How accurate is your rifle at 34,000 yards?


PDA






Jenrick
October 5, 2008, 09:14 PM
Found an interesting article on naval guns. This is in reference to the 16"/50 Mark 7 guns on the Iowa class BB.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

So if my math is right, this works out to .222 MOA?

As modernized in the 1980s, each turret carried a DR-810 radar that measured the muzzle velocity of each gun, which made it easier to predict the velocity of succeeding shots. Together with the Mark 160 FCS and better propellant consistency, these improvements made these weapons into the most accurate battleship-caliber guns ever made. For example, during test shoots off Crete in 1987, fifteen shells were fired from 34,000 yards (31,900 m), five from the right gun of each turret. The pattern size was 220 yards (200 m), 0.64% of the total range. 14 out of the 15 landed within 250 yards (230 m) of the center of the pattern and 8 were within 150 yards (140 m). Shell-to-shell dispersion was 123 yards (112 m), 0.36% of total range.

34,000 yards, means 1 MOA is 35604.7167406844 inches or 989.0199094635 yards, we'll round that to 990 yards. So a pattern of 220 yards is .222 MOA, not bad for a 15 rounds group. Smallest 8 group of 8 is .15 MOA, and the dispersion is .124 MOA.

So the next time someone is saying that they can shoot a .25 MOA or smaller group at 1K+ yards, before you say it's BS, you might ask if he's using a battle ship :)

Far as loadings go, how about a 13,300,000 gr (1,900 lbs) bullet if you like light and fast up to a 18,900,000 gr (2,700 lbs) if you believe in heavy and slower. Charges range from about 2,275,000 gr (325 lbs) for light practice loads, to 4,585,000 (655 lbs) for full power HD and hunting loads.

The D839 propellant grain used for full charges issued for this gun was 2 inches long (5.08 cm), 1 inch in diameter (2.54 cm) and had seven perforations, each 0.060 inches in diameter (0.152 cm) with a web thickness range of 0.193 to 0.197 inches (0.490 to 0.500 cm) between the perforations and the grain diameter.

Now time to find a bigger powder measure, as the Lee one I've got isn't going to meter those 2" long grains real well.

Just found this interesting, especially the relative accuracy of the weapon over the range.

-Jenrick

If you enjoyed reading about "How accurate is your rifle at 34,000 yards?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jackdanson
October 5, 2008, 09:21 PM
You really probably need one of these if you are hunting anywhere north of Iowa.

General Geoff
October 5, 2008, 09:40 PM
Big artillery guns will always be inherently more accurate in this sense, because gravity is more consistent than wind, which affects small arms projectiles far more profoundly than thousand plus pound projectiles.

f4t9r
October 5, 2008, 09:40 PM
How accurate is your rifle at 34,000 yards?

not very accurate at that distance. I did however make a good shot at 34 yards.

hankdatank1362
October 5, 2008, 09:45 PM
So, I found the OAL of the rounds... I guess the 16" refers to the diameter of the rounds? :confused:

And, holy moly, 280-350 rounds barrel life? That sucks!

Almond27
October 5, 2008, 10:00 PM
eh, I hit can hit a deer halfway behind a tree at 35,000 yards with my .300 winchester magnum, with the wind blowing at 24mph east. Its true I have done it before.:neener:

Jeff F
October 5, 2008, 10:11 PM
A whole new meaning to the term 'long range snipping'.

oneshooter
October 5, 2008, 10:22 PM
At Iwo Jima the Marines would locate a cave and mark it with smoke. One of the BB's offshore would fire a single 14" 1200lb HE round at the cave. The Marines would call in corrections as needed. The BB's were only 10,000 yard offshore so the HE rounds would strike at about 2000fps! A 14" 1500lb round could penetrate 8ft or more of reienforced concrete!!

The 250-350 round barrel life is using AP with full pressure charges.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

gvnwst
October 5, 2008, 10:31 PM
:what::what::what:

where can i get one? do i have to regester it as a DD?:neener::p
:D

jerkface11
October 5, 2008, 10:38 PM
If you were using the Iowa class against modern warships you wouldn't need the AP rounds none of them would be able to take a single hit from an HE and survive. Plus the Battleships would be totally immune to anti shipping missiles.

