>almost no battleship gun had more than a 300 shot barrel life
how much gunnery practice could a battleship realistically do on average during peace time then? it seems like it would get very costly very fast since replacing a gun would require a considerable amount of dockside work
>300 shots per barrel
>9 barrels
>2700 shots before barrel change was needed
that's not too bad compared to some of the other moron-high costs of maintaining battleships
>what is a reduced charge shot?
A shot that will go much shorter distance than a real one, making it much less useful for gunnery practice. I guess you could use them to train on what everyone does to fire the gun, but you'd never learn to aim that way.
>what is ballistic matching
What is ballistic matching
They match a smaller bullet to the live shell's trajectory and use that for training and spotting.
The Carl Gustav iirc uses a .50 cal round for training purposes.
2:00
How the frick does that work?
you calculate the amount of powder you need to get a smaller, cheaper projectile to match the trajectory of a fat full-size projectile
Doesn't the projectile need to fit in the barrel?
There is a coaxial barrel for the spotting rifle
For the CG there is a short 9mm barrel built into the training round.
Think of it like those chamber adapters that let you shoot .22lr or pistol caliber rounds out of shotgun.
you find a bullet and powder load combination that matches the trajectory of the live round. you then zero it to the sights of the weapon.
it was quite common as a battlefield sight before fire computers, or for crew-served weapons. here for example is an M50 Ontos. on top of the recoilless rifles is its ballistically-matched spotting rifle, circled in red.
you can see the one beneath it doesn't have the spotting rifle installed, the mount is empty. they often left it off because all the weapons on one side of the Ontos are close enough together that it probably wouldn't matter, so the Ontos just had two spotting rifles, left and right, or even just one.
The Centurion was notable for having a .50 as a ranging round
turns out projectile mass and charge payloads scale ballistically linear
How did you think RPG crews train Anon?
CG uses 7.62 for training purposes, at least we did. However, only relevant for direct fire rounds - can't really practice shrapnel that way, so we used the real stuff. One failed to detonate & we then formed a line to look for it, before we could call the EOD boys.
Dumbass. The fire control did not need practice, the sailors from magazine to breech did.
>but you'd never learn to aim that way.
how does shooting shorter make it not worthwhile marksmanship training?
There is no difference between using one firing table to fire a shell to a target and using a different firing table to fire a shell at a different target. every last step is the same, every ballistic calculation and judgment is the same.
>firing tables
>battleship
You turn a knob on the fire control computer to put the thing on the thing. People really underestimate how advanced these systems were.
it took like, 8 people just to input all the data, not to mention aim all the rangefinders, track splashes on radar, estimate target ship motion, etc. you underestimate the skill involved.
the entire FCS system took about 8 people to run
its equivalent on the yamato needed 8 people just to use the rangefinder
it was definitely a lot faster and less labor intensive
?t=79
Black person the charge is a dial in the fire control system
>practice shots don't count!
See if you can find some kind of data on mid-late WW1 Royal navy practice schedules or how many rounds of training Admiral Willis Lee could wring out of command for his ship's sake. That's probably the upper limit. Whereas in other places and times peacetime gunnery practice basically just didn't happen.
Each shot was $50,000-100,000 iirc
>ignoring the barrel wear/gun cost.
How can a dumb shell cost 50,000?
Do you really think that well over 2000lbs of specially made steel and 100lbs of explosives is cheap?
yes, he does. he also thinks that naval guns were cheap as well, and probably that we should go back to them because of this and add composite armor as well. and he probably thinks that the weight of the projectile was also the weight of the warhead.
>t. too many battleship threads since the 2000s.
This, these absolute resource hungry behemoths would cost a frick ton in the modern world where we no longer have union free dock labor to construct them in the first place, let alone import thousands of tons of crap chink steal and the accompanying bureaucratic shitfest to even get the building to code
From the 1980s to the early 2000s the US steel and heavy industry has almost completely collapsed (and to the point that it cannot be recovered now, as generational expertise is dying out). If the US recovered even a fraction of its peak steel industry one of these guns would cost less than an abrams to build (full hydraulic system and chasis and everything), and you could buy between 15 and 40 shells with powder charges and everything for one (1) tomahawk cruise missile. Fire control and guidance systems are even cheaper now.
