San Diego Based Article?

[kalos72]

I for the life of me cannot find an article/story written about San Diego. Something like there was a massive artillery fight on the island of Coronado and such...it was a good read.

Anyone know what I am thinking of?

[kalos72]

Found it! I thought was San Diego based but instead its a good read for the Pacific....

[kalos72]

Anyone have any thoughts on this article?

Not sure who wrote it but its as much detail as I have ever seen about the Pacific or the Navy in general honestly.

[Olefin]

It definitely predates me being on the board

and while its very interesting it has a lot of issues with the canon

I am usually not a canon defender but it adds Soviet units that would have been in the canon Soviet Forces V1 and V2.2 versions

And Project Pyoter is definitely a canon buster - I dont see the Soviets being able to transit anything like that kind of force especially in the Pacific - if you want to see how bad a shape they were in look at Satellite Down to give you an indication of what they had left as to naval forces - and you need A LOT of ships to transit even a single division let alone whole armies

And the New Jersey battle is definitely one that needs some rewrites - 30mm CWS isnt going to do squat to an incoming 16 inch shell - even if they did get hits that somehow kept them from detonating the impact speed and size of those shells would have blown huge holes in Frunze - and hell if you are at 2300 yards why not just go ahead and ram while you are at it - plus she has 12 5inch guns that at 2300 yards would turn Frunze into Swiss Cheese

plus those teakwood decks have 7.5 inches of armor plate under them - those SS-N-19's would probably bounce off her

[kalos72]

Id love to get your opinion on the separation...I am not well versed in pure canon. :(

[Cherper]

Interesting project, but the whole battle with the Frunze and New Jersey was almost laughable. The idea that a 30mm shell weighing less than 3 kg knocking a 406mm shell weighing more than 800kg off target is a stretch.

The rest of the project does give some ideas for further development.

[kalos72]

Well, I know the state of the worlds navies is always a sore subject but this story seems to have ALOT of firepower left in the world.

Just look at whats sitting in CA...

I for one, have always thought that attrition of parts and fuel had more to do with the lack of naval activity/support and not that every ship destroyed except for one submarine. :(

[Cherper]

I agree that the attrition of lack of parts would grind the navies to a halt. Without petroleum and parts most heavy machinery will literally grind to a halt. The bigger the machine the more maintenance it would need.

I could see a number of ships more or less mothballed in scattered ports around the world. The ship is afloat, may have some armaments, and could influence the local region but is probably not capable of offensive actions.

These ships could be great strongholds. Tough to capture, but could hold a wealth of gear.

[unkated]

I started having trouble with it in the beginning:

Opening Moves

"Despite the outbreak of hostilities between the US and USSR in Europe in 1996, the Pacific Rim started out as a relatively quiet area."


Um, Russia is fighting China in 1995 and makes no moves along the Pacific Coast? No attempts at blockade? Does nothing with their fleet units at Cam Rahn Bay?

In the 1990s, (in our timeline, anyway) the Chinese PLAN was beginning to expand. So was their air force, which would give them some force to push back. Sounds like an active War Zone.

None of the Western Powers do any counter moves? The JDF naval forces stay in port? The US Fleet stays east of the International Dateline?

No armed assurance of commerce missions in 1995? Consider what the western powers did during the 1980s during the Iran Iraq War to protect neutral shipping running through the Arabian Gulf; this would be to oppose the Soviet Union in a timeline where the Cold War did not end.

I would imagine that if nothing else, 1995-96 in the Pacific would be a period of increased tension - there is a major way going on, with western powers (US at least) want to ship in equipment and ammo, and it being in the Soviet interest to prevent it, preferably without triggering a 2-front war.

Then increase the tension from actual shooting in Europe.

OTOH, if the Soviets, under pressure form the West keep away from the China Coast, there's nothing really to prevent them from keeping a close watch on the few Soviet ports (which was done in the 1980s & 1990s anyway).

In either case, by 1996, when NATO does enter the fray in Europe, it does not seem to me like it would be "quiet." More like "primed to explode."



First Big Fight

I have trouble with the notion that a large surface (soviet) SAG could leave harbor in time of war much less get into gun or missile range without a lot of warning. It says that this fight takes place in deep water, but the Sea of Japan is rather limited in size (yes, three hundred miles is small when your missiles and planes have ranges that are 3-10 times that.

Submarines at 45 knots are a) deaf and b) quite noticeable - yes, even an Alfa and Akula. That they can move a distance, turn and fire a spread of torpedoes I can believe. That they can fire a targeted spread and hit a moving target that they did not see (guessing at its likely location) and that heard them coming with 4 of 8 (and hit other targets with any of the others) I cannot swallow.

