Pages

Monday, March 25, 2024

Battleship Accuracy

While going through old posts and comments, I came across the following comment from ‘Ray D’ [1] about battleship accuracy in a post about battleship and carrier throw weights (see, “Carrierand Battleship Throw Weights”).  He’s responding to a comment that denigrated the accuracy of a battleship’s big guns.  The comment is so interesting that it deserves a post of its own for wider dissemination since not everyone reads all the comments. 
 
Note:  I have no way to verify the accuracy of the reader’s comment but I have no reason to doubt it, either.  I have not seen either of the two referenced reports/sources.  You can assess the validity for yourself.
 
I’ve copied his comment with just a couple of minor changes for grammar and readability.
 
In the comment, the author makes the distinction between precision and accuracy.  Some readers may not be familiar with the distinction so here’s the difference.  Precision is the grouping of several shots from a gun.  The tighter the grouping, the better the precision.  However, a tight grouping (high precision) does not necessarily mean good accuracy.  Accuracy is how close to the intended target the shot is.  Precision is how tight the grouping is regardless of the accuracy.  A series of shots may have very good precision (tight grouping) but very poor accuracy (a tight group that’s way off the target).  Conversely, the accuracy could be good but the precision might be poor.
 
The statement the reader is responding to declared the following about a battleship’s accuracy.
 
"estimated accuracy of 2.7% at max range"
 
The reader’s response was the following:
 
With all respect (and I mean a lot of respect), this comes from probably the most misrepresented report about US Navy WW2 era equipment of all time and the claim ignores the myriad of patently ridiculous assumptions that the report made about the hypothetical target given exactly what naval targets existed at the time.
 
To keep it short, their assumed target was a mythical Iowa-class counterpart that was performing rapid evasive maneuvers and somehow NEVER dropped below its assumed maximum speed of 35.4 knots.
I hope it doesn't need to be explained that this was and is physically impossible!
 
Furthermore, the only Battleships in the world (ever) that were capable of performing such radical evasive maneuvers and maintaining a targeting solution of their own were American; all others would have had to either choose shooting or evading due to their lack of stable verticals; so in real terms the report itself is entirely worthless unless the US Navy was expecting to fight the US Navy.
 
Against a Yamato acting according to Japanese doctrine, ergo attempting to maximize its own gunfire efficiency, the predicted accuracy for the Americans would be closer to 8% at that range, or over three times higher.
 
That aside, in the context of shore bombardment this entire argument is disingenuous and built around an obvious categorical error: at the last I checked, most strategic military targets such as bases, ports, airfields, factories, and governmental offices do not in fact move.
 
So, instead of accuracy assumption against moving targets, it's better to speak of the raw dispersion values of the guns in question.
 
According to live combat data taken from WW2 and Korea, the Iowa-class Battleships during those periods had range errors of only 0.6% of range, or 254yds at their maximum range of 42,345yds, making them the most accurate battleships to ever be built even then. Deflection error was usually negligible in comparison, as range error is always the larger number.
 
Of course, that's just the WW2 figures. Just by the 1980s reactivations advancements made to fire control and propellants saw a ~29% decrease in dispersion, again drawn from live combat data. During firing trials, the USS Iowa produced a range error of 0.3% of range (or ~127yds at maximum).
 
To put this in context, the blast effect of the Mk14 HC shell was significant enough that it was reported to incapacitate infantry within 500yds, defoliate trees within 300yds, kill exposed infantry within 250yds, level trees and light structures within 200yds (also destroy most aircraft), and even destroy MBTs within 100yds. This is roughly comparable to a WW2 era 2000lb bomb (or a modern 1000lb bomb).
 
Or, in other words, the USS Iowa during the mid-1980s had a greater than 50% chance of destroying a tank at 42,345 yards with a single shell; or if it fired all 9 guns at the same target, greater than a 99.987003826% chance.
 
By all measures that was absolutely excellent accuracy, even if the guns were not as precise as one may desire.  That's just with 1980s technology.  Today, since you already would have to make all new guns and the ships to carry them, you could utilize developments such as Polygonal Rifling and ETC cannons to not only further increase the accuracy of the guns, but decrease time of flight or drastically increase the effective range of the guns well beyond 50 nmi without sacrificing payload; and that's without using science-fiction technology such as rail guns. Of course, it goes without saying that guided 16in shells would be essentially child's play to develop as well, considering they did it with the 8in MCLWG program to great success in the '80s.
 