>peak steel industry
Recover an obsolete industry? modern steel mills are completely different and require different skillsets.
The US builds its modern ships with chink and imported steel. Steel is relevant to total industry capability. It has been since before ww1 (when the UK and German Empire were the peak producers).
>the same steelchink as usual
how boring, get new material, you don't even understand the shit you parrot
No idea who you are talking about, but the US collapse of heavy industry is a real phenomena, especially when it comes to large constructs and forges. A third of all US imported steel and iron products comes from china alone, and iron and steel from canada and especially brazil (60%) came from china. It gets sent to third party countries and then gets imported to the US and is labeled as having origin in the 3rd party country when in fact they got it from china. The same thing is happening in other US metal industries (aluminum for example). And most of the surviving mills and companies are foreign owned as well.
>doubling down
Zero refutation of the facts. The US is not a heavy industry giant and hasn't been for a long time. We can't even restart production that we had in 2000 now without it costing 5x as much because we gave away that capability to have a paper weight economy.
this really is just embarrassing, you should go back to making peak oil threads
I worked in one of the last primary production metal industries in the US. You two are delusional. The US heavy industry is literally a rotted out carcass at this point. You don't even want to look at crucial metals like copper and aluminum and rare earths.
>thinking that what's holding back shipbuilding is not being able to get enough steel
A collapse of industry is not simply a collapse of metals and resources available, it's the collapse of the hard assets, labor expertise, and equipment (mills, forges, domestic mining conglomerates etc) all in one. US industry in most primary metals is already fricked, they cannot be recovered competitively now, even south american countries out produce the US now in many areas in primary production. The reason for US industry downfall was stopping in the first place, at which point the cost to restart production again exponentially increase as the years go by and it becomes incompetitive to restart them in a hurry (or even long term) because of the production lag, meaning now most things are imported because no one wants to spend money on a wasteful enterprise anymore even if it is in the strategic interests of the country.
>still thinking it's a lack of metals
It's not, if you stop being a moron and read my posts you will see, it is a multifaceted industry wide collapse that can no longer be recovered at this point without a huge government bailout and 5-10 years of lead time at a deficit.
>still doesn't get it
>thinks he's refuting anything by deflcting and posting logical fallacies
It's not US labor cost. You could increase wages even and as long as you increased production (and not scaled it back) and the cost effectiveness and competitiveness would remain the same.
I'm not here to educate you where you're wrong, I'm here to laugh at you for going off on something completely irrelevant to what you're trying to argue.
You have not once indicated where I am wrong, and not once have you been able to refute anything I have said. Everything I have said comes from inside knowledge in this area specifically as I have actually worked on the ground in US heavy industry. The US heavy industry is fricked right now from a strategic production and cost standpoint from decades of decline and collapse, and it is not going to get better. Just like every dollar you spend will continue to lose value for each purchase so long as production continues to be outpaced by spending.
>You have not once indicated where I am wrong
That's what's so funny, it's so fricking obvious and you don't get it. You actually think that the problem with shipbuilding is not having enough steel. You're an absolute fricking clown. You even pretend to not be the same gay that spammed steel production despite posting the exact same shit. Your pathetic attempts at going "d-debate me!!" makes it even funnier.
I'm not talking about just ship building moron. Total US heavy industry, of which shipbuilding apart of (and it too is fricked). Right now if the US got caught in a situation in which it could no longer rely on industrial imports, nightmare wouldn't even begin to describe it. It will be like the pandemic economy at its worst point again but for 2-4 years straight or until imports resumed again. That's what deindustrialized countries become, paper weights, manufacturing doesn't mean anything if you are not the primary producer of the raw and specialized materials you use in your manufacturing process. And as I said I have no idea who the frick you are talking about. You must be severely delusional if you think just one person thinks (knows) the same stuff I am saying. Ask anyone that's been in the industry for 15+ years.
you're not listening to what the other anon is saying
put this another way
a cheap ar-15 costs about $500
but why? the actual material itself, about 6-7 pounds of aluminum and steel, costs maybe less than $10
the other $490 comes from everything else that's needed to make the gun
things like sales tax, marketing, designing the gun, rent to run the factory, electricity bills, management overhead, the actual labor costs since modern machinists want to be paid $30/h and have good health insurance, etc.
