Live fire U.S.S. Wisconsin

[jimpeel]

Video of the loading and firing procedure as the guns fall silent for the last time.

http://shock.military.com/Shock/vide...=164747&page=1

[macmuffy]

Many thanks for the link !!!
I was honored to watch her sister ship, the Big J (BB-62), salvo several fire missions during my tour with Thunder (CA-148). We did a highline excerse with her and damn, she was a giant. We were only 117 and one half feet long.

We compensated with 8 inch guns and cased powder vs bagged but the end result from the giving end was just as impressive.
Big J fired cadillacs and we fired VWs.

Keep the memories going...








.

[Crosshair]

Wow, great vid.

One computer game I have is called "Fighting Steel" it's a WWII naval simulator with the large ships. The best part of the game is when you follow the trajectory of the shells with the camera angle. That and when opening fire, watching the turrets traverse into firing position.

Another fun part is with the map editor. Ever wonder how many destroyers it takes to destroy a Yamato class battleship? The answer is "Quite a few".

[BillCA]

Great video. I like how the concussion on the closeup cameras overwhelms the electronics momentarily.

Alas, we will never see such great ships like this again. Not with large guns as a primary weapon. Today it's missles that give ships a big punch.

Another fun part is with the map editor. Ever wonder how many destroyers it takes to destroy a Yamato class battleship? The answer is "Quite a few".

Try it with PT boats! You get a much bigger number!

[Crosshair]

Try it with PT boats! You get a much bigger number!

I would have, but the game didn't have them.

[FM12]

Ya'll come to Mobile, Alabama and visit the USS Alabama, BB60, on display along with the submarine USS Drum. Great fun for the whole family, right off Interstate 10.

[kb2iaw]

great video , I remember seeing the uss missouri for first the time (the mighty mo ) as she was fondly called . My ship ,a destroyer was in the brooklyn navy yard for minor repairs in 1955 . i went aboard the missouri and stood on the spot of the signing of the surrender of japan . I still get chills when i think of it . I wonder where she will be one hundred years from now . the uss missouri BB-63

[IncendiumX]

Its a shame they dont use mighty ships like that any more... obviouslly obsolete but a cruise missile launch just doesnt have the same awe factor

[jimpeel]

With the slow burn accelerants and saboted rounds the 16 in guns can lob a five inch round over 100 miles; and ranges of over 400 miles have been suggested. If Gerald Bull were still alive he would likely get one to lob a five inch shell 1,000 miles. PBS Frontline profiled the life of Gerald Bull but all that can now be accessed at their site is the transcript of the show.

[jimpeel]

An interesting page on battleships and their modern capacity using saboted shells.

http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm

[PSP]

I was surprised there were people on deck. Does anyone know how the charge is actually ignited?

[jimpeel]

The shells are 2,200 pounds with five or six 110 pound bags of powder behind them. The bags are made of silk. The ignition is electrical.

[langenc]

I thought those powder bags would keep me shooting for a couple months!! or so.

[jwfuhrman]

they should have never retired the old Big Gun ships. even if they are outdated there is nothing more demoralizing that a damn 16in shell crashing down and blowing the hell outta everything around. They need to keep them for that simple fact. Lob shells 100+ miles in land and the enemy is gonna run, especially the cowards we are fighting today.

[BillCA]

they should have never retired the old Big Gun ships. even if they are outdated there is nothing more demoralizing that a damn 16in shell crashing down and blowing the hell outta everything around. They need to keep them for that simple fact. Lob shells 100+ miles in land and the enemy is gonna run, especially the cowards we are fighting today.

Ah, but there's the rub. Those 16-inch guns have a range of only ("only" he says-sheesh!) about 20 miles or so. Not 100 miles.

And that's the rub. When you get right down to it, the battleship is just a weapons platform, albeit a mighty frakin' impressive one. Today's guided missle cruisers can launch missles further than those 16-inch guns can reach and with better precision. Carrier-based aircraft can deliver hammer blows several hundred miles away. And if you really want to shove things around, the boomers can launch a missle from underwater over 500nm away. The Battleships' day has come and gone.

Still... the psychological effect of a dreadnought sitting off your coast and lighting up the sky as it lobs a Chevrolet-sized explosive at you is demoralizing. Especially when you hear the booms about 9 seconds before the shells arrive due to their trajectory.

[jimpeel]

Ah, but there's the rub. Those 16-inch guns have a range of only ("only" he says-sheesh!) about 20 miles or so. Not 100 miles.

