Do Battleships move sideways when they fire?

[jumpy]

The internet is really great sometimes; so much information and useful stuff, so many naked women :lol:

But in case you ever wanted to know if battle ships move sideways when firing a broadside, the answer is apparently 'no'. To refine that somewhat "theoretically, a fraction of a millimeter".

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm

the first picture is great ;)

[danlisa]

Nice find & good question.

I always assumed the answer to be NO because the barrels recoil and absorb the force after each round. Glad I was right.:know:

If they didn't I would suspect the force from a 'broadside' could quite likely capsize the ship.:dead:

[The Avon Lady]

You should warn people to wear earplugs before looking at that first pic. :dead:

[JSLTIGER]

::sigh:: Why did we decommission them again? :-?

[The Avon Lady]

But in case you ever wanted to know if battle ships move sideways when firing a broadside, the answer is apparently 'no'. To refine that somewhat "theoretically, a fraction of a millimeter".
Maybe the planet shifts from its orbit when they fire.

Prove me wrong.

[Sailor Steve]

According to Newton's Third Law of Motion, the Earth moves every time we take a step. Not so you'd notice, of course.

As for the battleship question, it was photos like that one that prompted people to make that mistake in the first place. Sometimes so much water is pushed away by the blast that it looks like the ship is moving and leaving a wake.

That link is from Tony Digiulian's NavWeaps site, and it goes to the old Warships 1 site by Tony D and Guy Derdall. I used to post there a lot. Look at some of the other Technical links; they also debunk the '45-knot nuclear carrier' myth.

Oh, never mind, I'll get it for you:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.htm

[Heibges]

Is it true if they fired all 9 guns simultaneously, that the ship would flip over?

[Dowly]

Is it true if they fired all 9 guns simultaneously, that the ship would flip over?

Haha, dont know but if it's so, I'd love to see that! :rotfl:

[JSLTIGER]

Is it true if they fired all 9 guns simultaneously, that the ship would flip over?

No. Not true. Full broadsides were fired from time to time.

[ASWnut101]

Supposedly (Superstition), the USS Iowa, when firing a full broadside, would move about one foot to the side when standing still.

[Etienne]

Because of the height of the guns, I'd expect a broad side to have more of an heelling effect than a swaying effect. Althought one would expect the ship to move sideway a bit as well.

But I really don't know about recoil absorbing guns and such.

One would also expect that naval architect would build BBs with enough of a MSS to counteract the firing of a full broad side.

Etienne

[Sailor Steve]

Is it true if they fired all 9 guns simultaneously, that the ship would flip over?

Haha, dont know but if it's so, I'd love to see that! :rotfl:
Look at the pictures again!

I just noticed: both pictures say the ship in question is firing a 15-gun broadside. With only nine guns?

It was speculated that the 7-turret, 14-gun battleship HMS Agincourt would turn turtle if she fired a full broadside. At the Battle of Jutland she fired several, with no ill effects.

Supposedly (Superstition), the USS Iowa, when firing a full broadside, would move about one foot to the side when standing still.
That's what the thread is about! Read the article!

[Rilder]

I know! We must prove this ourselves... lets start construction of our own Battleship!! :know:

[fatty]

I just noticed: both pictures say the ship in question is firing a 15-gun broadside. With only nine guns?!

Read the article! :p

Now, look very closely at Iowa in the top photograph. Note the small "puff balls" of smoke in the center of the photograph. These are from the six starboard 5"/38 secondary guns. In other words, Iowa and Missouri are firing all guns that can bear on the broadside - nine 16-inch guns and six 5-inch guns or 15-guns total.

On another note, I've been told that when firing full broadsides, the Iowas would stagger the shots by a split second to avoid any unpleasant vibration damage that happens when firing all guns at the exact same time.

[kurtz]

Is it true if they fired all 9 guns simultaneously, that the ship would flip over?

Haha, dont know but if it's so, I'd love to see that! :rotfl:
Look at the pictures again!

I just noticed: both pictures say the ship in question is firing a 15-gun broadside. With only nine guns?

It was speculated that the 7-turret, 14-gun battleship HMS Agincourt would turn turtle if she fired a full broadside. At the Battle of Jutland she fired several, with no ill effects.

Supposedly (Superstition), the USS Iowa, when firing a full broadside, would move about one foot to the side when standing still.
That's what the thread is about! Read the article!

Answers to all questions in the article, 15 guns is counting the secondary armanent which can be brought to bear on that side. so + 6 5inch guns.

[I-25]

Is it true if they fired all 9 guns simultaneously, that the ship would flip over?

if this were true i think the japanese Yamato with its 18.1" guns would do a 360 :rotfl:

[Yahoshua]

That'd be an interesting ride.......:D I'm sure they'd probably do it nowadays just for the fun of it during routine trials if that were the case.

[The Avon Lady]

That'd be an interesting ride.......:D I'm sure they'd probably do it nowadays just for the fun of it during routine trials if that were the case.
This has already been lab simulated (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifHkCabYg1I).

[Yahoshua]

The .577 T-Rex is NOTHING compared to the .700 Nitro Express.

http://airbornecombatengineer.typepad.com/airborne_combat_engineer/2005/01/if_you_introduc.html

From what I understand, these are Safari cartridges, but anything bigger than a .700 Nitro and I'd expect you to be hunting tanks!!

Ever fired a 4 gauge shotgun? I can barely handle a 3" 12 ga. for more than 50 shells, I don't think I have the heart to try that with a 4 ga.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/547250/4_gauge_home_made_gun_being_test_fired/

A bit of info on shotgun gauges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun#Gauge

Say AL, you've been through Basic training haven't you?

[The Avon Lady]

Say AL, you've been through Basic training haven't you?
No. Most Jewish religiously observant women, like myself, do not do military duty.

[kiwi_2005]

Hey im on Broadband people! W00t!:rock: You Tube here i come any good links anyone? Been watching the Ninja guy vids on U tube, running round the cities doing his ninja thing scaring ppl, hilarious! :rotfl:

Sorry, hijacket thread back to topic. Battleships move forward and backwards only. :p

[jumpy]

^^

http://www.askaninja.com/

alternatively look for 'ask a ninja' on you tube :lol: one of the best things I have seen on you tube... ever... apart from that cool slow-mo bullet-hitting-stuff filim thing.
With your new found bandwith I'd recommend watching all of the episodes with the ninja.

[NEON DEON]

The BB 61 firing a broadside showing lateral movement.

http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/5304/bb61ussiowabb61broadsidpa7.jpg


Looks like more that 1 mm to me.

[Letum]

Tilt shift = Tiny battleship! :D
http://www.b3tards.com/u/57a418c694bc7c6296b3/bb61ussiowabb61broadsidpa7.jpg

On a more serious note, I don't see any movement, just shock waves and foam from the blast.

[NEON DEON]

The bow wake.

plus the white caps to the port of the ship located behind turret 1 and 2.

[joea]

The bow wake.

plus the white caps to the port of the ship located behind turret 1 and 2.

Man you didn't read a single other post here...nor the navweapons link...how the heck could a BB have such movement as you imply and still fire accurately?

[NEON DEON]

The bow wake.

plus the white caps to the port of the ship located behind turret 1 and 2.

Man you didn't read a single other post here...nor the navweapons link...how the heck could a BB have such movement as you imply and still fire accurately?

Yes I did the pictures too.

Look at the picture again.

The ship also shows the deck tilted. The wake from the rear of the ship shows nothing of the front because twice the firepower projects from the bow portion of the ship causing the ship to be projectected back and the bow to swing to the port. Also of note is the far smaller width of the bow section as opposed to the stern section of the ship.

Look and the very first bow track (the small one) it shows it. I am not talking the blast ripples.