General Geoff
October 5, 2008, 11:54 PM
I've always wondered about that, how effective any modern anti-ship weaponry would be against an Iowa.

Disgruntled
October 6, 2008, 12:03 AM
"Big artillery guns will always be inherently more accurate in this sense, because gravity is more consistent than wind"

eh, not to pick a nit, but you might be thinking of inertia, not gravity.
Gravity is constant.

W.E.G.
October 6, 2008, 12:28 AM
You think that's a trick.

Don't forget about the trick of getting the outboard guns to fire simultaneously so they are not only accurate, but also so they don't rip the turret right off if fired out of sync.

General Geoff
October 6, 2008, 12:29 AM
eh, not to pick a nit, but you might be thinking of inertia, not gravity.
Gravity is constant.

Inertia is a constant as well. I'd say a perfectly constant law of physics is pretty consistent, don't you think?

sarduy
October 6, 2008, 01:03 AM
good to go varmint hunting :D

Jorg Nysgerrig
October 6, 2008, 01:05 AM
I've always wondered about that, how effective any modern anti-ship weaponry would be against an Iowa.

The original version? Very. The refitted version? Not quite as much. You have to keep in mind that they reactivated the Iowa class ships in the 80s and modernized them.

C-grunt
October 6, 2008, 01:53 AM
I've always wondered about that, how effective any modern anti-ship weaponry would be against an Iowa

I would think that a Tomahawk or similar type missile would do some serious damage to any ship. I would think that an anti-ship missile would have a warhead designed specifically for sinking boats.

Didnt the British lose a ship in the Falkins (spelling) to a missile?

Powderman
October 6, 2008, 01:58 AM
If you're curious about ASM and their relative effectiveness, look up some specs on the Silkworm, and most notably, the "Moskit" or "Sunburn" missiles.

Remember, you don't have to SINK a ship to render it combat ineffective.

aspade
October 6, 2008, 02:42 AM
Plus the Battleships would be totally immune to anti shipping missiles.

Yes and no. The protected parts of the ship - the main artillery, the magazines, the engineering spaces - would obviously be largely invulnerable to ASM warheads designed to destroy unarmored structure.

But the eyes and ears of the ship above decks - all the more so the electronics refitted later - are as vulnerable as those on any other ship.

USS South Dakota was soft killed at Guadalcanal by Jap 6 and 8" shells which are a lot less destructive than 700 lb Sunburn warhead.

RecoilRob
October 6, 2008, 04:01 AM
Circumference of the circle @ 34,000yds = 3.1416x34000= 106814.4yds/360=296.707per degree 296.707yds/60=4.945 yds per minute

Edit: Just tried my math on 100yds and something is wrong....so the above isn't correct. Man, it is late! For some reason, the above method seems to be half of what is should be...but I am unable to see why right now. Perhaps it can jog the correct answer from someone.

Correct # is close to 29.75 feet. Math is funny sometimes when you cannot figure it out....

Swampy
October 6, 2008, 07:22 AM
RecoilRob is correct.....

1 MOA at 34k yards is somewhat on the order of 29-30 feet.... not 990 yards.

Best to all,
Swampy

Garands forever

Walkalong
October 6, 2008, 07:52 AM
Mine won't reach that far. :( :uhoh: :rolleyes:

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
October 6, 2008, 08:52 AM
13 million grains for the light n fast crowd - tee hee.

DPStx
October 6, 2008, 10:17 AM
Gotta love math, my calculations are thus.....

Formula for circumference of a circle is C = 2piR or piD where R=radius, D=diameter.

c= 2 x 34000 x pi = 68000 x3.14.... which = 213628yds circumference.

divide this by 360 degrees and you get 593.4 yds per degree,
divide this by 60 minutes per degree and you get 9.89 yds per minute of angle

I believe this is one MOA at 34000 yds

Coronach
October 6, 2008, 10:29 AM
As aspade pointed out, there is a differnce between a hard kill and a soft (or mission) kill. A hard kill is a sunken (or badly crippled) ship. A mission kill is a ship that is damaged enough that it cannot complete its mission. Hard killing a modernized Iowa with missiles would be a difficult task. Soft-killing her would be easier.

