Just sitting around with my roommate, discussing fun things like naval battles, surviving at sea in a life raft, etc. when the question came up - What is the range of the Big Guns on Modern (i.e. WW2 era - USS IOWA or IJN [is that right?] Yamato) Battleships? I though it was something like 20 - 25 miles, he thinks longer. Anyone know?
25 miles would be a long reach for a standard naval rifle of 16" (Iowa) or 18" (Yamoto) caliber. Usually, the range is given as “about 20” miles, although that is probably the effective range, beyond which they can continue to travel, but with so little accuracy as to hinder their usefulness.
The 16-Inch Gun Technical Page gives a maximum range of 45,100 yards (25.625 miles) for the M1919 Shore Battery gun. I suspect that it might have actually had a longer range than a naval rifle, but that is pure WAG. The U.S.S. Wisconsin web site gives 41,000 yards (that they translate to 24 miles–I get 23.3 miles) as the range of its guns.
There have been guns specially modified for longer range; in WWI, the Germans shelled Paris with a gun capable of 131 kilometers (81 miles). Paris Gun
Siege guns are not particularly effective, however, on ships that need to fire at moving targets and fire more than one shell an hour, or so.
[fixed link]
[Edited by bibliophage on 10-20-2001 at 03:24 PM]
you’re right.
For instance, here’s the specs on the Iowa class “Wisconsin”, which gives a 23 mile range for the 16 inch guns:
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~champeau/boat/wisconsin.html
It doesn’t say whether that range is in nautical or statute miles, but even if it’s nautical miles, that’s still only 26 or 27 statute miles.
That’s one reason battleships became obsolete with the advent of missile technology. Even early ship-based missiles gave ranges of something like 60 miles. And modern day cruise missiles have ranges like 1000 miles.
The United States Naval Fire Support Association notes that two new rounds have been developed for the 16-inch guns that have ranges of 51,000 yards (28 miles) and 63,000 yards (35 statute miles). They have also done feasibility studies on a special long range shell that could achieve a distance of 100 nautical miles–at the expense of reducing the payload by 90% to the 175 - 200 lb. range. However, the cost of maintaining the four ships capable of firing those weapons has caused the Navy to simply walk away from those solutions.
try looking @ http://www.combinedfleet.com (just don’t believe them when they say a second wave at pearl may have allowed the Japanese to have gained an upper hand)
World War One was the first true “global” war in the sense that the range at which battleships fought made the curvature of the earth a factor in combat for the first time.
[slight hijack]
There’s a story about a US battleship that was trying to hit an inland target during the Korean War. It was falling about 5 miles short. The captain then ordered the ship to shallow water, where it bottomed out and got stuck. But with the anchorage, it’s physical recoil was reduced. This added to the range of the projectile, and they were then able to hit their target. :D:D
[/slight hijack]
Huh? Them tubs gotta roll with the recoil, or else it’ll bend the ship in a million little places that will let in water. Plus, for captains, “ground the ship” = “end my career.” Nice story, but this is where the phrase “tell it to the Marines” comes from. So come on down to shaft alley and see the caged seabat/golden rivet (and while you’re bending to look, a guy with a broom or a grease gun is silently approaching your ass). But thanks for the qualifying “there’s a story…” AWB.
Actually, if you read more of their site, you’ll realize the cost analysis reasoning doesn’t really add up.
The real reason for the retirement of the battleships was the general rising of rank of a new generation of naval ‘progressive’ types who get off on the concept of modern air power and the like, and find big old lumbering battleships distasteful.
This is similar to how the air force really went sour in the last 20 years or so. Fighter jocks rising to upper management and buying into sexy, if not the most effective, gear.
Anyway, don’t get me started on a rant…
hahahaha the captain of a British Frigate last year grounded his ship accidentally of course
I seem to recall from all the news stories from the early 80s that they were then giving out the range of the big guns as 29 miles. The military frequently will publish capabilities of their systems that disinform the actual capabilities. Some of the links above are just fantastic. Thanks guys.
For example, the USS Enterprise, the first nuke carrier, has eight reactors generating electricity. It’s speed is usually giving out as 33 plus knots. I have heard that it is believed (if not actually tested) to go much faster, so much faster in fact that they were afraid that the forces being exerted on the hull by the water would break the ship. All subsequent nuke carriers have only two reactors. Keep in mind these things displace over 100,000 tons fully loaded. That is an incredible amount of energy to be moving that much that fast. Damn! I’m hijacking again.
I’ll certainly grant you that institutional inertia can keep obsolete weapons systems in service and prohibit effective new ones. But battleships? Face facts, battleships are obsolete and have been for over fifty years. It’s a simple matter of range; a naval weapons system that relies on gunfire cannot compete against one that uses aircraft or missiles as its main armaments. It is of course possible to arm a battleship with missiles, but it’s equally possible to arm smaller ships with the same missiles for far less cost.
