WWII Battleship gun info

[cycleman77]

I don't remember how we got on this topic, but at work today we got on the subject of WWII battleships. I made the comment of how the battleships needed to alternate firing guns on the same side of the ship because the ship couldn't handle too many (all?) firing at the same time. I don't remember the reason, perhaps because of structural integrity or the ship would list too much; not sure. I think I saw/heard this on a PBS special a while back. I can't recall if it was an explicit special on battleships or if it was a D-Day documentary or what. Another guy in the office vaguely remembered the same thing, also noting that he thought it was on a PBS show.
However, two other co-workers recalled seeing a video of the USS Missouri firing all the guns on one side of the ship at the same time and nothing "bad" happened; the ship just moved backwards in the water. Backwards in this case would be to the side, since the guns fired perpendicular to the long axis of the ship.

Anyways, can anyone here back me up? I've been google'ing, searching Veoh, Hulu and other similar sites for the show and nothing is "ringing a bell".

I'm not trying to prove anyone wrong, it's just bugging me.

-Thanks

 

[dennilfloss]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5ATYPrZnSQ

The ship might move sideways a fraction of an inch. Not much more. Big weight difference between the ship and the broadside, plus the movement is perpendicular so lots of water resistance. That's the main reason (along with the beamy hull) why battleships were considered the most stable gun platforms both for shore bombardment and AAA.

Unlike the Brits, the American practice is to fire each gun in a turret successively with a fraction of a second delay so they shells won't affect each other's flight pattern. More presise this way.

 

[Vic Vega]

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

 

[0roo0roo]

 

[Oceanas]

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

 

[GoSharks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BB61_USS_Iowa_BB61_broadside_USN.jpg

 

[cycleman77]

Thanks for the info guys. Love the pictures.

I'm still going to try to find that show though. Maybe I just heard the narrator wrong or misinterpreted what he said... either way, it's going to bug me until I find it.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Youtube video led me to this...

Too bad America doesn't make men like that anymore.

 

[mizzou]

i stood in the giant shell holes on point du hoc (maybe there were 1000lb bombs too) but I'm sure alot of them were form guns like those videos.

AMAZING the damage

 

[techs]

Youtube video led me to this...

Too bad America doesn't make men like that anymore.

All except Macarthur. He was responsible for the Philippines fiasco. Not only got caught with his planes on the ground 10 hours after Pearl Harbor, he changed his defensive plan at the last minute, then changed it right back causing needed supplies to not reach Bataan and Corregidor in time.
Then he botched the invasion of the Philippines so badly that Manila became the most destroyed city of ANY city in WW2. And thats saying alot when you consider, Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh, and he secretly accepted a huge amount of money while an active office in the American army from the President of the Philippines on the boat out of Corregidor. Bastard should have been shot.

 

[bobdole369]

We don't even have battleships anymore. All those big guns are in mothballs. They brought the BB's back out to play for a short bit during Gulf War I, but then packed em back away. If theres ever a big war now we'll need to build em again methinks.

 

[mizzou]

We don't even have battleships anymore. All those big guns are in mothballs. They brought the BB's back out to play for a short bit during Gulf War I, but then packed em back away. If theres ever a big war now we'll need to build em again methinks.

we could convert them to shoot giant railguns

 

[illusion88]

Thanks for the info guys. Love the pictures.

I'm still going to try to find that show though. Maybe I just heard the narrator wrong or misinterpreted what he said... either way, it's going to bug me until I find it.

Well, I think you did hear the narrator wrong. The pictures provide some pretty clear evidence that the guns CAN all be fired at one time.

 

[gorobei]

firing in battery isn't so much bad for the ship as bad for accuracy.

the big guns dont have much in the way of mechanical recoil buffering/compensation. So the ship itself acts as the buffer carriage, or rather the water it's in does. firing broadsides at the same time puts too much of a force moment on the ship resulting in a shove sideways(as others have said) and probably a slight banking on the long axis due to the force vector being above the waterline/centerofgravity. the larger the push/moreshots the longer it takes the ship to right itself and stabilize for the next shot.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

We don't even have battleships anymore. All those big guns are in mothballs. They brought the BB's back out to play for a short bit during Gulf War I, but then packed em back away. If theres ever a big war now we'll need to build em again methinks.

Bigs guns went to the same place as dumb bombs, the graveyard of superior technology. We don't need 16" broadsides anymore, we do more damage with a couple of precisely targeted cruise missiles. Battleships were WAY cool, but even in their heyday they were not a very effective weapon and now they're just big, slow easily sunk targets.

 

[MotF Bane]

Bigs guns went to the same place as dumb bombs, the graveyard of superior technology. We don't need 16" broadsides anymore, we do more damage with a couple of precisely targeted cruise missiles. Battleships were WAY cool, but even in their heyday they were not a very effective weapon and now they're just big, slow easily sunk targets.

I'll disagree to some extent on the bolded, and agree on the rest of it.

 

[Ns1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uss_iowa_bb-61_pr.jpg

WoW

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I'll disagree to some extent on the bolded, and agree on the rest of it.

