Very interesting.
When I was in the USMC, in Vietnam, the word of mouth was the
Effective Casualty Radius of the New Jersery's "Big Thunder"
wa 1,000 meters. Hmmm, I guess that was pretty false.

Paul Adam
MSc in Systems Engineering & Defence, University College London (UCL)
(Graduated 2003)Thu

Why would the Navy decommission battleships? Unlike planes, you can't
shoot down a 16-inch shell.
There was an awkward comparison, during the 1991 Gulf War, between
battleships and carriers.

Two battleships, operating in the northern Gulf, managed to deliver -
between them - about 1,100 16″ shells in the direction of the enemy, in
80-odd fire missions.

That translated to a bit over 2,000,000lb of ordnance, which sounds like
a lot. Unfortunately, very little of it was explosive: so it added up to
about 150,000lb of TNT in total sent targetwards. Worse, accuracy wasn’t
great, and spotting and correction frequently unavailable: of those
eighty-odd missions, only about a dozen were found to have achieved
anything significant (firing blindly at desert hoping something
important was under the shells, turned out not to be very effective).

Worse, to get the two battleships into gun range of Kuwait, required a
force of thirty ships (two dozen minehunters and their support vessels,
plus protective escort) working for three weeks; not a lot of strategic
surprise happening there. In the process, the USS Tripoli and USS
Princeton both hit mines, suffering significant and expensive damage.
And during the bombardment, the Iraqis managed to get a Seersucker
missile launched in the Missouri’s direction (fortunately, to be shot
down by HMS Gloucester)

Compare that to one smaller, old carrier that - because the Gulf was so
crowded - was operating down in the Red Sea. The USS Saratoga’s air wing
delivered 4,300,000lb of ordnance to Iraqi targets without loss; twice
as much as two battleships combined. Worse, because air-dropped ordnance
is much more destructive than battleship shells (a 16″ HC shell has the
equivalent of 120lb of TNT inside; a Mk 84 bomb, of similar weight, has
the equivalent of about 1,200lb of TNT) her weaponry was considerably
more effective: in terms of explosives delivered, the Saratoga donated
roughly 2,500,000lb of TNT-equivalent to Iraqi targets - nearly twenty
times as much as the two battleships together.

And the Saratoga did that from the Red Sea, 700 miles from her targets;
needing no minehunters to clear lanes and a Fire Support Area for her;
getting no escorts damaged or sunk.

After the Gulf War, it was very clear that airpower had seriously
surpassed battleship gunnery: the ability to land small explosive
charges (each 16″ shell was about as powerful as a 250lb bomb) in the
vague vicinity of a platform at a range of 20 miles, turned out not to
be of much use, and certainly wasn’t worth the huge cost in manpower,
maintenance, and escort/protection needed, compared to carrier
aviation’s ability to strike much harder, at far greater range, with
much more responsiveness.

22.3K views
View 842 upvotes
View 1 share
1 of 31 answers
69 comments from
Jay Hulbert
and more

Jay Hulbert
· Thu
One of the best explanations for the end of the battleship era that I’ve
read here on Quora!

Profile photo for Paul Adam
Profile photo for Robert Gauthier
Robert Gauthier
· Thu
Indeed

Profile photo for GBlack
GBlack
· Thu
“A 16″ HC shell has the equivalent of 120lb of TNT”
I found it hard to believe a massive shell like this would only have
~120lb of explosive, so looked it up.

Normally would just use Warthunder data but the Iowa class is not in
game yet, but Wikipedia has the 16″ HC shell listed as 1,900-pound (862
kg) and a charge for the Mark 13: 153.6 lbs. (69.67 kg) Explosive D.

So basically yes, only about 120lb TNT equivalent; which to be fair is
still enough to do an awful lot of damage if it hit anything but I lot
less than I expected.