[Deamon]

::sigh:: Why did we decommission them again? :-?

Because the navy ren out of earplugs :yep:

[Sailor Steve]

Dozens of available pictures and only one like that? I'm betting it's faked.

[TteFAboB]

Is that a miniature with alot of photoshop?

[joea]

Dozens of available pictures and only one like that? I'm betting it's faked.

Me too...:know:

[micky1up]

just remember the theory every action has an equal and opposite reaction so the battle ship must move sideways

[Sailor Steve]

Read the article! It does move sideways, but only a few inches "if it was on ice". In the water, it's a fraction of a millimeter. Not enough that you could ever see it.

Answers to all questions in the article, 15 guns is counting the secondary armanent which can be brought to bear on that side. so + 6 5inch guns.
Silly me. I grew up back when they had the full complement of 20 5" guns, so a full main and secondary broadside in my day was 19 guns.

On another note, I've been told that when firing full broadsides, the Iowas would stagger the shots by a split second to avoid any unpleasant vibration damage that happens when firing all guns at the exact same time.
A very "split" second indeed. Something like 1/100 of a second between barrels. the reason is actually so the shells don't interfere with each other in flight.

[NEON DEON]

Only if an Iowa class BB was a perfect sphere and the point of movent was given to the center of the mass would that theory have any relevance. The mere shape of the object debunks it.

The Iowa is 889 feet long and at its widest spot it is 108 feet long (not nearly as wide at the forward two turrets).

Besides that obvious mis-calculation here is an excerpt from from a Navy officer that served on board a North Carolina class BB:

"WHEN BIG GUNS FIRE:

When the North Carolina fired its guns, crew members descended into a scorching, blinding hell. The force of the blast of the 16-inch guns could literally move the ship through the water. Doors blew open, debris rained down and in the mess, dinner was limited to stew and sandwiches.

"[T]he thunderous blast of the 16-inch guns struck the chest like the blow of a baseball bat. The sharp crack of the five-inch was skull splitting, even more painful to the ears. Like waiting for the other shoe to drop, the next 16-inch salvo could not be anticipated. No matter how one might try to brace his body in advance, there was no way to avoid bruises inflicted on elbows, knees and shins, as the entire ship lurched in angry recoil with every main battery salvo. Dust and debris would burst from every crack and corner, asbestos lagging would fly from piping, and insulation would tear loose from the overhead. Every object not bolted down would bounce or ricochet as though kicked by angry gremlins.

Topside, solid sheets of flame with great clouds of searing gas and smoke erupted from the gun muzzles with every salvo. Often as not, much of this was carried by the wind back across the ship, to envelop men at exposed stations and be sucked inside through the ventilation system. At the end of such a day, all hands suffered from throbbing headaches, and most were virtually deaf. Red-rimmed eyes smarted from the pall of smoke. Every man's entire body was grimy with dust and the abrasive residue of burned gun powder. All of this could be, and was, endured . .There was no pleasure whatever in it; only the grim satisfaction of helping our Marines survive to win the battle ashore."
-- -- Captain Ben Blee (Ret.) Lieutenant, Combat Intelligence Officer, Asst. Combat Information Center Officer and Senior Watch Officer"

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/warship/guns/journal_print.html

BTW:

1 mm is about 1/25th of an inch.

[Camaero]

^^

http://www.askaninja.com/

alternatively look for 'ask a ninja' on you tube :lol: one of the best things I have seen on you tube... ever... apart from that cool slow-mo bullet-hitting-stuff filim thing.
With your new found bandwith I'd recommend watching all of the episodes with the ninja.

Wow, I love the ninja! :rock:

[Letum]

just remember the theory every action has an equal and opposite reaction so the battle ship must move sideways

Yes, technically the whole world moves when a battleship fires and that movement causes the earth to pull the sun a little and that moves the entire galexy a little.

Of course we are talking about movements that are a tiny, tiny fraction of a atom long.

[Lagger123987]

Doesnt have to do with the mov sideways when they fire thing but you guys may enjoy these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HzVBVIjM6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj-15O-BTDw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY2CYFlVDkY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvwZ52viQjg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puxVvU52368

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdZqQ5C7pN0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTxzg2ejB-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBqTReiXgKE

[joea]

"WHEN BIG GUNS FIRE:

When the North Carolina fired its guns, crew members descended into a scorching, blinding hell. The force of the blast of the 16-inch guns could literally move the ship through the water. Doors blew open, debris rained down and in the mess, dinner was limited to stew and sandwiches.

"[T]he thunderous blast of the 16-inch guns struck the chest like the blow of a baseball bat. The sharp crack of the five-inch was skull splitting, even more painful to the ears. Like waiting for the other shoe to drop, the next 16-inch salvo could not be anticipated. No matter how one might try to brace his body in advance, there was no way to avoid bruises inflicted on elbows, knees and shins, as the entire ship lurched in angry recoil with every main battery salvo. Dust and debris would burst from every crack and corner, asbestos lagging would fly from piping, and insulation would tear loose from the overhead. Every object not bolted down would bounce or ricochet as though kicked by angry gremlins.

Topside, solid sheets of flame with great clouds of searing gas and smoke erupted from the gun muzzles with every salvo. Often as not, much of this was carried by the wind back across the ship, to envelop men at exposed stations and be sucked inside through the ventilation system. At the end of such a day, all hands suffered from throbbing headaches, and most were virtually deaf. Red-rimmed eyes smarted from the pall of smoke. Every man's entire body was grimy with dust and the abrasive residue of burned gun powder. All of this could be, and was, endured . .There was no pleasure whatever in it; only the grim satisfaction of helping our Marines survive to win the battle ashore."
-- -- Captain Ben Blee (Ret.) Lieutenant, Combat Intelligence Officer, Asst. Combat Information Center Officer and Senior Watch Officer"

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/warship/guns/journal_print.html

BTW:

1 mm is about 1/25th of an inch.

None of that testimony indicate the ship moved a large amount in the water all the details were the effect on the ship itself...which seems like it absobed the recoil...seriously if the shipè moved as great a distacne as implied in the picture it would fall apart! How come no other pictures or clips exist of a BB getting shoved sideways!!. Oh and please show us the mathematical rebuttal...you only provided subjective testimony.

[TteFAboB]

Doesnt have to do with the mov sideways when they fire thing but you guys may enjoy these.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HzVBVIjM6s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj-15O-BTDw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xY2CYFlVDkY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvwZ52viQjg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puxVvU52368

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdZqQ5C7pN0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTxzg2ejB-E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBqTReiXgKE

Sure did, but you forgot this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw

Well, there are so many of them anyway.

On the topic: isn't it difficult to move a ship sideways? Don't you need a big tug boat with a big engine giving it a strong push? While the blow from these guns is huge, it's not big enough or doesn't last long enough to actually move the ship, right? What if you fired both back turrets to the back though, would the ship move forward or start moving forward, slowly, after a few salvos? Because the ship does move alot easier foward than it does sideways, right?

[Rilder]

The correct answer to everything is of course, every time a battleship fires its guns, somebody gets screwed, most of the time the guy who had the guns aimed at him.

[Sailor Steve]

Only if an Iowa class BB was a perfect sphere and the point of movent was given to the center of the mass would that theory have any relevance. The mere shape of the object debunks it.

The Iowa is 889 feet long and at its widest spot it is 108 feet long (not nearly as wide at the forward two turrets).

