>fire main battery >RIP everyone on deck

Which is why you have action stations and salvo alarms

>>30895120

I thought this was bullshit.

People have dived on grenades and lived. Surely BB guns are survivable on deck.

>>30895317
>People have dived on grenades and lived. Surely BB guns are survivable on deck.
There's a two order of magnitude energy difference there anon.

>>30895317
You can't survive standing in front of a tank cannon, let alone a BB battery salvo

>>30895710
You'd be hard-pressed to stand in front of any of those guns unless you tried really hard.

>>30895724

THANK YOU.

I mean, google image search "battleship guns firing". Someone had to take pics from the deck during.

And Wikipedia would likely mention it if someone died from it.

If you don't go deaf, blind, and unconscious from the muzzle blasts. You'll get sucked off the deck when the air rushed back towards the muzzle.

>>30896539

>You'll get sucked off the deck when the air rushed back towards the muzzle.

No. Newtons 3rd law. It has to be powerful enough to blast you off the deck from firing in order for you to get sucked into your imaginary black holke caused by firing a fucking gun.

JESUS CHRIST I made this thread to destroy this myth.....


You won't fucking DIE if you're on AA duty and the main guns fire. You certainly won't like it, but you will live and be intact. Just EEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: new_jersey_firing_16_inch_guns.jpg (35KB, 600x390px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x390px

>>30896456

>>30895107
Everyone knows that U.S. battleships did ripple fire for better fire adjustments on target, recoil control, and rate of fire. Salvo fire was always a show of force.

File: 1466743309553.png (1MB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 900x900px

>that wake from the ship being pushed sideways

>>30897958

That's the pressure wave of the guns acting against the water, not the ship being moved by the guns.

>>30897958
that's not the wake, thats from the guns firing

>>30897958
I, too, want to believe that the boat is now moving 50 knots sideways.

>>30897893
>Implying firing at all from a BB isn't a show of force.
I feel like we haven't really seen any necessity at all for main gun firing for about 70 years now.

>>30896539
right, just like how a fiddy cal will blow your arm off just passing by it.

File: 1920px-USS_Missouri_firing_during_Desert_Storm%2C_6_Feb_1991.jpg (528KB, 1920x1265px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1920x1265px

>>30898107
It may not have been strictly necessary but the Missouri fired her 16 inch guns in 1991 during the Gulf War

>>30898148
It'll do that though, my grand pa told me so when he was back in nam cooking for real men. He had always got drunk and told war stories about .50 Cal's blowing up entire villages and said his 1911 flat out took one of those gooks torsos out with its stopping powah. Then he touched my sister inappropriatly now we ain't loud to go see him much anymore.
He's always complaining about some kind of millennials it something too. I ain't sure what that is yet, because he couldn't really explain what they did and got mad when I asked.

>>30898107
>I feel like we haven't really seen any necessity at all for main gun firing for about 70 years now.

An Iowa's Big Guns™ are overkill for the purposes of ship to ship combat, and their range for ship to ship and ship to shore is a relative handful of miles. Aircraft delivered bombs have proven themselves to be much more versatile.

>>30898201
Please stop

>>30898342
Heh, that's what my sister told my grand pa. This was about the time that commie Barack HUSSAIN obummer was elected and you know he was born in Kenya. Well any way my grand pa always thinks ahead so he made me go down to our local pigley wigley and buy up all their 22. Lr cuz you just know they're going to start with the small stuff so no one notices. Next thing you know, they didn't have any in for months! He said 22. Is the deadliest civilian bullet cuz it will bounce all around in your body, and he can hit a soda can at five foot ball field with his custom ruger 10/22.

>>30898044

THE DREAM IS REAL

>>30898206

No aircraft can drop 2 million pounds of ordinance on a target every hour.

An Iowa can, though.

That's equivalent to 50 B1 bombers each hour.

>>30898764
>An Iowa can, though.
It just can't reach 99.9% of the targets aircraft can.

Like, I dunno, fucking everywhere in Afghanistan and 99% of Iraq.

Fuck off, autismo. Shilling your 16"/50s with their 24nmi range is like shilling for arming our soldiers with fucking throwing knives when everyone else can engage at 600 yards+. Doesn't fucking matter how much it hurts when it hits if it FUCKING CAN'T HIT ANYTHING.

File: listerinefag.png (1MB, 1902x9492px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1902x9492px

>>30898764
Daily reminder not to feed the learning-disabled, alcoholic felon.

>>30898044
GAS GAS GAS
I WANT TO STEP ON THE GAS

File: B-61.jpg (171KB, 600x263px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 600x263px

>>30898764
They can do better, and from farther away.

>>30895107

guess those bofors crews all died in ww2, the closest setup being 25 feet from the number 1 turret.


Some ships had AA crews ON TOP of turrets in WW2

>>30898958

Daily reminder those ancient fossils can still hit harder than anything else.