The real danger to the old battlewagons would be torpedoes and mines. Modern torpedoes don't run into the sides of ships like they did in WWII. They run under them and detonate beneath the keel. The Iowa class BBs are no better protected against this than any other ship.

Mike

lencac
October 6, 2008, 10:50 AM
Is anybody familiar with what is called the "coriolis effect". It's something that's not a factor in rifle shooting but is a factor for correction of targeting when shooting the "big guns". Just one more thing that is to be taken into consideration that I find astounding when realizing how accurate these things really are.
As far as sinking a full blown "battleship" if you have ever read some of the accounts of the damage these monsters have sustained and did not sink. Were they rendered inoperable? YES. But damn, think of the degree of violence involved in naval warfare.

Tarvis
October 6, 2008, 11:03 AM
280-350 rounds barrel life
I'm sure this is like the barrel life that bench rest shooters expect. These guns have to be super accurate or lives can be lost, so I'm willing to bet they aren't completely worn out at 350 rounds, just that accuracy is starting to go.

Boris Barowski
October 6, 2008, 11:35 AM
1 MOA
100 yards => 1.0471975511966 inches
1000 yards => 10.471975511966 inches
34000 yards => 356.047167406844 inches
34000 yards => 9.89019909 yards

if you group it inside a circle with a diameter of 9.89 yards, you should be shooting 1MOA at 34000 yards.

How they load a 16 inch gun : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJdinQQk1O8

Old Grump
October 6, 2008, 11:49 AM
I was on the Canberra in Nam and we were shooting 9 8"/55 guns. I saw the Jersey shoot 3 salvos from her aft turrets and sail away, her job done for that particular mission on that particular island. I never want to see anything like that again.

everallm
October 6, 2008, 11:50 AM
I'm sure I heard someone said a Glock could do better than this........:evil:

ETH77
October 6, 2008, 12:07 PM
That # is 102,000 ft, or a little short of 20 miles. Using sabotted shells, a 16" gun can exceed 50 miles, with good (classified) accuracy.

I love it, throw a VW 50 miles and drop it in for a "brief visit".:neener:

LaEscopeta
October 6, 2008, 12:46 PM
The real danger to the old battlewagons would be torpedoes and mines.And dive bombers.

The sides above the water line is where the thick armor is, and to keep battleships from being too top heavy and unstable at sea the decks had to be light. I think the Iowa class had wooden decks (teak?) to keep them light. Plus there has to be a lot of holes in the deck, to let air down to the boilers and let smoke out. WWII dive bombers put a lot of bombs into the bellies of battleships and sunk their fair share, include several of the 8 US battleships at pearl harbor, and the British battleship the Prince of Wales.

I would think a modern ballistic missile, with a guided warhead could go through the deck of a Iowa class as well as a WWII era bomb.

theotherwaldo
October 6, 2008, 12:48 PM
My father served as a forward observer in Korea after the Inchon landing and during the retreat from the Chinese border. According to him, on the few occasions that he could call direct naval gunfire from the 16 inchers, corrections were on the order of fifty feet. Finer control was pointless because of the radius of the blast effect. Even relatively tiny targets like reinforced railway tunnels and ridgetop roads were easily taken out by "near-misses" that came within sixteen yards.

So two minutes of angle was usually sufficient.

SSN Vet
October 6, 2008, 01:48 PM
Plus the Battleships would be totally immune to anti shipping missiles.

Hmmm!

TLAM-D :neener:

benEzra
October 6, 2008, 02:10 PM
And dive bombers.

The sides above the water line is where the thick armor is, and to keep battleships from being too top heavy and unstable at sea the decks had to be light. I think the Iowa class had wooden decks (teak?) to keep them light. Plus there has to be a lot of holes in the deck, to let air down to the boilers and let smoke out. WWII dive bombers put a lot of bombs into the bellies of battleships and sunk their fair share, include several of the 8 US battleships at pearl harbor, and the British battleship the Prince of Wales.