So today I learned moment

Profile photo for Jim Henderson
Jim Henderson
· Fri
There seems to be a fairly widespread assumption that the only job of
big guns is to deliver explosives downrange; thus the less of other
things in ammunition, the better. No, the job of artillery is to break
things and hurt people. Some ammunition has no explosives. For example
tanks are often wreck…
(more)
Profile photo for Shing Chan
Shing Chan
· Fri
Battleship shells were designed to penetrate very thick, hardened steel
armour then explode once it got through.

The shells had to be made very strong so they would not break apart when
hitting the armour hence there was only a small volume left for explosives.

They could have made shells with a much larger explosive filling against
unarmoured targets but I guess the infrastructure to do that no longer
existed.

Profile photo for GBlack
Profile photo for GBlack
GBlack
· Fri
Reading about the recommissioning process, they did consider making new
shells that contained hundreds of bomblets to spread out over a large
area and do damage to lightly protected areas, but as the answer
indicates; far from the best way of delivering HE to a target even 40-50
years ago.

I knew the primary aim for battleships to defeat other heavily armored
ships but knew they also carried non-AP shells with more HE for hitting
lightly armored targets like smaller ships or ground bombardment.

In the game I play the Hood only carries Semi-AP and full AP, but
figured they might also have some lighter shells with more explosive but
guess that is what secondary batteries (and escort vessels) are for

Shing Chan
Battleship guns were designed to shoot heavy shells at high velocities.
They are not really good at shooting low velocity, lighter shells for
shore bombardment. They are more like tanks with high velocity direct
fire guns than self propelled artillery with indirect fire howitzer
guns. It would be very expensive to restart making shells from scratch
designed with a large high explosive charge. I suspect all the shells
used after WWII were made during the War
Profile photo for NoToPrivacyPolicy
NoToPrivacyPolicy
· 22h
Battleship shells included general purpose and armor piercing. GP shells
were mostly for shore bombardment or attack on lightly armored ships. AP
shells were designed to penetrate armor about equal to the battleship.
deep penetration put engine rooms, boilers, fuel, and magazines at risk
but did not…
(more)

"a425couple" wrote in message news:sVc2N.274019$rbid.114689@fx18.iad...

After the Gulf War, it was very clear that airpower had seriously
surpassed battleship gunnery: the ability to land small explosive
charges (each 16″ shell was about as powerful as a 250lb bomb) in the
vague vicinity of a platform at a range of 20 miles, turned out not to
be of much use, and certainly wasn’t worth the huge cost in manpower,
maintenance, and escort/protection needed, compared to carrier
aviation’s ability to strike much harder, at far greater range, with
much more responsiveness.

--------------------------------
All weapons and tactics have their weaknesses, for instance modern infantry
shooting from cover is what skirmishers have always done, but they were too
vulnerable to cavalry lances to make it the standard practice. The Phalanx
or solid line of spear or bayonet armed infantry could usually resist a
charge, see Waterloo. Ukraine shows a limit to air power when the defense is
stronger than the offense.

The new US battleships of the 30's and especially 40's shifted the armor /
armament / propulsion weight compromise to enable accompanying aircraft
carriers that could exceed 30 knots. War games during the 20's and 30's had
already shown carriers superior during daylight, battleships at night;
without radar or night vision a task force needed both. The first US
carriers were built on partially completed battlecruiser hulls minus the
armor weight, which made them very fast, 33 kts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Lexington_(CV-2)

The final Iowa class managed to combine battlecruiser speed with full
battleship armor. The battleships struck at Pearl were all older and far too
slow at around 21 kts to keep up with carriers, so their temporary loss
didn't hurt much. Once they had been repaired and upgraded we made good use
of them.
https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/clash-at-surigao-strait-the-last-battle-line/

The question of how they would have fared versus Yamato remains open.
American computerized fire control allowed accurate gunnery while turning,
while Yamato's more manual system needed both own ship and target running
straight. The destroyers that helped turn back Kurita learned that but I
haven't seen if the US battleship skippers would have broken from their
battle line soon enough.
https://www.navalgazing.net/Spotting

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php
Battleships were optimized to fight other battleships, shore bombardment
capability was a free bonus. The HC shells were meant to damage the
superstructure or less heavily armored cruisers or aid the ship's smaller
secondary armament to repel destroyers on torpedo runs. They did little more
than scar the paint and spray fragments when they hit thick armor, while the
armor piercing shells would merely punch holes in unarmored smaller ships or
the unarmored ends and superstructure of battleships, like a solid
cannonball. Disabling the superstructure's spotters, rangefinders and radar
severely degrades long range gunfire accuracy, Bismarck's for example.