>>30898206
The joke is that the Iowa class is quite sucky for ship to ship action.

File: enough dakka maybe.jpg (88KB, 650x431px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 650x431px

>>30899494
>Some ships had AA crews ON TOP of turrets in WW2

nigger what

>>30901607
We put dakka on your dakka so you can get like twice the dakka

>>30898958
This truly is a whole new level of autism.

>>30898958
This kinda makes me want to read the whole tread, desu

>>30902607
You don't. I made that screencap and it was painful.

>>30901607
He's talking about the Yamato.

>>30898948
>pretending to know the ranges and capabilites of the armament on a ship
>all of that information is classified top secret
>b-b-but the wiki!
Aegis Spy-2 FC here, laughing at you hardily.

Only people that have access to the real data on this shit shouldn't be discussing it and would have to have worked with an aegis system. Maybe a handful of fucks on this board have done that and I doubt you're one of them.

>>30903639
What the literal fuck does AEGIS have to do with the main battery 16"/50cal on an Iowa class battleship? The range of those guns and shells has been publicly released knowledge since post-war DoD WWII reports were released in the late 50's, you fucking retard.

>>30903639
>anon's dad doesn't work at nintendo
>anon himself works at sony
>yet has inside information about nintendo systems that were last in service a decade before he could have possibly joined

fuckin' wew laddie

>>30903639
What the everloving fuck are you on about?

>>30903751
>>30903787
>>30903858
Samfag

File: Screenshot_2016-08-07-20-23-05.png (330KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 1080x1920px

>>30903952
Oh i whish

>>30898764

No modern aircraft needs to drop 2 million pounds of ordnance in an hour when a JDAM can penetrate hardened concrete structures.

A single B1 or any other upgraded USAF bomber can hit more targets more accurately for less money in less time than any battleship could ever come close to.

>>30903981
beat me to it

>>30898764
Sure, you can try to drop a couple of million Ib's of 16" shells on a target per hour, however a significant portion of shells won't hit the target due to gun displacement.
A piece of modern ordnance such as a. JDAM will have a first time hit capability thanks to modern targeting systems.

>>30895107

heh, reminds me of the gif where a russian soldiers runs near a firing artillery gun and gets his ass knocked down on the ground

>>30898044
DEJA VU I'VE JUST BEEN TO SPACE BEFORE

>>30904016
But i'm honestly interested now. What did >>30903639 mean by this?
Lets not focus on the fact that the Aegis is a air-defense system for guiding missiles. Nor that its from the 70's, or that it was never mounted on the Iowa, even during the 80's refit.
Like >>30903751 here said, I want to know how it in any makes what >>30898948 said wrong, and if he actually thinks that a radar in any way limits/ads range to an artillery system firing against a land target

File: 122548206829.jpg (79KB, 379x226px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 379x226px

>fire main battery
>RIP the enemy
>RIP my pants

>>30904184
>and if he actually thinks that a radar in any way limits/ads range to an artillery system firing against a land target
Aegis affects Iowa accuracy only insomuch as it can refine target FC and thus reduce CEP. This can extend effective range, but not maximum range of a gun system like the 16"/50cals, which are limited by the hard physics of ballistics, metallurgy and instantaneous pressure tolerances.

>>30897980
Look again. You can see a decent swirl forming from the bow, and deeper ones just abaft the bow. They're not as long as the surface pressure waves caused by the muzzle blasts, it looks like maybe 10 feet of lateral motion at best. You can also see some confused chop just off the port side, where a bunch of water just got suddenly shoved.

Since there's 2 turrets foreward and 1 aft, I suspect that the stern sees less lateral motion than the bow.

>>30898107
>necessity

It's not a bill of needs, anon.

>>30904587
However, money is definitely a bill of restraints.

>>30904569
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.php
Here is some physics and math( a bit simplified but whateves) because I cant be bothered to do it my self

related question:

can you see a 6 ft long, 16 inch diameter projectile traveling 2500 fps with your naked eye?

File: 1440208713098.jpg (208KB, 1440x1048px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1440x1048px

>>30905376
not sure about naked eye, but certainly camera

>>30905376
Now thats a good question. I have seen 155mm in flight (standing behind m109's firing direct lay), but 16 inch is a whole different ballgame

File: Fucking Metal.gif (339KB, 400x235px) Image search: [Google]

339KB, 400x235px

>>30895107

Had no idea this could actually happen.

Fucking metal.

>>30897958

Thats another myth, the ship does not move sideways when firing.

>>30901607

Yamato had 2 AA emplacements on top of the number 2 and 3 turrets.

File: Iowa_class__superstructure_full.jpg (2MB, 2848x2264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2848x2264px

>>30896539

RIP AA crews then, I guess they replaced them everytime they fired.