On the other hand, I agree with what you wrote about the Air Force’s problems. Since WWII, the Air Force has been dominated by two ideas; strategic bombers and air superiority fighters. Any weapons system that doesn’t fit into those two categories is an orphan.
Pearl Harbor and Midway (and the Bismarck) proved conclusively that Battleships were obsolete for anything other than shore bombardment, which could be accomplished much more cost effectively by smaller ships. Naval air power is where offense is at, and Leyete Gulf (with the escort carriers) proved is it also where the defense was at. Is this still so six decades later? We just don’t know because the U.S. Navy is vastly more dominant than any other naval power. The Soviets thought that submarines could break this dominance, but fortunately we never found out.
I’m not sure about the BB having to be afloat to fire the main armament without concern for recoil: in December, 1914, the British Admiral Doveton Sturdee deliberately beached HMS Canopus in Port Stanley harbour, Falkland Islands, to act as a guard-ship (essentially a coast artillery battery) for an expected visit from German Admiral Spee’s heavy cruiser squadron.
On December 7, SMSs Gneisenau and Nurnberg showed up to attack the shore facilities at Port Stanley. Instead, Canopus’ 12-inch guns opened up (from behind some hills, using shore-based rangefinders), one (practice) shot striking Gneisenau’s rear funnel. The German ships broke off, and were pursued (and destroyed, along with SMS Scharnhorst) by HMSs Invincible, Inflexible (battle cruisers), Kent, Carnarvon and Cornwall (armoured cruisers) and light cruisers Bristol and Glasgow.
No, but good try.
Battleships lost their dominance, obviously, in ship-ship gun fights. They still do everything else they do as good or better.
They serve as floating supply bases - they can carry a whole shitload of cargo, most importantly fuel. Carriers have nuclear reactors, but most other ships don’t. Carrier group endurance is limited by the fuel on hand by the escort ships - and the extra fuel that can be carried on a battleship can keep a carrier group out for significantly longer periods.
They serve as floating hospitals and machine shops, both important duties in any battle group.
And their shore-bombardment role isn’t to be underestimated.
It takes the entire attack wing of 5 aircraft carriers to deliver the destructive power an iowa battleship can put out in a half hour.
Battleships are also practically invincible on the modern battlefield. Almost all anti-ship missiles are designed to take out lightly armored cruisers and such - their warheads aren’t enough to even dent the armor plating in an iowa battleship.
The sheer intimidation factor of a nearly invincible ship off your coast, able to bombard you with dozens of 2000 pound shells a minute, is great. In the vietnam war, not once did they refuse to come to the negotiating tables because of carriers - but when we parked 2 iowas on their coast, they refused to even enter talks until they were gone.
Anyway, there’s a lot more to it, but I really don’t want to write a book. The navy progressive ‘elitists’ have decided that their new, sophisticated ways are wholly better than the old ‘dinosaur’ ways. It’s mostly just elitist talk to make themselves feel more ingenius than previous generations or something. You see a lot of this in all of the armed forces, unfortunately.
I just feel sorry for the common marine, who has nothing better to back up his ass than some 5" plinker on the deck of a cruiser.
They keep saying battleships are outdated, and then they mothball them, and then they have to bring them out of mothballs when they discover that they need them after all. As in the Gulf war.
There’s a difference between missiles and 16" shells. First, the shells are much cheaper. And second, you can fire more shells faster. Granted, missiles are more accurate and have longer range. But for many roles a Battleship might find itself in, that’s irrelevant. For example, offshore bombardment of a country that doesn’t have missiles to shoot back. There are psychological effects too - I’m told that being under fire from something like the New Jersey is just terrifying. The thing is lobbing shells the size of bloody Volkswagons filled with high explosives, pretty much.
What about amphibious assault? I thought one of the purposes of a battleship was to soften shore defenses and provide cover for marine landings. Isn’t it much more effective at that task than missiles would be?
On the other hand, the U.S. doesn’t seem to have a problem attaining air supremacy over just about any chunk of real estate in the world, so bombers can do the job.
Don Boeff:
But that really wasn’t my point. Cargo and hospital functions are better conducted by cargo and hospital ships. Missle ships (arsenal ships in new naval theory) don’t need the protection of battleships as they are over the horizon and superior location is supposed to give them the few minutes surprise they need. They are cheaper and aren’t needed in the heat of battle. Sure, if you can afford nothing but Battleships, you might as well, as that armor is wonderful, but if you are doing shore bombardment, you don’t need all that armor and a cruiser has the kind of firepower that is useful. Sure it isn’t the 16 inch shells of the BBs, but it is accurate and rapidly repeating. As for the 5 inch shells on destroyers and modern cruisers, I think we agree that there simply aren’t enough of them to be really impressive, but they do fire quickly and very accurately.