But I digress, my point was that the Iowa's guns in their final configurations were accurate enough for all targets they were within range of. They were imprecise, yes, but VERY accurate.

 
I have nothing to add to this other than it further illustrates the amazing capabilities of the US battleship.
 
 
_____________________________

54 comments:

  1. Interesting post.
    Wasn’t aware of or familiar with a Mark 24 HC shell in 16” caliber for the Iowas.
    Thought this designation applied to the old 8”/55 shell that the Treaty Class cruisers used (like the Houston), and the Lexingtons.
    I’m probably wrong though.
    Bit skeptical about killing an MBT at 100 yard radius - these shells buried themselves maybe 50’ in the ground before exploding so scary as you know what, and made a helluva crater but not really designed for effective shore bombardment.
    If you were lucky you might kill the tank crew thru blast effect, but unlikely imo to penetrate the armor of a German tank with a relatively low velocity shell fragment.
    Nevertheless an interesting comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Wasn’t aware of or familiar with a Mark 24 HC shell in 16” caliber for the Iowas."

      Where did you see that? The post mentions a Mk14. There was a Mk24 battleship shell but it was a practice shell for the Mk23 nuclear shell.

      Delete
    2. A 16" shell with air burst capability would be a hell of a thing to watch a video of.

      Delete
    3. "...with air burst capability..."

      That wouldn't be too tough at all, either. The WWII era proximity fuses from the 5in could probably be made to work- no multibillion dollar R&D needed!! Just a couple guys in a shop with some examples on hand for a week...!!!
      (and yeah, I think those would be brutal!!!)

      Delete
    4. Yeah - the Brits had an airburst 15” shell that they used in their Gallipoli campaign in 1915. Just a clockwork fuze but very effective if they got the timings right. They loaded up the bursting charge with 90lbs of Lyddite and about 1,000 1 oz iron spheres ( like a gigantic shrapnel shell). On one occasion they got everything perfect and wiped out an entire Turkish battalion with a single round.

      Delete
    5. Had never heard that. Thats nasty!! Its perfect...

      Delete
    6. Yeah they tried to use them in Singapore but all the balls had rusted up into a big lump. Not so effective.

      Delete
    7. The Japanese had the Sanshiki AA rounds for their battleships. They were used to great effect in a shore bombardment mission on Henderson Field.

      Delete
  2. "Deflection error was usually negligible in comparison, as range error is always the larger number."

    Surprised by this comment as a rifle target shooter the ever changing wind makes deflection the cause of large groups on target, assuming the high weight of the 16" shell nullifies the effect of the wind more than I would have thought.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Atmospherics are the biggest cause of dispersion with land-based tube artillery, yes. The 155mm/152mm (6 inch) guns used basically tap out at 24 miles/40 kilometers effective range for unguided rounds because of the wind. That's why the long barrels the Europeans favor for their guns aren't really the gamechanger they claim - past 40km, the dispersion/CEP of unguided rounds becomes too random and unpredictable. It's why beyond that range, the doctrinal Army solutions for long ranged fires are MLRS/HIMARS firing guided rockets and ATACMS tactical ballistic missiles (and the Air Force solution is strike packages).

      16" could probably mitigate it to some extent, but for best results the shell would need to be guided. Fortunately, a 16" shell weighing one ton has a lot of volume and weight that can be put towards guidance packages - it's a lot less of a compromise than in a 155 shell.

      Delete
    2. "Fortunately, a 16" shell weighing one ton has a lot of volume and weight that can be put towards guidance packages"

      At the expense of explosive effects. We just recently covered this in a post. It is the thick shell that makes the battleship shells so devastating. If you start reducing the shell wall thickness to gain volume, you sacrifice explosive effects.

      "the dispersion/CEP of unguided rounds becomes too random and unpredictable."

      True IF THE TARGET IS A POINT TARGET. However, the value of battleship gunfire is the area effect and accuracy is not that important in area bombardment. This illustrates the importance of:

      1. clearly understanding the intended use of the weapon and,
      2. steadfastly resisting the temptation to make every weapon a do-everything weapon.

      We want to make the battleship gun a very long range, precision, guided weapon instead of just accepting that it's ideal for its intended use as a short range (<20 mi), area bombardment weapon with occasional usefulness against point targets within range.

      Delete
    3. "area effect and accuracy is not that important in area bombardment."

