The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
They weren't just classified that way, the 5in/38cal was the best anti-aircraft weapon in its weight range in WW2. In addition to those ten twin turrets, the Iowas, however, also mounted 80 x 40mm/56cal Bofors and 49 x 20mm/70cal Oerlikon anti-aircraft cannon. Frankly, if they had put more guns on in positions where the crews would have to evacuate before firing the main guns, they could have doubled the numbers of 20mm to boot.
The newer (1949) L70 40mm Bofors fires at twice the rate of WW2 56cal gun with almost no weight increase and is still in production. The 20mm armament could be doubled out of hand by simply adapting the twin Oerlikon mounts, historically the USN started to do that, but never produced anything like enough twin mountings before the war ended.
However given the limited range and hitting power, not to mention the magazine loading, of WW2 20mm guns I don’t see any point in brining them back into production. Several other 20-25mm guns are on the market today that would work fine, such as the ZU-23. A handful of .50cal mounts can serve as ultra close range defense, like say so close that exploding shells would be dangerous to the ship its self, Harpies actually on the deck ect….
R011 wrote:
This is a solution looking for a problem. It makes almost as much sense as reactivating
USS Oregon did in 1941.
Link
Oregon ended up as an ammunition ship for the mobile base squadrons which were absolutely vital to supporting the fast carrier task force raids into the western Pacific, hardly a senseless job but it seems you can’t appreciate it.
It took six years to do all four.
Yeah because the USN wasn’t given funding to do all four at once and wasn’t in any kind of mobilization environment.
Current estimates are about two years each with each one costing nearly as much as a Burke.
Trust me, I know all about the issue in exquisite detail thanks to years of debates on warships1 concerning the feasibility of reactivation and if it made any sense at all (it sure doesn’t for a normal war), and the ‘current estimate’ you are referencing is more like 15 years old, and would involve a lot of stuff that’s not really relevant hear, such as upgrading the Tomahawk launchers to use newer versions of the missile.
All this for a ship that really does nothing that can't be done quicker and cheaper by either existing assets or, if really needed, an arsenal ship. One could likely get two or three arsenal ships for the cost of a reactivated battleship. Certainly one could crew a dozen with the personnel needed to crew one Iowa.
You could get one arsenal ship for the cost of reactivating a battleship, but it would take years to build the ship and you’re completely ignoring the fact that you then need billions of dollars worth of missiles to make arsenal ship do anything. We already have 23,000 rounds of 16in ammo. What’s more, Arsenal Ship was never a serious design and had little work done on it, so you’d have to wait months if not years before you could even start construction.
Arsenal ship is also utterly unable to defend its self or find targets; the crew of about 50 just looks after the engines, so don’t forgot to factor in the need for several escorts. The battleship meanwhile should be more then able to look after itself given its combination of a large automatic weapons battery, high speed and massive fuel capacity to sustain high speeds. If it hits one of those swimming baldricks, woe to the bladrick, though I’d imagine the bow would start leaking.
So long as this army just happens to materialize within twenty miles of where one of four ships happens to be deployed at the time. They aren't immobile, of course, but it does take time, up to a week depending on location, to get them from where they are to where they're needed. I'd rather use B-52's if I had the need to dump a few hundred unguided two-thousand pound bits of steel and HE on a target that suddenly appeared somewhere in the world..
That’s nice but B-52s also typically need about two days on the ground between sorties, and completing a single sortie can take as long as 42 hours. The whole point of artillery is providing sustained all weather support. Bombers are great but they only make raids, we can't rely on them to do everything.
No such round was used in Vietnam
Yeah, I was actually thinking of the 8in LRBA sabot shell used by heavy cruisers. It inceased range from 30,000 yards to no less then 70,000 yards. A similar in concept 13in sabot shell which could also reach about 70,000 yards was in fact test fired in the 1980s though. Accuracy is not good, but still sufficient for hitting a massed army. Firing normal ammo the 16in guns are more accurate then many sniper rifles, it’s just that they shoot to such a long range that you still had significant dispersion at the end of it all.
Mind you., no one is currently making 16 inch rounds, so putting them in production might take a bit of time. Given that there's an urgent need for 120 and 155 mm, they might be reluctant to reduce that for something that would be in much lesser demand.
Making an HE shell isn’t really hard, its is literally just a solid block of steel with a cavity bored in the bottom and some threads cut for the fuse and base plug, but your right that other ammo will be the priority. Still, dozens of barrels, barrel liners and thousands of rounds of ammo are already stockpiled.
I'm trying to imagine an eighty-year old WWII vet trying to demonstrate loading a sixteen inch gun. Getting people to train others effectively on systems they haven't seen in sixty years is simply not realistic. Even getting folks who haven't seen the systems in about fifteen is not a great idea. Back in the eighties, most of the Iowas systems were still in service on other ships - the sixteen inch guns were about the only unique items.
Figuring out how to safely load a 16in gun is just not that hard, we have ample documentation on the matter even if no one remembers. The 1989 turret explosion has been attributed to many things; but keep in mind even back when we had a whole fleet of battleships and big gun cruisers we still had turret explosions from time to time.
The real complex part of the ships are those old steam engines, but luckily enough the engines from the incomplete Illinois and Kentucky were installed in four Sacramento class replenishment ships (half plant each with two shafts). The Sacramento class meanwhile decommissioned only in 2004-2005, finding those men would be the top priority for forming a new crew.