Besides that obvious mis-calculation...
Before you "debunk" and talk about "obvious miscalculations" you might want to check the credentials of the engineer who wrote the original article:
In 1981 I was assigned as the structural project leader for the reactivation and modernization of the USS New Jersey for her fourth time in active service. I designed, or directed the design, all superstructure mods, Tomahawk decks,additional armor for new critical spaces and was the point of contact from the other design sections for arrangements, mast design, foundation designs, etc.
In 1983 I was promoted to be the Hull and Structural Configuration Manager for the reactivation of the USS Missouri and to conduct inspections of the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/default2_bioRL.htm

I think he just might have some clue as to what he's talking about.

[Prof]

That photo is not faked or edited to create the bow wave. I did a quick image search and came up with a very similar photograph to the one NEON DEON posted, the only difference being that it seems to have been taken from the same point but a very short moment later. It shows exactly the same bow wave shape, so unless both pictures are edited, it's real.

My guess is that the bow wave is symmetrical but the port side is in shadow, so only the starboard half of the wave is visible in the photo. If the ship really had moved sideways, I think you'd see a lot more water swirling around the bow

[Lagger123987]

[quote=TteFAboB]
Sure did, but you forgot this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw)[quote]

oops, clusmy me forgetting that one.

[Sailor Steve]

Sure did, but you forgot this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw)

oops, clusmy me forgetting that one.
Those videos show nothing but the guns firing and the camera shaking. What's your point?

As to the photos, look again at the overhead shots accompanying the article: no bow wave, just water being pushed away by the blast. I say the other ones are fake.

[NEON DEON]

Only if an Iowa class BB was a perfect sphere and the point of movent was given to the center of the mass would that theory have any relevance. The mere shape of the object debunks it.

The Iowa is 889 feet long and at its widest spot it is 108 feet long (not nearly as wide at the forward two turrets).

Besides that obvious mis-calculation...
Before you "debunk" and talk about "obvious miscalculations" you might want to check the credentials of the engineer who wrote the original article:
In 1981 I was assigned as the structural project leader for the reactivation and modernization of the USS New Jersey for her fourth time in active service. I designed, or directed the design, all superstructure mods, Tomahawk decks,additional armor for new critical spaces and was the point of contact from the other design sections for arrangements, mast design, foundation designs, etc.
In 1983 I was promoted to be the Hull and Structural Configuration Manager for the reactivation of the USS Missouri and to conduct inspections of the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/default2_bioRL.htm

I think he just might have some clue as to what he's talking about.

Steve,

While the person you speak of wrote the article, he did not post the formula that is in the article.

Besides, even if he did write that formula he has no degree let alone one in physics.

So Steve what I am getting is that you claim that the picture I posted is fake and you are dismissing the descriptions of big guns firing given by an Officer of the United States Navy who actually served on board the Battleship North Carolina as Senior watch officer.

Two pertinent quotes from Lieutenant Ben Blee of the Battleship North Carolina:

“The force of the blast of the 16-inch guns could literally move the ship through the water.”

“No matter how one might try to brace his body in advance, there was no way to avoid bruises inflicted on elbows, knees and shins, as the entire ship lurched in angry recoil with every main battery salvo."

[Heibges]

The text by the naval officer is ambiguous as to whether it "moved" as in propelled the ship through the water, or whether it just rocked the ship violently.

[ASWnut101]

Only if an Iowa class BB was a perfect sphere and the point of movent was given to the center of the mass would that theory have any relevance. The mere shape of the object debunks it.

The Iowa is 889 feet long and at its widest spot it is 108 feet long (not nearly as wide at the forward two turrets).

Besides that obvious mis-calculation...
Before you "debunk" and talk about "obvious miscalculations" you might want to check the credentials of the engineer who wrote the original article:
In 1981 I was assigned as the structural project leader for the reactivation and modernization of the USS New Jersey for her fourth time in active service. I designed, or directed the design, all superstructure mods, Tomahawk decks,additional armor for new critical spaces and was the point of contact from the other design sections for arrangements, mast design, foundation designs, etc.
In 1983 I was promoted to be the Hull and Structural Configuration Manager for the reactivation of the USS Missouri and to conduct inspections of the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/default2_bioRL.htm

I think he just might have some clue as to what he's talking about.

Steve,

While the person you speak of wrote the article, he did not post the formula that is in the article.

Besides, even if he did write that formula he has no degree let alone one in physics.

So Steve what I am getting is that you claim that the picture I posted is fake and you are dismissing the descriptions of big guns firing given by an Officer of the United States Navy who actually served on board the Battleship North Carolina as Senior watch officer.

Two pertinent quotes from Lieutenant Ben Blee of the Battleship North Carolina:

“The force of the blast of the 16-inch guns could literally move the ship through the water.”

“No matter how one might try to brace his body in advance, there was no way to avoid bruises inflicted on elbows, knees and shins, as the entire ship lurched in angry recoil with every main battery salvo."

PLEASE tell me how he noticed the guns "literally moved the ship through the water," when he had to be inside. With that kind of recoil that he describes, if he were above decks he would have been thrown completely off the ship (As in "Man overboard!").

[Polak]

Don't forget that Sailor Steve served in the US Navy, so he has every right to question that navy officer.

[NEON DEON]

The text by the naval officer is ambiguous as to whether it "moved" as in propelled the ship through the water, or whether it just rocked the ship violently.

The words movement and lurched are in no way ambiguous.

[NEON DEON]

Only if an Iowa class BB was a perfect sphere and the point of movent was given to the center of the mass would that theory have any relevance. The mere shape of the object debunks it.

The Iowa is 889 feet long and at its widest spot it is 108 feet long (not nearly as wide at the forward two turrets).

Besides that obvious mis-calculation...
Before you "debunk" and talk about "obvious miscalculations" you might want to check the credentials of the engineer who wrote the original article:
In 1981 I was assigned as the structural project leader for the reactivation and modernization of the USS New Jersey for her fourth time in active service. I designed, or directed the design, all superstructure mods, Tomahawk decks,additional armor for new critical spaces and was the point of contact from the other design sections for arrangements, mast design, foundation designs, etc.
In 1983 I was promoted to be the Hull and Structural Configuration Manager for the reactivation of the USS Missouri and to conduct inspections of the USS Iowa and USS Wisconsin.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/default2_bioRL.htm

I think he just might have some clue as to what he's talking about.

Steve,

While the person you speak of wrote the article, he did not post the formula that is in the article.

Besides, even if he did write that formula he has no degree let alone one in physics.

So Steve what I am getting is that you claim that the picture I posted is fake and you are dismissing the descriptions of big guns firing given by an Officer of the United States Navy who actually served on board the Battleship North Carolina as Senior watch officer.

Two pertinent quotes from Lieutenant Ben Blee of the Battleship North Carolina:

“The force of the blast of the 16-inch guns could literally move the ship through the water.”

“No matter how one might try to brace his body in advance, there was no way to avoid bruises inflicted on elbows, knees and shins, as the entire ship lurched in angry recoil with every main battery salvo."

PLEASE tell me how he noticed the guns "literally moved the ship through the water," when he had to be inside. With that kind of recoil that he describes, if he were above decks he would have been thrown completely off the ship (As in "Man overboard!").

Did you miss the point that he was the senior watch officer.

[ASWnut101]

No, I didn't.


I don't understand how he could know that the ship would "lurch" so violently that it threw everything (including people) around, cause interior damage even though he was a watch officer, and that he could maintain enough balance to realize that the ship was moving and it was not simply the pressure differences on his middle ear that would cause him to think that he was moving.

Want a demonstration? Go to a big open space, hold out your arms (for the dramatic effect), and spin around really fast for twenty full revolutions. Now stop suddenly. Look! The ground is moving!