>>30905940
isaac newton suggests otherwise

>>30906026

The ship weighs 50000 tons. That shit ain't moving.

>>30906026
He also suggests the actual movement will be so small it wont be noticed. You know, because size vs kinetic energy and all that.

>>30906026
>>30906632

Think about this logically.

If the ship moved every time the guns fired, then that would make the cannons hideously inaccurate. A dreadnought needs to be a stable firing platform. The Iowa-class displaces 50,000 tons of water. That's more than enough to stabilize the gun's recoil and make any movement impossible to notice.

File: bb-61-dnsn8709176_jpg.gif (20KB, 938x575px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 938x575px

>>30906689
>If the ship moved every time the guns fired, then that would make the cannons hideously inaccurate. A dreadnought needs to be a stable firing platform.
>>30906632
>He also suggests the actual movement will be so small it wont be noticed. You know, because size vs kinetic energy and all that.
Why don't you niggers stop arguing in hypotheticals and start looking at the actual numbers?

>From http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-022.php
To calculate the velocity of the USS New Jersey moving sideways, what you need to consider is conservation of momentum. A 16" Mark 8 APC shell weighs 2,700 lbs. and the muzzle velocity when fired is 2,500 feet per second (new gun).

The USS New Jersey weighs about 58,000 tons fully loaded (for ships, a ton is 2,240 lbs.) - Emphasis added on 16 June 2006 in an effort to stop vision-impaired individuals from sending Emails about the "missing" 2,000 in the equations below.

All weights must be divided by 32.17 to convert them to mass.

If the battleship were standing on ice, then:

Mass of broadside * Velocity of broadside = Mass of ship * Velocity of ship

9 * (2,700 / 32.17) * 2,500 = 58,000 * (2,240 / 32.17) * Velocity of ship

Solving for the ship's velocity:

Velocity of ship = [9 * (2,700 / 32.17) * 2,500] / [58,000 * (2,240 / 32.17)] = 0.46 feet per second

So, ship's velocity would be less than 6 inches per second, ON ICE.

This analysis excludes effects such as (1) roll of the ship, (2) elevation of the guns (3) offset of the line of action of the shell from the centre of gravity of the ship and (4) forces imposed by the water on the ship. These are variously significant, and will all tend to reduce the velocity calculated above.

>>30907129
>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.

>>30907146
I need to point out that in Greg's masterful analysis he assumes that the guns are at zero degrees elevation, that is, the guns are pointed directly at the horizon. In actuality, they are almost never fired at this elevation as it would mean that the shells would only go a short distance before they struck the water. At a higher, more realistic elevation, the force of the broadside would also have to be multiplied by the cosine of the angle of elevation. This means that the horizontal velocity imparted to the ship would be even less than the numbers calculated above.

>>30907158
>inb4 gases
In the years since this essay was first published, various people have sent me notes complaining about the over-simplicity of this analysis, as it ignores the other factors involved, namely, the effects of the propellant gasses. I usually try pointing out that these are not significant compared to the projectile momentum and therefore do not have a significant impact on the solution above - by significant, I mean that including them is not suddenly going to change the ship's movement to six feet per second rather than the six inches per second that Greg calculated above. This sort of rational answer does not always satisfy my questioners. So, here is a little extra analysis for the purists out there.

(analysis on above sourced site)

So, the ship's velocity ON ICE with the guns firing at zero degrees elevation would be about 6.3 inches per second rather than the 6 inches per second calculated above. When one considers that any sideways motion of the ship through water is actually resisted by the wall created by the hull of the ship, whose wetted surface is about 860 feet long and 38 feet deep, then it can be easily understood that Dick Landgraff's comment above, "theoretically, a fraction of a millimeter," is closer to the truth.

File: 1470615449028.gif (801KB, 441x289px) Image search: [Google]

801KB, 441x289px

>>30907129

>Using the Pentagon as a test target.

The absolute madman.

>>30908589
I think that graphic was made right around the time they were trying to get the DoD behind the F-14 procurement. Just a little subtle flavoring to the message, if you will.

iowa class battleship ice capades.

a magical place, indeed.

>>30898948
>launches into gay little diatribe
>calls others autistic

>>30895107
I have personally stood on the main deck when the Missouri has fired her 16's and 5's.

>>30906689
>>30907129
>>30907146
>>30907158
I did. When i posted this >>30904800

>>30898044
>Super Eurobeat intensifies

>>30898107
During Vietnam war they were the only thing that actually broke Ho Chi Mihn trial. The entire aerial campaign couldn't achieved for months what ~10 16" shells did twice in a row.

But that's perhaps because it was chairforce.

>>30904013
>A single B1 or any other upgraded USAF bomber can hit more targets more accurately for less money in less time than any battleship could ever come close to.
Except they don't.