Is the Carl Vinson group 6 hours ship travel time? (6x30 = 180 nm) That's well within its air envelope - either for protection or attack. Not to mention that off Korea is Japan, with a hitherto untouched US air force backed by JSDFAF.

So, I have some problems with both the strategic and tactical tenor of what I have read so far.

Uncle Ted

[stormlion1]

I worked on the New Jersey when it was brought to Camden to be turned into a museum and while the superstructure was relatively thin armored in spots there is little that was punching through to the armored sections. The Bridge alone had 17" of armor and could be sealed up with just telescopes to be used to see. The AK-130 gun system would bounce off the armored sections barely putting a dent. When you hit the armored sections there thick! The Kirov's were missile boats and even those would have to work at it to penetrate the ships armored core. Finally it mentions the Jersey heading for Yokota. A Air Base in Japan I was stationed at in the 90's. Not Yokosuka. And we don't know what happened to the Jersey after the Battle as its not listed anywhere at the end with other surviving ships or as sunk.

[swaghauler]

I started having trouble with it in the beginning:

Opening Moves

"Despite the outbreak of hostilities between the US and USSR in Europe in 1996, the Pacific Rim started out as a relatively quiet area."


Um, Russia is fighting China in 1995 and makes no moves along the Pacific Coast? No attempts at blockade? Does nothing with their fleet units at Cam Rahn Bay?

In the 1990s, (in our timeline, anyway) the Chinese PLAN was beginning to expand. So was their air force, which would give them some force to push back. Sounds like an active War Zone.

None of the Western Powers do any counter moves? The JDF naval forces stay in port? The US Fleet stays east of the International Dateline?

No armed assurance of commerce missions in 1995? Consider what the western powers did during the 1980s during the Iran Iraq War to protect neutral shipping running through the Arabian Gulf; this would be to oppose the Soviet Union in a timeline where the Cold War did not end.

I would imagine that if nothing else, 1995-96 in the Pacific would be a period of increased tension - there is a major way going on, with western powers (US at least) want to ship in equipment and ammo, and it being in the Soviet interest to prevent it, preferably without triggering a 2-front war.

Then increase the tension from actual shooting in Europe.

OTOH, if the Soviets, under pressure form the West keep away from the China Coast, there's nothing really to prevent them from keeping a close watch on the few Soviet ports (which was done in the 1980s & 1990s anyway).

In either case, by 1996, when NATO does enter the fray in Europe, it does not seem to me like it would be "quiet." More like "primed to explode."



First Big Fight

I have trouble with the notion that a large surface (soviet) SAG could leave harbor in time of war much less get into gun or missile range without a lot of warning. It says that this fight takes place in deep water, but the Sea of Japan is rather limited in size (yes, three hundred miles is small when your missiles and planes have ranges that are 3-10 times that.

Submarines at 45 knots are a) deaf and b) quite noticeable - yes, even an Alfa and Akula. That they can move a distance, turn and fire a spread of torpedoes I can believe. That they can fire a targeted spread and hit a moving target that they did not see (guessing at its likely location) and that heard them coming with 4 of 8 (and hit other targets with any of the others) I cannot swallow.

Is the Carl Vinson group 6 hours ship travel time? (6x30 = 180 nm) That's well within its air envelope - either for protection or attack. Not to mention that off Korea is Japan, with a hitherto untouched US air force backed by JSDFAF.

So, I have some problems with both the strategic and tactical tenor of what I have read so far.

Uncle Ted

I have to agree with your assessment of the Pact's tactics. This is why I have always suggested in my posts that the USSR would sorte its fleet early in the conflict with China as commerce raiders. If NATO did take sides with the Chinese; Russia would want the fleet "at sea" when that happened. They were well aware of the technological edge NATO had after the 91 Gulf War. The best option for survival would be to "disperse" the fleet and force NATO to hunt for them. The Pact fleet was ideal for use as a commerce raiding force. Russian ships are fast and tend to have better fuel endurance than comparable NATO ships. They do not have the "detection range" of most NATO ships, nor do they carry a large number of reloads for their weapons. These two factors are major handicaps in a sustained naval engagement. The Russians would fare much better "running from" a NATO task force and hitting merchant shipping instead. You can, in theory, disable an entire task force (by denying it fuel) by simply sinking one commercial tanker. If NATO loses enough merchant shipping; you can stall a fairly large ground offensive too. The Russians would need "ports abroad" to rest and resupply from. This could draw Cuba, and certain South American and African countries into the conflict when NATO took steps to kill Pact raiders who were in these countries territorial waters. I also see many ships on both sides being "stranded" by a lack of fuel later in the conflict.

[RN7]

Kirov vs Iowa has to be the biggest mismatch in history.