I would think a modern ballistic missile, with a guided warhead could go through the deck of a Iowa class as well as a WWII era bomb.
No, the Iowa's decks (like other 20th century battleships) were designed to keep out long-range shells from other battleships, which would tend to hit the TOP of the ship rather than the sides.

http://www.battleship.org/html/Articles/IowaClass/Armor.htm

The deck consists of three parts, the bomb deck, the main armor deck, and the splinter deck. The bomb deck is 1.5 inches STS plate, the main armor deck is 4.75 inches Class B armor laid on 1.25 inches STS plate and the splinter deck is 0.625 inches STS plate. The bomb deck is designed to detonate general purpose bombs on contact and arm armor piercing bombs so they will explode between the bomb deck and the main armor deck. Within the immune zone, the main armor deck is designed to defeat plunging shells which may penetrate the bomb deck. The splinter deck is designed to contain any fragments and pieces of armor which might be broken off from the main armor deck.

http://www.battleship.org/images/BN/armor5.jpg

The teak decking is to keep the surface cool enough to walk on in the hot sun. The main structure of the decks was designed to stop 16" armor-piercing shells, and was most assuredly not made of wood.

BTW, check out the thickest armor on the ship (conning tower), from the same site:

http://www.battleship.org/images/BN/armor2.jpg

17.3 inches of armor plate. Wow...

Coronach
October 6, 2008, 03:11 PM
Yeah, modern anti-ship cruise missiles, even the slightly older Soviet stuff (which had some MONSTER warheads), are not going to sink an Iowa outright. They might render her unable to complete her mission, but she's probably not going to sink, even after absorbing a bunch of hits. modern, thin-skinned combatants would be rendered a mission kill with one hit, most likely, and may well be lost.

The difference is that modern warships have active means to defend themselves. The reactivated battleships had point-defenses (CIWS), and relied on other ships to shield them from modern threats (carrier aircraft to keep literally everything at bay, subs and destroyers to hunt down enemy subs, cruisers and destroyers to deal with air threats).

Basically, you were spending a whole lot of money to show the flag in spectacular manner and bombard shore targets. That's it- everything else could be done as well, or better, by something that cost less money.

And yeah, I'd still love to have them back.

Mike

PS They're not gone quite- Wisconsin is still in reserve and able to be mobilized.

Dr.Mall Ninja
October 6, 2008, 03:19 PM
i knew i should not have slept in math class

rondog
October 6, 2008, 03:21 PM
I love those YouTube videos of the Iowa class guns being fired! It's a shame they're not in service anymore. At least I don't think they're active, are they?

lightweight
October 6, 2008, 06:20 PM
My ship USS Nassau (LHA-4)has 5-inch/54caliber intermediate class,
Only 25,900 yds x 75 lb projectile.
21 rds x 3 mounts

The Navy was down sizing I guess.

Pic of a pic...
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b317/demusn79/th_IM000336.jpg (http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b317/demusn79/IM000336.jpg)


http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=QpXjshw_eT8&feature=related

akodo
October 6, 2008, 08:28 PM
Now time to find a bigger powder measure, as the Lee one I've got isn't going to meter those 2" long grains real well.

just get some chinese laborers that are good at counting. Don't even need tweezers for 2" long grains

akodo
October 6, 2008, 08:37 PM
It seems to me a single 12 to 16 inch gun on a cruiser or destroyer would still be a good idea. Once installed it is a very cost effective weapon even with 'smart' shells, and even moreso with 'dumb' shells.

Cosmoline
October 6, 2008, 09:08 PM
I've wondered about that myself. I remember checking out the USS Bunker Hill, the new one with the missles, when it was in Juneau. It was odd to see so little *there*. No visible guns, just some odd shaped LEGO-structures of uncertain function on a hull. I wonder if the thing has any real defense for low-tech attacks. Maybe that's why the guy was there with an M-14 keeping people 500 meters away. It just seemed strange to see such a fancy piece of hardware needing to be protected by a guy with a rifle. The old battle wagons were bristling with machine guns and cannons of every type. They also had enough side armor to ward off any suicide attack this side of a kamikazee.

oneshooter
October 6, 2008, 09:16 PM
It seems to me a single 12 to 16 inch gun on a cruiser or destroyer would still be a good idea. Once installed it is a very cost effective weapon even with 'smart' shells, and even moreso with 'dumb' shells.