      I disagree, in the context of using unguided rounds to conduct an area target fire mission on a grid square. The manuals are very dry and boring reading, but the tl;dr is that up to 40km we know the circular error probable of unguided rounds, and we therefore have pre-calculated pre-planned patterns that we can use to lay down an area bombardment on a grid square (which is 3 acres in area), in order to ensure that we are servicing that grid square and putting rounds where the enemy may be. This allows us to be effective and efficient and allows us to manage our ammo load, which is crucial for self propelled guns on the land: the shot locker of an M107 holds only 28 rounds. We don't have the luxury of a battleship's large magazine! Furthermore, we expect to always be in range of enemy guns, so we have to fire and move ASAP, which puts a premium on keeping our fire missions as short as possible. Shoot, relocate, shoot, relocate, that's our life.

      Outside that 40km range, that dispersion is random and no longer predictable, which means that our pattern is off, the rounds will go where we don't want them to go, and we will see gaps in the grid square that are untouched by our rounds - which means that we have failed in executing that fire mission, and we were not effective.

      I mentioned GMLRS: note that it isn't intended to be a point target weapon (although it could be used as such), it's an area bombardment weapon: it fires rockets that deploy submunitions that cover an entire grid square. It's nicknamed the Grid Square Removal Device for a reason: it's a longer range area bombardment weapon, a more sophisticated counterpart to the Russian Grad and Katyusha systems.

      Now, admittedly, the battleship's advantage is that it is always in motion, and it has a significantly larger magazine, which goes a long way in mitigating the vulnerabilities a tracked SPG has. But I believe the physics and operational issues still apply.

      "If you start reducing the shell wall thickness to gain volume, you sacrifice explosive effects."

      I should point out that it is not necessarily true that much volume would be needed for this. The Precision Guidance Kit for the 155 shells is essentially a screw on kit that replaces the standard screw on impact fuse. Total length of the system is 6 inches (standard fuse length is 3 inches). A guidance fuse kit could easily be made to fit into the existing nosecap dimensions of the old HE-CVT Mark 143 shell, giving guidance capability without sacrificing explosive effect.

      Delete
    4. I want to add that given the large size of 16" shells, they give us plenty of space to use as cargo rounds. Imagine how many DPICM submunitions we could fit in there! We know the IJN used the AA sanshikidan rounds as improvised shore bombardment rounds to devastating effect; just imagine the kind of devastation a modern 16" HE-frag round could impart!

      it's been 80 years. We've done plenty of interesting work with 6" guns on the land, there's a lot of things we could apply to 16" guns beyond just AP and HE...

      Delete
    5. "I disagree"

      You didn't, actually. The discussion is battleship gun accuracy and you didn't disagree. You discussed land artillery which is a separate topic. You also then acknowledged that the very points you brought up largely don't apply to battleships (movement, magazine size). Even the pattern you talk about kind of doesn't apply to battleships as their effect area is enormous! Sure, if the dispersion results in separation of miles between shots, that would be a problem. However, dispersion of hundred or couple hundred yards is not a problem. Also, battleship guns are not used for systematic grid removal. They're used for general area bombardment at relatively close ranges and, as the quoted material demonstrates, the accuracy is more than sufficient.

      Delete
    6. They could probably engineer some some most excellent Effect Rounds......unfortunately the Lockheed Martin consortium would probably charge 18 million (fiat) dollars per round.

      Delete
    7. "the accuracy is more than sufficient."

      You're actually agreeing with me here!

      Naval guns are using the exact same principles: we're firing rounds at the ranges where dispersion is known and predictable within an acceptable margin of error, and the rounds are landing with acceptable accuracy.

      My point is that even with unguided rounds on bombardment missions, we are using some measure of accuracy because we want to be efficient and effective. This whole main post is a defense of battleship accuraccy! That pressure is intensified for guns on the land, but it's still present in naval gunfire - but in this case I'd argue the pressure is less on magazine depth and counterbattery worries, and more with optempo: we are clearing the way for our troops to move up and take and hold ground.

      Delete
    8. To basically sum up what I'm trying to say: with 6" guns and 16" guns firing area bombardment missions, rounds are going to be delivered in a pattern intended to cover the target zone. It's just a matter of scale. 16" guns have service a larger target zone because of the scale of the guns, but the principle is the same thing.

      We use elevation and windage when shooting long range with a .308 rifle; we use elevation and windage when we're shooting 16" rifles.