The huge blast from 9 sixteen-inch cannon firing at once (fast enough that you cannot tell the time between shots) causes UNBELIVEABLE air pressure forces in and around the ship, hatches closed or not. This major increase in pressure causes wonders on the ear structures, especially the middle ear (that controls balance). As such, he would have thought he was moving simply when he was only being thrown around by the immense air pressure wave from the salvo. When he got to his feet, he still would have thought he was moving, yet he is only being tricked by his own brain.


Jesus, I feel like such a medical-nerd. Maby I am...:ping:

[joea]

The text by the naval officer is ambiguous as to whether it "moved" as in propelled the ship through the water, or whether it just rocked the ship violently.
The words movement and lurched are in way ambiguous.
How the heck could the ship move so violently and such a distance as implied by your photo? (You read the other explanation did you not about the other side being obscured?) Did you see the video clips? How much movement are we talking here according to you? One inch? 10 yards? 100 yards?

Besides looking at your pic again those are shock wave patterns from the guns firing...

Again from the blasted article http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm

What looks like a side-ways wake is just the water being broiled up by the muzzle blasts. The ship doesn't move an inch or even heel from a broadside.
The guns have a recoil slide of up to 48 inches and the shock is distributed evenly through the turret foundation and the hull structure. The mass of a 57,000 ton ship is just too great for the recoil of the guns to move it. Well, theoretically, a fraction of a millimeter.
But because of the expansive range of the overpressure (muzzle blast), a lot of the rapidly displaced air presses against the bulkheads and decks. Those structures that are not armored actually flex inwards just a bit, thus displacing air quickly inside the ship and causing loose items to fly around. Sort of like having your house sealed up with all windows and vents closed and when you slam the front door quickly the displaced air pops open the kitchen cabinets.
R. A. Landgraff


You think BB designers would be so incompentent as to not put good recoil mechanisms in? How coul you fight in ship that moves as much as you seem to think?

[Lagger123987]

Sure did, but you forgot this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw)

oops, clusmy me forgetting that one.
Those videos show nothing but the guns firing and the camera shaking. What's your point?

As to the photos, look again at the overhead shots accompanying the article: no bow wave, just water being pushed away by the blast. I say the other ones are fake.

I'm just tyring to impress people, jezz.

[NEON DEON]

The text by the naval officer is ambiguous as to whether it "moved" as in propelled the ship through the water, or whether it just rocked the ship violently.
The words movement and lurched are in way ambiguous.
How the heck could the ship move so violently and such a distance as implied by your photo? (You read the other explanation did you not about the other side being obscured?) Did you see the video clips? How much movement are we talking here according to you? One inch? 10 yards? 100 yards?

Besides looking at your pic again those are shock wave patterns from the guns firing...

Again from the blasted article http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm

What looks like a side-ways wake is just the water being broiled up by the muzzle blasts. The ship doesn't move an inch or even heel from a broadside.
The guns have a recoil slide of up to 48 inches and the shock is distributed evenly through the turret foundation and the hull structure. The mass of a 57,000 ton ship is just too great for the recoil of the guns to move it. Well, theoretically, a fraction of a millimeter.
But because of the expansive range of the overpressure (muzzle blast), a lot of the rapidly displaced air presses against the bulkheads and decks. Those structures that are not armored actually flex inwards just a bit, thus displacing air quickly inside the ship and causing loose items to fly around. Sort of like having your house sealed up with all windows and vents closed and when you slam the front door quickly the displaced air pops open the kitchen cabinets.
R. A. Landgraff


You think BB designers would be so incompentent as to not put good recoil mechanisms in? How coul you fight in ship that moves as much as you seem to think?

Joea,

The recoil does not negate the effects of momentum and inertia but only prolongs it long enough for the shell to depart the gun before the end of the 4 foot recoil thus maintaining an accurate shot.

As for the blast and pressure, The Conn of the battleship North Carolina is armored.

I am sorry if you were mislead by the blast ripples in regards to the picture I posted. However, if you go back you will find an earlier post of mine right after the post of the picture where you will see my comment of the blast ripples and much smaller bow wake.

Now, as for the fraction of a milimeter, no where in the original article does it post the formula to arrive at that conclusion. It leaves you with only the Conservation of momentum formula that ends in 6 inches PER SECOND. So in essence the formula they posted proved that after the the broadside the ship traveled 1,800 feet in an hour. ;)

Why on earth would you pick the largest BB at maximum weight (58,000 tons) if you wanted to be conclusive on the point that a battleship does not move when you fire a broadside is a mystery to me.

If you use the standard displacement of an Iowa class BB 45,000 tons(not 58K) and use the actual mass of the entire load in the gun that is 3,405 lbs (not just the 2700 lbs projectile, unless of course you think the mass of the charge is not in the gun.) Using the formula they provided gives 9 inches PER SECOND.

And if you use the North Carolina as your model at a standard displacement of 35,000 tons the figure expands to about one foot or 12 inches PER SECOND.

And that brings me back to the USN officer I quoted earlier.

The quoted words were: "literally move the ship through the water."

Websters definition of literal not mine:

"1: according with the letter of the scriptures 2 : adhering to fact or to the ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression. 3 : free from exaggeration or embellishment - literally <the literal truth> 4 : characterized by a concern mainly with facts."

So. No way is that line from Lt. Ben Blee USN ambiguous.

As for the total movement of the ship after a broadside, Its way more than a fraction of a milimeter and much less than 1,800 feet. :D

[joea]

Its way more than a fraction of a milimeter and much less than 1,800 feet
Very precise, too bad you and the other fellow are the only ones in the world who think that. :88)

Come on people this is not a fuzzy question, there has to be a precise answer to it!!

[NEON DEON]

Its way more than a fraction of a milimeter and much less than 1,800 feet
Very precise, too bad you and the other fellow are the only ones in the world who think that. :88)

Come on people this is not a fuzzy question, there has to be a precise answer to it!!

Yes I know its incredible to think a USN senior watch officer who also was an intel officer would have been good at observation!:p :lol: :p

After reviewing such things as kinetic hydrodynamic drag, static hydrodynamic drag, and it's effects on inertia I have decided to E mail myth busters and let them figure it out. Who knows maybe they will turn it into a show!:D

[jumpy]

Wow, Looks like you bunnies are getting all excited :lol:

I think it's fair to say, that firing the main batteries wouldn't have the effect of some new and totally impractical drive system... as for making the ship lurch or shudder or vibrate, then yes, absolutely and without question. Any such 'real' motion of the entire vessel in the opposite direction to that in which the main guns were facing upon firing is silly or so small as to be virtually un-noticeable in any practical sense.
After all, if you fire a shotgun, you don't suddenly get propelled backwards, you absorb the recoil... so does the ship and to an infinitesimal degree, so does the water surrounding the ship. Surely if the main guns were so powerful at to alter the course of the ship, then the designers would have had to think twice before continuing?

Seems like common sense to me?

But hey, I'm just speculating here...:rotfl:

But if I was to say for sure what the movement of the ship was under main battery firing conditions, then it's definitely 10... er, 10.5368442179 blerns. :hmm: yup, for sure.

[Etienne]

PLEASE tell me how he noticed the guns "literally moved the ship through the water," when he had to be inside. With that kind of recoil that he describes, if he were above decks he would have been thrown completely off the ship (As in "Man overboard!").

Did you miss the point that he was the senior watch officer.[/quote]

Wouldn't the BB's, when they were still used in later years, have been equipped with dual axis doppler log? These things have been around for a while, AFAIK. And they give you sideway speed. (Extremely usefull when you're trying 100000 tons of something right up to a flimsy wharf)

[Sailor Steve]

Why on earth would you pick the largest BB at maximum weight (58,000 tons) if you wanted to be conclusive on the point that a battleship does not move when you fire a broadside is a mystery to me.

