I've read for a long time of the 5" round lacking "punch" for ground support - real or imagined, I can't say. And also have read about the seemingly-higher sophistication of various 155 rounds.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Hmmm...is there something inherent with the 155 that would inhibit its navalization?

 

I've read for a long time of the 5" round lacking "punch" for ground support - real or imagined, I can't say.  And also have read about the seemingly-higher sophistication of various 155 rounds.

524938[/snapback]

 

The 155, I would assume would allow standardization of artillery rounds across the Army, Navy, and Marines.

 

I can assure you as an artilleryman, If I knew my enemy was using 8-inch guns to my 155s, I would not have a good feeling about it.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

CTM, do you know if there was ever any effort to navalize the 155 mm cannon?

524898[/snapback]

 

Old light cruisers used to mount 6" guns...but like JSP said, the 6" howitzer you're referring to hasn't been navalized. Nor is it likely to be, being a howitzer (high angle of flight, low muzzle velocity) and not a gun (which in the Navy are usually dual-purpose anti-air and anti-ground - another reason they rarely go above 5", as larger isn't particularly useful for anti-air work).

 

Bottom line, though, is that the Army and Navy have vastly different requirements for artillery...enough so that a "one size fits all" solution is likely to be less cost-effective than designing two guns to the two different sets of specs.

[RI Bills Fan]

No, they were designed to fire a single broadside at once, and did when they were new.  But with age, the ship's structure couldn't take the stress anymore.  Now standard practice is to ripple-fire the guns (i.e. sequentially, one after another).  If you look at pictures of "broadsides" nowadays, they're always firing only the outboard guns on each turret - it's the most they can fire simultaneously without over-stressing the ship, and they pretty much only do it for photo ops.

524690[/snapback]

 

And even the ripple-fire broadside will push a BB sideways almost a quarter mile, as well a heeling it over 15-20 degrees. The recovery time is significant. I may be wrong but I remember reading that during GWI the BB's were resticted in their firing angles to +/- 45 degrees relative (or no more than 45 degrees from the bow) for continuous fire operations. And even that would bring a BB doing 10 knots to dead in the water or making way astern quickly if the Gunnery Officer and the Conning Officer weren't in synch.

 

It takes a huge powder charge to throw a shell that weighs more than a volkswagon beetle 20+ miles.

[stuckincincy]

Old light cruisers used to mount 6" guns...but like JSP said, the 6" howitzer you're referring to hasn't been navalized.  Nor is it likely to be, being a howitzer (high angle of flight, low muzzle velocity) and not a gun (which in the Navy are usually dual-purpose anti-air and anti-ground - another reason they rarely go above 5", as larger isn't particularly useful for anti-air work). 

 

Bottom line, though, is that the Army and Navy have vastly different requirements for artillery...enough so that a "one size fits all" solution is likely to be less cost-effective than designing two guns to the two different sets of specs.

524976[/snapback]

 

I understand the difference between gun and howitzer. But in the context of the so-called "arsenal" ship - not a concept I think a lot of, WWII-style beach storming in my view being an unlikelihood these days - the 155 seems to me to be up to that task, at least as far as cannon munitions go.

 

Just a thought, understanding that targeting from a sea platform has it's own set of difficulities.

[stuckincincy]

And even the ripple-fire broadside will push a BB sideways almost a quarter mile..

525012[/snapback]

 

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I understand the difference between gun and howitzer. But in the context of the so-called "arsenal" ship - not a concept I think a lot of, WWII-style beach storming in my view being an unlikelihood these days - the 155 seems to me to be up to that task, at least as far as cannon munitions go.

 

Just a thought, understanding that targeting from a sea platform has it's own set of difficulities.

525014[/snapback]

 

But again, different specs. I tend to doubt the 155 is suitable as it stands for shipboard use, at the very least for reasons of aiming. The 155 in Army use fires from a stop at a fixed point. A shipboard weapon would have to fire with consideration to the motion of the ship (pitch, roll, yaw, and lateral and transverse motion towards the target), AND potentially the true motion of the target (since shipboard weapons are still intended to be used against moving targets). Basically, the only commonality you'd achieve would be the gun barrel and ammo.

 

And if you're going to do that...use the MLRS. I believe there's been talk (I don't know how serious, maybe little more than "Wouldn't it be neat if...") of doing something like that.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

525015[/snapback]

 

Not all at once. It gives it a "leeway" that ultimately pushes it aside a quarter-mile.

[stuckincincy]

But again, different specs.  I tend to doubt the 155 is suitable as it stands for shipboard use, at the very least for reasons of aiming.  The 155 in Army use fires from a stop at a fixed point.  A shipboard weapon would have to fire with consideration to the motion of the ship (pitch, roll, yaw, and lateral and transverse motion towards the target), AND potentially the true motion of the target (since shipboard weapons are still intended to be used against moving targets).  Basically, the only commonality you'd achieve would be the gun barrel and ammo.

 

And if you're going to do that...use the MLRS.  I believe there's been talk (I don't know how serious, maybe little more than "Wouldn't it be neat if...") of doing something like that.

525039[/snapback]

 

Thanks. Agreed on MLRS.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

And even the ripple-fire broadside will push a BB sideways almost a quarter mile, as well a heeling it over 15-20 degrees. The recovery time is significant. I may be wrong but I remember reading that during GWI the BB's were resticted in their firing angles to +/- 45 degrees relative (or no more than 45 degrees from the bow) for continuous fire operations. And even that would bring a BB doing 10 knots to dead in the water or making way astern quickly if the Gunnery Officer and the Conning Officer weren't in synch.

 

It takes a huge powder charge to throw a shell that weighs more than a volkswagon beetle 20+ miles.

525012[/snapback]

 

Ripple-fire probably pushes the ship sideways more than a full broadside would, given that, in spreading the recoil over a longer period of time, it provides a more sustained push. And American BBs in general (and the Iowas in particular) always had heeling problems, due to the fact that the beam was dictated not by the needs of the gun platform but by the width of the Panama Canal. Compared to other BBs of the time, Iowa et al. were skinny.

 

Never heard of the firing limitation in GWI Act I...and I don't doubt it, thanks for the info. It must flex the keel something fierce, with all that recoil along the length of the ship. It yet again illustrates my point that, despite mounting big-ass guns, the BBs themselves have limitations that make them poor gunfire support platforms.