      Delete
  3. The accuracy as described is the end effect of the Fire Control system plus the accuracy of the guns themselves. The USN had the best Fire Control systems of WW II, both surface and AAW. Add that to excellent guns and the results are as noted. As to wind: True winds (and many other things) were a component of the fire control solution delivered by the computer that actually aimed the guns .
    /Captain Mongo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "True winds (and many other things) were a component of the fire control solution"

      Of course, wind can only be measured at the firing platform. Wind speed twenty miles down range (and along the way) cannot be measured. It is factored in by corrections based on the spotting of the rounds.

      Delete
    2. Quite right. I didn't mention Corlois Effect either.

      Delete
    3. My point in mentioning downrange wind was not to criticize your comment but to point out that, while we like to believe that our fire control systems are computerized masterpieces of technology that can drop a shell within a millimeter of the target, the reality is that we cannot, barring dumb luck. While we measure and attempt to include some of the major factors affecting accuracy, we can only actually measure a very few of them. Our fire control solution is merely a crude approximation and accuracy comes from the subsequent spotting corrections. Obviously, the shorter the range and the faster the shell, the less impact many of the factors have. A rifle, for example, fired at a target fifty yards away, is not greatly affected by too many factors and the accuracy can be quite good even without computer fire control.

      Delete
    4. Indeed. Thanks also for correcting my fat fingering on Coriolis. /Captain Mongo

      Delete
    5. The solution to our poor fire control calculations is a combination of:

      - wide area of effect; a 16" shell, for example, has a much bigger margin for error than a bullet.

      - high volume of fire; if the accuracy is suspect, blanketing the target area compensates for the lack of individual round accuracy; this, of course, demands that we have cheap munitions that we can buy in large quantities

      - spotting; compensate for the inherent fire control failings by empirical corrections; not always practical or possible to do but highly effective when it can be done

      Guidance, of course, is the route the US military has opted for to compensate for fire control failings but that has led to very expensive munitions that cannot be purchased in sufficient quantities. This is a limited usefulness solution because once the exquisite guided munitions are expended in the first weeks of the war, you have no weapons left to fight the rest of the war. We're seeing exactly this situation playing out in our supply of Ukraine. We don't have enough weapons to fully support their war and we're unable to procure sufficient replacement quantities in any useful time frame. Our emphasis on brilliant weapons is a mistaken path.

      Delete
  4. Curious. over the years, many commenters have argued that we should be able to get further range out of modern 16". but CNO disagree and insist that 24 miles historical range is sufficient. Was this commenert the straw that broke the camel's back?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Was this commenert the straw that broke the camel's back?"

      Not sure what you mean. My view hasn't changed and this post/quote simply reinforces that view.

      Any comment along the lines of extending the range of battleship guns is proof that the commenter is not grasping two key concepts:

      1. The intended use of the battleship gun is for area bombardment. In that role, accuracy is not that important (that's why it's called AREA bombardment!).

      2. Failing to recognize the omnipresent US/Western temptation to make every weapon a do-everything weapon. The battleship's range is fine for its purpose. We have LOTS of other long range firepower options. There's no tactical need (and LOTS of cost) to trying to extend the battleship gun range.

      We want to make the battleship gun a very long range, precision, guided weapon instead of just accepting that it's ideal for its intended use as a short range (<20 mi), area bombardment weapon with occasional usefulness against point targets within range.

      Delete
    2. The commenter you reposted is arguing that battleship guns be able to engage in excess of 50 miles, utilising guided shells.

      Delete
    3. "...is arguing that battleship guns be able to engage in excess of 50 miles..."

      Not at all- it was merely mentioned that a modern guided variant was possible. Seems that his point was purely praise for the Iowas accuracy...
      And Id agree with CNO here. Some of the battleships/any major caliber naval guns biggest advantages are the ability to put massive amounts of ordanance where needed, low munition cost, the ability to cease/resume fire in seconds or minutes, and the ability to maintain station for relatively long periods. Exponentially increasing the cost of the shells, and reducing their explosive load diminishes the advantages that simplicity gives them in the first place.

      Delete
    4. "commenter you reposted is arguing that battleship guns be able to engage in excess of 50 miles"

      Not quite. He's saying that better accuracy and/or greater range is possible with more modern technology. He's not actually calling for that. Possible does not necessarily equal desirable.

      Delete
  5. We rightfully worry about Chinese capabilities and the question elicits much interesting discussion.....But I wonder if our present selves could even beat out WW2 selves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I wonder if our present selves could even beat out WW2 selves."

      If you mean in a single battle, it would depend on the circumstances ... which is a disappointing state of affairs that we could even contemplate losing such a battle to our 80 year old selves.