Battleships tended to fight to the death, leaving no evidence of damage to
the loser. Here's an exception, the enemy battleship sank first.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/South_Dakota_Damage_Analysis.php
The 14" Japanese AP shells contained 24.5 Lbs of explosive, enough to break
the shell into fragments meant to release high pressure steam within the
armored "citadel" and cook the crew. The HC held 63.4 Lbs of explosive,
again the high speed flying fragments did the damage. The Japanese 14"
antiaircraft shell was a huge firework that spread incendiaries in front of
approaching aircraft.

On 11/6/23 13:29, a425couple wrote:
> Very interesting.
> When I was in the USMC, in Vietnam, the word of mouth was the
> Effective Casualty Radius of the New Jersery's "Big Thunder"
> wa 1,000 meters.  Hmmm, I guess that was pretty false.
>
> Paul Adam
> MSc in Systems Engineering & Defence, University College London (UCL)
> (Graduated 2003)Thu
>
> Why would the Navy decommission battleships? Unlike planes, you can't
> shoot down a 16-inch shell.
> There was an awkward comparison, during the 1991 Gulf War, between
> battleships and carriers.
>
> Two battleships, operating in the northern Gulf, managed to deliver -
> between them - about 1,100 16″ shells in the direction of the enemy, in
> 80-odd fire missions.
>
> That translated to a bit over 2,000,000lb of ordnance, which sounds like
> a lot. Unfortunately, very little of it was explosive: so it added up to
> about 150,000lb of TNT in total sent targetwards. Worse, accuracy wasn’t
> great, and spotting and correction frequently unavailable: of those
> eighty-odd missions, only about a dozen were found to have achieved
> anything significant (firing blindly at desert hoping something
> important was under the shells, turned out not to be very effective).
>
> Worse, to get the two battleships into gun range of Kuwait, required a
> force of thirty ships (two dozen minehunters and their support vessels,
> plus protective escort) working for three weeks; not a lot of strategic
> surprise happening there. In the process, the USS Tripoli and USS
> Princeton both hit mines, suffering significant and expensive damage.
> And during the bombardment, the Iraqis managed to get a Seersucker
> missile launched in the Missouri’s direction (fortunately, to be shot
> down by HMS Gloucester)
>
> Compare that to one smaller, old carrier that - because the Gulf was so
> crowded - was operating down in the Red Sea. The USS Saratoga’s air wing
> delivered 4,300,000lb of ordnance to Iraqi targets without loss; twice
> as much as two battleships combined. Worse, because air-dropped ordnance
> is much more destructive than battleship shells (a 16″ HC shell has the
> equivalent of 120lb of TNT inside; a Mk 84 bomb, of similar weight, has
> the equivalent of about 1,200lb of TNT) her weaponry was considerably
> more effective: in terms of explosives delivered, the Saratoga donated
> roughly 2,500,000lb of TNT-equivalent to Iraqi targets - nearly twenty
> times as much as the two battleships together.
>
> And the Saratoga did that from the Red Sea, 700 miles from her targets;
> needing no minehunters to clear lanes and a Fire Support Area for her;
> getting no escorts damaged or sunk.
>
> After the Gulf War, it was very clear that airpower had seriously
> surpassed battleship gunnery: the ability to land small explosive
> charges (each 16″ shell was about as powerful as a 250lb bomb) in the
> vague vicinity of a platform at a range of 20 miles, turned out not to
> be of much use, and certainly wasn’t worth the huge cost in manpower,
> maintenance, and escort/protection needed, compared to carrier
> aviation’s ability to strike much harder, at far greater range, with
> much more responsiveness.
>
> 22.3K views
> View 842 upvotes
> View 1 share
> 1 of 31 answers
> 69 comments from
> Jay Hulbert
>  and more
>
> Jay Hulbert
>  · Thu