If you use the standard displacement of an Iowa class BB 45,000 tons(not 58K) and use the actual mass of the entire load in the gun that is 3,405 lbs (not just the 2700 lbs projectile, unless of course you think the mass of the charge is not in the gun.) Using the formula they provided gives 9 inches PER SECOND.
First of all, there was never any such thing as a 45,000-ton Iowa class battleship. Forty-five thousand tons was the design weight. The light load weight at sea was 48,000 tons, and they replaced used fuel and supplies with sea water to maintain the 57,000-ton full load displacement. The reason for this was that when the displacement changed the metacentric height changed, which in turn affected the rate of roll, thus changing all the fire-control solutions.

Second, any mass behind the 2700-pound shell (i.e. a cartridge, which these guns don't have) would be part of the weight on the other side of the blast, thus resisting the recoil, not adding to it. The firing charge's mass is all converted to energy, so it is the blast itself, and doesn't contribute to the mass either way; so no the mass of the charge is not in the gun.

Third, that is still the only photo which shows that bow wave, all others not having one (and there are many, many others.

So we now have the word of a man who was there versus the word of a man who was there many times and finished his career rebuilding and testing the ships in question. Tell my who I should believe.

[NEON DEON]

Standard tonnage for a Iowa class BB 45 thousand tons.

Mean (That means average, not the heaviest, not the lightest, but average.) load of a wartime Iowa class. 52,000 tons. Like I said before if you want to disprove it you have to make it fit all cats not just the heaviest. Also WW II BB's were equipped with fire control computers that factor in every movement of the ship as well as made adjustments to height roll and even accounted for bounce. No such weight restriction was put on these ships and they did indeed take on ballast but that was to counter roll due to high seas not standard operation.

Six 110 lbs charge bags went into the guns along with the projectile and bursting charge on the nose to total 3,405 lbs each. The breaches were closed and when fired, the entire mass came out the business end of the gun at the same speed of the projectile. In other words the charge is projected out the end of the gun contributing to the momementum put on the gun and its platform. No way is the charge behind the blast it is the blast. The charge is in the gun.

Stern view of the BB 45 USS Colorado firing a 16 inch broadside:

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1315/coloradobb4508dm0.jpg

Ben Blee spent the war on the USS North Carolina while the guy who wrote that article was in diapers. Please show me when the guy that wrote that article was present during a live fire exercise of a battleship broadside.

[joea]

So again, the sideways movement was enough to throw the ship off its heading or not?? Simple question. :D

[Sailor Steve]

Standard tonnage for a Iowa class BB 45 thousand tons.
No, that was the design displacement. No Iowa ever weighed that little in service.

Mean (That means average, not the heaviest, not the lightest, but average.) load of a wartime Iowa class. 52,000 tons. Like I said before if you want to disprove it you have to make it fit all cats not just the heaviest.
Again, you're showing a lack of knowledge on the subject. The Iowas were specifically designed so the 57,000 tons was constant. Show me any statement anywhere that they ever displaced 52,000 tons.

Also WW II BB's were equipped with fire control computers that factor in every movement of the ship as well as made adjustments to height roll and even accounted for bounce. No such weight restriction was put on these ships and they did indeed take on ballast but that was to counter roll due to high seas not standard operation.
Absolutely not true. Show a source.

Six 110 lbs charge bags went into the guns along with the projectile and bursting charge on the nose to total 3,405 lbs each. The breaches were closed and when fired, the entire mass came out the business end of the gun at the same speed of the projectile. In other words the charge is projected out the end of the gun contributing to the momementum put on the gun and its platform. No way is the charge behind the blast it is the blast. The charge is in the gun.
Again you're ignoring Newton's third law, which is what governs the movement. The charge is powder, the powder burns, the blast goes both ways and the charge ceases to exist; it's converted to energy.

Stern view of the BB 45 USS Colorado firing a 16 inch broadside:

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1315/coloradobb4508dm0.jpg

There is no wake visible in your picture, only blast effect (water being pushed away from the ship).

Ben Blee spent the war on the USS North Carolina while the guy who wrote that article was in diapers. Please show me when the guy that wrote that article was present during a live fire exercise of a battleship broadside.
According to your own quote, Blee was a watch officer. If he was being shaken by the blast he would be in no position to see what was happening at either end of the ship. He never states how he 'knew' the ship moved. There is no evidence.

Dick Landgraff (he does have a name) is considered the reigning expert in the field. I have also participated in several discussions of this on the Warships1 boards, and several ex-battleship sailors concur in his findings. Go there and have this argument; you might actually learn something.

[Sailor Steve]

STUPID! STUPID! STUPID! I'm a fool!

Here I am talking about the Third Law of Motion, and I'm forgetting things I used to know by heart. The weight, or mass, of the shell has no bearing on how far or fast the ship will move. If we could create a shell made of magic depleted upsidasium, which somehow weight 6000 TONS, so nine of them would equal the weight of the ship (and make a gun that wouldn't blow up when fired), the shells would leave the gun at roughly 7 inches per second; but the ship's velocity would be unchanged. Likewise, if we fired a gun with no shell, the velocity of the ship would still be the same. This is why a rocket motor still works in a vacuum - the force of the burning gasses is the same, and that's all that counts:
http://www.physchem.co.za/Motion/Third%20Law.htm

A rocket works on the basis of Newton's third law, and not, as many believe, by "the exhaust gases pushing against the ground (at lift-off), or against the outside atmosphere". A rocket works even better in the near vacuum of space, where there is no frictional drag due to the atmosphere.
Rather, a large mass of gases are expelled at a very high velocity from the combustion chamber of the rocket engine through specially designed nozzles. The velocity of the exhaust gases is very high, (about 10 000 km.hr-1, or 2700 m.s-1), and as the gases are expelled, a change in the momentum of these gases takes place in the time the propellant takes to burn. This is the force causing the gases to be ejected.

By Newton's third law, this force has a reaction, in the opposite direction, and this is the force, or THRUST, that accelerates the rocket.

Second, since this thrust is an almost instantaneous, one-time event, the ship will be propelled at the given velocity once, not continuously. It is also pushing, not only against the ship, but against the mass of the entire ocean on the other side of the ship. Remember, water doesn't compress. Also remember that, since we're pushing on the side of the ship, not the stern, our object is almost 900 feet wide, not long.

Third, since and Iowa class battleship has a mean draft of about 35 feet, and the guns are about 25 feet above the water, most of the resistance to movement is well below the guns. As mentioned above, most of the actual movement is going to be above the water, meaning that most of the movement will be rolling, not sideways motion.

[CCIP]

most of the movement will be rolling, not sideways motion.

Right, and that would also explain the illusion that the ship is moving from the point of view of those on deck :hmm:

This reminds me of the depth charge argument, where those who have been depth charged claim that Das Boot's portrayal of severe shaking is completely inaccurate, but that the boat would actually be rock-steady through the whole thing.

[NEON DEON]

STUPID! STUPID! STUPID! I'm a fool!

Here I am talking about the Third Law of Motion, and I'm forgetting things I used to know by heart. The weight, or mass, of the shell has no bearing on how far or fast the ship will move. If we could create a shell made of magic depleted upsidasium, which somehow weight 6000 TONS, so nine of them would equal the weight of the ship (and make a gun that wouldn't blow up when fired), the shells would leave the gun at roughly 7 inches per second; but the ship's velocity would be unchanged. Likewise, if we fired a gun with no shell, the velocity of the ship would still be the same. This is why a rocket motor still works in a vacuum - the force of the burning gasses is the same, and that's all that counts:
http://www.physchem.co.za/Motion/Third%20Law.htm

A rocket works on the basis of Newton's third law, and not, as many believe, by "the exhaust gases pushing against the ground (at lift-off), or against the outside atmosphere". A rocket works even better in the near vacuum of space, where there is no frictional drag due to the atmosphere.
Rather, a large mass of gases are expelled at a very high velocity from the combustion chamber of the rocket engine through specially designed nozzles. The velocity of the exhaust gases is very high, (about 10 000 km.hr-1, or 2700 m.s-1), and as the gases are expelled, a change in the momentum of these gases takes place in the time the propellant takes to burn. This is the force causing the gases to be ejected.