In the first place the Kirov would never get within the 500km range to launch their SS-N-19 missiles due to the fact that such an important naval asset like a Iowa Class battleship would be under the air protection of a US Navy aircraft carrier.

Secondly the SS-N-19 has a maximum speed of between Mach 1.6 and 2.5 which is well within the interception velocity of US Navy air defence missiles on any number of US warships, while the Kirov only carried 20 SS-N-19.

Thirdly the Iowa Class were retrofitted with Tomahawk Cruise missiles which have a considerably longer range than the SS-N-19, and Iowa's carried 32 of them.

Fourthly the Iowa's 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns shot out 2,700 pound shells that travelled at 820 metres per second. I doubt any Soviet air defence missile could intercept and destroy a shell that size travelling at that speed at the time.

Fifthly the armour protection of a Kirov is wafer thin compared with an Iowa. A few direct hits by Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles would disable if not destroy it, while one 16 inch gun shell would disintegrate it.

[stormlion1]

"You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent vessels are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would just bounce off or be of little effect. Then we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."

-Soviet Fleet Admiral Sergei I. Gorshkov,1985- Quote after watching the Iowa in a NATO exercise

[Cherper]

One other thing that I thought was implausible was the fitting of the ships to sail. The size of sails needed to move even a small frigate would be huge. A couple of sails like those pictured would maybe move the ships at a knot or two, but the stress on the masts would be incredible. Don't know if it would even be possible.

[kalos72]

Yeah alot of this is someone reading Popular Mechanics or something and going overboard with it. :P

But there are sailing ships that could be comparable...HMS Warrior perhaps?

What got me is the staggering amount of tonnage thats still out there.

[Olefin]

Kirov vs Iowa has to be the biggest mismatch in history.

In the first place the Kirov would never get within the 500km range to launch their SS-N-19 missiles due to the fact that such an important naval asset like a Iowa Class battleship would be under the air protection of a US Navy aircraft carrier.

Secondly the SS-N-19 has a maximum speed of between Mach 1.6 and 2.5 which is well within the interception velocity of US Navy air defence missiles on any number of US warships, while the Kirov only carried 20 SS-N-19.

Thirdly the Iowa Class were retrofitted with Tomahawk Cruise missiles which have a considerably longer range than the SS-N-19, and Iowa's carried 32 of them.

Fourthly the Iowa's 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns shot out 2,700 pound shells that travelled at 820 metres per second. I doubt any Soviet air defence missile could intercept and destroy a shell that size travelling at that speed at the time.

Fifthly the armour protection of a Kirov is wafer thin compared with an Iowa. A few direct hits by Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles would disable if not destroy it, while one 16 inch gun shell would disintegrate it.

Let alone her five inch guns which would be pumping out shells at the Kirov and nailing her over and over at 2300 yards.

[stormlion1]

In many ways a Iowa class would dominate in modern warfare even with there age. Remember that the main argument against them whenever anyone wanted to mothball them was high crew requirements (about 2000 men) and cost of fuel to run them and to support them. Plus the fact they just don't make the ammunition or the powder for them anymore.

And yet they are still considered the go-to source for a landing operation today. When we were converting the Jersey we were told outright that nothing major could be touched as it could be recalled at any point and I remember one Navy SOB telling us that the more work we did now was the less work they would need to do when they towed across the river to the Philly Shipyard when the ship would be needed again.

[kalos72]

This article brings up another good question...

US Armed Forces in the Pacific...Korea, Japan, Philippines...like the write about the Air Force in Europe.

[stormlion1]

Well the bottom of the original story does list the Air Force units and such in Japan. I remember because it said my old base had only two C-130's with no fuel left. But an actual map with a write up would be nice. Maybe update the whole thing though because quite a bit is just so off.

[kalos72]

Good call, I didnt see that the last time I read it.

Anyone have thoughts on San Diego itself? I haven't seen anything that says it got nuked, which is odd to me.

[unkated]

One other thing that I thought was implausible was the fitting of the ships to sail. The size of sails needed to move even a small frigate would be huge. A couple of sails like those pictured would maybe move the ships at a knot or two, but the stress on the masts would be incredible. Don't know if it would even be possible.

It wouldn't. For several reasons;

1. No where near enough sail area.

2. Hull is a poor shape for sailing - and it gets worse if it starts to heel (like it would with wind pushing on the sails.

3. Modern naval hulls have no keel; if you had enough sails and avoided heeling over completely, you'd make horrible leeway (slide in the direction of the wind).

4. To run the hydraulics to steer (and weapons systems, electronics, ventilation and plumbing), you'd to run a generator system. And a small wind-powered thing is NOT going to cut it.

