BOOM!

[andylegate]

Sorry! Just HAD to post this pic, one of my favorites!

This is a pic of the USS Iowa, BB-61 in 1984. She's shooting all 9 16 inch barrels!
Please note the depression of the ocean from the shock wave! The aft one is bigger because the aft guns fired a fraction of a second before the forward mounts, so the wave had expanded more at the time of the pic


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v160/andylegate/800px-Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg

Here is another view. Please note how much the ship is literally shoved to port from the guns shooting. You can see that movement in the water:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v160/andylegate/USSIowa-bowaerialviewfiring316-inch.jpg

[madmike81]

I love that pic too but i must correct you on one thing. The force of the guns firing isnt enough to move the ship though. What your seeing is the force of the blast moving along the hull of the ship.

Here is a good link that explains it well! http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm

The 16 inch gun is large, but even 9 of them firing at once isnt enough to shove 57000 tons in the water.

But still an awesome pic for sure.

[Huskalar]

Awesome pictures indeed!! :rock:

[seafarer]

I love that pic too but i must correct you on one thing. The force of the guns firing isnt enough to move the ship though.


As analysed here - http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.htm :p

Still an awesome picture though!

[NiclDoe]

Also did you see the New Jersey fire the first turrent left second right and 3rd left again. its so cool. PS i live in NJ so i seen the BB at Camden NJ.

[andylegate]

oops! I stand corrected! :oops:

The math holds that the ships mass is too much for the guns to move her in a latteral direction like that!
Optical illusion from the photo! :yep:

[madmike81]

Google the "Montana Class" battleships. They never were built die to the fact the aircraft carriers were deemed more important...but its nice eye candy.

[andylegate]

Dat's a BIG boat!! :rotfl:

Yes, sadly, the BB was actually obsolete by the time WWII started. It just took the navies of the world (except Japan of course) a while to realize it. With the advent and improvement of missiles, they became even more obsolete, gun wise.
I've seen some artists impression of a Guided Missile BB. Impressive!
My DDG's I was on could take aircraft out while, er, well, while sitting in Savannah, Georgia, we could shoot aircraft down flying over Charleston, South Carolina, no problem (having been out of the Navy for 13 years now I hate not knowing what's still classified, and what's NOT classified any more! sheesh! ;) )

Anyways, we carried 38 SM2-ER Terrier missiles. Now imagine having a BB that could carry up to 4 times that amount or more! Not to mention having Harpoon anti-ship missles and Tomahawk land missiles! :o

[Sailor Steve]

Yep, we had a huge discussion about that very photo a few months back:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=113800&highlight=battleships+sideways

[seafarer]

Yes, sadly, the BB was actually obsolete by the time WWII started.

Aww, back in the day (http://www.gwpda.org/photos/bin19/imag1820.jpg) (WWI - Jutland, British Fleet)

P.S. and I always liked this picture - http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g40000/g42522.jpg

All those 6" shell casings piled up speak volumes, of the men sweating down in the magazines and the turrets (Brooklyn class 6" guns were not power loaded), and of those on the receiving end (each casing means a 105lb shell landing down range).

[I-25]

Yep, we had a huge discussion about that very photo a few months back:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=113800&highlight=battleships+sideways

beat me to it jajaja

[Capt. Shark Bait]

lookin at that top pic i was thinkin if the Iowas were a bit longer and of slightly wider beam they coulda had 4 main battery turrets. go figure:

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/usnshtp/bb/bb67.htm

[Sailor Steve]

What that reference doesn't mention is that the Iowas were built specifically to run with the carrier groups. The longer, wider Montanas would have been to slow for that.

[Capt. Shark Bait]

can you imagine a TF built around maybe 2 Montana's ready for a fleet action taking on another similar unit? :hmm: , no drool smiley

[U49]

can you imagine a TF built around maybe 2 Montana's ready for a fleet action taking on another similar unit? :hmm: , no drool smiley

I'm wondering if it would lead to the situation CSS Virginia vs. USS Monitor?
From the outside quite dramatic from a military side a standstill, and presumably a waste of time and ressources. :hmm:

[andylegate]

I'm wondering if it would lead to the situation CSS Virginia vs. USS Monitor?
From the outside quite dramatic from a military side a standstill, and presumably a waste of time and ressources. :hmm:

Not entirely. The upper decks are not armored like the hull is. Shells CAN penitrate the upper decks as we are talking about 20th century weapons, and not 8 to 16 pounders that were shot from cannon and were round.

If you get a good enough fire going, and through constant bombardment, your DC crews may not be able to contain those fires. If any of those fires reach weapons magazines or fuel tanks........well it wouldn't be a pretty sight.

Even if you didn't sink the BB's, enough damage to the superstructure above decks would render her nothing more than a floating platform. She'd be out of commision for quite awhile for repairs.