Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: 280plus on March 29, 2010, 09:24:49 AM
-
Film footage of surrender on Missouri
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=vcnH_kF1zXc&feature=player_embedded
-
i was wondering if they found another hold out in the jungle
-
Missouri: the state so hard-core, you just put our name on your ship and watch the enemy come crawling in to surrender. :cool:
-
Missouri: the state so hard-core, you just put our name on your ship and watch the enemy come crawling in to surrender. :cool:
the thought that a shell the size of a volkwagon is next encourages good behavior
-
No, it was the name, I tell you.
You only say that because you're half one-of-them. :P :lol:
-
just don't send a flying volkswagon this way !please! mr fistful! >:D
though the irish 1/2 wants to say take your wee gun and be damned [popcorn]
-
wee light gun? =D
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F21O-nrzgdZL._SS400_.jpg&hash=88b4570bf3ffdac784fbdca1229a2e4cfd9a0551) (http://www.amazon.com/Nintendo-Wii-Light-Remote-Control-Nunchuk/dp/B000V5ZAZE)
-
My Irish half wants to deck your Irish half, and then have a pint with it.
-
typical irishman
-
Irishman?! Irishman? That's person of Irish descent, thank you very much! You have made me very angry! Stereotypically angry!
-
hey of the eight or so names i know thats the most respectful one!
you ever seen the movie the commitments? and what the guy describes the irish role in europe as?
-
Huh?
-
The USS Nevada was more badass.
USS Nevada (BB-36), the second United States Navy ship to be named after the 36th state, was the lead ship of her class of two battleships; her sister ship was Oklahoma. Launched in 1914, Nevada was a leap forward in dreadnought technology; three of her new features would be included on almost every subsequent US battleship: gun turrets with three guns,[A 3] oil in place of coal for fuel, and the "all or nothing" armor principle. These features made Nevada the first US Navy "super-dreadnought".
Nevada served in both World Wars: during the last few months of World War I, Nevada was based in Bantry Bay, Ireland, to protect the supply convoys that were sailing to and from Great Britain. In World War II, she was one of the battleships trapped when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. She was the only battleship to get underway during the attack, making the ship "the only bright spot in an otherwise dismal and depressing morning" for the United States.[12] Still, she was hit by one torpedo and at least six bombs while steaming away from Battleship Row, forcing her to be beached. Subsequently salvaged and modernized at Puget Sound Navy Yard, Nevada served as a convoy escort in the Atlantic and as a fire-support ship in four amphibious assaults: the Normandy Landings and the invasions of Southern France, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.
At the end of World War II, the Navy decided that Nevada was too old to be retained, so they assigned her to be a target ship in the atomic experiments that were going to be conducted at Bikini Atoll in July 1946 (Operation Crossroads). After being hit by two atomic bombs, she was still afloat but heavily damaged and radioactive. She was decommissioned on 29 August 1946 and sunk during naval gunfire practice on 31 July 1948.
tl;dr version: It was the only battleship to get underway during the attack of Pearl Harbor, survived a torpedo hit and six bombs, was repaired and served throughout World War II (and was at Iwo Jima, the Normandy Invasion, and Okinawa), then survived being hit by two nuclear bombs.
It was the Jack Bauer of battleships. Chuck Norris was afraid of it.
-
Bah, if you want most badass ship of WW2, that would have to go to the Enterprise CV-6. That ship was awarded 20 out of the 21 battle stars for WW2. For you land lubbers, that means that ship was at 20 of the 21 major naval engagements during the entire war, both Atlantic and Pacific. Then there's always the Constitution with her perfect battle record; 31 engagements and 31 victories.
But yeah, it was scary what those old war wagons could soak up. The Pennsylvania was also used at the Trinity tests. 2 nukes and she only had "minor fire damage to the super structure." They towed her over to another atoll and studied her for another two years before taking her out and scuttling her. You know they are built diehard tough when even atomic bomb isn't a sure kill, let alone two. =D
And a bit on topic: Thanks for posting that clip. Very neat stuff.