USS Alaska

Displacement 27,000 Tons, Dimensions, 808' 6" (oa) x 90' 9" x 31' 9" (Max)
Armament 9 x 12"/50 12 x 5/38AA, 56 x 40mm 34 x 20mm, 4 AC
Armor, 9" Belt, 12 4/5" Turrets, 1 2/5" +4" +5/8" Decks, 10 3/5" Conning Tower.
Machinery, 150,000 SHP; G.E. Geared Turbines, 4 screws
Speed, 33 Knots, Crew 1517.
Operational and Building Data
Keel laid on 17 DEC 1941 at New York Shipbuilding Corporation, Camden, NJ
Launched 15 AUG 1943
Commissioned 17 JUN 1944
Decommissioned 17 FEB 1947

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=85966&stc=1&d=1223342091

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

trstafford
October 7, 2008, 12:43 AM
The British ship which was damaged in by Argentina's Exocet missile was made of aluminum if I remember correctly. The Brits have stopped that practice now. One of the down falls of BB in WWII was susceptible to aircraft attack, the phalanx weapon system retrofit solved that problem and would take care of any missile attack issue.

Barrel life with the latter improvements to powder and liner gives them an extremely long barrel life. How do I make my high intensity rifles last that long?

JustRick
October 7, 2008, 12:49 AM
I saw a video of an Australian submarine shooting an American Mark 48 torpedo at an obsolete destroyer. There is no reason to spend a ton of bucks on a gun platform. I'm with modern Navy thinking -- build big container ships and then load containers with mission-specific weapons and sensor packages. If you're going to lose hulls to submarine attacks, you might as well make them cheap hulls.

EDITED: Found the link. When large torpedoes explode under the keel, no amount of armor belting will help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV8MF-440xg&eurl=http://video.aol.com/video-detail/australian-torpedo-test/2040776937/?icid=VIDURVENT11. Yeah, I know the double bottom of a battleship is tougher than the destroyer in the video. Picture four wire-guided torpedoes going off under the keel of a multi-zillion dollar battleship with a crew of 2,000.

Coronach
October 7, 2008, 01:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The British ship which was damaged in by Argentina's Exocet missile was made of aluminum if I remember correctly. The Brits have stopped that practice now. One of the down falls of BB in WWII was susceptible to aircraft attack, the phalanx weapon system retrofit solved that problem and would take care of any missile attack issue.The Sheffield had an aluminum superstructure that they thought contributed to her loss, but IIRC they later decided it was a non-issue. The fact that she took a hit with a very potent ASM in a space vital for damage control had a much larger effect.

As to the BB's being good at air defense, no. The CIWS stands for Close In Weapons System, and the first two letters in the acronym are vital for understanding how it works. It is designed to shoot down missiles, period. Oh, it will shoot down an aircraft, sure, but in a combat situation no enemy is going to fly an aircraft that close to it. It is a last-ditch defense against "leakers", that being any missile that has gotten past the screening ships (AEGIS cruisers and destroyers that actually have good air defenses). With a total of four mounts, an Iowa could probably handle a missile or two, if she didn't get unlucky. However, the key to overwhelming point defenses is to have multiple missiles arriving on target simultaneously, so any good opponent would try to do just that.