> One of the best explanations for the end of the battleship era that I’ve
> read here on Quora!
>
> Profile photo for Paul Adam
> Profile photo for Robert Gauthier
> Robert Gauthier
>  · Thu
> Indeed
>
> Profile photo for GBlack
> GBlack
>  · Thu
> “A 16″ HC shell has the equivalent of 120lb of TNT”
> I found it hard to believe a massive shell like this would only have
> ~120lb of explosive, so looked it up.
>
> Normally would just use Warthunder data but the Iowa class is not in
> game yet, but Wikipedia has the 16″ HC shell listed as 1,900-pound (862
> kg) and a charge for the Mark 13: 153.6 lbs. (69.67 kg) Explosive D.
>
> So basically yes, only about 120lb TNT equivalent; which to be fair is
> still enough to do an awful lot of damage if it hit anything but I lot
> less than I expected.
>
> So today I learned moment
>
> Profile photo for Jim Henderson
> Jim Henderson
>  · Fri
> There seems to be a fairly widespread assumption that the only job of
> big guns is to deliver explosives downrange; thus the less of other
> things in ammunition, the better. No, the job of artillery is to break
> things and hurt people. Some ammunition has no explosives. For example
> tanks are often wreck…
> (more)
> Profile photo for Shing Chan
> Shing Chan
>  · Fri
> Battleship shells were designed to penetrate very thick, hardened steel
> armour then explode once it got through.
>
> The shells had to be made very strong so they would not break apart when
> hitting the armour hence there was only a small volume left for explosives.
>
> They could have made shells with a much larger explosive filling against
> unarmoured targets but I guess the infrastructure to do that no longer
> existed.
>
> Profile photo for GBlack
> Profile photo for GBlack
> GBlack
>  · Fri
> Reading about the recommissioning process, they did consider making new
> shells that contained hundreds of bomblets to spread out over a large
> area and do damage to lightly protected areas, but as the answer
> indicates; far from the best way of delivering HE to a target even 40-50
> years ago.
>
> I knew the primary aim for battleships to defeat other heavily armored
> ships but knew they also carried non-AP shells with more HE for hitting
> lightly armored targets like smaller ships or ground bombardment.
>
> In the game I play the Hood only carries Semi-AP and full AP, but
> figured they might also have some lighter shells with more explosive but
> guess that is what secondary batteries (and escort vessels) are for
>
> Shing Chan
> Battleship guns were designed to shoot heavy shells at high velocities.
> They are not really good at shooting low velocity, lighter shells for
> shore bombardment. They are more like tanks with high velocity direct
> fire guns than self propelled artillery with indirect fire howitzer
> guns. It would be very expensive to restart making shells from scratch
> designed with a large high explosive charge. I suspect all the shells
> used after WWII were made during the War
> Profile photo for NoToPrivacyPolicy
> NoToPrivacyPolicy
>  · 22h
> Battleship shells included general purpose and armor piercing. GP shells
> were mostly for shore bombardment or attack on lightly armored ships. AP
> shells were designed to penetrate armor about equal to the battleship.
> deep penetration put engine rooms, boilers, fuel, and magazines at risk
> but did not…
> (more)

and here is another view:

Profile photo for Mike Billingsley
Mike Billingsley
·
Follow
Nov 1
I seen it in action it was awesome I was on the Point Defiance watching
the New Jersey do broadsides

Profile photo for Daniel C Swanson
Daniel C Swanson
Five years active duty in the Navy during the Vietnam WarUpdated 4y
How well did USS New Jersey perform in Vietnam?

This happened when I was stationed in the Philippines.

I was in a bar with my best friend. We were dressed in civilian clothes.
This was good because of bunch of Marines were in the bar and the Navy
and Marines didn't always get along.

