The standard US 16 inch AP shell was about 2250 pound, with the Japanese 18 inch gun throwing a 3000 pound shell. The US developed a new 16 inch shell with a throw weight of 2700 pounds. The new 16/50 guns insured range was not lost with the heavier shell. One BIG advantage the US had. Radar fire control. The US radar was more advanced and could spot the shell splashes of its guns, making for far more accurate fire at long ranges. In the end, it is not the weight of your shells but how many you can get to land on target that wins naval battles. So in a battle the 2 ships are matched for range, the Japanese have slightly heavier shells, and the US would be the first to strike its target. The US Captain would probably keep the range long to use plunging fire against lighter deck armour of the enemy, with his superior fire control insuring more of his 18 shells fired over the first minute hit the enemy.
Can a 16 inch HE shell wreck havoc on newer ships?
- Thread starter M1Brams
- Start date
Well at the time when they were front line weapons knowing the performance of these guns was very important so a lot of effort was put into calculating them, testing them and finding out about the other guy’s gun. Since none of these weapons are in service any more all of this data has been declassified and made public by historians and enthusiasts trawling through the archives.
No worries then - I was mostly curious about the performance characteristics quoted for certain Axis weapons, as from what I understand there was quite a lack of data available on them by the end of the war. I was of the impression that there was very little historical information available on the Yamato class for example, though if I remember correctly I think the United States got ahold of one or several Japanese 18.1 inch guns for testing after the war so I guess info on the pure ballistics side of things would be available.
Looking more closely now I see the author of the website makes a point of citing references for each page, which is good - overall would you consider the website a decent source by online standards? I've seen it debated in some other forums in the past, but I'd like to get your opinion.
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Thanks for the sites. The data seems related to an old publications that I've seen quite some time ago. What I don't quite understand was and is, why the US 16 inch can provide and achieve similar even slightly better penetrations and velocity speed (on some range) compared to Japanese 18 inch ?
Is this related to better material used on US gun ? Is it related to the tube constructions ? or something else. Try to find out more detail reasoning, but seems not find quite an satisfied answered.
The US supposed had test Japan's18 inch after the war, so the data performance on the gun should be based on that. I'm definitely not an expert on ballistic and gun constructions, but in my common sense the 2 inch advantage on Japanese gun should provide overall better performance to the US gun. The data suggest that's not the case between US 16 inch Mark 7 and Japanese 18.1 inch Type 94. Why ?
as has been stated earlier and elsewhere
the USN had superiority with FCS and radar gunlaying
they were in a better position to fire and shoot through adverse conditions whereas the IJN vessels could not.
its all about consistency of shot and precision. it becomes irrelevant in the end whether you have the weightier shell because unless you can get it on target faster than the enemy can lay and shoot on you then you sink
rustybattleship on WAB served and worked on this class, has written a book etc... is a good source of info
the USN had superiority with FCS and radar gunlaying
they were in a better position to fire and shoot through adverse conditions whereas the IJN vessels could not.
its all about consistency of shot and precision. it becomes irrelevant in the end whether you have the weightier shell because unless you can get it on target faster than the enemy can lay and shoot on you then you sink
rustybattleship on WAB served and worked on this class, has written a book etc... is a good source of info
Beatmaster
New Member
Honestly i do not want to be on the Yamato when then Iowa gives a direct broadside and multiple direct/indirect hits.
But that same goes for being on the Iowa when the Yamato gives a full broadside.
In both cases it would be Saronaya and good bye.
Ontopic again: What if battleships where equipped with todays weapons, Missiles, Highspeed automated guns, airdefense ABM capabilities and serious ASW/radars, and all the other goodies that todays destroyers and frigates have, while running a new type of nuke plant to provide the speed needed...
While being specially armored to counter ESM and such?
Would that not make a todays battleship a floating fortress?
Obviously the options today are far far better then 50 years ago, so if someone would be mad enough to come up with a new design and pack it with all the options that frigs and destroyers have then it might not look pretty and its going to be very expensive but it will be ....entertaining for sure..
wychdoctor92394
New Member
Then I stand corrected, mate. I was informed of this by a gunner's mate who had served onboard the Mighty Mo, and was there when the guns were fired, but then of course, it might have been a load of "bovine scatology" just to make it sound better.
Nonetheless, the point of the discussion was would a 16" shell cause havoc if used today, and I qoute directly from a Soviet Rear Admiral's biography:
Praise for the service of these battleships include comments from shore parties observing the battleships' bombardments during their wartime service, such as those received by New Jersey in the Korean War and the Vietnam War. When reactivated in the 1980s Admiral of the Fleet of the Soviet Union Sergey Gorshkov stated that the battleships "...are in fact the most to be feared in [America's] entire naval arsenal..." and that the Soviet's weaponry "...would bounce off or be of little effect..." against the Iowa class battleships.
Biography of Sergey Gorshkov, National Cold War Exhibition
Given that, today's technology in metallurgy is far in advance of what it was during WWII, Korea and Vietnam, it is entirely possible that a 16" shell would destroy most of what's out there (other naval vessels). Consider that the US Army now has a shell that when fired from a SP howitzer, can correct itself in mid-flight and strike the target, would this not be the same for a 16" shell?