I’m aware of the Vietnam negotiating story, and as a negotiator, I wouldn’t have removed them, but rather moved another couple (we had four at the time, maybe not all commissioned) out there. Although I never would have got us in Vietnam in the first place. What was our vital interest there?
If money were no object I’d agree that the BBs are indispensible, but they are sooooo much more expensive as to be not practical. And that enormous expense makes it too vulerable to lose.
As for the point of shore bombardment, when we were gearing up for war with the Soviets, shore bombardment was traded off for air superiority, thus ACs, and this was a wise move based on the strategic position of having Western Europe, not needing a beachhead. Since we are moving toward a littoral theory of warfare against smaller potential opponents, shore bombardment may become more important, but those 16 inchers still can’t quite do it from over the horizon (although changing the shells may change that.)
Getting back to the OP’s question, there is a difference between maxium range and useful range. I have a book on battleships, “Battleships” by Antony Preston, and it gives the fact that the “greatest range at which guns have scored a hit on a moving target at sea” is 26,400 yards. Made by the H.M.S. Warspite against the italian battleship Giulio Cesare on 9 July 1940 in the Mediterranean sea.
**
I’m sure you see the benefits of reducing the redundancy and expense of seperate, specialized ships.
**
True. That doesn’t mean new naval theory isn’t better (or, for that matter, not stupid), it just means that new admirals can stroke their penises while telling themselves how progressive they are.
**
Cheaper in what sense? It’s more expensive to build each arsenal ship than to reactivate an iowa. Per munition, it’s MUCH more expensive to use fancy missiles than good old 16" shells. More arsenal ships would be needed for the same role, so procurement and operational costs would be greater. Logistical support would be greater - I mean, they would practically spend themselves dry in a matter of days, if not less, in any real combat situation. It becomes a bitch to haul more missiles to it every few days.
**
Uh, what makes you say this? The armor is beneficial because you become a practically invincible hunk of metal off the shore of an enemy.
And, um, “the kind of firepower that is useful”? Most of the top brass in the marine corps has been very vocal in their complaints that the current naval gunfire support isn’t worth the aluminum it’s made of.
The current 5" guns aren’t bad for what they’re meant to do - but they’re not designed to provide naval gunfire support to a fighting marine force, and this is desperately lacking in our navy. For that matter, arsenal ships aren’t designed for it either. We’ve pretty much said “Fuck you, marine corps, you’ll have to manage without artillery” with our current naval policy.
The effect of 2 or 3 5" guns is absolutely trivial for most military purposes. Additionally, the cruisers have to say the hell away from the shore to avoid being hit with a tiny cruise missile that can take them down, and so their effective inland reach is curbed.
**
Yeah, they’re decent little guns. Completely inadequate for any sort of naval gunfire support.
**
That’s another debate entirely.
I was just trying to demonstrate the sheer morale effect of the giants.
**
Have you ever looked at the actual cost of operating a battleship? If I remember correctly, it’s only a fraction of the cost of operating a carrier. They already ran through the expensive upgrades during the 80s and so they’re fairly modern. We’d only incur operating costs, which is both less than building new, modern ships and operating current biggies, the carriers.
Firstly, the money to run them can be had simply through cancelling the new set of unnecesary DD214s (and others) that are meant to replace the functions of the iowa class battleship. They’ll do 1/4th the job for twice the price.
Or, hell, even pull out a carrier or two. A 10 carrier, 2 battleship force is a lot more flexible and intimidating
force than a 12 carrier force in my opinion.
Also, I don’t understand your “too valuable to lose” comment. They’re mothballed now. In effect, we ALREADY lost them. Why would we worry about losing a big chunk of expensive equipment in combat if we’re just going to let it rot away anyway?
**
That idea has merit. There are still areas in which shore bombardment carries a lot of benefit other than a beachhead invasion.
**
You’re right on the new importance of littoral warfare.
Firstly, don’t underestimate the raw amount of infrastructure that is within 25 miles of any given coastline. Societies were built around the coast in many instances and even the 25 mile range can have tremendous influence in some circumstances.
Additionally, the new shells they were creating offered a lot of flexibility in as far as range/payload went.
SenorBeef, battleships have left the building. And penis stroking carrier admirals had nothing to do with it. WWII ended almost sixty years ago and even then, battleships mainly served the war effort by being sunk in dramatic fashion. Their main productive contribution was to act as incredibly expensive oil tankers to the ships that did the actual fighting.
Anything a battleship can do can be done better by a less expensive ship. Which means that two less expensive ships can do more than twice as much as one battleship. The only reason battleships are still afloat is because not only is the United States the world’s only first rate naval power, but there isn’t any second or third rate naval powers.
It can be argued that aircraft carriers are dinosaurs. But by the same analogy, battleships are invertabrate fish.