Au contrere, mon frere.

http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm

The firepower of the battleships nine 16-inch guns is well known, and new sabot shells allow ranges in excess of 100 miles. Naval guns are especially effective because they fire shells like bullets, e.g. faster than the speed of sound. While radar and the noise of aircraft, missiles, howitzers, and mortars provide time to take cover, a battleship can explode nine 2000 lbs shells on a target without warning. In addition, troops can fire back at aircraft and ground pieces, but they can only hide and wait for the battleships to go away. Unfortunately, U.S. Navy only has 5-inch guns left in the fleet which deliver only 90lbs projectiles, and its new $50,000 5-inch extended range munition delivers just a 19lbs payload.

And with scramjet round technology the range is extended to 480 miles; and even farther in a saboted round. How would you like to have one of these in a sixteen incher coming your way from 400 miles out?



Lotsa good info on battleship guns HERE

[jwfuhrman]

you'd think the Navy would bring the Missuori(sp?) and other dreadnaughts back into service because of these rounds. I mean how damn demorilizing is that. 480miles from the coast and 9 16in 2000lbs shells pound down around you....if that dont make them curl up like a little bitch idk what will.....

[Pilot]

you'd think the Navy would bring the Missuori(sp?) and other dreadnaughts back into service because of these rounds.

I wish they would have kept at least a few Battleships in service just for fear factor. Carriers are great, but there is nothing like a WWII era battleship sitting off shore to anger the opposing force. Now with GPS and other technologies they can put rounds through a window of the building they target. Awesome.

[jwfuhrman]

Now with GPS and other technologies they can put rounds through a window of the building they target. Awesome.

awesome indeed


The military today is to quick to replace older "big guns" with smaller faster things, like replacing the M14 with the M16 because it was a smaller, lighter weapon, or replacing the old battleships with missile cruisers because they can launch farther. All it takes a little R&D and the weapons we "had" are now just as good if not BETTER than what we "have". With the new "sabot" rounds, the old battleships are now, IMO more deadly than what the missile ships are. More deadly for what they can deliver payload wise(2000lbs of ordanace(sp?) x 9 guns) is more effective and way cheaper than the cost of one tomahawk cruise missile......and 100times more demoralizing......

[john in jax]

In Desert Storm (the 1st Gulf War) the 16" battleship guns decimated and demoralized the Iraqi troops along Kuwait's coast. From what I was told back then the shells were every bit as precise as a tomahawk and struck every bit as much terror into the Iraqi's as they rained down as the carpet bombing did further inland.

I agree with the author of the above article WE NEED THE HEAVIES back in action. Just like the C-130 Spectre gunships, there is a role that they can fulfill and do it very well, think about them:

Supporting our ally Israel from Hamas in Lebanon, bound to flare up again sooner or later.

Patrolling the shores of Iran in a conflict I don't think we will be able to avoid.

Would the close fire support a battleship could provide have been able to save American lives in The "Blackhawk Down" tragedy . . . I think so.

[jad0110]

I know it is too late to bring back 2 of the 4 Iowas (Missouri, and New Jersey are now memorials). And the remaining two, Iowa and Wisconsin, were permanently stricken from the naval registry in Mar 17, 2006.

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/NAME.HTM

Of course, the coolest thing is that the 210 year old U.S.S. Constitution's status is listed as "Active, in commission" .

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/oldiron.htm

[BillCA]

Jim,

Au contrere, mon frere.

http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm

Thanks for the links - very interesting reading! I guess I should take a hint from the invitation to join AARP as a sign that I've become a certifiable "old phart" now.

Last I'd heard, the USN had managed only 38 miles out of their 16" guns by reducing the payload. This shows that I've fallen behind the times.

[alienbogey]

I was in the Navy during Desert Shield/Storm. Whenever the battle group transited the Straits of Hormuz there would be a BB right next to the CV, between the threat (Iranian Silkworm sites) and the carrier. The battleship with its incredible armor plating could absorb a hit far better than the thin-skinned carrier.

As we went through the straits the battleship's guns were kept constantly trained on the missile sites and the carrier had F-18's sitting on the catapults loaded for air-ground. There was a lot of speculation as to which would put ordnance on target first if the threat radar started lighting us up - would the battleship's salvos get done bracketing and fire for effect before the Hornets got there?

Never found out.

[Socrates]

It's kind of ironic that the main rap on battleships is they still use oil for power. Wouldn't it be a great idea if they went nuclear? Swap in a nuclear engine for the current ones, and the cost of operation drops a lot.

Also, it would seem a battleship would easily be fitted to launch missles.

We really need to be as bad as everyone says, and just go in and take the Iraq and Iranian oil, and the profits from it.
That would finance a battleship for a long time...

[armoredman]

The battlewagons did have missles added, had a heavy payload. The plain fact is, they're wearing out. Would you drive a tank built in 1933 into battle today? The battleships are the single most awesome sight afloat, and I had the honor of re-arming one at sea, (those 16" shells come two to a pallet!), and there is nothing ever like the sight of a battleship at sea.