Very interesting.
When I was in the USMC, in Vietnam, the word of mouth was the
Effective Casualty Radius of the New Jersery's "Big Thunder"
wa 1,000 meters. Hmmm, I guess that was pretty false.
Paul Adam
MSc in Systems Engineering & Defence, University College London (UCL) (Graduated 2003)Thu
Why would the Navy decommission battleships? Unlike planes, you can't
shoot down a 16-inch shell.
There was an awkward comparison, during the 1991 Gulf War, between battleships and carriers.
Two battleships, operating in the northern Gulf, managed to deliver -
between them - about 1,100 16″ shells in the direction of the enemy, in 80-odd fire missions.
That translated to a bit over 2,000,000lb of ordnance, which sounds like
a lot. Unfortunately, very little of it was explosive: so it added up to about 150,000lb of TNT in total sent targetwards. Worse, accuracy wasn’t great, and spotting and correction frequently unavailable: of those eighty-odd missions, only about a dozen were found to have achieved
anything significant (firing blindly at desert hoping something
important was under the shells, turned out not to be very effective).
Worse, to get the two battleships into gun range of Kuwait, required a
force of thirty ships (two dozen minehunters and their support vessels,
plus protective escort) working for three weeks; not a lot of strategic surprise happening there. In the process, the USS Tripoli and USS
Princeton both hit mines, suffering significant and expensive damage.
And during the bombardment, the Iraqis managed to get a Seersucker
missile launched in the Missouri’s direction (fortunately, to be shot
down by HMS Gloucester)
Compare that to one smaller, old carrier that - because the Gulf was so crowded - was operating down in the Red Sea. The USS Saratoga’s air wing delivered 4,300,000lb of ordnance to Iraqi targets without loss; twice
as much as two battleships combined. Worse, because air-dropped ordnance
is much more destructive than battleship shells (a 16″ HC shell has the equivalent of 120lb of TNT inside; a Mk 84 bomb, of similar weight, has
the equivalent of about 1,200lb of TNT) her weaponry was considerably
more effective: in terms of explosives delivered, the Saratoga donated roughly 2,500,000lb of TNT-equivalent to Iraqi targets - nearly twenty
times as much as the two battleships together.
And the Saratoga did that from the Red Sea, 700 miles from her targets; needing no minehunters to clear lanes and a Fire Support Area for her; getting no escorts damaged or sunk.
After the Gulf War, it was very clear that airpower had seriously
surpassed battleship gunnery: the ability to land small explosive
charges (each 16″ shell was about as powerful as a 250lb bomb) in the
vague vicinity of a platform at a range of 20 miles, turned out not to
be of much use, and certainly wasn’t worth the huge cost in manpower, maintenance, and escort/protection needed, compared to carrier
aviation’s ability to strike much harder, at far greater range, with
much more responsiveness.
22.3K views
View 842 upvotes
View 1 share
1 of 31 answers
69 comments from
Jay Hulbert
and more
Jay Hulbert
· Thu
One of the best explanations for the end of the battleship era that I’ve read here on Quora!
Profile photo for Paul Adam
Profile photo for Robert Gauthier
Robert Gauthier
· Thu
Indeed
Profile photo for GBlack
GBlack
· Thu
“A 16″ HC shell has the equivalent of 120lb of TNT”
I found it hard to believe a massive shell like this would only have
~120lb of explosive, so looked it up.
Normally would just use Warthunder data but the Iowa class is not in
game yet, but Wikipedia has the 16″ HC shell listed as 1,900-pound (862
kg) and a charge for the Mark 13: 153.6 lbs. (69.67 kg) Explosive D.
So basically yes, only about 120lb TNT equivalent; which to be fair is
still enough to do an awful lot of damage if it hit anything but I lot
less than I expected.
So today I learned moment
Profile photo for Jim Henderson
Jim Henderson
· Fri
There seems to be a fairly widespread assumption that the only job of
big guns is to deliver explosives downrange; thus the less of other
things in ammunition, the better. No, the job of artillery is to break
things and hurt people. Some ammunition has no explosives. For example
tanks are often wreck…
(more)
Profile photo for Shing Chan
Shing Chan
· Fri
Battleship shells were designed to penetrate very thick, hardened steel armour then explode once it got through.
The shells had to be made very strong so they would not break apart when hitting the armour hence there was only a small volume left for explosives.
They could have made shells with a much larger explosive filling against unarmoured targets but I guess the infrastructure to do that no longer existed.
Profile photo for GBlack
Profile photo for GBlack
GBlack
· Fri
Reading about the recommissioning process, they did consider making new shells that contained hundreds of bomblets to spread out over a large
area and do damage to lightly protected areas, but as the answer
indicates; far from the best way of delivering HE to a target even 40-50 years ago.
I knew the primary aim for battleships to defeat other heavily armored
ships but knew they also carried non-AP shells with more HE for hitting lightly armored targets like smaller ships or ground bombardment.
In the game I play the Hood only carries Semi-AP and full AP, but
figured they might also have some lighter shells with more explosive but guess that is what secondary batteries (and escort vessels) are for
Shing Chan
Battleship guns were designed to shoot heavy shells at high velocities.
They are not really good at shooting low velocity, lighter shells for
shore bombardment. They are more like tanks with high velocity direct
fire guns than self propelled artillery with indirect fire howitzer
guns. It would be very expensive to restart making shells from scratch designed with a large high explosive charge. I suspect all the shells
used after WWII were made during the War
Profile photo for NoToPrivacyPolicy
NoToPrivacyPolicy
· 22h
Battleship shells included general purpose and armor piercing. GP shells
were mostly for shore bombardment or attack on lightly armored ships. AP shells were designed to penetrate armor about equal to the battleship.
deep penetration put engine rooms, boilers, fuel, and magazines at risk
but did not…
(more)
Yamato's destruction: https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-044/h-044-3.html
"U.S. losses were 10 aircraft and 12 pilots and aircrewmen."
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:uic6tv$n8kd$1@dont-email.me...
Ukraine shows a limit to air power when the defense is
stronger than the offense.
--------------------------
US battleships had that advantage over aircraft, especially with computer-aimed proximity fused shells from 5"/38 AA guns and the
excellent 40mm Bofors. USS Iowa reported a first-round hit that left
only the engine and propeller where the plane had been. http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-107.php
In contrast Japanese battleships placed too much reliance on their
over-rated 25mm AA gun and were taken out without excessive aircraft
losses. I've read that there was cross-confusion over which plane each
gun was trying to hit and the corrections went to the wrong guns.
Yamato's destruction: https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-044/h-044-3.html
"U.S. losses were 10 aircraft and 12 pilots and aircrewmen."
Concentrating the torpedoes on one side nearly doubled their effect
because to prevent capsizing the top-heavy ship needed to counterflood
the other side. The heavy side armor on Yamato and Musashi had a weak
joint between its upper and lower sections that even lightweight aerial torpedoes could tear open.
If Yamato had entered Leyte Gulf the continuous maneuvering to avoid
aerial attack would have degraded accuracy against US battleships. The rapidly approaching US fleet carriers would have ensured that Yamato
never left.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 93:30:11 |
Calls: | 6,658 |
Files: | 12,205 |
Messages: | 5,334,294 |