Can a 16 inch HE shell wreck havoc on newer ships?

[M1Brams]

Watching the naval engagement between Missouri and the alien mothership in Battleship
sparked a debate between me and a friend.

I for once dont believe that a 16 inch shell can do significant damage to newer ships such as the Zumwalt or the Gerald R Ford class supercarrier

Sure it may do some damage.. but will there be terminal waterline damage if say, a 16 inch shell were to be fired from the Iowa or the Missouri against newer ships ?

 

[ADMk2]

Watching the naval engagement between Missouri and the alien mothership in Battleship
sparked a debate between me and a friend.

I for once dont believe that a 16 inch shell can do significant damage to newer ships such as the Zumwalt or the Gerald R Ford class supercarrier

Sure it may do some damage.. but will there be terminal waterline damage if say, a 16 inch shell were to be fired from the Iowa or the Missouri against newer ships ?

Yes a hit from a 16inch shell would cause a lot of damage, but you do realise there is no ship in-service that can fire a 16inch shell? Both Missouri and Iowa were payed off a LONG time ago...

 

[M1Brams]

Yes a hit from a 16inch shell would cause a lot of damage, but you do realise there is no ship in-service that can fire a 16inch shell? Both Missouri and Iowa were payed off a LONG time ago...

yup i know. Both are museum ships, but i was talking scenario-wise.

 

[STURM]

yup i know. Both are museum ships, but i was talking scenario-wise.

Why wouldn't a 16 inch shell do damage? Modern ships may have ballistic kevlar protection in certain areas to protect against small arms and fragments but are not armoured.

 

[M1Brams]

Why wouldn't a 16 inch shell do damage? Modern ships may have ballistic kevlar protection in certain areas to protect against small arms and fragments but are not armoured.

Not armored? Even the heavy supercarriers?:fly: Has naval armor doctrine switched to weight saving instead of absorption of damage?


I would have thought they would have something like belt armor, as with the case of Bismark back then surviving hits from shells and it was only due to the crew scuttling the ship that she sank.



I was thinking more of the lines of the 16 shell doing terminal damage enough to sink the carrier or newer ships.

 

[STURM]

Not armored? Even the heavy supercarriers?:fly: Has naval armor doctrine switched to weight saving instead of absorption of damage?:

Carriers contain seperate compartments and bulkheads to provide protection, in event of a hit by torpedos or missiles but are not armoured to the extent of providing protection against a 16inch [410mm] or other large calibre shells, which in any event is not operated by anyone anymore. The same goes for many top of the line combatants - like the Dutch Seven Provincien and Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen class - which are built with seperate damage control compartments, intended to provide protection against missiles and torpedoes, and to contain the spread of fire.

 

[M1Brams]

Carriers contain seperate compartments and bulkheads to provide protection, in event of a hit by torpedos or missiles but are not armoured to the extent of providing protection against a 16inch [410mm] or other large calibre shells, which in any event is not operated by anyone anymore. The same goes for many top of the line combatants - like the Dutch Seven Provincien and Norwegian Fridtjof Nansen class - which are built with seperate damage control compartments, intended to provide protection against missiles and torpedoes, and to contain the spread of fire.

So you mean that WWII ships have this advantage over more modern ships?

Is that why the USN mothballs the Iowa and Missouri not only for thier fire support role but to potentially exploit this advantage?

 

[STURM]

So you mean that WWII ships have this advantage over more modern ships?

WW2 cruisers and battleships were built to withstand hits from large and medium calibre guns because those were the main weapons of that era, thus are armoured, unlike modern vessels.

Is that why the USN mothballs the Iowa and Missouri not only for thier fire support role but to potentially exploit this advantage?

The 4 battleships were mothballed because of the huge costs in running them and because they were not needed any more.

 

[kato]

If it were the 1950s maybe. Otherwise, no, battleships are not viable combat ships nowadays.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Watching the naval engagement between Missouri and the alien mothership in Battleship
sparked a debate between me and a friend.

I for once dont believe that a 16 inch shell can do significant damage to newer ships such as the Zumwalt or the Gerald R Ford class supercarrier

Sure it may do some damage.. but will there be terminal waterline damage if say, a 16 inch shell were to be fired from the Iowa or the Missouri against newer ships ?

Well this might be of interest.

Added during 1950s deployments, nuclear Mark 23 - 1,900 lbs. (862 kg). W23 warhead, about 15-20 kilotons yeild. That could do some damage to a modern warship.

The standard HE or High Capacity shell weighed 1900 pounds and had a 153 pound bursting charge. What could it do? The High Capacity (HC) shell can create a crater 50 feet wide and 20 feet deep (15 x 6 m). During her deployment off Vietnam, USS New Jersey (BB-62) occasionally fired a single HC round into the jungle and so created a helicopter landing zone 200 yards (180 m) in diameter and defoliated trees for 300 yards (270 m) beyond that.

Now imagine that striking a modern warship.

You are also thinking pre WW1. Then shells were fired at the opposing ship to hit its sides, which were heavily armoured. But from the Battle of Jutland on battles were often fought at maximum range and shells were fired in high arcs that struck the decks of the enemy. Here the armour was much thinner and such a shot destroyed the HMS Hood. By WW2 ranges were sometimes such that the opposing ship was visible only on radar. US ships radar could not only see the enemy but also the shell splashes from their own guns over the optical horizon with the radar mounted high above the optical sights.

However a USS frigate the Stark with little armour did survive a hit from a Exocet antiship missile which was able to punch through the thin plating and explode inside the ship. Then again the RN destroyer Sheffield was sunk with the same missile type at the Falklands. Lessons were learnt from both incidents on how to better protect ships.

