 |
| (Fair Use) |
While the Sarge is most definitely not Batman, he might be Groot.
Yes, I occasionally talk about myself in the 3rd person, it's an affectation and don't hate me because I'm beautiful.
Yes, I am also deluded...
Anyhoo, the next post in the "Battleship" series is delayed for 24 hours because the Sarge Signal has been flashed in the Little Rhodian sky and I must respond...
Actually some close friends have invited The Missus Herself and Your Humble Scribe out for a night of fine dining. There may also be Guinness involved.
You want to draw the Sarge out of the Sarge cave? Offer me food and adult beverages, works every time.
HMS Dreadnought is nearly ready to launch which should conclude the "Battleship" series. For now, I leave you with this, Mighty Mo, that is USS Missouri (BB-63), firing her guns.
Now I'm off, that Guinness is not going to drink itself.
SLA`INTE`
ReplyDeleteHad two Guinness and fish and chips, both were lovely.
DeleteF&C with malt vinegar?
DeleteMrs. Andrew can't stand strong vinegar smells, so I don't do malt vinegar around her. So I would occasionally do F&C from Capt. D's or Long John Silvers as a quicky fix during lunch.
So, of course, the socialist paradise I live in ran both franchises out, even though they were doing okay, because dunno.
I miss malt vinegar on hot battered fish and fries.
This is New England! (Said with that whole "This is Sparta" voice as I kick a bottle of malt vinegar into a bottomless pit).
DeleteTartar sauce.
TS is good, but MV is OG!
DeleteOh dear.
DeleteWatching a battleship main gun ripple fire is a great way to start the day.
ReplyDeleteThank you.
It certainly is!
DeleteDepends on your viewing location. If the shot is going downrange, yay. If the splash is about where you're standing, not yay.
DeleteThere is that...
DeleteBattleships, Cruisers, the last of The Gun Club. The Mud Marines surely miss the days of NGF support on call. And the battleship were a great way to quietly project power. The carriers almost always have to anchor well off shore on port visits. The BB's could come right into port and be pier side. The local citizenry could not help but be totally impressed with size of those 16 inchers.
ReplyDeleteThere's something about a battleship steaming off the coast to calm the rowdier inhabitants of a troubled place.
DeleteThe loss of both the BBs and the Des Moines class of gun cruisers was a bad day for NGF. The Salems had cartridge loaded 8" guns that were capable of just hosing fire onto a location, especially if the turrets were ripple fired.
DeleteAnd then we get the Zumies... All promise, no real results. When it's cheaper to fly a bomb to the target than shoot a gun, something's wrong...
I'm still trying to get my head around what sort of scenario would require Marines going ashore in an amphibious invasion which requires NGF support.
DeleteNot seeing it. Perhaps someone would enlighten me?
NGF isn't my area of expertise.
DeleteHowever, NGF was the subject of a couple of recent posts at the blog, Navy Matters. https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/
The first post is titled, Naval Bombardment Philosophy.
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/08/naval-bombardment-philosophy.htm
And a second post titled, Naval Bombardment Philosophy Recap.
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/08/naval-bombardment-philosophy-recap.html
Both posts have well thought out comments, and the comments have a great back and forth.
(That does sound an awful lot like this blog!)
Marines on shore where they can't safely emplace artillery, like... oh... Beirut back in 1983 or an embassy within gunfire reach, or a situation like Anzio, or some place like in Caribbean, or New Guinea or any of the Pacific Islands. All of these scenarios are perfect for NGF. Sure you could lob missiles or drop bombs, but it's harder to intercept artillery shells than missiles or planes.
DeleteHaving lived in a place where NGF reigned supreme, it did focus my attention on floating artillery platforms. The USS Texas did a bang-up job on emplacements and in fire support in the Marshall islands.
And now John in Philly has opened up a whole new rabbit hole. Well, that's something to do during the weekend.
John - Navy Matters is a good place to visit, but I fear he is like many flag officers in the past, preparing for the last war. I could be wrong, I need to think on that some more.
DeleteSo Beans, precisely who are those Marines fighting? In Beirut there was no fight, only a costly terrorist attack. Who would those 16" guns be hitting? It is unlikely that there will ever be a repeat of WWII. If there is, there won't be much left afterwards.
DeleteNobody wants to spend the kind of money a BB costs to resurrect and maintain just to overawe some Third World mob. Just my thoughts, having some knowledge on the subject.
Always good to have a night out. Change of pace is welcome sometimes. Looking forward to the continuing saga of the BB....
ReplyDeleteIt was very good.
DeleteGlad you had a good time, Sarge. Can't get much better than Guinness and decent fish and chips. Did they come in newspaper, or were they a more civilised version?