By Newton's third law, this force has a reaction, in the opposite direction, and this is the force, or THRUST, that accelerates the rocket.

Second, since this thrust is an almost instantaneous, one-time event, the ship will be propelled at the given velocity once, not continuously. It is also pushing, not only against the ship, but against the mass of the entire ocean on the other side of the ship. Remember, water doesn't compress. Also remember that, since we're pushing on the side of the ship, not the stern, our object is almost 900 feet wide, not long.

Third, since and Iowa class battleship has a mean draft of about 35 feet, and the guns are about 25 feet above the water, most of the resistance to movement is well below the guns. As mentioned above, most of the actual movement is going to be above the water, meaning that most of the movement will be rolling, not sideways motion.

Good Morning. :sunny:


Oh two posts!

Now you have discounted Inertia and conservation of momentum.

Steve, you only need thrust if you want to move faster. An object does not stop after thrust has been taken away.

Easiest example would be throwing a ball. Once it leaves your hand it has no more thrust yet it continues to move forward.

That is inertia: An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.

Conservation of momemtum applies that for every action there is in equal but opposite reaction: So given that is held true then speed is constant in both directions what differs is the mass of the opposite objects in question.

Steve, earlier you stated:

"Again you're ignoring Newton's third law, which is what governs the movement. The charge is powder, the powder burns, the blast goes both ways and the charge ceases to exist; it's converted to energy."

Matter is mass and mass is matter. Matter cannot be destroyed only transformed. If you doubt that, then take it up with Einstein.

"MASS IS INDESTRUCTIBLE
In a Steady State Universe, total mass cannot change [13]. It may be converted back and forth to neutrinos and gamma particles in fusion [3] and radioactivity reactions [14]."

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/clarencedulaney/MASS+EQUALS+MATTER

Those big flamey smokey things belched out of the guns are the gasses (propellant) converted from the charges.

From the website you listed:

"The total mass of fuel and oxidant will equal the total mass of exhaust gases"

IE: Mass is not destroyed it is transformed.

Whice brings me full circle to the half finished formula Langdraf submitted in his article.

NOT PROOF!

The only thing he proved in the article is that a 58,000 ton battleship (NOT ALL BATTLESHIPS JUST THE HEAVIEST ONES LESS THE MASS OF THE CHARGE) moves sideways at the rate of 6 inches PER SECOND.

He dismisses the main rule of Inertia (objects in motion tend to stay in motion) while counting only (unless they are acted upon by an outside force). And yet while counting that part he does not provide the proof that could conclusively prove his theory: The formula dealing with friction (drag).

BTW: Once you get mass moving, you have to stop it. The bigger the mass the harder it is to stop.

I will answer your other post later after I wake up and do some damage control with the better half.;)

[Sailor Steve]

Now you have discounted Inertia and conservation of momentum.

Steve, you only need thrust if you want to move faster. An object does not stop after thrust has been taken away.

Easiest example would be throwing a ball. Once it leaves your hand it has no more thrust yet it continues to move forward.

That is inertia: An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.
Until acted upon by an outside force; i.e. the resistance of millions of tons of water.

Conservation of momemtum applies that for every action there is in equal but opposite reaction: So given that is held true then speed is constant in both directions what differs is the mass of the opposite objects in question.

Matter is mass and mass is matter. Matter cannot be destroyed only transformed. If you doubt that, then take it up with Einstein.
Those big flamey smokey things belched out of the guns are the gasses (propellant) converted from the charges.

From the website you listed:

"The total mass of fuel and oxidant will equal the total mass of exhaust gases"

IE: Mass is not destroyed it is transformed.
That's the point I was making. The fact is the mass of the charge is in between and will be equally divided as to the direction of its force.

(My not quoting the rest doesn't mean I didn't see it; I just felt it was part of the same argument and didn't want to quote the whole thing.)

Whice brings me full circle to the half finished formula Langdraf submitted in his article.

NOT PROOF!

The only thing he proved in the article is that a 58,000 ton battleship (NOT ALL BATTLESHIPS JUST THE HEAVIEST ONES LESS THE MASS OF THE CHARGE) moves sideways at the rate of 6 inches PER SECOND.

He dismisses the main rule of Inertia (objects in motion tend to stay in motion) while counting only (unless they are acted upon by an outside force). And yet while counting that part he does not provide the proof that could conclusively prove his theory: The formula dealing with friction (drag).

BTW: Once you get mass moving, you have to stop it. The bigger the mass the harder it is to stop.
True, and also the opposite: the bigger the mass the harder it is to get going in the first place, hence the 6"/sec point. If this all took place in space it might keep going at that rate forever (ignoring the gravitational influence of nearby planets, or the sudden impact with and asteroid). If we could float that mass in the air it would coast for quite a while before drag finally stopped it. In something as resistant as water?

And you're right again: he doesn't give a formula for the rate of deceleration due to resistance. I'm only guessing that it would be near instantaneous, as we percieve it. Perhaps you can correct me with the proper math? Oh, and don't forget to factor in the rolling problem.

[wamphyri]

God. the feeling i'm gettin is that water has no friction element to it at all. I'm of the firm belief that a battleship doesn't move enough for it to be noticed. The ppl who designed them weren't stupid like you morons that think they were. How the heck could you fire on anything if everyshot you took moved your ship enough so that you'd have to recompute the whole thing over again.

We've all hear about how if you fall from a hight into water it's like hitting concrete but in this discussion that water is magicaly a soft substance. the fact of the matter is that water is a bitch to deal with and if a 45000 ton structure fires off a few rounds it's hardly going to cause a sunami when it does.

James Woolley

p.s. these are my thoughtds not yours .. so if you don't like them you owe me money .. or something

[NEON DEON]

Steve, the mass of the entire charge leaves the gun in the opposite direction the gun is moving not half the charge.

If you dont want it to effect recoil then you make a recoilless rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle

That way the force would truly leave the gun in both directions.

Tonnage variations of an Iowa and friends:

45k standard/52k mean wartime/58k full load.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship

Standard displacement as defined by the London Naval treaty of 1936 as adopted from the naval treaties from 1922 and 1930:


"A. STANDARD DISPLACEMENT

(1) The standard displacement of a surface vessel is the displacement of the vessel, complete, fully manned, engined, and equipped ready for sea, including all armament and ammunition, equipment, outfit, provisions and fresh water for crew, miscellaneous stores and implements of every description that are intended to be carried in war, but without fuel or reserve feed water on board."


http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1936.htm

Design displacement as offered by the Navy in the period of design of the Iowa class would appear to include a ship made ready for war. So maybe, without looking at the treaty and understanding the word design displacement in respect to the treaty as incoporating a ship equiped for war, you might take it as meaining empty as it was just launched into the water for the first time kinda thing.