the same thing applies to battleships and battleship guns
as such, the majority of the cost of the battleship has nothing to do with the actual raw material cost of the battleship
Now compare the cost of something simply like an AR to something complex and materially expensive like a manpads or small ATGM, the actual explosive component on most manpads is less than the material weight of an AR and exponentially more expensive. Complexity and production availability increases cost significantly more than material and labor. Most of our chips are still made in asia. The actual cost of producing a big gun in a country that still has heavy forges and mills and huge primary production is less than what it would take the US to build and abrams in current day.
I don't understand the point you're trying to make
an AR-15 is already about as simple as you can get, and significantly simpler than a battleship gun
if an AR has a ratio of about 1:50, being about $10 in materials to $500 for the final product and can be built by a determined man in his garage, then there's no way you're going to get less than that with a battleship gun
A battleship gun (individual or otherwise) is not significantly more complex than something like an abrams tank, in fact the abrams would have higher complexity in specific areas of manufacture and would also have higher material cost in specific components. Giant artillery is about as simple as you can get for large military hardware in military logistics. As I've said, even right now, with import based US industry, you could produce 16" shells for significantly cheaper than you could produce tomahawks.
>you could produce tomahawks.
Compare the Tomahawks with the turret (guns, autoloader) + shells + FCS + crew + a platform big enough
GM are far cheaper and effective.
They are not. If you had the industry capability, it would be cheaper to produce 10 big guns and thousands of rounds of ammo than it would to produce an equivalent amount of tomahawk ammo alone.
In artillery technology and ballistics, a modern 100km propellant only gun (on land or at sea, land is even more useful, see ukraine war) is most cost effective at bombarding targets in its range than GMs. If you want longer range capability you keep it with GMs, but for shorter ranges (as seen in ukraine), a big gun would be significantly more cost effective. If ukraine has one such weapon protected by its own AA, belogorod would be unable to defend itself from it (for example).
>In artillery technology and ballistics, a modern 100km propellant only gun (on land or at sea, land is even more useful, see ukraine war) is most cost effective at bombarding targets in its range than GMs. If you want longer range capability you keep it with GMs, but for shorter ranges (as seen in ukraine), a big gun would be significantly more cost effective. If ukraine has one such weapon protected by its own AA, belogorod would be unable to defend itself from it (for example).
this is like saying that it's far more efficient to shoot someone at under 500 yards than to blow him up with an artillery shell
the problem is that if he has artillery, you'll never be able to even make it within 500 yards to shoot him
and if you say oh well just stick a bunch of AA on your battleship and steam in closer, what if they just throw more anti ship missiles at you than you have AA?
at that point, it just becomes a missile slinging contest with your battleship guns as dead weight
range is precisely the issue why nobody builds battleships anymore
No, it is saying, that one modern designed 8" heavy gun can achieve a range in excess of 120km with propellant alone and break modern AA siege warfare of a close range front. There were examples used in ww1 even. And as stated, the actual cost of these systems today in countries with heavy industry would not be much in excess of a modern MBT in an import industry economy.
Yes it does. The start of the fall of the USSR's industry meant china began to fill in the gap from them, and it gained momentum during US economic collapses that begot industry collapses and then became the sole global primary producer.
No, you don't. Like I said there were examples in both world wars and hypothetical examples with even greater cost efficiency and performance that were abandoned later. One of these modern style 8" heavy guns could achieve a max range of up to 140km+ and would have the local effect of leveling a house every time it fired and it would be capable of firing dozens of times at the absolute minimum before being rebored or swapping out a cheap barrel. If ukraine even had one example with two barrels and 100or so rounds at least, large areas of belgorod would have to be abandoned (more totally than they already are). If you used them as front guns, lines would have to be pushed back and you would cost the enemy a lot more AA spam for minimal cost.
>No, you don't. Like I said there were examples in both world wars and hypothetical e....
deranged verbiage with no real reasoning backing it
Non-refutation. And it is literally logically sound and historically what happened. The US is literally a paper weight economy right now, and it's arsenal consists largely of old ammo that it cannot replace in a fast timeframe without importing from random thirdies.
