USS Wisconsin firing last 16" rounds

[Sampsonite]

This is what it is all about!!

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

Feel the power of  the main battery!!!

[anonym_8c6WUbf6C7MT]

If they were really in a battle they'd be loading a lot faster than that lol

[F900EX]

Nice

[MaximilianvonSpee]

It's funny how small the shells are. And I'm not trying to be snarky... but really, they're not much bigger than a human torso, yet the armor-piercing ones weighed 2,700lbs each, or about the size of a compact car. And Jutland was fought with, largely, far-smaller guns -- 11", 12", 13.5" and a few 15" guns. It's just weird to think about.

[Krieg]

Nice post! I've never seen the whole loading process like that before. Awesome!!!

[Daltron]

MaximilianvonSpee, on 24 January 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

It's funny how small the shells are. And I'm not trying to be snarky... but really, they're not much bigger than a human torso, yet the armor-piercing ones weighed 2,700lbs each, or about the size of a compact car. And Jutland was fought with, largely, far-smaller guns -- 11", 12", 13.5" and a few 15" guns. It's just weird to think about.

I've always thought that, like, comparison between the guns and the mass of the ship:

http://www.battleshi...olk_drydock.jpg

And to think Kirishima was crippled by nine of them. It's just crazy.

Then again, a .22LR bullet is tiny but the hollowpoints can do massive damage, so I dunno.

Oh yeah , and there's this:

[MaximilianvonSpee]

Quote

Oh yeah , and there's this:

Great vid.

I wonder what the crew compliment of a 'new' battleship would be if they built one today. I imagine automation could virtually eliminate gun crews.

[cwarren853]

If they ever biuld a new battleship It would be outo loading I bet and maybe even bigger rounds

[Gohibniu]

Daltron, on 25 January 2013 - 02:46 AM, said:

And to think Kirishima was crippled by nine of them. It's just crazy.

More like 20, not 9. Plus 17 5 inch.

[Battleship_Unknown2]

It's kind of a sad video, though, in a way. I mean, the era of the big gun had long passed, I suppose, but still -- to see it come to a close forever is rather tragic. Shells are so much cheaper to produce than cruise missiles. We should still have a single BB active, IMO, even if it needed to be built new. A 25,000-30,000 ton dreadnought could likely be built with today's technology with less than half the crew required to man an Iowa.

[xiones11]

its like throwing a VW beetle 21 miles :D

[Sampsonite]

T

PrincessRoyal, on 30 January 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

It's kind of a sad video, though, in a way. I mean, the era of the big gun had long passed, I suppose, but still -- to see it come to a close forever is rather tragic. Shells are so much cheaper to produce than cruise missiles. We should still have a single BB active, IMO, even if it needed to be built new. A 25,000-30,000 ton dreadnought could likely be built with today's technology with less than half the crew required to man an Iowa.

The only good news is that the Navy refuses to completely deactivate them. The Wisconsin in VA is still sealed I believe.

[ShamelessAdvocate]

Very sad, but at least it was my favorite ship!

[Battleship_Unknown2]

Sampsonite, on 31 January 2013 - 04:02 PM, said:

TThe only good news is that the Navy refuses to completely deactivate them. The Wisconsin in VA is still sealed I believe.

They're all museum ships now, but Wisconsin and Iowa must be kept in a state of perpetual readiness, with reserve guns and shells kept in storage. Really, if the Navy was adhering to protocol, they should actually be active now. The only reason they were struck was because the DDX program was (supposedly) going to augment the navy's in-shore bombardment capacity enough the retire the battleships. Problem is, the DDX has fallen prey to the Nunn-McCurdy Ammendment (frankly, I think it's fantastic -- the Zumwalts were going to be horrible, unseaworthy ships), and the program will end after only a few have launched. In that case, the battleships should actually be reactivated, as the Navy now has a shortfall in terms of landing capability. But, I'm sure they'll find some way to leave the BBs rusting.

[mik777]

Long live the Battleship!!!!!!

[xS_DEADLY_Sx]

Great video. Just bring one of those into Somalia and the pirates will surrender after one broadside

[shermantanker]

No need for big guns like that once the navy's new rail-guns are ready (think there was something like 5 years left on the program). their test this month got it to shoot at mach 5... wouldn't surprise me if they used these more then fighter bombers.

 

EDIT:I don't mean replace, but it is cheaper to lob this 150 miles then send bomber...

[Crag_r]

shermantanker, on 24 February 2013 - 03:52 AM, said:

No need for big guns like that once the navy's new rail-guns are ready (think there was something like 5 years left on the program). their test this month got it to shoot at mach 5... wouldn't surprise me if they used these more then fighter bombers.

But no rig they have yet is even close to be suitable aboard a Warship, plus this program is as usual receiving lots of delays...

[shermantanker]

there latest prototype looks very gunnish though. mounting it isn't a problem, just making the power supply smaller and a higher rate of fire is the biggy.

[International_Barfighter]

The Navy will never completely automate the loading process, I believe.  Long years of experience has taught the USN to "trust but verify" any automated task.  That's why the manning requirements are so high.  In combat situations there are so many chaotic factors that human judgement is often required to parse the go/no-go decision.  Something with as dramatic a failure mode as BB guns would never be completely entrusted to automation, unless you get a true sea-change in the Navy leadership.