Standard displacement of some WW II BB classes:

IOWA: 45,000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship#_note-FAQ

SOUTH DAKOTA: 35,000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_class_battleship_%281939%29

NORTH CAROLINA: 35,000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_class_battleship

COLORADO: 32,600:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_class_battleships

James,

This part is mostly for you:

The most sophisticated fire control computer in the world at the begining of WW II took care of firing accuracey. It accounted for such things as pitch, roll, elevation, horizontal and verticle parallax, and many other adjustments including one, the coriolis effect, to adjust for the earth's rotation!

http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-056.htm

[joea]

So again, the sideways movement was enough to throw the ship off its heading or not?? Simple question. :D

I quoteth myself to all. ;)

[Sailor Steve]

Steve, the mass of the entire charge leaves the gun in the opposite direction the gun is moving not half the charge.
Where do you get that idea? The force of an explosion expands in ALL directions. Inside a gun barrel it's forced into just two directions - in and out. And what do you mean by the "direction the gun is moving"? When a shipboard gun fires it's usually moving sideways to the direction of fire. Also, it doesn't matter where the mass of the charge goes: I've just explained that the mass of the shell doesn't matter to the force applied to the ship. If you double the mass of the shell, it doesn't matter. If there's no shell at all, it doesn't matter. What matters is kinetic energy, which is what pushes shell, ship, air, charge and anything else - all equally.

If you dont want it to effect recoil then you make a recoilless rifle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recoilless_rifle
Yes, exactly the same as porting a pistol. The net effect is less or no recoil. So explain to me why they don't use them on ships.

That way the force would truly leave the gun in both directions.
And gives a much slower, less effective round. Note the term 'lightweight' at the beginning of the article. Also, what does that have to do with this discussion?

Tonnage variations of an Iowa and friends:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_class_battleship

Standard displacement as defined by the London Naval treaty of 1936 as adopted from the naval treaties from 1922 and 1930:


"A. STANDARD DISPLACEMENT

(1) The standard displacement of a surface vessel is the displacement of the vessel, complete, fully manned, engined, and equipped ready for sea, including all armament and ammunition, equipment, outfit, provisions and fresh water for crew, miscellaneous stores and implements of every description that are intended to be carried in war, but without fuel or reserve feed water on board."


http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-089_London_Treaty_1936.htm
Design displacement as offered by the Navy in the period of design of the Iowa class would appear to include a ship made ready for war. So maybe, without looking at the treaty and understanding the word design displacement in respect to the treaty as incoporating a ship equiped for war, you might take it as meaining empty as it was just launched into the water for the first time kinda thing.
Gee, here's some info that's not from wiki:
Displacement: 48,110 tons standard; 57,540 full load (45,000 design standard)
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/battleships/us_wwii.htm

That said, there's not much difference between 45,000 tons or 57,000 tons of battleship when there's only enough force to propel 12 tons of shells to 2600 feet per second. The ship is 887 feet wide (we're trying to push it sideways, remember), the guns are above the water, the resistance is mostly below the water, a lot of the energy is therefore going to be applied to rolling, not sideways movement, and besides the mass of the ship is the mass of an incomparable amount of water. The ship isn't going anywhere.


Quote:
Originally Posted by joea
So again, the sideways movement was enough to throw the ship off its heading or not?? Simple question. :D


I quoteth myself to all. ;)
No. No more than a B-17 is thrown off its heading when the top turret, ball turret and waist guns all fire in the same direction. There's just not enough force to make a difference.

[NEON DEON]

The mass of two opposing objects dont make a difference when applying it to a conservation of momementum formula?

OH THAT'S RICH!

Here is another website listing various tonnage for an Iowa class BB.

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

Note the optimum battle load of 45,649 tons



Definition of standard tonnage:

"A. STANDARD DISPLACEMENT

(1) The standard displacement of a surface vessel is the displacement of the vessel, complete, fully manned, engined, and equipped ready for sea, including all armament and ammunition, equipment, outfit, provisions and fresh water for crew, miscellaneous stores and implements of every description that are intended to be carried in war, but without fuel or reserve feed water on board."




Langdraf's article prooves nothing.

[Sailor Steve]

The mass of two opposing objects dont make a difference when applying it to a conservation of momementum formula?

OH THAT'S RICH!
Now we're resorting to getting abusive? Why don't you explain the whole thing to me, in words I can understand. And while you're at it, please answer my earlier question and show me the calculations for the deceleration that prove the ship moves more than a few millimeters.

As for the displacements, I used the source I did because it matches the figures given in Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships and Garzke and Dulin's United States Battleships In World War Two.

Also, that's the second time you've tried to throw the 'standard displacement' brick at me. If you'll notice, it says "without fuel or reserve feed water on board". If you had read Malcom Muir's book on the Iowas, you would know that they replace spent fuel with seawater, specifically to preserve balance and keep the ship a stable gun platform.

And Landgraff and Lockock's calculations do indeed show the energy imparted to the ship. You're right, they don't prove the ship only moves a few millimeters, but neither does anything you've said or referred to prove how far they do move. Until someone does the proper resistance calculations, how far would you say they move? Ten feet? A hundred feet? One foot?

[NEON DEON]

Steve,

I am not trying to throw standard displacement at you. Its just what it is.

IOWA

45,000 Tons standard. (danfs,batttleship.org.,Janes,and yes wiki)
7,250 Tons of fuel
500 Tons reserve feed water.
---------------------------------
52,750 Tons Fully fueled at ready to rumble!

Mean wartime = 52,000 tons.


As far as the formula goes, show me one that states a battleship will only move a fraction of a milimeter. (not just the Iowas either)

The title was about Battleships not just Iowas, and they were a few classes that were alot lighter too.

PS. Battleships dont have to fire fully loaded to be accurate.

Show me a link to that and I will then show you a pick of an Iowa firing a full broadside while showing part of its draft above the water.

[joea]

Neon, how far do they move? I asked (and Steve answered but I want your response) is it enough to affect navigation? The formulae should give us the answer...and so should the videos!!

[Prof]

I've been writing a numerical simulation to model the Iowa firing a full broadside. Unfortunately I'm having a little trouble coming up with a good model for the hydrodynamic drag on the hull. A ship moving sidways at a very low velocity is an unusual problem, so the usual assumptions for friction modelling are not valid.

I've discovered some more information though, so watch this space...

[Sailor Steve]

Steve,

I am not trying to throw standard displacement at you. Its just what it is.

IOWA

45,000 Tons standard. (danfs,batttleship.org.,Janes,and yes wiki)
7,250 Tons of fuel
500 Tons reserve feed water.
---------------------------------
52,750 Tons Fully fueled at ready to rumble!

Mean wartime = 52,000 tons.
Yes, you are. I've explained what the experts in the field have said concerning the maximum weight; I've explained what the most respected books say on the subject, and I've explained that the standard service displacement is more than the standard design displacement; and you keep saying the same thing over and over, as if that will make it so.


I've also just said that you're right, they didn't say why it should stop after "only a fraction of a millimeter". They did, however, say that according to their calculations the motion should be around seven inches per second, and mentioned the resistance of all the water behind the ship. Not being able to do those kinds of calculations myself, I took their word for it. You obviously don't, which implies you know something I (and they) don't. Please explain what that is.

[quote]The title was about Battleships not just Iowas, and they were a few classes that were alot lighter too.
Yes, there were; they also fired much smaller shells with much smaller charges. As did the Iowas themselves. Most of the photos you see are fairly modern, which means they're firing the HC shell, which weighs only 1900 pounds (as opposed to the 2700 pound AP shell) and using a reduced firing charge.

PS. Battleships dont have to fire fully loaded to be accurate.
1) No, they don't, but the designers of the Iowas thought they did, and they did something about it.