The last time a battleship did jack shit was 1941 when the Bismarck sunk the Hood and was then sunk herself less than a week later. The Tirpitz was sunk before getting out of the harbor, Yamato and Mushashi went down with a whimper rather than a bang. The US Iowa class was little more than a shore bombardment gunner through 3 wars because even the admirals couldn't figure out anything else to do with them. The aircraft carrier rendered them obsolete and even before the carriers came along submarines did far more damage for a far smaller investment. In WWII US subs accounted for 55% of Japanese ships sunk while accounting for less than 2% of the navy manpower in the Pacific. In the Atlantic where aircraft carriers played a smaller role subs were an ever bigger killer. The most effective surface killer in the Atlantic theater was the Graf Spee which sunk about 50,000 tons of allied shipping. There were about 75 German subs that each did more than that while at least 30 did more than double that. And in WWI it was even worse, the subs kicked the major ass and the battleships sailed around aimlessly, fired their guns once in a while and missed a lot. What do you think battleships EVER accomplished?

 

[LtPage1]

The last time a battleship did jack shit was 1941 when the Bismarck sunk the Hood and was then sunk herself less than a week later. The Tirpitz was sunk before getting out of the harbor, Yamato and Mushashi went down with a whimper rather than a bang. The US Iowa class was little more than a shore bombardment gunner through 3 wars because even the admirals couldn't figure out anything else to do with them. The aircraft carrier rendered them obsolete and even before the carriers came along submarines did far more damage for a far smaller investment. In WWII US subs accounted for 55% of Japanese ships sunk while accounting for less than 2% of the navy manpower in the Pacific. In the Atlantic where aircraft carriers played a smaller role subs were an ever bigger killer. The most effective surface killer in the Atlantic theater was the Graf Spee which sunk about 50,000 tons of allied shipping. There were about 75 German subs that each did more than that while at least 30 did more than double that. And in WWI it was even worse, the subs kicked the major ass and the battleships sailed around aimlessly, fired their guns once in a while and missed a lot. What do you think battleships EVER accomplished?

Wow. I think this counts as my enlightenment for the day.

 

[silverpig]

The last time a battleship did jack shit was 1941 when the Bismarck sunk the Hood and was then sunk herself less than a week later. The Tirpitz was sunk before getting out of the harbor, Yamato and Mushashi went down with a whimper rather than a bang. The US Iowa class was little more than a shore bombardment gunner through 3 wars because even the admirals couldn't figure out anything else to do with them. The aircraft carrier rendered them obsolete and even before the carriers came along submarines did far more damage for a far smaller investment. In WWII US subs accounted for 55% of Japanese ships sunk while accounting for less than 2% of the navy manpower in the Pacific. In the Atlantic where aircraft carriers played a smaller role subs were an ever bigger killer. The most effective surface killer in the Atlantic theater was the Graf Spee which sunk about 50,000 tons of allied shipping. There were about 75 German subs that each did more than that while at least 30 did more than double that. And in WWI it was even worse, the subs kicked the major ass and the battleships sailed around aimlessly, fired their guns once in a while and missed a lot. What do you think battleships EVER accomplished?

I was gonna say that, but only about 5% as well.

 

[LTC8K6]

The battleships were beneficial to landings and as carrier screens and as just general artillery platforms. Nothing like their original intended roles. They quickly became second fiddle to the carriers.

 

[MotF Bane]

The last time a battleship did jack shit was 1941 when the Bismarck sunk the Hood and was then sunk herself less than a week later. The Tirpitz was sunk before getting out of the harbor, Yamato and Mushashi went down with a whimper rather than a bang. The US Iowa class was little more than a shore bombardment gunner through 3 wars because even the admirals couldn't figure out anything else to do with them. The aircraft carrier rendered them obsolete and even before the carriers came along submarines did far more damage for a far smaller investment. In WWII US subs accounted for 55% of Japanese ships sunk while accounting for less than 2% of the navy manpower in the Pacific. In the Atlantic where aircraft carriers played a smaller role subs were an ever bigger killer. The most effective surface killer in the Atlantic theater was the Graf Spee which sunk about 50,000 tons of allied shipping. There were about 75 German subs that each did more than that while at least 30 did more than double that. And in WWI it was even worse, the subs kicked the major ass and the battleships sailed around aimlessly, fired their guns once in a while and missed a lot. What do you think battleships EVER accomplished?

Graf Spee was going to be the finest example I had of a productive battleship. I think I'll be leaving now.

 

[LTC8K6]

Just about the first thing they did to the North Carolina in WW2 was mount a crapload of AA weapons on it...

 

[dennilfloss]

What do you think battleships EVER accomplished?

Well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Mers-el-Kébir

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Surigao_Strait#The_Battle_of_Surigao_Strait_.2825_October.29

 

[dennilfloss]

Graf Spee was going to be the finest example I had of a productive battleship. I think I'll be leaving now.

But Graf Spee was not a battleship. It was just an overgunned cruiser. Not even a battlecruiser like Scharnhorst and Gneisenau.