Not even a conversation...
?si=Xzz-CeNtL9-FwCRY&t=44
>anime
Yeah just admit you've been completely BTFO and are a delusional animegay that has no idea what anyone ITT is talking about. I've literally worked in an industry that shipped munition to ukraine.
the ol' reliable ad hominem
Not even worth it...
there are two arguments going on here
one is whether battleship guns would be useful in a modern context (regardless of cost)
the other is your obsession with emphasizing the supposed weakness of the US
these things are not related
>that one modern designed 8" heavy gun can achieve a range in excess of 120km with propellant alone
>There were examples used in ww1 even
Surely you aren't talking about the paris gun, the gun with a range of 130km used to shell paris during ww1 and which also had a CEP of about the entire city of paris?
you do know that in order to actually hit anything you're going to need to put terminal guidance packages on whatever shells you're firing, and once you get to that point you might as well just launch a tomahawk instead right?
and I have no idea why you're talking about revolutionizing land warfare in ukraine when this is a thread about naval battles where even a 200 km range is still outclassed by jets launched from carriers
It's a big gun thread, there are hundreds of them. And every time morons spam BS about both them and missiles. The actual fact and truth on the ground is that these big guns are actually cheaper to produce than modern GMs and are more effective in modern AA siege warfare now, just like operators with shitty chinese drones with grenades on them are cheaper and more cost effective than modern conventional infantry in firefights. Modern ballistics has improved so much that these guns can be made and used even more effectively and efficiently than at any other point in history, provided you still have primary industry.
>and are more effective in modern AA siege warfare now, just like operators with shitty chinese drones with grenades on them are cheaper and more cost effective than modern conventional infantry in firefights
why are you so concerned with cost?
the goal of a war is to win, not win in a cost effective way
it would be nice if you could, but you should really worry about winning first and the costs later
that's practically the definition of a war
and what does "modern AA siege warfare" even mean?
if you're talking about the current stalemate in ukraine, that has nothing to do with why the US is not making battleship guns (hint: because the US actually has a modern working airforce and is not forced to engage in grueling ww1 style trench warfare where artillery actually matters)
a 2000 lb jdam is more effective both in cost and terminal effects than a large gun, and also outranges the gun by an entire order of magnitude
The US cannot produce ammunition at the current pace it has sent ammo to ukraine. A relatively small two year conflict has drained some areas of the US industrial complex to 5 or 6 year domestic backlogs (3 years with allied imports not originating from europe). Missiles are great for range but AA has improved to the extent now that it is literally just long range artillery spam in a sense. And the missiles cost more to produce than actual long range artillery. Meaning if you produced both, you would greatly extend your GM supply by using the artillery in circumstances with which it is best suited (within 120km range general fire on point targets).
cannot or will not?
if you put a gun to every congressman's head and say make missiles or you're no longer allowed back to epsteins island, I bet you they could crank out all the missiles you'll ever need
the current inability to delivery ammunition to ukraine is more a result of political rather than economic will
you also have to remember that current ammunition production is basically still peacetime production (US spends about 3% of its current GDP on the military) and there's no reason why that figure can't be increased to 10% or even 15% during a war
and ironically enough, it turns out that things like artillery and shells are actually relatively easy to set up while missiles have a spinup time of a decade or two or more so we're actually correct in our decision to keep artillery production to a minimum and focus on missiles instead
Can't. As in literally we have to ask turkey to send us raw materials to help fill our backlog and europe has to buy ammo from thirdies directly. The US MIC is a huge paper weight now when you take away imports.
oh look, here's a 1 trillion dollar check for 1 million artillery rounds, I will pay anyone who is able to deliver 1 million dollars per shell
how fast do you think that order will be fulfilled?
and the funny thing is that the US is more than capable of writing a 1 trillion dollar check
The US has been in a spending and production deficit for decades, and we've used enough ammo (and that's just dumb ammo, imagine if we sent and used more complex components, we would have a backlog of 10 years) that it cannot be procured in a timely manner either locally or from overseas. The supply of thirdie ammo is limited.