2) Battleships aren't accurate under the best of conditions:
A Naval War College study performed during World War II estimated that an Iowa Class (BB-61) battleship firing with top spot against a target the size of the German battleship Bismarck would be expected to achieve the following hit percentages.
Range..........................Percentage hits against a broadside target
10,000 yards (9,144 m).......32.7
20,000 yards (18,288 m).....10.5
30,000 yards (27,432 m).......2.7
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

Show me a link to that and I will then show you a pick of an Iowa firing a full broadside while showing part of its draft above the water.
If you're referring to the 'replacing fuel with water' concept, it's not on any website I've looked at. I told you, you'll actually have to look at a book, either

The Iowa Class Battleships, by Malcom Muir:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?tn=Iowa+Class+Battleships&sts=t&an=Malcom+Muir&y=0&x=0

or

Iowa Class Battleships: Their Design, Weapons and Equipment, by Robert F. Sumrall and Thomas Walkowiak
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?tn=Iowa+class+battleships&sts=t&an=Robert+Sumrall&y=0&x=0

As to "part of its draft above water", what is the point of that?

[HunterICX]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw :rock:

Nice isnt it :up:

[robbo180265]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw :rock:

Nice isnt it :up:

Very:up:

@ Steve, I think I've finally found video proof that the Iowa does indeed move sidways when firing. Watch this video it's uncanny.;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cvwZ52viQjg&mode=related&search=

[ASWnut101]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw :rock:

Nice isnt it :up:

Very:up:

@ Steve, I think I've finally found video proof that the Iowa does indeed move sidways when firing. Watch this video it's uncanny.;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cvwZ52viQjg&mode=related&search= (http://youtube.com/watch?v=cvwZ52viQjg&mode=related&search=)

You're joking, right? :roll: :D



Steve, you only need thrust if you want to move faster. An object does not stop after thrust has been taken away.

Easiest example would be throwing a ball. Once it leaves your hand it has no more thrust yet it continues to move forward.




Sorry to rain on your parade, but you really got to me with that. Here's a little thing you should know (from a high-school physics class):

What you just said only applies if there is NO friction. I'll be damned in hell if you tell me that there is no friction in air OR water.

What you just said told me that whenever I take a rented Cessna up, I can just accelerate to the speed I want and just turn the engine off and I will mainain that speed throughout the flight. FAA, here I come.:roll:

With your "ball example," you left out that air resistance would begin to slow the ball down as soon as the initial force (your hand) left the ball. Sure, it continues to move forward, but it slows down as soon as you let go. Quite a bit, too.


That is inertia: An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force.


As soon as the initial force (Propellant, your hand, ect) looses "mass contact" (that is, as soon as none of this "matter" stuff from the propellant, hand, ect. is touching the ball), it looses it's thrust and then is acted upon instantly by outside forces (air, water, ect.)



Steve, earlier you stated:

"Again you're ignoring Newton's third law, which is what governs the movement. The charge is powder, the powder burns, the blast goes both ways and the charge ceases to exist; it's converted to energy."

Matter is mass and mass is matter. Matter cannot be destroyed only transformed. If you doubt that, then take it up with Einstein.



Which is exactly what he said: "...to exist; it's converted to energy."

Thus, in other words, "Transformed"

It's like me burning my newspaper in a fire pit. The physical, noticeable paper ceases to exist, but it's energy is released in a converted form. (In this case, heat and kinetic)

[NEON DEON]

[quote=HunterICX]

[quote]
Steve, you only need thrust if you want to move faster. An object does not stop after thrust has been taken away.

Easiest example would be throwing a ball. Once it leaves your hand it has no more thrust yet it continues to move forward.




Sorry to rain on your parade, but you really got to me with that. Here's a little thing you should know (from a high-school physics class):

What you just said only applies if there is NO friction. I'll be damned in hell if you tell me that there is no friction in air OR water.




The end of the same post.


"He dismisses the main rule of Inertia (objects in motion tend to stay in motion) while counting only (unless they are acted upon by an outside force). And yet while counting that part he does not provide the proof that could conclusively prove his theory: The formula dealing with friction (drag)."

[Sailor Steve]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw :rock:

Nice isnt it :up:

Very:up:

@ Steve, I think I've finally found video proof that the Iowa does indeed move sidways when firing. Watch this video it's uncanny.;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cvwZ52viQjg&mode=related&search=
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: If you can't outshoot 'em, ram 'em! (not that that worked either)

What can I say? I'm...moved.

[robbo180265]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nsNlmiLJGIw :rock:

Nice isnt it :up:

Very:up:

@ Steve, I think I've finally found video proof that the Iowa does indeed move sidways when firing. Watch this video it's uncanny.;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cvwZ52viQjg&mode=related&search= (http://youtube.com/watch?v=cvwZ52viQjg&mode=related&search=)

You're joking, right? :roll: :D




Of course I was :rotfl:

[ASWnut101]

The end of the same post.


"He dismisses the main rule of Inertia (objects in motion tend to stay in motion) while counting only (unless they are acted upon by an outside force). And yet while counting that part he does not provide the proof that could conclusively prove his theory: The formula dealing with friction (drag)."

Oh, you mean he missed saying this himself? To me, it sounds exact, just with different wording. Not everyone says the same "scientific mumbo-jumbo" :


Second, since this thrust is an almost instantaneous, one-time event, the ship will be propelled at the given velocity once, not continuously. It is also pushing, not only against the ship, but against the mass of the entire ocean on the other side of the ship. Remember, water doesn't compress. Also remember that, since we're pushing on the side of the ship, not the stern, our object is almost 900 feet wide, not long.

[NEON DEON]

ASW,

sorry if you were confused.

I meant that you ignored the end of my post by what you wrote:

"What you just said only applies if there is NO friction. I'll be damned in hell if you tell me that there is no friction in air OR water."

The part you must have missed in the same post.

"He dismisses the main rule of Inertia (objects in motion tend to stay in motion) while counting only (unless they are acted upon by an outside force). And yet while counting that part he does not provide the proof that could conclusively prove his theory: The formula dealing with friction (drag)."



Hope that clears it for you.

[ASWnut101]

..... Ok...... I was talking about your reply to what Steve posted first, not about the article (Which I guess I didn't make clear enough; apologies!). Whatever; I'm tired and ready to sleep.

[NEON DEON]

2) Battleships aren't accurate under the best of conditions:
A Naval War College study performed during World War II estimated that an Iowa Class (BB-61) battleship firing with top spot against a target the size of the German battleship Bismarck would be expected to achieve the following hit percentages.
Range..........................Percentage hits against a broadside target
10,000 yards (9,144 m).......32.7
20,000 yards (18,288 m).....10.5
30,000 yards (27,432 m).......2.7
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm



Thanks Steve,

Looks like BB's are extremely accurate at 10,000 yards and accurate at 20,000 yards.

I know. I know. You think I am crazy!

And I would be crazy if battleships only had one main gun.

But, they don't.

They have 8 or 9 in the case of the US.

Which means at 10,000 yards they never miss when firing a full main gun salvo!

At 20,000 yards, they hit almost everytime.

The West Virginia BB 48 did it for real at The Battle of Surigao Straits the 25th of October 1944.

A quote from the commanding officer in his action report:

"In accordance with references (a) and (b) it is reported that the West Virginia participated in the victorious action against a portion of the Japanese fleet in the Battle of Surigao Straits on 25 October 1944. This vessel was at the head of the battle line and delivered accurate main battery fire to the largest target observed for about ten minutes at ranges around 20,000 yards until the target disappeared. no injury was suffered by this ship or her personnel"

Not only did the West Virginia deliver accurate fire but it did it firing at a target that was not presenting its broadside.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ships/logs/BB/bb48-Surigao.html

A picture of the modernized West Virginia in July of 1944:

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/8808/17bb48xd8.jpg


Isn't she purdy!:D

[joea]

Isn't she purdy!:D
She sure is. :smug:

[Ostfriese]

They have 8 or 9 in the case of the US.

Which means at 10,000 yards they never miss when firing a full main gun salvo!


Who told you that? Of course there will be completely missfired salvoes. There'll be rather a lot of them!