      If you mean a protracted war, we'd lose for sure. War is about industrial might and logistics and The Arsenal of Democracy would wipe out the Arsenal of Shortages.

      Delete
    2. Disappointing indeed. Arsenal of Powerpoint presentations...

      Delete
  6. Is there a modern strategy to make use of this sort of area bombardment? As I see it, most modern navy missions are designed to *minimize* collateral damage, not level an island like Iwo Jima. And if we did see that kind of warfare again, it would pretty quickly turn nuclear, which does the job much better than a battleship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " it would pretty quickly turn nuclear,"

      Really? Why is that? With all the MAD capabilities of various countries, why would any country 'pretty quickly' turn to nuclear weapons?

      I have yet to hear any of the doomsayers explain exactly how and why a war would instantly turn nuclear. They just seem to have irrational fears.

      Delete
    2. Not "instantly," and there's a lot of uncertainty about how exactly both sides act, but there is a ladder of escalation. You're talking about about the mass area bombardment of an enemy naval base or "government buildings" aka its capital city. How many thousands or *millions* of people would that kill? I can't imagine China or any other nuclear state just sitting there passively while battleships devastate their port cities, and doesn't respond with their ultimate trump card. (which might not be a full strike, they might just fire one or two nukes as a warning)

      Delete
    3. "I can't imagine China or any other nuclear state just sitting there passively while battleships devastate their port cities, and doesn't respond with their ultimate trump card."

      Really? Because I can. China is a dictatorship and dictators all have one common characteristic. They're in it for their own benefit and that doesn't include getting themselves nuked which is exactly what would happen if they initiated a nuclear war. The entire world would turn on them with a vengeance. We've seen what dictators do when faced with defeat - the grab their wealth and run.

      Think about it. What would a dictator 'win' in a nuclear war? Even if successful, they'd own an uninhabitable, dead country. Where's the personal benefit in that? Better to run and live to enjoy their wealth.

      "they might just fire one or two nukes as a warning)"

      There's no such thing as a nuclear warning shot. One use will trigger retaliation. No US president could survive allowing an enemy 'one or two nukes as a warning' against us without retaliating in kind.

      You need to think the whole nuclear scenario through without the irrational fear filter.

      Delete
    4. "What would a dictator 'win' in a nuclear war?"

      I would be careful assuming Dictators are rationale. They often are in varying stages of being isolated, delusional, paranoid, and sociopathic. Not to mention having sycophants agreeing and/or feeding into the delusional views.

      What did Hitler do as Germany was invaded? Issued orders to destroy Germany and German Culture. Stalin and Mao both had their irrational moments and actions (Purges and backyard iron smelting as just 2 examples).

      Delete
    5. "No US president could survive allowing an enemy 'one or two nukes as a warning' against us without retaliating in kind."

      I agree with the rest of your analysis, but are you so sure about this, CNOPS?
      Suppose there's a war and China ends up nuking a carrier (as opposed to, say, US cities), would Biden or any other president risk nuclear annihilation over one flattop?

      Delete
    6. "I would be careful assuming Dictators are rationale. "

      I would never assume a dictator is rational. Quite the opposite! What I do assume is that a dictator, like any animal, has a well developed sense of survival. They'll do anything to ensure their own safety and that includes not initiating a nuclear war that will guarantee their own death.

      "Issued orders to destroy Germany and German Culture. Stalin and Mao both had their irrational moments and actions"

      But not involving their own, assured deaths! Yes, Hitler eventually took his own life, at the very end but that was knowing that he was going to be killed anyway.

      Delete
    7. "would Biden or any other president risk nuclear annihilation over one flattop?"

      Would they risk certain political annihilation by not responding?

      Biden is another story. He's suffering from advanced senility but the person/people running him will respond.

      Delete
    8. "Would they risk certain political annihilation by not responding?"

      If the alternative is death, why not?
      Politicians and their handlers (whether democratically elected or not) tend to be very rich and live comfortable lives even when out of office, after all.

      And I'm not so sure that the general electorate would have that much appetite for unleashing Armageddon over a carrier, nowadays.

      Delete
    9. "If the alternative is death, why not?"

      Okay, so logically, you'd be just fine with the US nuking a Chinese carrier group because you're certain that China wouldn't respond with nuclear weapons? That's exactly what you're arguing for.

      Your position is that the first user of nuclear weapons gets a free pass because the other side won't respond.

      Delete
    10. "If the alternative is death, why not?"