-
What I like is the destroyer that brought the Japanese up alongside the Missouri. The USS Buchanan. The ships named Buchanan all have interesting histories as well. The DD Buchanan in WWII was the 2nd of three. It's claim to fame would be that of transporting the Japanese, which I was unaware of until I saw the clip.
The first Buchanan WWI was "lent" to the British at the outset of WWII and they proceeded to turn it into a giant ramming bomb with which to destroy the drydock doors at St Nazaire France. If you've never read the story of the raid on St Nazaire I highly recommend it. Those guys had testicles that clanked when they walked. :O
The raid put the only drydock big enough in Europe to handle the German battleships out of commission for the duration of the war. This led to the Germans tending to want to keep their battleships up north where the only other drydock big enough to handle them was located. Smart move on the Brits part. Some of the raid party were Scots and they went in wearing kilts.
Anyhoo, I served on the third Buchanan. It's main claim to fame would be that it was one of the ships involved in a little skirmish called the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. It was used as a target quite a few years ago now and it took several rockets and a 2000 lb laser guided bomb and remained afloat. The torpedo that was supposed to take it out failed to detonate. This was on June 13th. On the 14th they sent a demo crew on board and scuttled it with explosives. Strangely enough her hull number was 14, so there are those that believe she simply refused to go down on the 13th because she prefered the 14th. :lol:
The Buchanan line was named after a Civil War Confederate officer. It was the only surface ship in the US Navy named after a Confederate. Last I heard, and due of course to the art of being politically correct, there are no plans to name another ship Buchanan.
And you're welcome, I posted them cause I thought they was neat. ;)
-
A little side note. When I learned the Buch was going to be used as a target I emailed my old XO who at that point happened to be COMNAVSURFPAC or Commander of the whole goddamn Pacific Surface Fleet. Three stars. I asked him to hit it with something big for me. So to this day I claim the 2000 lb GBU as being MY BOMB! >:D
-
When done right, those old ships could soak up a lot of damage . . . a couple of terrorists in a rubber boat wouldn't have done much to one of those old battlewagons the same way they did to the USS Cole. (OK, OK, battleship vs. destroyer, there IS a difference.)
When done wrong, well, they weren't invulnerable, and could fail spectacularly. (Consider the Hood.)
Getting back to the topic of the original post - the Jap surrender . . .
Among my late father's effects is a photo album that includes pictures of a couple of white-painted Jap Betty bombers sitting on an airfield. While en-route to arrange the formal surrender, the Jap emissaries landed their aircraft on the island of Ie Shima, where my Dad's outfit, the 3rd Air Commando Group, was stationed at the time. So he took a number of photos.
I'll have to search through the negatives and see if he got any pictures of the Japs themselves . . .
-
I'm thinking, from what I saw of the Cole damage, that the newer larger destroyers like Cole didn't have quite the armor around the engineering spaces like my 1963 built destroyer. We had at least 3" around those and the magazines may have had even more. I can't see them punching through 3" with a boat bomb unless it's shaped or drives a projectile to punch through with. The rest of it was built to suit its nickname "tin can", or nowadays, aluminum can. :laugh:
Everything from the main deck up on mine was aluminum plate. My bomb took that all off down to at least the O-1 level which is the first deck above the main deck. IIRC the bridge was O-5. One rocket looks like it probably skipped off my rack near the forward gun mount and another completely tore the "roof" off of my steering gear and after generator spaces.
here you go... where you see the bow all torn up, yea, that was the TV dammit. :lol:
My rack was on that side (port) right across from the gun mount. Where you see the square decking torn off the stern, yup after generator and after steering. My other onboard home. My survival chances in either area, as seen in this new light? Yup, zip.
She took a rocket hit while on the gunline in VN, killed the ship's barber. =(
http://sinkex.uss-buchanan-ddg14.org/
-
The Buchanan line was named after a Civil War Confederate officer. It was the only surface ship in the US Navy named after a Confederate. Last I heard, and due of course to the art of being politically correct, there are no plans to name another ship Buchanan.