(Note: we haven't fought a good opponent at sea since 1945. The last navy that could hope to cause a real problem for the USN in an all-out fight was the Soviet navy, and the Russian navy of today is still a ghost of its former self. Oh, could a smaller force get lucky? Sure. Stark and Cole are prime examples of how. Diesel subs are another. But we can't gear everything up for dealing with yokels in motorboats, because China is doing everything possible to turn out a blue-water, power-projection navy, and Russia won't be chilling out for much longer, either)

The BBs had as good a last ditch defense system as you could want, but they completely lacked any other air defense (SAMs). Of course, her advantage is that a typical (Exocet, Silkworm) ASM or two into the ship is mostly an issue for the poor seaman tasked with painting the hull on the next watch. ;)

Mike

Coronach
October 7, 2008, 01:21 AM
I've wondered about that myself. I remember checking out the USS Bunker Hill, the new one with the missles, when it was in Juneau. It was odd to see so little *there*. No visible guns, just some odd shaped LEGO-structures of uncertain function on a hull. I wonder if the thing has any real defense for low-tech attacks. Maybe that's why the guy was there with an M-14 keeping people 500 meters away. It just seemed strange to see such a fancy piece of hardware needing to be protected by a guy with a rifle. The old battle wagons were bristling with machine guns and cannons of every type. They also had enough side armor to ward off any suicide attack this side of a kamikazee.The 5" guns (1 fore, 1 aft) will deal with anything motorboat sized, easily. I imagine the CIWS could be targeted at surface threats as well. Anything small would just cease to be, if it could. Plus, the USN uses the M242 Bushmaster chain gun, and IIRC the Ticos carry two or four of them.

The real weaponry is below decks. All those hatches in the deck fore and aft of the superstructure? That's where the death and mayhem is. :)

Mike

ETA: looks like the CIWS cannot be aimed at surface threats, according to wikipedia (so we know it's true). The Bushmasters would handle any sort of low-tech threat easily, though. If they couldn't, you dial up Mr. 5-Inch and make the bad guy go away. :)

jerkface11
October 7, 2008, 01:26 AM
Yup the 5inch guns would more than deal with the Iranian suicide speedboat "navy". Of course one of the battle ships wouldn't even have to shoot them.

georgeky
October 7, 2008, 02:02 AM
A top Russian Admiral was once asked if there was anything he feared. His answer was Yes an Iowa class BB. Said he had nothing to fight them with.

All Iowa's were decomissioned after the Gulf War. They were stricken from the Navy register a few years ago and donated as museum ships. We can still call them back if needed in the future. There is an estimated 60 years of hull life left on them We do still maintain new barrels and ammo for them. Last I heard we had about 16,000 rounds for the 16 inchers on hand.


The USS New Jersey BB-62 is at Camden, NJ as a museum ship. She is the most decorated BB, and the most decorated ship still in existence.

The USS Missouri BB-63(Mighty MO) is at Pearl harbor standing guard over the Arizona as a museum ship'

The USS IOWA BB-61 is in the river above San Fransisco waiting to be turned into a museum.

The USS Wisconsin BB-64(WisKY) is at the Hampton Roads Naval Museum in Norfolk, VA She is the longest of the BB's. She ran over a frigate and damaged her bow. The USS KY(BB-66) was in dry dock and never completed so they removed the bow from the KY and put it on the Wisconsin. It is now a few inches longer than any other BB. That is were the WisKy name came from.

The USS KY(BB-66) and the USS Illinois(BB-65) were scrapped. The KY was at about 90% completion and the IL was around 20%. WWII ended and neither were completed.

The Iowa's are the greatest war ships to ever sail and they should still be in service. No other war ship ever built can do what they can. One Iowa can put more ordinance on target in 24 hours than 2 or 3 carriers can. They can resupply their battle group while under way and can even make their own replacment parts. Reagan had them re fitted and 32 Tomahawk cruise missles were added to their arsenal. Giving them an effective range of 7 to 800 miles.

Armor on the Conning tower is about the same (17+ inches) as the gun turrets. They have taken broadsides from missles, torpedo's, planes, and whatever with none ever being sunken or put out of service.

Samuel Adams
October 7, 2008, 03:00 AM
Bump for bringing the Iowa Class out of retirement.

LaEscopeta
October 7, 2008, 08:36 AM
No, the Iowa's decks (like other 20th century battleships) were designed to keep out long-range shells from other battleships, which would tend to hit the TOP of the ship rather than the sides.Can those decks designed to keep out long-range shells also effectively protect against plane dropped bombs or guided ballistic missiles?

ETH77
October 7, 2008, 09:01 AM
Almost anything can be breached with the selfforging munitions being used against tanks. 17" of armor takes a little more, but it's doable.