Uncle Ted

[unkated]

Kirov vs Iowa has to be the biggest mismatch in history.

In the first place the Kirov would never get within the 500km range to launch their SS-N-19 missiles due to the fact that such an important naval asset like a Iowa Class battleship would be under the air protection of a US Navy aircraft carrier.

Secondly the SS-N-19 has a maximum speed of between Mach 1.6 and 2.5 which is well within the interception velocity of US Navy air defence missiles on any number of US warships, while the Kirov only carried 20 SS-N-19.

Thirdly the Iowa Class were retrofitted with Tomahawk Cruise missiles which have a considerably longer range than the SS-N-19, and Iowa's carried 32 of them.

Fourthly the Iowa's 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns shot out 2,700 pound shells that travelled at 820 metres per second. I doubt any Soviet air defence missile could intercept and destroy a shell that size travelling at that speed at the time.

Fifthly the armour protection of a Kirov is wafer thin compared with an Iowa. A few direct hits by Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles would disable if not destroy it, while one 16 inch gun shell would disintegrate it.



There is no reason for the Kirov to wait around for Battleship to get within gun range; in fact, it would be criminal; the zampolit aboard would have the captain arrested and appoint a commander to maintain range at a few hundred nautical miles.

The Tomahawks are LAND attack missiles, and are not that effective at sea. Also, more to the point is the number of launchers available. Iowas carry 32 Tomahawks, but can only launch 8 at a time. Same for Harpoons.

Yeah, no CIWS system is going to protect against guns.

They are made to locate and target missiles, which move much slower, and have systems that can be hurt in the few seconds before the missile hits the ship. They cannot target incoming shell fire, and if they could, you have the mismatch of mv-squared - like me charging a semi-trailer to deflect it head-on.

Also... (from Iowa class page)
Owing to the original 1938 design of the battleships, the Tomahawk missiles could not be fitted to the Iowa class unless the battleships were rebuilt in such a way as to accommodate the missile mounts that would be needed to store and launch the Tomahawks. This realization prompted the removal of the anti-aircraft guns previously installed on the Iowas and the removal of four of each of the battleships' ten 5"/38 DP mounts. The mid and aft end of the battleships were then rebuilt to accommodate the missile magazines. At one point, the NATO Sea Sparrow was to be installed on the reactivated battleships; however, it was determined that the system could not withstand the overpressure effects from firing the main battery.[79] To supplement the anti-aircraft capabilities of the Iowas, five FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missile firing positions were installed. These secured the shoulder-launched weapons and their rounds for ready use by the crew

One 16-in shell would not disintegrate the Kirov. Kirov is a decent sized ship. There's a reason that other ship combat systems were developed.
But indeed Kirov is not armored and she would being to degrade (lose systems that she needs to fight) almost immediately.

[stormlion1]

The smart move for a Kirov would have been to missile spam the US Battlegroup alongside other missile firing ships and hope for the best. Then get the hell out of dodge. And at the same time the US Fleet would have continued the favor. The Russian fleet listed was nowhere near enough though to take on a US Battlegroup with both a carrier and a Battleship. Now if the spammed a single target (if they could pick one out that is) it would be possible to hit a Iowa enough times to knock it out of the fight.

Then again in this scenario I fully expect those missiles to have nukes so if even one got through it would be all she wrote for the target ship and those near it.

[unkated]

I did like the Boras - the light cruiser sized hovercraft. They are just the kind of slightly outre engineering concept that the Soviets could make work - where a western government would stop to consider the opportunity cost vs benefit, and go build three of something else instead.

However, note that such a beast would use a LOT of fuel at each outing; and, of course making it large enough to carry a lot of fuel will make it too heavy to operate, so it will not have a lot of range. And presumably the lack of fuel is what stopped their further use.

[On a side note, where we all laughed at the Soviet hovercraft designs in the Soviet Vehicle Guide, the Soviets did have a small number of hover-transports for seaborne landings - some 50 that were platoon sized, 10 that were company-sized (100t), and a few that were battalion sized (310t); the Boras would be ~10xs as heavy.]

However, the two that attacked USS Munro off Australia had no reason to get within visual range at all; somehow I doubt that Munro could close the range if they can make 40-45 kn. The Boras would enter their radar envelope, get a fix, fire, turn away. Radar would tell them if probably if there is a hit; major change in Munro's speed would be a giveaway, at which point they could turn back for survivors. if not, they are already opening the distance on Munro.

Uncle Ted

[kalos72]

So...thinking about ways to counter the Soviet navy in the Pacific, would you go PT boats again with torpedos or try and develop a simple anti-ship missile system perhaps?