Listen the only thing reducing accuracy of BB funz in the past was FCS. Even the 80's systems Iowa class had mounted on them allowed for almost pinpoint accuracy.

>>30895107
You can clearly see people standing on the deck in this very photo.

So... yeah...

File: HCMT70.jpg (319KB, 1140x1484px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 1140x1484px

>>30912707
wait, how much of that trail is within reach of naval artillery?

File: vietnam-political-map-by-maps-com-from-maps-com-worlds-largest-.gif (52KB, 550x413px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 550x413px

>>30914221
see pic related. Apply the scale, assuming roughly 25mi range on Iowa class' guns.

IIRC correctly, the actual number is well under 10%. Army artillery fire bases along the south border did far more to hinder Trail activities on the rare occasions political will allowed them to nuke them.

>>30898206
This, as sexy as battleships are, their utility in combat has long since dwindled far beyond the point of justifying their existence. Still, I'd pay top dollar to watch one demolish a few modern ship close up.

File: 1469257101247.gif (2MB, 360x215px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 360x215px

>>30903639
>implying that knowledge isnt readily available on the internet, albeit to the disdain of many .mil fags
>implying there is any magic govt info or technology that makes the Iowas or their predecessors not totally useless in a modern theater of operations, aside from attacking Iranian littoral positions or something.
>implying long-range, high payload bombers havent rendered much of the surface combat portion of the Navy redundant, aside from playing CVN Baby-sitting.

The age of the principle surface combatant is sadly over. Now subs and planes can do much better, albeit not as imposing or stylishly as an early 20th century battlewagon. While we COULD make one that with, modern AshMs and lighter QF guns, would be a sheer terror, it would be WAY more of a logistical and cost ineffective nightmare than it couldpossibly be worth, given global air power thanks to chairs and squids.

>>30898764
Where does that number come from anyways? Is it just a theoretical "rof x 60 min x 9 barrels" or does it include barrel life, ammo storage on the ship, potential of secondary weaponds, missiles, and so and so?
Its pretty pointless to talk about "2 million pounds" when you only have a few hundred thousand pounds in ammo on bord, i'd imagine

>>30906014
there are hatches next to each AA gun.

They went through that hatch and below deck when the main guns were being fired.

>>30915995
No there isn't. At the very least there aren't any on Showboat. Plus, do you really think a navy would force its crews to choose between defending itself against air attack or surface combat?

>>30915995
They actually would fire the aa crew out the gun and if they landed on the enemy ship they were expected to damage The ship as much as possible.

this is why a ship needs a large crew. enough to replace 30+ people every volley

>>30913523
Where?

File: Typhoon3.jpg (35KB, 350x398px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 350x398px

>>30920171

>>30917837
Where do you think the ammo came from?

>>30915356
This why I still watch Battleship when it comes on TV. Say what you want about making a board game into a movie, but the scenes with the Missouri make my 'Murica boner sky high (also living in NC, with BB-55 being the most kickass historical object in this state)

>>30915954
>Is it just a theoretical "rof x 60 min x 9 barrels"

More or less. It is the average weight of a Mark 7's shells multiplied by your formula there. It should also be noted that an Iowa would need to expend 1080 out of it's 1210 total magazine capacity in order to put 2.5 million pounds of 16" ordnance. A WW2 era Iowa would also burn through half the barrel life of all it's barrels to do so, an 80s refit about a quarter of the barrel life.

File: 1280px-US_Navy_110918-N-BC134-014_The_Arleigh_Burke-class_guided-missile_destroyer_USS_Halsey_(DDG_97)_transits_the_Pacific_Ocean.jpg (135KB, 1280x834px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1280x834px

>>30895107

>fire main battery
>it harmlessly glances off the target

File: 1387678979853.jpg (24KB, 317x330px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 317x330px

>>30895317

>grenade
>comparable to a FUCKING BATTLESHIP CANNON

>>30920206

It's worth mentioning that for photo ops, the guns wouldn't be loaded completely up to their maximum power (literally talking about the amount of powder bags they put in behind the projectile itself)

>>30897240
nice troll

>>30910950
Do tell sir

>>30897341
Are they dead now?

>>30905940
Nigga what? Do you even laws of physics?

>>30897240
>you're all retarded, I was joking
what a tweest

>>30925713
Ok it moves maybe 3mm or so

>>30898764
While the newest bombs have leagues better accuracy, penetration, and general killyness, nothing beats an overwhelming show of force against target imagining being hit by said show of force, only closely followed by the killy stuff taking out the targets the show of force misses to add to the illusion

>>30910950
I want to believe...

I know they're too expensive, etc. for today's military, but I don't care what you "modern navy/air force" assholes say, it would be totally cool as mother fucking FUCK to see an Iowa let loose with all her 16's in anger, with all fury on... I don't even care what she let loose on! That would be fucking incredible.

>>30920490
Wut?