In a sense, the weapon makes a low melting point eutectic out of the armor as it penetrates. With a shaped charge MOAB type device and some well designed "thermite", it should be doable.

This is a crude description of the technology. One wouldn't want to put real ideas in offshore heads.

moooose102
October 7, 2008, 09:40 AM
every one of my firearms are 100% accurate at that range, as long as the target was "terra-firma"!

RonE
October 7, 2008, 10:03 AM
I was fortunate to be able to see, in person the result of Naval Battleship bombardment from the jeep of the Navy FO. There was supposed to be a batallion of NVA in about 40 acres of palm trees. The FO directed fire to the effect that all of the palm trees were blown up, down and sideways. Then came the F-4's then the AD Skyraiders then the US Army and the ARVN's. After all that, there were still NVA that returned fire when our guys entered the area.

The 16" shelling was spectacular.

benEzra
October 7, 2008, 10:10 AM
Can those decks designed to keep out long-range shells also effectively protect against plane dropped bombs or guided ballistic missiles?
Yes. Armor-piercing gravity bombs dropped from high altitude were one of the things the engineers designed the protection around.

Most anti-ship missile warheads are not nearly as heavy or as penetrative as a 16" AP shell.

Regarding explosively formed penetrators, yes, an EFP could penetrate the armor, but would only result in a small penetration and localized damage on the far side. Big difference from exploding 500-1000lb of TNT on the far side of the armor. A tank interior is TINY, which is why a narrow EFP hole can take out a tank; a battleship, not so much.

Having said that---although an Iowa-class BB could take immensely more punishment than a current cruiser, the current cruiser would be FAR less likely to get hit in the first place, IMO, unless you removed a turret or two from the BB and replaced them with VLS cells and basically converted the ships to giant Aegis ships. The BB's pretty much had only close-in defense against ships and planes, and the CIWS would be easy to saturate with simultaneous attacks from multiple directions. An Aegis system could take out those threats before they got close.

Don't forget that an Aegis ship has the technical capability to shoot down an ICBM in space, as long as the software is coded to allow it to engage the target and the Standard missiles are configured for it.

And in a one-on-one fight with a BB, the Aegis ship could shoot down any BB shells that looked like they were going to hit, at least until it ran out of missiles. But the Aegis ship could engage the BB long before it got into gun range.

Vermont
October 7, 2008, 10:27 AM
Gotta love math, my calculations are thus.....

Formula for circumference of a circle is C = 2piR or piD where R=radius, D=diameter.

c= 2 x 34000 x pi = 68000 x3.14.... which = 213628yds circumference.

divide this by 360 degrees and you get 593.4 yds per degree,
divide this by 60 minutes per degree and you get 9.89 yds per minute of angle

I believe this is one MOA at 34000 yds

That's what I got too, but I've been wrong before.

Coronach
October 7, 2008, 11:02 AM
All Iowa's were decomissioned after the Gulf War. They were stricken from the Navy register a few years ago and donated as museum ships. We can still call them back if needed in the future.My understanding is that Missouri and New Jersey are done. They're still physically there, of course, but they are not being maintained in a manner that makes reactivation practical. Iowa is being stored in 'mothballs' and would be able to be reacticated, and everything needed to repair her #2 turret (the one that suffered the explosion during a gunnery exercise) is being stored in the turret itself. Wisconsin is also a museum ship, like her sisters, but is still being maintained in a manner that makes reactivation a possibility. If you go aboard her (I have), you can only get into a few above-deck spaces. The rest of the ship is sealed off to maintain a constant (low) humidity.

I'm not sure why Iowa was selected for retention in the reserve, but WisKy is a natural choice. She actually has very little uptime since being launched. Most of her time has been spent in reserve, and she has a LOT of life left in her.

Mike

Jenrick
October 8, 2008, 04:27 AM
After checking my math I forgot to knock a couple of decimal places off, so 9.89 yds is a MOA at 34K yards.