nothing here in your post addresses my point
if you write a 1 trillion dollar check, even if you limit everything to local production in the US, lockheed martin or GE or whoever will spin up a factory so fast they'll have a shell for every russian in moscow plus extra to spare by the end of the year
the problem is that the US is not willing to write a 1 trillion dollar check
they are debating whether to write a 60 billion dollar check, or about 6% of that for the same amount of shells
there is the issue
political, not physical
You are not comprehend the hard assets. The US on its own literally cannot produce shells fast enough right now for its own arsenal goals (let alone ukraines'). The big numbers mean jackshit until the hard assets are in place and running full time. Retooling a factory takes a long time and a lot of hiccups and setbacks, increasing production requires a lot of time to add capacity and get the hiccups and setbacks out of it. The minimum timeframe right now for dumb artillery is 2-3 years to fulfill the current (right now) backlog, if we send more, that gap grows until production catches up to it and surpasses it.
I fully understand why there is a shortage of artillery
I also understand that if you point a gun at congress (or perhaps a pearl harbor or alien invasion) then that shortage will very quickly stop being a problem
what you are not understanding is that the issue of artillery shell shortages is actually pretty far down on the list of other issues that the US faces, like the fact that we are not at war and aren't actually face an existential crisis revolving around artillery like ukraine and so it might be better to spend that money elsewhere than on artillery or steel production
in other words, the US can not **easily and cheaply** produce artillery in large numbers but that does not mean the can not produce large amounts of artillery period if push came to shove
If you counted every vital manufacturing resource that we import right now as deficit from primary production, most of the resources needed in the US for modern manufacturing to keep factories running right now, are imported. In a hypothetical non-nuclear hot war (very unlikely I know) pinch there would be a fairly long gap to scramble and fill those gaps, the question is would our current arsenal last long enough to sustain us until primary production meets our needs. The point is you would be caught with your pants down so to speak, like we already are in many areas. Congress is the one responsible for a lot of the fricked situations in US industry, don't lookup how many of them have economic interests and assets in china.
>In a hypothetical non-nuclear hot war (very unlikely I know) pinch there would be a fairly long gap to scramble and fill those gaps
here is the difference then of your opinion to the rest of the world
the current world economy is based upon the assumption that there will be no war
an african country might decide to ape out every now and then, but there's no reason not to set up your supply chains in another country if you have mutual interests and don't plan to go to war
what you are suggesting is a system of 100% self sufficiency which is nice if you plan to go to war, but you can exploit economies of scale much better if you simply decide not to go to war and depend on other countries to make some of your stuff (and thus exploit cheaper labor/regulations)
War is universal to human history, I mean universal, no matter how far back you go. In the 1600s it was hot wars between the fledgling British empire and the Dutch empire. War is forecast to continue into the future as well. If you base your economy and strategy on permanent peace you will be out of luck when war comes knocking. Hence parabellum.
>Missiles are great for range but AA has improved to the extent now that it is literally just long range artillery spam in a sense
wtf are you even saying
anon is equating the following 2 models
>WW2 artillery spam: enemy has 10 howitzers so we need 20 so that we can kill his faster than he can kill ours
>21st century guided missile spam: enemy has 30 missiles so we need 60 so that we can kill his faster than he can kill ours
to some extent this is true, most starkly in the naval arms race for more and more and more VLS cells
but he's not correct because there are other factors such as targeting; if you can find the enemy and shoot at him faster than he can find you and shoot you, you don't need to have as many launch platforms. hence the NATO emphasis on sensor-shooter(-stealth) networks.
am dumb and erased a >
>a modern 100km propellant only gun (
That would need +1500 m/s of muzzle speed (with at least 1 ton of propellant for each ton of projectile).
And good luck hitting something from 100km.
Now hit something at 200 km, most AShM have a range of 100-200 km and you can't detect them because they're tiny and your opponent would be able to detect your not-tiny-ship.