And Buchanan is a fine Scots name, too =)
-
I'm thinking, from what I saw of the Cole damage, that the newer larger destroyers like Cole didn't have quite the armor around the engineering spaces like my 1963 built destroyer. We had at least 3" around those and the magazines may have had even more. I can't see them punching through 3" with a boat bomb unless it's shaped or drives a projectile to punch through with. The rest of it was built to suit its nickname "tin can", or nowadays, aluminum can. :laugh:
Everything from the main deck up on mine was aluminum plate. My bomb took that all off down to at least the O-1 level which is the first deck above the main deck. IIRC the bridge was O-5. One rocket looks like it probably skipped off my rack near the forward gun mount and another completely tore the "roof" off of my steering gear and after generator spaces.
here you go... where you see the bow all torn up, yea, that was the TV dammit. :lol:
My rack was on that side (port) right across from the gun mount. Where you see the square decking torn off the stern, yup after generator and after steering. My other onboard home. My survival chances in either area, as seen in this new light? Yup, zip.
She took a rocket hit while on the gunline in VN, killed the ship's barber. =(
http://sinkex.uss-buchanan-ddg14.org/
They are not armored much anymore is true, kinda pointless when an Exocet can go pretty much in one side and out the other. The super-structure of the Burke class is steel though, lesson learned with the Stark missile attack and the Belknap at sea collision. Aluminum superstructures tend to burn until they get to something that is not. Amazingly enough that ship got re-built and continued to serve. Neat site I found that pic on, unaware of the USS Franklin story. Another good one is the Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58), no reason that ship shouldn't have sunk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_(FFG-58) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Samuel_B._Roberts_(FFG-58))
Pic of the Belknap after its collision with CV-67 and subsequent fire triggered by ruptured JP-5 lines in the carrier's deck overhang dumping fuel down the Belknap's stacks. Yay for melting aluminum!
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsteeljawscribe.com%2Fwordpress%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fimage%2FUSS_Belknap_collision_damage.jpg&hash=257eeab8c334f8da8894792a5ad4b70e5b974207)
-
They are not armored much anymore is true, kinda pointless when an Exocet can go pretty much in one side and out the other. The super-structure of the Burke class is steel though, lesson learned with the Stark missile attack and the Belknap at sea collision. Aluminum superstructures tend to burn until they get to something that is not.
Yeah, burning aluminum is bad ju-ju. After those incidents and watching what happened in the Falklands War we went back to an all steel Navy PDQ. I was reading a thesis on bringing back the battlewagons a couple years ago (let me see if I can dig it up), very in depth analysis of the whole situation. He even did a potential damage assessment regarding exocet missiles and other threats.
Here it is: Does the Past Have a Place in the Future? The Utility of Battleships in the Twenty First Century (http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA367903&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf) by LCDR L. Bruce Van Dam
ETA: If the link doesn't work (it wasn't a minute ago) try copy pasting it directly: http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA367903&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
-
Dam! :lol:
Yup, clearly thin skin around the engines now, looking at the Roberts pics. I believe a reason for the armor vs no armor is it's not nearly as devastating for a couple of gas turbines to take a hit than an operating 1200 psi superheated steam plant which would most likely end in a catastrophic explosion. I imagine the weight was also an factor. Less armor means lighter and more manuverable.
yes, I was in Repair 5 for GQ. Repair 5 was damage control for the engineering spaces and mustered on the messdecks which was directly above. We were surrounded by aluminum which we were well aware wouldn't even slow a .50 BMG down on the way through. I often wondered how much use we'd be if'n we were suddenly all dead. ;/
-
...I believe a reason for the armor vs no armor is it's not nearly as devastating for a couple of gas turbines to take a hit than an operating 1200 psi superheated steam plant which would most likely end in a catastrophic explosion. I imagine the weight was also an factor. Less armor means lighter and more manuverable.
The "all or nothing" armor scheme was devised long before the advent of gas turbines and pretty much for the second reason you postulated. It was pretty much deemed that if you couldn't put enough armor in place to absolutely to prevent the expected threat from causing grievous harm, why waste the tonnage on the armor when you could put it to better use elsewhere, ie. improved propulsion or additional weapons. This scheme first saw use in the US Navy around 1912 with the construction of the Nevada-class battleships.