Or maybe sailing ships, with engine backups, with hidden torpedo tubes? Maybe disguised as fishing boats?

It would seem like some of the older torpedos are pretty simple tech wise...

[stormlion1]

Subs, lots of subs.

[kalos72]

And since making new Los Angeles class submarines MIGHT be out of the realm of realistic.... :)

Creative options?

Another question for me is, why do we still think we need to project into the South Pacific here? None of those countries can help us rebuild...cept maybe Japan/Australia.

[unkated]

It's not creative, but it is simple and obvious, and would probably be done 5 minutes after the climax of the Battle of the Aleutians - (if not as soon as tac nukes start flying)

2 nukes to take out the Navy base in Petrapavolvsk and Vladivostok. Bye bye stocks of navy parts and ammo and fuel. And repair facilities. Pretty much done right there.

BTW, this can also be done by conventional TLAM attack launced by sub or by B-52 standing off a few hundred miles as soon as the US enters the war.

Uncle Ted

[RN7]

There is no reason for the Kirov to wait around for Battleship to get within gun range; in fact, it would be criminal; the zampolit aboard would have the captain arrested and appoint a commander to maintain range at a few hundred nautical miles.


That's right and you didn't hear me saying that as it would be obvious suicide for the Kirov.


The Tomahawks are LAND attack missiles, and are not that effective at sea.

But the RGM/UGM-109B variant of the Tomahawk is a anti-ship missile.

It was developed at the same time as the BGM-109A TLAM-N and was operationally deployed first. Instead of TERCOM (which is useless over water), the TASM uses a radar guidance system similar to Harpoon, including the strapdown three-axis attitude/heading reference system and AN/DSQ-28 J-band active radar seeker. The TASM was a very agile missile capable of flying at high or low altitude trajectories, and could include sea-skimming or pop-up high-angle diving in the terminal phase. The TASM was removed from warships in 1994 and all TASM missiles were converted to TLAM, but not in the Twilight War eh!


Also, more to the point is the number of launchers available. Iowas carry 32 Tomahawks, but can only launch 8 at a time. Same for Harpoons.

But the Kirov also only carries 20 SS-N-19 as the size of the missile limits the platforms on which it can operate and be launched from and the number of reloads. Can all of the 20 SS-N-19 be fired at once?



Also... (from Iowa class page)

One 16-in shell would not disintegrate the Kirov. Kirov is a decent sized ship. There's a reason that other ship combat systems were developed.
But indeed Kirov is not armored and she would being to degrade (lose systems that she needs to fight) almost immediately.

Kirov is a very lightly armoured ship compared to an Iowa Class battleship. Its side armour in the area of the nuclear reactor compartments, command operations room and above the SS-N-19 battery is 100 mm, and everywhere else it ranges from 35mm to 70mm. Even in its best protected areas it would barely withstand a hit from a 5"/38 or Harpoon or Tomahawk TASM. But there is absolutely no way it could tank the firepower of a 16"/50 caliber Mark 7. Just how much damage do you think a 2,700 pound HE or AP shell or two travelling at 820 metres per second could do to a ship as lightly armoured as a Kirov with a practically unprotected nuclear reactor?

[stormlion1]

Kirov Class was designed as a command ship and a missile cruiser. Not a battleship. It would spam missiles and get out of dodge because it outright couldn't stand in the line of battle like the scenario lists. Its got paper thin armor and a light gun. The armor is almost secondary to its design and the gun for shore bombardment and defense against light attackers of the day. Not a World War 2 battleship. If there had been a war the admirals of the Russian Navy would have done everything in there power to keep there ships as far away from an Iowa as they could. And they would gave wished they had those Sovetsky Soyuz Battleships they cancelled in the 40's.

[kalos72]

I assume all these missiles would run out sooner or later. I doubt they are capable of manufacturing them at this stage of the war.

So then its all about the guns?

[Olefin]

Its interesting but in some way the 2001 naval world would look much like the one you see in the The Seventh Carrier series of books - with missiles and torpedoes almost all gone you are back to guns - meaning that navies with old WWII ships still afloat would have a very big advantage - imagine what New Jersey would do against a bunch of modern DD's and missile cruisers who are out of missiles and now its their one or two 5 inch guns against ten 5 inch and 9 16 inch guns?

[stormlion1]

Its interesting but in some way the 2001 naval world would look much like the one you see in the The Seventh Carrier series of books - with missiles and torpedoes almost all gone you are back to guns - meaning that navies with old WWII ships still afloat would have a very big advantage - imagine what New Jersey would do against a bunch of modern DD's and missile cruisers who are out of missiles and now its their one or two 5 inch guns against ten 5 inch and 9 16 inch guns?