ReplyDeleteCivilized, we were in a sit-down kind of restaurant. While the seaside fish and chip/clam shack holds a great deal of appeal to me as a native New Englander (greasy fried clams in a newspaper cone while sitting on a beach in Maine is a fond childhood memory), The Missus Herself has more refined tastes.
DeleteThe 16"/50 naval rifle - perhaps the finest large gun ever made.
DeleteA fine weapon indeed.
DeleteMore penetration power than the guns on the Yamato, and the only major ship-board guns capable of significantly penetrating the armor on the Bismark and the Tirpitz (Brit rifles not so much..) The 16"/50s are still the epitomy of large guns.
DeleteThe 12"/50 Mark 8 guns on the Alaska class heavy(battle) cruiser were probably the second best, though were subject to wear exceeding expectations.
The 8"/55 guns on the Des Moines class cruisers were the best of the smaller heavy guns.
There's something to be said about penetrating power. ;)
DeleteAnd just think. A blank firing of an Iowa gun is powerful enough to turn an LCS inside out... (since no one's ragged on LCSessess today..)
DeleteWhy pick on the poor, defenseless, LCS? Sal does that often enough.
DeleteI'd read that the US Navy experimented with an 18" gun.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_18-48_mk1.php
The Yamato had 18" guns, and I wondered if anyone had compared the Iowa class with the Yamato class.
This site popped up.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/baddest.htm
Interesting reading.
Some very interesting reading!
DeleteIt’s always nice to have a backup for a post so the blog doesn’t lose its continuity. [DAMHIK]
ReplyDelete😊
DeleteNice post. Everyone's already said what I would say. Glad you got food, drink and good company.
ReplyDeleteDidn't even notice juvat's ham-fisted piloting of the blog while he was in temporary command. You did leave a designated commander in command, right?
Ooh, that's gonna leave a mark!
DeleteYeah, yeah, yeah! Blah, blah, blah frickin blah! Did someone in South Central Florida speak or was it just a post-Guinness burp I heard?
DeleteFight's on!
DeleteNorth Central Florida. South Central Florida is the Everglades. You'd think Airhead would know how to read a map...
DeleteFirst blood - Beans.
Deleteker-BLOOIE!
ReplyDeleteThat's 20,000+ lbs of ordnance going downrange.....
Oh yeah!
DeleteHey drjim! Seeing as you played long and hard on an Iowa class, what's your take on their survivability in today's threat environment?
DeleteI have one word, an acronym actually, ADCAP.
DeleteAll I know for sure is that they were designed to slug it out, and survive, with a similar ship. I think one of the major differences between a true "battleship" and "battle cruisers" and "heavy cruisers" was the armor. More of it, in more places, and much thicker.
DeleteIt has torpedo "blisters" and voids between the layers of the hull to absorb a torpedo hit *TO* the hull, but no idea what would happen if she took one of the "go-boom-under-keel" type. As Sarge was saying, it'd probably break her back, with Really Bad Things happening.
And missiles that come straight down are another threat, as most of the armor was designed for a "side hit", like a shell or torp.
And if the Bad Guys nuke the battle group, everything turns to atoms.
Which I think is a concern with the carriers these days.
OTOH, they make superb Naval Gun Fire Support platforms. Just ask some of the Marines that called on them in Korea and 'Nam.....
Ah, but you anticipate tomorrow's post.
Delete😉
Out of interest have a look at this link. https://wwiiafterwwii.wordpress.com/2019/07/21/missile-attack-on-battleship-uss-missouri/ Here's a question from a non military type. How would a WW2 Battleship cope against multiple hypersonic missile strikes? There's probably a very good reason why we don't build battleships today. BTW I think the Iowa class battleships were the most attractive and purposeful warships ever built.
ReplyDeleteRetired
It's physics. Force=Mass X Acceleration. A hypersonic missile is going to deliver an awful lot of Force against that ship (any ship). That speed (acceleration) is also going to significantly reduce the ships ability to maneuver to cause a miss or destroy the incoming missile. Those factors don't bode well for survival. IMHO
DeleteThe clipper bow and the overall lines of the Iowa were just darned sexy.
DeleteAnd conventional anti-ship missiles like the Exocet types were studied as a threat when the BBs were re-re-reactivated. And were determined to be an annoyance, thus the addition of CWS systems. Hypersonic weapons were, and still are, very much a wet dream, though people are closer now than they were in the 80's.
Retired - And there goes my weekend. 😉
Deletejuvat - I think you want kinetic energy, Ek = 1/2mv^2.
DeleteBeans - The Exocet is an old missile, besides which the real threat is under the sea.
DeleteThis discussion is fun!
Always honored to participate, Sarge!
DeleteAnd I learn bunches of new stuff, and remember some of the old.
I learn much from all of you!
Delete