      Whoever the president is, half the people would not have voted for him. That's just the simple fact of our current political climate. So, half the people would be looking for any excuse to get rid of him and you think a president would be able to ignore nuclear attacks on us and survive politically? I don't think that's a position anchored in reality.

      Delete
    11. "Okay, so logically, you'd be just fine with the US nuking a Chinese carrier group because you're certain that China wouldn't respond with nuclear weapons? That's exactly what you're arguing for."

      I don't see any use of nuclear weapons as prudent but yes, the same logic would apply: would Xi and his lackeys choose to end their very comfortable lives over a warship or two?
      I think we might end up in a situation where striking a country's mainland is still taboo but, say, open sea fleets are fair game.

      Delete
    12. How about Guam? Or Hawaii? Northern Marianas? Wake?
      Alaska? Anything but mainland US?

      Delete
    13. Hawaii and Alaska are US states, no discussion whatsoever there.
      For the others, I'd still say no but it's trickier: yes, Guam (as an example) is American soil, but is a far-flung naval base worth triggering nuclear escalation, people will say?

      I'd genuinely like to see a good poll on this.

      Delete
    14. So you'd allow China to nuke our Navy, Guam, Puerto Rico, and every other US territory without responding in kind???? Wow. That's stunningly disappointing.

      Delete
    15. "So you'd allow China to nuke our Navy, Guam, Puerto Rico..."

      I certainly wouldn't. Im weird that way. I place a value on American life a hundred, a thousand times more than anyone elses. Arrogant or nationalistic? Maybe. But id expect other countries to feel the same way. So I imagine it MIGHT be better that Im not President, because Id BAN the word proportional. My conventional military use would be sparse, well thought out and calculated, but itd never be proportional!! And from my veiw, use of nukes cant be ignored because of what the target is. If anyplace, or thing, that flies the stars n stripes gets vaporized, well, its on. "Just a carrier", or "just one island" doesnt work for me. While the idea of letting the nuclear genie out at any level is terrifying, a limited exchange, a tit for tat, is possible. Showing that youre willing to respond in kind, to me, can likely prevent further escalation. And maybe not. But short of absolutely insane players in the game, an exchange that stops at 2 or so weapons used and doesn't escalate into full exchanges, is still a choice id expect even the majority of bad guys to make....

      Delete
    16. "So you'd allow China to nuke our Navy, Guam [...]"
      Do not misunderstand, I would not do that.
      What I'm saying is, are we so sure that any nuke usage will be met with an escalation by whoever would be in charge of the decision?
      Is America (or China) going to say, "Alright, they nuked some our ships so mutual annihilation is it?"

      Most people assume that any nuke usage would result in Full Atomic Destruction, but the more I think about it, the least I think we should be taking it for granted.

      And no, it's not a good thing. But that's another story.

      Delete
    17. The citizens of US territories ARE US citizens and, with minor exceptions, enjoy our rights, privileges, and PROTECTIONS. You would allow US citizens to be nuked without responding in kind???? That's monstrous.

      Delete
  7. Area bombardment 155mm round from elbit systems (M454).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G18Rwoa7c1k
    https://elbitsystems.com/product/m454/

    A 16 inch version would shred soft targets on such a scale that defenders would need to devote significant resources to hardening the infrastructure within the range of the naval guns or risk complete destruction.
    Shaping the battlefield to your advantage requires force or subterfuge. You must force your enemies to act against their interests and the fear of death is a prime motivator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There is a great interview on YouTube of one of the skippers of the USS Iowa during the 80s and he discusses 16" gun accuracy and the use of targeting drones during his time. I think you'll enjoy it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEGrj1Vg19U

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Or, in other words, the USS Iowa during the mid-1980s had a greater than 50% chance of destroying a tank at 42,345 yards with a single shell; or if it fired all 9 guns at the same target, greater than a 99.987003826% chance."

    Why is this notable? Given the plethora of land-based rocket artillery and anti-ship missiles, who in their right mind would park a battleship 24 miles offshore? That doesn't make sense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As demonstrated in WWII and documented in these pages, we did exactly that many times and to great effect. A battleship is almost immune to artillery and land based missiles. You seem to be ignoring the benefits of a battleship's firepower. There is every reason to operate a battleship in close under the right circumstances. You also seem to be ignoring a battleship's escorts and supporting forces and seem to think a battleship would fight an entire enemy force by itself. In reality, a battleship would have Aegis protection, counterbattery fire, air support hunting enemy artillery and missiles, land forces fighting enemy artillery and missiles, and so on.

      You need to study military operations and tactics.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.