Today the Navy has largely moved away from passive defense in preference for actively stopping threats before they contact the ship. This is seen with CIWS, RAM, and one of my personal favorites, the former AIM-7 Sparrow which has been turned into a surface launched version (Sea Sparrow) that can engage both air and surface targets (how's that for a multi-role platform?) A few passive measures are still employed today but they are largely limited to enhanced compartmentalization and a few inches of kevlar in key locations, nothing like the eighteen inches of homogeneous armor plate that was used on the conning tower of the Iowa's (for reference, an Exocet has an armor penetration of only 7 to 10 inches of RHA.)
Oh, and yes, if the Cole bombing had been attempted on an Iowa it would have gotten no where. The Iowa's were designed to withstand multiple 700lb TNT warhead contact detonating torpedoes. They were designed with three large liquid filled voids (DFM, feed water and potable water) that were themselves compartmentalized with 1 inch steel bulkheads between each providing a 20 foot buffer before you even reached the inner citadel where the 12" thick class A armored belt was located. There is a reason Iran got really quiet when we sent the Wisconsin and Missouri into the gulf back in 1988. They simply couldn't do dick to those ships and they knew it. It is my not quite humble opinion that the Admiralty dropped the ball when they struck these beasts from the roster in favor of under armored and under armed 1 billion dollar a copy destroyers.
*puts away the soap box* Sorry for the derail.
-
There is a reason Iran got really quiet when we sent the Wisconsin and Missouri into the gulf back in 1988. They simply couldn't do dick to those ships and they knew it.
:laugh:
-
Having never really looked into how those things were built all I can say is holy crap!
How effective is the new active stuff at stopping the various missles these days? Or even a 3" shell for example? I hope they at least put some heavier stuff around the magazines. :O
-
Oh, and derailment is the name of the game around here. ;)
-
If anyone ever got a good shot at an Arleigh Burke or a Ticonderoga with a 155mm APC it would probably tear through them like a hot knife through butter. And these ships are the same tonnage as the heavy cruisers (10,000) from WW2 which would have shrugged off such hits. As for modern missile threats it depends on the type of the missile and the counter systems being employed to stop them. As such matters are still pertinent to present day conflicts I'd rather not get into specific detail on the systems and the sort of threats they are viable against.
Going back to the Iowa-class though, the only modern weapon systems I know of that would reliably put one of those out of commission are all nuclear. If you read that thesis you will see that the potential damage assessments determined it would take a half dozen Exocets all hitting the relatively unarmored bow sections to simply reduce that ship's top speed. In order for conventional weapons to pose a threat it would take 5 Mk-48 torpedoes (650 pounds conventional high explosives plus any remaining self-oxidizing fuel) all striking the same side, at the same time, 60 feet apart, in order to overwhelm the counter flooding systems and capsize the ship. Mind you this is just to overwhelm the counter flooding systems, not to actually penetrate into the citadel (the internal machinery spaces and what not, basically the stuff behind the primary armor belt of the ship). It would take multiple conventional torpedo strikes in the same location to do that, but then you still have the internal compartmentalization to inhibit flooding. These things really were designed to take a thrashing and still be the last one standing when the smoke clears.
Aaand because I'm such a geek:
16 Inch Gun Training Film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OmOQs0ziSU)
United States Military Weapon Footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVyYmQkARl8)
-
Yes, the other rule is please never tell us anything that would require you to kill us afterwards. :police:
Secondly, I am just amazed that all that steel can be made to float. :lol:
-
Thread veer? Huh?
The CVNs do a decent job at armor. The topside spaces and all the perimeter fuel tanks are sacrificial metal. By the time you get well inside the ship you hit an armored box where pretty much all the vital systems live. Other nice touches like interrupted weapons elevators, massive systems redundancy, and AEGIS guard dogs make them rather survivable.
I still think they should bring back the BBs. Never happen, but how nice it would be to put a hull like that out there and put a nuke plant in it. Pretty much the biggest floating go F! yourself statement we could have short of nukes. At the end they carried lots of tomahawks too. Now the gun wizards are doing enhanced range stuff for the 5" guns that is supposed to fly something like 70+ miles and penetrate 20 some feet of concrete. That's handy and all, but can we scale it up to 16"? Failing that I would settle for lining all 5 of our newly converted SSGNs off the coast of whoever has us irritated, expending all their missiles, then sailing home. Diplomacy, pissy imperialist style.