Missiles and Torpedoes running out would be an issue but modern cruisers and destroyers and the Kirov class have an advantage over a Iowa. There's a lot more ammunition for them than the Iowa's. Plus fuel as the Iowa is dependent on a larger supply chain to keep running. If there not able to get missiles and Torpedoes then Fuel will be right out as well. Short term the Iowa Class Battleships would be unstoppable until there fuel runs low and ammunition stockpiles run out. Then its a harbor defense ship.

Same goes for Carriers, the need for fuel for the aircraft, ammunition for them, and replacements make there own supply situation tenuous at best. Sure the ship can cruise around the world buts useless if there are no aircraft or they can't get stockpiles in the continental US out to the carriers. In the right situation all the big ships will be in port and the small Cruisers and Destroyers will become the prevalent warships on the seas because there is stockpiles of ammunition for there guns and there nuclear. At which point the Kirov becomes a match for the Ticonderoga's running around.

[Olefin]

Sorry but the Iowa and her sisters had plenty of ammo

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

11) A 1981 inventory of naval ammunition storage facilities found that there were 15,500 HC projectiles, 3,200 AP projectiles and 2,300 practice rounds in stock.

And given that they stayed in service there were new projectiles in development for those guns that may have increased that total

Even divided by four thats 3800+HC and 800 AP projectiles per ship - and with the radars installed on them during the 1980's they basically would be on target from the first salvo

or to say it another way - each ship had enough ammo allocated to basically sink most of the Soviet surface fleet all by itself

[stormlion1]

Its not the shells that are the issue. Its getting the shells to the ships that become an issue and in the scenario were looking at shipping just isn't available after the first few months. In many ways the Iowa's are a liability in a supply situation due to there long supply chain.

Also wasn't there an issue with the powder the Iowa's used that came to light during Beirut?

[kato13]

Sorry but the Iowa and her sisters had plenty of ammo

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm

11) A 1981 inventory of naval ammunition storage facilities found that there were 15,500 HC projectiles, 3,200 AP projectiles and 2,300 practice rounds in stock.

And given that they stayed in service there were new projectiles in development for those guns that may have increased that total

Even divided by four thats 3800+HC and 800 AP projectiles per ship - and with the radars installed on them during the 1980's they basically would be on target from the first salvo

or to say it another way - each ship had enough ammo allocated to basically sink most of the Soviet surface fleet all by itself


For someone who prides himself on being able to find stuff on the internet, I literally have never been able to find what the Ammo load of a New Jersey Class ship was. I see from your link it was about 130 rounds per gun. Thanks for that.

Does anyone know the standard breakdown or HE and AP? I'm pretty sure it would be HE heavy.

[Olefin]

Yes there was but it was fixed

From the NY TImes

WASHINGTON, June 2— As part of an effort to bring its recommissioned World War II battleships into the modern era, the Navy has begun an extensive program to improve the accuracy of their guns.

A recent study by the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, concluded that although the battleship New Jersey accomplished her 1983 mission off Lebanon by silencing the fire of the Syrian-backed forces near Beirut, the accuracy of her 16-inch guns was less than desired. A researcher for the Congressional agency, speaking on condition that he not be identified, said the problem arose largely from the use of powder dating to the Korean War.

The Navy said some of the money from its gunnery program would be used to improve the bags of powder that propel the 2,000-pound shells.

Powder Bags Being Refilled

For many decades powder bags were made of silk. But silk bags are no longer in the military inventory and the rayon bags that replaced them have not been approved for use at sea. The Navy is to remove the powder from the silk bags and refill them with powder judged to be in superior condition.

The superior powder was manufactured from 1932 to 1946, the Navy said, and the powder currently used was made from 1941 to 1956. Both powders consist almost entirely of the explosive nitrocellulose.

A Congressional source who received the General Accounting Office's briefing said the New Jersey's crew improved accuracy off Lebanon by selecting powder charges that had not chemically deteriorated. After the powder change, the gunfire was 10 times closer to the target, he said.

In Congressional testimony last year, Navy officials said the New Jersey had attained accuracy of within 250 yards or so of a target from a range of 10 to 12 miles. $15 Million Asked for Gunnery For the fiscal year 1986, beginning Oct. 1, the Navy seeks $15.9 million for research and development to improve gunnery. Congress approved a total of $9.7 million for 1984 and 1985. Pentagon budget documents show that the Navy plans to seek $21.9 million for this purpose for 1987.

[stormlion1]

Yes there was but it was fixed

From the NY TImes

WASHINGTON, June 2— As part of an effort to bring its recommissioned World War II battleships into the modern era, the Navy has begun an extensive program to improve the accuracy of their guns.