Is that right? What was his name? Because I don't understand why a gunner's mate would tell you that.
Yes you should be corrected. Why would you bother with a 16" shell (noting the AP version would quite possibly go straight through the target) when a guided bomb or missile would do the job more effectively?
Yes a 16" will put a very big hole in the land (provided you are in range) and a large temporary hole in the ocean where it hits.......... however the maximum effective range of such guns (as WERE in service) is not that great.
Not to mention that 16" guns are horrible in a danger close situation.
Historically the best NGFS has been provided from 5" to 8" class weapons. They have a good rate of fire, are more accurate, are multipurpose and can be used in close support of friendly troops.
That is one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
A simple Google image search will provide plenty of images of an Iowa doing a full 9 gun broadside.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #33
Oops. sorry i didnt phrase it better.. i mean as opposed to scrapping them, is that the reason( to exploit the high level of damage that the 16 inch can do to modern vessels potentially ) other than NGFS that the USN mothballs them?
If there were a emergency scenario happening, like the outbreak of Korean/middle east(possible flashpoints in the future), would the battleship undergo emergency upgrading(radars, CIWS, VLS with SM and sea sparrows to make them more relavent should they be called upon?
What kind of upgrades would the USN give the mothballed battleships potentially should they see service?
None. The schools for the engineering plant is long gone. So is the school for the guns. So is a very long and expensive logistics tail. All the techs and instructors are all retired.
The Iowa's were white elephants most of their career, spending more time in mothballed than at sea.
The Iowa's were white elephants most of their career, spending more time in mothballed than at sea.
None, nothing. Those ships haven't moved under their own power in twenty years and when they were active, they relied on oil fired boilers generating very high pressure steam to run steam turbines. That's a manpower intensive setup and as AegisFC said, the training school for that particular plant went away with the BB's. They'll never move under their own power again.
Put it this way, if you parked up a fifty year old car on your drive, and once a year, painted over any rust, put some air in the tyres and changed the air freshener, but did nothing else, would you expect it to run?
The ships were comprehensively stripped for useful materials before being decommissioned and that's a brutal process - most of the museums taking such ships on spend months just getting some spaces back to the standards a vewing public would pay money to see.
Just getting the ships moving under their own power would be millions and months.
It'd be quicker to build new ships with lower manpower requirements to fulfil whatever role was required.
Any emergency would be over before any of the BB's could be refitted and crewed, let alone worked up as a functioning military unit.
Besides, I honestly feel that if a magic wand were waved and all four were restored to "as new" condition for free, the smartest thing the USN could do would be to SINKEX the lot rather than be saddled with the expense of running them.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #36
Thanks Aegis and stobie for your replies. Ouch. Hate to put em out to pasture when they were such iconic war machines of thier era.
But if the logistics situation were this dire as what you implied, why would the USN spend money maintaining it as a reserve fleet/museum ships instead of scrapping the whole lot?
IIRC the whole hoohaa in congress regarding the Iowa was about NGFS that these behemoths could provide with the 16 inch guns. I wonder if the Zumwalt's 8 inch is enough for shore bombardment.
Two of them were stricken from the register back in 1998 and two were retained for reactivation, and a requirement made that spares were kept. The last of the gun barrels were sold off for scrap two years back however and it's widely accepted that there's no way back for them.
You have to remember, when they were reactivated in the 80's, it wasn't for their guns - that was a side effect of bringing them back - they were brought back as a cheap way of getting more TLAM to sea - and it was accepted that not all the turrets might be brought into use - that should give you an idea of how priorities stood.
Their swan song was spent blowing up trucks along the coast of Iraq - a job which could have as easily been done by a frigate with a 127mm gun.
You have to remember, when they were reactivated in the 80's, it wasn't for their guns - that was a side effect of bringing them back - they were brought back as a cheap way of getting more TLAM to sea - and it was accepted that not all the turrets might be brought into use - that should give you an idea of how priorities stood.
Their swan song was spent blowing up trucks along the coast of Iraq - a job which could have as easily been done by a frigate with a 127mm gun.
There's your problem. Remember on the whole these guys know nothing about the modern military. Sure some of them may have served 15 to 50 years ago which dates their knowledge. Congressmen are very good at getting re-elected which is why they intervene all too often in matters they do not fully understand.
If you pointed out to congress that not only was the WW1 Spad aircraft made of wood and calico (therefore being quite "stealthy" to radar compared to an all metal competitor) AND could turn inside an F22, then Congress would in all probablilty demand the production lines be opened (in their state of course).
The logistics situation isn't the same for a museum ship because virtually everything is stripped out of it and you no longer have to maintain an industrial base for the equipment or operational training for a crew. Big difference.
Congress directed the USN to maintain the Iowas in mothballs. The USN did despite telling Congress multiple times that doing so is a waste of money. What Congress did not do was direct the USN to save any tech manuals, schools, or any logistics needed to bring those ships back, so the USN happily sold the lot off as scrap.