After a while a bunch of Sailors came into the bar. We could see by the
patch on their uniforms that they were off the New Jersey. The Sailors
walked up to the bar and I saw one of the Marines start to walk over to
them. I thought, “Oh hell a fight is going to start.” But to my
surprise, when he got to them, he told the bartender that as long as
they were in that bar all of their drinks were on the Marines. Needless
to say, the sailors and myself were very surprised.

The Gunny said, “My men and I were trying to take a hill that Charlie
had dug tunnels into. We had called in air support but they had nothing
on hand that could drive Charlie out of his tunnels. The New Jersey had
been monitoring the channel, and they ask if we could use a bombardment.
We gave them the grid coordinates, and then they told us to pull back
down off the hill. It was just a few minutes and hell rained down on
that hill.”

He said that in all his years in the Corps he had never seen or felt
that power. He said that they hit the hill for about 15 minutes. When
the smoke and dust had died down, the top 20 feet of the hill was
GONE!!! He said, “That saved a lot of his men’s lives that day so their
drinks were on the Marines.”

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:uic6tv$n8kd$1@dont-email.me...

Ukraine shows a limit to air power when the defense is
stronger than the offense.

--------------------------

US battleships had that advantage over aircraft, especially with
computer-aimed proximity fused shells from 5"/38 AA guns and the excellent
40mm Bofors. USS Iowa reported a first-round hit that left only the engine
and propeller where the plane had been.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-107.php

In contrast Japanese battleships placed too much reliance on their
over-rated 25mm AA gun and were taken out without excessive aircraft losses.
I've read that there was cross-confusion over which plane each gun was
trying to hit and the corrections went to the wrong guns. Yamato's
destruction:
https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-044/h-044-3.html
"U.S. losses were 10 aircraft and 12 pilots and aircrewmen."

Concentrating the torpedoes on one side nearly doubled their effect because
to prevent capsizing the top-heavy ship needed to counterflood the other
side. The heavy side armor on Yamato and Musashi had a weak joint between
its upper and lower sections that even lightweight aerial torpedoes could
tear open.

If Yamato had entered Leyte Gulf the continuous maneuvering to avoid aerial
attack would have degraded accuracy against US battleships. The rapidly
approaching US fleet carriers would have ensured that Yamato never left.

"a425couple" wrote in message news:Ouu2N.217711$0UVe.42249@fx17.iad...

Below is a picture of the Jersey when she was in Subic Bay. The others
are pictures I took inside a 16 inch gun turret, It was not open to the
public but being a old navy salt, I knew how to sneak into it.

-------------------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=0OmOQs0ziSU

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message news:uidse6$13ttk$1@dont-email.me...

> Yamato's destruction:
> https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-044/h-044-3.html
> "U.S. losses were 10 aircraft and 12 pilots and aircrewmen."

Six of those aircraft may have been downed by Yamato's huge explosion:
http://www.uss-bennington.org/pics/phznh62582-yamato450407.jpg
All that explosive was meant for us.

https://www.deviantart.com/yamatowarships/art/ijn-yamato-wreck-944705016

On 11/7/23 09:33, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> "Jim Wilkins"  wrote in message news:uic6tv$n8kd$1@dont-email.me...
>
> Ukraine shows a limit to air power when the defense is
> stronger than the offense.
>
> --------------------------
>
> US battleships had that advantage over aircraft, especially with
> computer-aimed proximity fused shells from 5"/38 AA guns and the
> excellent 40mm Bofors. USS Iowa reported a first-round hit that left
> only the engine and propeller where the plane had been.
> http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-107.php
>

Thank you Jim. Fascinating source and account.
"Mount #10 firing Mark 32 fuzzed projectiles was the first to fire and
the leading plane received a direct hit from what was believed to be the
first projectile fired. It disintegrated in the air, and the Rangefinder
of Sky 4 reported that at one instant he was looking at an airplane and
the next instant all he could see was a propeller and radial engine
flying through the air with no plane attached to it. Five-inch fire was
then shifted to the second plane, which by this time was also under fire
from the 20 and 40 mm guns as it moved up the port quarter towards the
INTREPID. This plane was also shot down in flames"

I do not mean to quibble.
But logic indicates to me the "fuzzed" failed, and a rather lucky
direct hit demolished the plane.