I suppose if a 30yo ship can survive the 165Kg warhead from the Exocet, the the 70Kg charge of the 16inch will be survivable

 

[outcast]

The 4 battleships were mothballed because of the huge costs in running them and because they were not needed any more.

This, plus it's an obsolete concept. Every battleship loss in the pacific theater IIRC came as a result of aircraft bombing actions, being launched from carriers far out of range of even the biggest battleship guns. That and in order to support all those big guns the ship itself needed to be huge with a large crew complement, hence its very high cost.

 

[Tasman]

I suppose if a 30yo ship can survive the 165Kg warhead from the Exocet, the the 70Kg charge of the 16inch will be survivable

Except that the HE charge was 862 kg - 5 times that of the Exocet warhead!


Tas

 

[STURM]

M1Brams,

You might find this video interesting. Whilst it does npt provide an answer to your query, it explain why some Royal Navy ships suffered such catastrophic explosions.

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPCElQVnd6k"]History Channel Battlefield Detectives World War I Jutland - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[AegisFC]

So you mean that WWII ships have this advantage over more modern ships?

Is that why the USN mothballs the Iowa and Missouri not only for thier fire support role but to potentially exploit this advantage?

Armor as a concept is obsolete in modern warships. Those ships were designed to counter shell fire or early torpedos. Those armored belts were not designed to cope with sea-skimming ASM's that hit in a different way than shells, or can do nasty things like pop up at the last minute and dive down the stacks to explode in the engine room. Nor does the armor protect against a modern heavy torpedo that is designed to break the keel (and the armor would just make it sink quicker). Nor can you armor comms gear or sensors without those the ship is useless.

Modern ships use active and passive defences to help keep from getting hit. Subdivision and a well trained DC crew will keep the ship afloat. After WW2 the USN found that in a damage control situation armor was a detriment, it was simply dead weight that robbed the ship of bouyancy. There are plenty of stories of unarmored DD's taking massive amounts of damage but kept afloat due to good damage control and the fact they didn't have a lot of dead weight.

You should check out this thread, a lot of good information about how armor in war ships is obsolete.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/future-battleship-11827/

 

[AegisFC]

However a USS frigate the Stark with little armour did survive a hit from a Exocet antiship missile which was able to punch through the thin plating and explode inside the ship. Then again the RN destroyer Sheffield was sunk with the same missile type at the Falklands. Lessons were learnt from both incidents on how to better protect ships.

Sheffield was poorly designed from a DC point of view in an effort to keep costs down. To "save money" it was designed with a single loop fire main for example.

 

[wychdoctor92394]

16-inch shells

A 16" shell, provided there is a gun capable of firing it, would wreak a lot of havoc. With the development of stronger alloys, and certainly, advances in BVR sighting and indentification systems, it's possible that even the carriers (super or otherwise), be they Zumwalt or the Gerald R. Ford, are capable of being destroyed with such a shell.

Back when ol' Miss was commissioned, her guns, when fired, had to be countered with the rear-most turret firing the other way to keep her from flipping over. Lighter, stronger alloys and finer high-explosive warheads means devastation on a grand scale.

 

[Bonza]

Back when ol' Miss was commissioned, her guns, when fired, had to be countered with the rear-most turret firing the other way to keep her from flipping over.

Where on earth did you hear that mate? Because no offence, but it's unmitigated nonsense.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Where on earth did you hear that mate? Because no offence, but it's unmitigated nonsense.

absolutely

my father (RAN) did a short rotation on New Jersey on the gun line during the Korean War - I have happy snaps of her firing full broadsides and all main guns are facing in the same direction.

 

[Ananda]

This just out of curiosity, even-though little bit out of topic. Do any of you gent's can provide me with reasoning why some 'old' analysts (mostly US and Western ones) quite adamant in stating that US 16 inch guns in Iowa class was superior in brute force than Japanese 18 inch guns in Yamato class.

I look their reasoning based on the (if not mistaken) capability of US 16 inch guns producing higher gun speed and velocity compared to Japanese 18 inch guns. However I still reserve my doubt since, well Japanese guns basically was 2 inch larger and with heavier shell. In theory this should provide better penetrations and brute force than US 16 inch.

Granted that US Iowa have better sensors and electronics, that supposedly provide them with better accuracy than Yamato. Not this question want to open old debate on which is stronger Iowa or Yamato, since both classes had not got any chances to meet in the real engagement anyway.

 

[Bonza]

This just out of curiosity, even-though little bit out of topic. Do any of you gent's can provide me with reasoning why some 'old' analysts (mostly US and Western ones) quite adamant in stating that US 16 inch guns in Iowa class was superior in brute force than Japanese 18 inch guns in Yamato class.

I look their reasoning based on the (if not mistaken) capability of US 16 inch guns producing higher gun speed and velocity compared to Japanese 18 inch guns. However I still reserve my doubt since, well Japanese guns basically was 2 inch larger and with heavier shell. In theory this should provide better penetrations and brute force than US 16 inch.

Granted that US Iowa have better sensors and electronics, that supposedly provide them with better accuracy than Yamato. Not this question want to open old debate on which is stronger Iowa or Yamato, since both classes had not got any chances to meet in the real engagement anyway.

I'm not sure Ananda, I suspect the differences between the two would probably have been rather academic in the event they had met in the Pacific... could it be an issue of the shell's shape, material or dimensions producing different penetration characteristics?

The following site has a lot of detail on large naval guns, however treat it with some caution as I don't know enough about the topic to vouch for its accuracy, and I find it strange that a website would have such comprehensive penetration capabilities listed for large, antiquated weapons. Maybe another member could give you more information as to the accuracy of the site.

USA 16"/50 (40.6 cm) Mark 7

Japanese 46 cm/45 (18.1") Type 94