A recent study by the General Accounting Office, an investigative arm of Congress, concluded that although the battleship New Jersey accomplished her 1983 mission off Lebanon by silencing the fire of the Syrian-backed forces near Beirut, the accuracy of her 16-inch guns was less than desired. A researcher for the Congressional agency, speaking on condition that he not be identified, said the problem arose largely from the use of powder dating to the Korean War.

The Navy said some of the money from its gunnery program would be used to improve the bags of powder that propel the 2,000-pound shells.

Powder Bags Being Refilled

For many decades powder bags were made of silk. But silk bags are no longer in the military inventory and the rayon bags that replaced them have not been approved for use at sea. The Navy is to remove the powder from the silk bags and refill them with powder judged to be in superior condition.

The superior powder was manufactured from 1932 to 1946, the Navy said, and the powder currently used was made from 1941 to 1956. Both powders consist almost entirely of the explosive nitrocellulose.

A Congressional source who received the General Accounting Office's briefing said the New Jersey's crew improved accuracy off Lebanon by selecting powder charges that had not chemically deteriorated. After the powder change, the gunfire was 10 times closer to the target, he said.

In Congressional testimony last year, Navy officials said the New Jersey had attained accuracy of within 250 yards or so of a target from a range of 10 to 12 miles. $15 Million Asked for Gunnery For the fiscal year 1986, beginning Oct. 1, the Navy seeks $15.9 million for research and development to improve gunnery. Congress approved a total of $9.7 million for 1984 and 1985. Pentagon budget documents show that the Navy plans to seek $21.9 million for this purpose for 1987.

Thanks, I knew I had read this somewhere before. I was also reading that they experimented and produced Nuclear shells for Iowa class Battleships. And while I could see that being an issue with landing forces, nuclear shells would be devastating if used against Russian warships. Particular thin skinned ones.

[Olefin]

They are mentioned in that link I put up I think Storm Lion - not sure if there were any left by the 90's but would have been one hell of an addition to an Iowa's armory - and her guns sure had the range to deliver one safely

[stormlion1]

Well they were produced in the 50's but I have never read of any being used. Even for test firings and weren't withdrawn from service until 1991. And only were withdrawn due to a tit for tat treaty with the Russians. Something that wouldn't have happened in this universe. So I'm guessing the Iowa's would have had several nuclear shells for use onboard in each turrets magazine. Even a near miss might devastating if the shell exploded.

[Olefin]

One of those shells would definitely be enough to ruin most Soviet fleet admiral's days - or one heck of a wake up call for a North Korean division

[stormlion1]

Well like I said use during a landing or shore bombardment would be political suicide early in a war while after the nukes have been used there wouldn't be an issue unless someone wanted to use the land they just fired at. Against a Russian ship though I could see them pretty much devastating a target. Hit a Kirov? Punches through a few decks. Then it explodes in a nuclear fireball. A single round could potentially be any ships killer. But the question is, are they contact detonated or Timed?

[kalos72]

What about a throwback to the old PT gunboats perhaps? Those would do well against a ship without missiles I would think.

[Wolf sword]

What about a throwback to the old PT gunboats perhaps? Those would do well against a ship without missiles I would think.

Well for the fact almost all of the WW2 era PT boats were wrecked at the end of the war. I know of 1 working ww2 pt boat this was restored in 2012 or 13 by a bunch of pt boat vets.
I think the navy would have grab the coast guard boats to make a squadron of "modern PT" raiders (and I don't see that going over to well with the coast guard, this could be a plot point for a defection of the coast guard over to CivGov)

[stormlion1]

Actually the Navy would probably just go into a Marina and seize speedboats and arm them and then make use of a superyacht or a small tanker to keep them fueled. Just bolt on a 50 cal and maybe a mortar and pack a few Stingers below decks. Easy almost ready made PT Boats. No torpedos though, but there another issue altogether.

[kalos72]

My groups is under the believe that an organized cantonment should be able to make 40-50's tech on a small scale by 2001. So some Mark 14's or something should be possible, albeit few of them to start.

[swaghauler]

Well like I said use during a landing or shore bombardment would be political suicide early in a war while after the nukes have been used there wouldn't be an issue unless someone wanted to use the land they just fired at. Against a Russian ship though I could see them pretty much devastating a target. Hit a Kirov? Punches through a few decks. Then it explodes in a nuclear fireball. A single round could potentially be any ships killer. But the question is, are they contact detonated or Timed?

Either one. You designate that when you arm the fuse. Low altitude air burst is the most effective method of generating a "Nominal Yield," but a ground burst would be more effective in damaging a bunker. Most naval engagements would use an airburst. Between the blast and secondary tidal/shock wave, there wouldn't be many survivors in a fleet hit by one. The "Nominal Yield" of an 8" airburst artillery round was around 20kt. A 16" round would probably do 50kt to 75kt.