You aren't shooting fishes in a bucket.
ignoring all the other wrong things you said, most of your post basically, you can hollow out a 1 ton steel cylinder and fill it with explosives for much cheaper than you can build a tomahawk yes
you will not, however, be able to get that 1 ton hollow cylinder of explosives to a target of your choosing cheaper than you can get a tomahawk, say if that target happens to be more than 30 miles inland
>A battleship gun (individual or otherwise) is not significantly more complex than something like an abrams tank,
this is why everyone is laughing at you
Artillery is not more complex than an MBT, it's literally a few big ass tubes forged together, lined, a dumb chasis, hydraulics, a locomotion source, and cheap electronics.
t. animemoron that ad hominem'd for most of his replies.
The ability to produce big guns for cheap is an indirect indication of industrial decline or health in western economies. The relevance is the same as discussing whether modern naval big guns are important, except land big guns are even more relevant nowadays. As any GM in the US arsenal can be intercepted by a tiny ass country like Israel or other US allies. Meaning modern AA warfare has essentially come full circle to the point of artillery spam in previous centuries.
>Artillery is not more complex than an MBT
This has to be a bit at this point. You literally just said a cannon is more complex than an MBT and all the shit that goes inside of it
You cannot even comphrehend what is being discussed animegay, frick off, adults are talking. A heavy artillery piece (a glorified naval gun on land). Is not more complex than an MBT and is cheaper than a MBT and modern missilery (so long as your country has primary industry, as I've noted the US doesn't, t worked in it and seen the backlogs).
>directly contradicts yourself
>d-debate me!
>thinks it's only one person making fun of you
Nothing I have stated contradicts my points. Big guns and dumb ammo are cheaper than modern missilery and comically so, and if your country didn't sell out its industry you could mass produce them and field them with the effect of prolonging your more complex and difficult to procure GMs for a fraction of the cost of directly producing more GMs and do so more immediately.
the problem is that big guns and dumb ammo no longer have as big as an impact on a potential war due to modern advances in technology
armies can not function very well if they get a cruise missile on their c2 infrastructure within 48 hours of a conflict starting
I would be interested to hear why you seem to think otherwise
Wrong, it is precisely because of modern technology (insanely accurate and high intercept rates among AA and GMs in field), that stuff like dumb artillery with longer range and larger weights actually becomes viable again (within its field constraints, 100-120km easy).
>insanely accurate and high intercept rates among AA and GMs in field
please explain from which dataset you drew this conclusion
if you're talking about how much stuff gets shot down in ukraine, that's a faulty comparison due to how terrible and underequipped both sides are at actually fighting the war
again, there seems to be two arguments that you seem to be advocating for
one is the effectiveness of dumb weapons over smart weapons due to lower cost
this is wrong, because the cost effectiveness of a weapon simply doesn't factor into a war, the actual effectiveness of the weapon does
you can have all the artillery, troops, and tanks you want like iraq in the gulf war, but none of that matters if the US simply waltz in and blows up all your command centers before your side can even react
the second part of your argument attempts to say, oh well, the dumb weapons would still win because you can't make a ton of smart weapons and so the dumb weapons will just outnumber the smart weapons or something, and therefore you should keep your supply chains domestic to make a bunch of dumb weapons
this conclusion is again faulty, because the US has simply not decided to spend 20% of its GDP on making and stockpiling smart weapons
the current limitation of stockpiles is more because we like to spend 50% of our yearly government budget on welfare and keeping obese americans alive than because we physically are not able to produce more weapons
which is fine, until a war suddenly kicks off in east europe and the side you're supporting turns out to not have a modern air force that you can use to simply bomb moscow into ruins
basically, the conclusion you ought to arrive at instead of mass produce dumb artillery is that if you want to win a future war for certain, you should 10x military spending and dump it all into all the secret squirrel black projects and build ten million tomahawks
>Nothing I have stated contradicts my points.
>A battleship gun (individual or otherwise) is not significantly more complex than something like an abrams tank,
>Artillery is not more complex than an MBT
literally saying a cannon is more complex than an mbt and then the very next reply saying it's not more complex. take the L and move on
>The ability to produce big guns for cheap is an indirect indication of industrial decline or health in western economies
now you're just being delusional
rather, I would say that the health of a country and economy is more dependent on whether they have things like, oh I don't know, money
which seeing as the US is currently the richest country in the world while most of the countries with massive amounts of artillery barely have running water sort of throws that theory out the window
>As any GM in the US arsenal can be intercepted by a tiny ass country like Israel or other US allies. Meaning modern AA warfare has essentially come full circle to the point of artillery spam in previous centuries
you do not understand how modern wars are fought and are conflicting your perceived idea of strength (large guns go boom, tank factories go brrr) with how reality actually works
Production is the single most important source of health in a modern economy. Literally every single metric is based off of it.