> In contrast Japanese battleships placed too much reliance on their
> over-rated 25mm AA gun and were taken out without excessive aircraft
> losses. I've read that there was cross-confusion over which plane each
> gun was trying to hit and the corrections went to the wrong guns.
> Yamato's destruction:
> https://www.history.navy.mil/about-us/leadership/director/directors-corner/h-grams/h-gram-044/h-044-3.html
> "U.S. losses were 10 aircraft and 12 pilots and aircrewmen."
>
> Concentrating the torpedoes on one side nearly doubled their effect
> because to prevent capsizing the top-heavy ship needed to counterflood
> the other side. The heavy side armor on Yamato and Musashi had a weak
> joint between its upper and lower sections that even lightweight aerial
> torpedoes could tear open.
>
> If Yamato had entered Leyte Gulf the continuous maneuvering to avoid
> aerial attack would have degraded accuracy against US battleships. The
> rapidly approaching US fleet carriers would have ensured that Yamato
> never left.
>
As to comparisons of WWII BBs, I find the following site outstanding.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

Has great details and evaluations about:

Guns
Armor
Underwater Protection
Fire-Control
Tactical Factors
Secondary Armament: Anti-ship
Total Anti-Aircraft Suite
Operational Factors

As to fire control, I often think of the Japanese BB at Surigio St
steaming out of the narrows before dawn, seeing some possible
lightening in the far distance,
and suddenly hit by first salvo of 16" AP

Nothing the IJN had could come close to that.

"a425couple" wrote in message news:e2a3N.6103$Ee89.582@fx17.iad...

As to comparisons of WWII BBs, I find the following site outstanding.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm

As to fire control, I often think of the Japanese BB at Surigio St
steaming out of the narrows before dawn, seeing some possible
lightening in the far distance,
and suddenly hit by first salvo of 16" AP

Nothing the IJN had could come close to that.

--------------------

We'll never know how one or more Iowas would have fared against Yamato. I
believe it could have gone either way depending on conditions and luck,
which was a major factor in BB duels. A surface force that included them was
sent against Yamato north of Okinawa but the carrier planes struck first.

Luck: Bismarck's rudder, a parting shot at maximum range that slowed
Scharnhorst, these two:
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/longest-range-hit-by-a-ships-gun
Washington being concealed behind burning South Dakota, cruiser shells
disabling Graf Spee's kitchen and oil purifier but not much else, several
German commerce raiders suddenly pounding warships that strayed too close to
investigate them.

The Pacific war began with an attack by carrier air instead of battleships
and continued that way except for night actions around Guadalcanal - the
result of US daytime air power - and the desperate last stands at Leyte
after Japan had lost its naval aviation.

John Lundgren's analysis of this battle near Guadalcanal, based on evidence
not available for the official report, speaks very highly of the accuracy of
US radar fire control.
http://www.navweaps.com/index_lundgren/kirishimaDamageAnalysis.php

"The most important piece of new evidence was supplied by Lt.Cdr. Shiro
Hayashi who was Kirishima's Chief Damage Control Officer and before the ship
sank he sketched a drawing of the hit locations suffered by his ship."
"Ikeda shows 20 major caliber hits and seventeen smaller caliber hits..."
The US estimate was 8 main gun hits, about 10%, which is reasonable for the
relatively short range. It appears that shots observed as splashes were very
close and struck underwater.

In the battle off Samar Yamato may have scored a main gun hit or a very near
miss that shook loose a cloud of boiler soot at very long range; I haven't
read much of Lundgren's book on that battle yet. Once the US ships began
dodging the Japanese couldn't hit them until within range of the US 5" guns,
which on the destroyers had computerized fire control like our BBs. It's
possible that a US carrier's 5" shell severely damaged or sank an IJN heavy
cruiser by detonating its torpedos. The Japanese weren't interested in
preserving records of their defeat so much is still speculation.