[swaghauler]

Actually the Navy would probably just go into a Marina and seize speedboats and arm them and then make use of a superyacht or a small tanker to keep them fueled. Just bolt on a 50 cal and maybe a mortar and pack a few Stingers below decks. Easy almost ready made PT Boats. No torpedos though, but there another issue altogether.

I agree. They would probably just pull an Iran. Iran had speed boats (SeaRays mostly) with mines, SA-7s, and RPG-7's/Recoilless Rifles mounted on them. They did cause a number of problems for commercial shipping in the Gulf during the 80's.
Let's not forget that there are a number of large (50ft+) "Pleasure Trawlers" out there. The first one that comes to my mind would be the Grand Banks line of trawlers. These ships can only do 12 knots but they have an endurance of around 5000 Nautical Miles and a significant deck space. Just go to the Grand Banks website to see what one of these trawlers look like. There are hundreds of them just in the US alone. They could easily be used to support an "expedition."

[stormlion1]

I agree. They would probably just pull an Iran. Iran had speed boats (SeaRays mostly) with mines, SA-7s, and RPG-7's/Recoilless Rifles mounted on them. They did cause a number of problems for commercial shipping in the Gulf during the 80's.
Let's not forget that there are a number of large (50ft+) "Pleasure Trawlers" out there. The first one that comes to my mind would be the Grand Banks line of trawlers. These ships can only do 12 knots but they have an endurance of around 5000 Nautical Miles and a significant deck space. Just go to the Grand Banks website to see what one of these trawlers look like. There are hundreds of them just in the US alone. They could easily be used to support an "expedition."

I didn't want to say it but the Iranian Navy was what I was thinking of.

[rcaf_777]

Iranian Navy Boats and Navy Aircraft

[.45cultist]

Actually the Navy would probably just go into a Marina and seize speedboats and arm them and then make use of a superyacht or a small tanker to keep them fueled. Just bolt on a 50 cal and maybe a mortar and pack a few Stingers below decks. Easy almost ready made PT Boats. No torpedos though, but there another issue altogether.

Don't forget DEA, armed customs craft. The USCG would have been rolled into the navy like WWII.

[Targan]

The USCG would have been rolled into the navy like WWII.

Kind of. There's still an independent USCG in one of the Last Submarine modules, but most of their larger combat-capable ships have been taken by the Navy.

[rcaf_777]

Here are some chart in ref to the Iowa class I found them here

http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/military_service/


Good Info to life in US Navy 1980's to 1995

[swaghauler]

Here are some chart in ref to the Iowa class I found them here

http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/military_service/


Good Info to life in US Navy 1980's to 1995

Nice post. Most people don't realize that your top speed in a "displacement hull" (planning hulls are different) is a function of waterline length. There is an inverse to this advantage though; Turning Speed/Area Required for Turns. This is why the real pirates of The Caribbean used smaller ships with shoal drafts. They would "out turn" the larger Naval ships and run for the cover of any nearby shoals. The larger Naval vessels could not enter the Pirate's strongholds due to their deeper draft.

[swaghauler]

Kind of. There's still an independent USCG in one of the Last Submarine modules, but most of their larger combat-capable ships have been taken by the Navy.

As far as I know, The Coast Guard has one very important mission in the event of war that would keep it "local." It is tasked with long range patrol, convoy protection and coastal ASW in the event of war.

[.45cultist]

As far as I know, The Coast Guard has one very important mission in the event of war that would keep it "local." It is tasked with long range patrol, convoy protection and coastal ASW in the event of war.

I'd give the DEA boats to the USCG then to free up assets or utilize any "Greybeards" amongst the locals.

[swaghauler]

I'd give the DEA boats to the USCG then to free up assets or utilize any "Greybeards" amongst the locals.

DEA doesn't have any boats that the Coast Guard can use. DEA boats are "undercover" seized pleasure boats. The Coast Guard provides "military capable" boats to ALL civilian LE. Coast Guard boats are small and designed for "heavy weather." This requirement precludes taking their boats for naval operations (they don't have the "legs," and there are no civilian replacements to use). The Coast Guard's larger cruisers (augmented by the "retired " Oliver Hazard Perry class Destroyers) would already be engaged in convoy escort to "deep water" where the Navy (probably using the 10 USN Reserve Perry Class Destroyers) would then take over. The one exception would be her Icebreakers. These are often called up for Navy service. The Coast Guard was already in a "reduced strength" condition in the early 90's. You couldn't cut much more from them without endangering their mandate to provide emergency assistance to commercial shipping/fishing.