Oh, on the Iowa class I'd assume that the easiest soft kill with conventional weapons would be a wake homing torpedo to eat the screws off. Of course it would probably still float. Then the gunners would wait patiently for the thing to drift around where they could line up a turret at your navy/country/whatever.
-
Thread veer? Huh?
The CVNs do a decent job at armor. The topside spaces and all the perimeter fuel tanks are sacrificial metal. By the time you get well inside the ship you hit an armored box where pretty much all the vital systems live. Other nice touches like interrupted weapons elevators, massive systems redundancy, and AEGIS guard dogs make them rather survivable.
Eh, I'll leave the CVN armor subject alone for my previous reason. Blast baffles and such on weapons elevators are nothing new however, again a dreadnaught era innovation. It was such baffles that kept the Iowa #2 Turret explosion contained to the turret and prevented it from propagating to the weapons magazines and causing a Hood/Arizona-esque high order detonation.
I still think they should bring back the BBs. Never happen, but how nice it would be to put a hull like that out there and put a nuke plant in it. Pretty much the biggest floating go F! yourself statement we could have short of nukes. At the end they carried lots of tomahawks too. Now the gun wizards are doing enhanced range stuff for the 5" guns that is supposed to fly something like 70+ miles and penetrate 20 some feet of concrete. That's handy and all, but can we scale it up to 16"? Failing that I would settle for lining all 5 of our newly converted SSGNs off the coast of whoever has us irritated, expending all their missiles, then sailing home. Diplomacy, pissy imperialist style.
The only problem with the rocket assisted 5" projectiles is they are extremely light weight. Something that small, where you are sacrificing additional mass for a rocket motor etc. just doesn't have the same kinetic force and to be honest any claims of "penetrating 20 feet of concrete" is a joke, unless it's that bubble infused stuff that they are putting at the end of runways to allow airplanes to sink in and skid to a stop. (ETA:) I take that back. If you used a solid kinetic penetrator arcing down from such a high loft it would be feasible, but then what good would it be when it lands? It would make a neat little hole 20 feet deep in a hunk of concrete with no area effects at all. As for adapting that over to the big bore guns, yes it has already been done. First attempt was a 10" 500lb solid tungsten kinetic penetrator saboted up to 16" in. It had a range of approximately 100-110 nautical miles. The second attempt was a full sized 16" high capacity shell with a rocket assist like the 5" and 155mm shells. It's range was an absurd 450+ nautical miles and was able to readily use the GPS or laser guidance systems as tested in the 155mm Excalibur and Copperhead projectiles. Makes me wonder if it wasn't bordering on the definition of a medium range ballistic missile at that point. =D But tell me, from a ground pounder's point of view. Which would you rather have on call for fire support: 50-75 pound 5" shells, or 1900-2700 pound 16" shells? (The weight is for the navy 5" experimental projectiles, not the Army/Marines 155mm Excalibur/Copperhead shells.)
Oh, on the Iowa class I'd assume that the easiest soft kill with conventional weapons would be a wake homing torpedo to eat the screws off. Of course it would probably still float. Then the gunners would wait patiently for the thing to drift around where they could line up a turret at your navy/country/whatever.
They might have a hard time at that. The two inner screws are shrouded by the drive shaft suspension of the two outer screws. You could toast the rudder and outer screws pretty hard, but after divers cut away the mangled remains of each she would still be able to limp home and use independent screw speed adjustments to control course (I was helmsman qualified on my ship many moons ago and so got to learn how to do some neat stuff like that). Besides those big turrets can train 150 degrees from centerline and shoot "over the shoulder." There is no "blind spot" to hide in. :) Of course, just for the sake of noting it, the battleships formed their own "BBG" or Battleship Battle Group and had their own destroyers and cruisers to act as sub screens and what not. They never lone wolfed it which seems to be a wide misconception.
-
Yes, the other rule is please never tell us anything that would require you to kill us afterwards. :police:
and then there are some of us that will pay and suffer through the speech. [popcorn] just a joke, i think. [tinfoil]