On the whole issue of a BB in the moder navy:

A BB does one thing very well, and that's put fricking huge shells on targets close to 30 miles inland. It also does it FAR cheaper then a TLAM or other equivalent method of delivering HE (round vs missile; not launching platform). An A-6 can carry approximately 18K lbs of ordinance, roughly equivalent to a full 9 gun salvo from a BB. If the entire CVN airwing of 80+ aircraft is all A-6's that means a BB puts out as much iron in 40 minutes as the entire air wing can. For MUCH cheaper then it would cost to launch and operate that many aircraft. Additionally there's no risk to any aircrews etc.

I also suspect that a BB would be cheaper to maintain/operate then an Aegis cruiser, expecting the number of crew required. A ship made mostly of old school steel parts, with not a large amount of mechanization, automation, or other electronics doesn't break as often and is MUCH easier to repair. A new circuit board isn't something you can normally manufacture on board, wear as a bearing or other piece of metal can be made from raw stock if you know what your doing, a Chief can provide that knowledge :)

Secondly 99% of the nations we're going to deal with where a BB might be deployed are not going to have the ability to put 200 Backfire's in the air shooting Shipwreck missiles at once. 10-15 Exocets or Silkworms? Sure, that's what the rest of the task force is for, with the Aegis and Ticonderoga cruisers. I don't think anyone in the world (the US included) has a reliable method of stopping a BB's shells from landing on shore. How would have Mogadishu have turned out if a BB had been offshore as part of the task force, the ultimate in "gunboat diplomacy" ? The range of guns on board her would have allowed everything from 5" tactical bombardment, to 16" "might as well be a tac nuke" fire missions. Against a more modern opponent such as Libya or Iran, everything within 30 NM of the coast is in danger of being turned into a lumpy mass of dirt if need be to prevent them from lobbing ASM's at the TF.

Far as the submarine issue goes, that's what the Seawolf and Improved LA class subs are for. BB's don't operate solo, just like CVN's they are part of a much larger task force. CVN's and their air wing provide a long range very flexible force projection ability. A BB provides a shorter range lead pipe force projection ability. The rest of the TF is there to provide cover and support to perform that mission. A major TF/Battlegroup is going to have very little to fear from most of the worlds navies. The AA, ASW, and AASM ability of modern escort ships is superb, and combined with the ASW ability of the submarines that are attached there is little sub-surface to be feared as well.

-Jenrick

Kind of Blued
October 8, 2008, 04:44 AM
If this election goes in the crap shoot we should all pool our funds and buy a battleship. :)

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
October 8, 2008, 08:24 AM
Sorry, didn't read the whole thread, but did anyone figure out how many MOA is 220 yards at this range?

19-3Ben
October 8, 2008, 08:41 AM
I think we've found our perfect bear gun.

RX-178
October 8, 2008, 09:49 AM
With all that's left of the next-generation warfleet procurement, we really might as well have refitted Iowa and WisKy.


Actually, thinking about what the Iowa Class hulls would be like with modern armaments, while still retaining their 16" cannons is pretty scary.

Replace the central turret with a VLS launcher. Replace the 5" gun turrets with those new 155mm AGS turrets.

Replace the existing Phalanx turrets with SeaRAM turrets (Phalanx combined with Rolling Airframe Missile launchers).

Replace the armored box launchers with... whatever else could go in that space.

LaEscopeta
October 8, 2008, 01:47 PM
Sorry, didn't read the whole thread, but did anyone figure out how many MOA is 220 yards at this range?About 22 MOA.

SoCalShooter
October 8, 2008, 02:00 PM
My mosin nagant can do that without a problem. Hell the bayonet reaches out that far.

Funderb
October 8, 2008, 02:08 PM
^^ +1

but when hunting with the mosin, at what point does it just become "Bayonetting a deer"

:evil:

KBintheSLC
October 8, 2008, 02:18 PM
Does that come in a revolver package?

Jason M
October 16, 2008, 11:10 AM
Sorry, didn't read the whole thread, but did anyone figure out how many MOA is 220 yards at this range?

22.267206477732793522267206477733 MOA to be exact. :D

Still, a very impressive level of accuracy.

Jason

If you enjoyed reading about "How accurate is your rifle at 34,000 yards?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!