Speaking of guns...here's the USS Wisconsin (BB-64) getting lighter...
Printable View
Speaking of guns...here's the USS Wisconsin (BB-64) getting lighter...
Took a sec to notice the shell in flight. The power is just awe inspiring.
Jim, this is an awesome example of what we in the Navy referred to simply as the "Big Guns" or cannons; no one thought of these as "rifles." To hear a salvo from a battleship with 16" guns is one of the most awesome sounds imaginable. In the photo above, just look at the water below the barrels from the shock wave. If you were anywhere near the guns on deck you'd have your eardrums shattered and your skin blown off. Range was 20 miles (over 30 km) from a 66 foot long barrel. Each turret of three guns weighed over 40 tons -- about the weight of TWO WWII destroyers (referred to as "tin cans.") The shells weighed as much as a small car filled with explosives.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
I'd be curious to know what the math comes out to, total weight of one full salvo with all consumables...consumed.
I've heard it jokingly referred to as "shipping Volkswagens," referring to the shell's weight. Wiskey lives near me now. A little known factoid about her is that while operating off the Virginia Capes on May 6, 1956, she collided with DDE-510 Eaton and her bow was badly mangled. She was dry-docked at Norfolk Naval Shipyard (possibly dry dock No.4) and it was determined that the best solution was to transport by barge the entire bow sub-assembly of USS Kentucky, BB-66, which was on the ways at Newport News Shipbuilding, across the Elizabeth river and graft it onto Wisconsin. BB-66 was never completed but her bow lives on with the USS Wisconsin, BB-64, now a museum ship.* I love history.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
Attachment 63595
Bob
* Eaton was nearly cut in half and her keel was severed. The actions of the first LT in tying the bow and stern together with her anchor chain and closing all water-tight doors saved her to be returned to action. The accident was blamed on negligence in the Eaton's Captain and he was relieved. Eaton had a long history or contact with other ships: a surfacing submarine, DD-839 Power, and finally the Wisconsin.
Now that's a "Big Gun". Makes my beloved M110 8" howitzer look like a popgun.
Jerry Liles
I was watching the Military History Channel on a program about bullets. It showed the USMC armorers preparing handloads for the USMC rifle teams. Each rifle had it's particular handload and the boxes were numbered on the label as GUN number 123456. I thought that the USMC never used the term Gun when referring to rifles.
This comment may be controversial to purists, but having been through 6 weeks of Marine book camp in Corpus Christi Texas and Little Creek Virginia as part of Naval Officer Training, I cannot recall the legalistic, politically correct distinctions about nomenclature others have stated. I seem to recall the term "gun" used generically over and over again in the Marine Corps and in the Navy. Everyone knew exactly what was called for when the drill sergeant barked: "clean your guns," or "strip your weapon."Quote:
Originally Posted by Cosine26
To go a step further, regarding the term "clip" in relation to the "magazine" of a 1911 Colt: My father referred to it as a "clip," my gunnery chief referred to it as a "clip," and no one got confused. One reason: on board a ship the "magazine" is the chamber that holds ammunition, not the device that feeds the ammunition. Thus, for a 1911, the "chamber" that holds ammunition is the pistol grip, and the "clip" was the device that feeds the ammunition. I watched several 1940's war movies on TCM in the last month and several times the device that held the cartridges of the 1911 was referred to as a "clip." Now, before someone goes ballistic about sacrilegious terminology, I pulled out my father's 1940 edition of the Blue Jacket's Manual, which is the bible of naval procedure. Lo and behold, all the technical verbage in the Blue Jacket's Manual refers to the "magazine" as the device that holds the .45ACP cartridge.
In a way the distinctions are like my crusty gunnery chief, Jerry Russell, used to quip: "It's like sex among water buffalo; nobody gives a **** except the water buffalo."
My father, who was a WWII veteran (army), always called all rifles "pieces", as in "pieces of ordnance". He also called all pistols and shotguns "pieces of ****"! He was a medical officer who was given some very through small arms training (post V-E Day) as preparation for Operation Olympic. Everything was "Garand-Garand-Garand"! Even the little M-1 carbine was looked upon with contempt.
Easy enough to figure out . The HE round was 1,900 lbs each times 9 = 17,100 . Add 6 x 110 lb bags of powder ( 660 lbs ) per gun = 5,940 lbs . Total would be 23,040 lbs.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
The AP rounds are 2,700 lbs each times 9 = 24,300 lbs . Add in the 5,940 lbs of powder again and you get 30,240 lbs .
Of course you'd have to add in the weight of the 9 30-06 blanks that set them on their way , too , but I don't have the specs on those .
I also don't have the weight of the silk bags themselves or if the 110 lbs includes the bag .
Note , too , that there was a 305 lb reduced power powder loading and a 325 lb flashless powder loading that could also be used ( each still used the six silk bags per bang ) .
Chris