Read my posts, chink shit makes its way in through 3rd party sources, because those sources cannot supply those materials without said imports from china. And you seriously think companies enforce fed rules strictly, they dgaf, they do the little meetings and stuff for show and turn around do what makes them the most money. Most of our missiles run on chinese rare earths made into specialized products in taiwan and other places.
>Production is the single most important source of health in a modern economy. Literally every single metric is based off of it.
production of what?
if you said horses, you would be correct... in 1850.
nowadays, production of micro transistors matters much more than the production of steel, which is why taiwan (which makes basically zero steel) is so relevant on the global stage despite having a population of about 23 million people
you don't get rich off making steel in the modern world, you get rich off making iphones and the software support to keep those iphones running
You still can't comprehend it.
Read my earlier posts, I've already covered how not only are US steel mills with the capability to forge big guns cheaply are shutting down or already have, but also how the actual raw material supply is itself almost all imports or from scrap sources (non-primary sources, and the 3rd party sources source the bulk of their primary material from china). And when you look at rare earths, aluminum, copper, and so on, the metrics get worse.
>You still can't comprehend it.
then explain
you claim that production (presumably of raw materials and goods) is the most important metric
why?
why is japan, a country that imports basically everything they use with zero steel production, considered the forth largest economy in the world and whose citizens live better than most of the world (especially when compared to the countries that rank high in steel production)?
Primary production is the blood of every economy. Even, and especially, import based economies. If you do nt produce it, you relegate it to someone else to produce it for you. When you do so you give away your own country's power (soft and hard assets), for a paper weight economy (services, ie numbers without hard assets on your soil, ie you will be vulnerable in a supply pinch). Production dictates everything from local and terminal inflation to international trade. You don't need endless increases in production, you need balanced production dynamics in an economy, you reach the point you need and you stabilize it. If someone else dominates, you compete for the sake of becoming competitive again and maintain it. Every single item, resource and commodity that is produced (which is ALOT of stuff floating around in macro economics), is protected and guaranteed by production dynamics (hard assets rather than soft ones).
knock knock
there's someone at the door. who is it?
it's called globalism.
it turns out that if you trade enough with a certain country, it's almost as if they can share the benefits of the combined resources as if they were one (sort of)
unless you plan to go to war with a country, there's no reason not to simply buy whatever you need from them and sell them what they can't make
Didn't comprehend my post, I even said in it that import based production (globalism) is inherently dependent upon someone else's primary production, and that if it's not you making it, you are vulnerable directly. A few somali pirates and yemenis with cheap rockets and missiles for example, can create a month long shipping backlog.
alright, but the result is still cheaper than making it yourself
which is why even after yemen decided to ape out, nobody is thinking that they should move away from globalism
rather, the current strat seems to be doubling down instead and just bombing them as an example so they won't do it again
It is only cheaper than making it yourself until you, make it yourself. Quite ironic isn't it. Production dynamics are what makes or breaks empires historically, along with cultural and economic cohesion. Imagine shipping stuff from 10,000 km away when you could produce it yourself if you decided to not be a cuck.
You still have no clue what you’re talking about. Firstly, US steel imports are vary widely based on region. For example you’ll find a lot of imports into the port of Houston mainly from S America especially products like beams. While in the South East imports are much less common. Also, I can assure you those requirements are taken seriously. If a customer gets foreign material without their explicit authorization there is hell to pay. Believe it or not whether it’s building tanks, bridges, or buildings companies want to trust their steel not to be dogshit and result in some disaster where they’re sued for millions.
Tell me, where's the ad hominem?
The deranged part? if he ignores basic physics, ignores basic things like CEP, and self-justify the utility of shore bombardment using dumb guns, then yeah, ad hominem..............
Half of the posts you linked are the definition of ad hominems with zero relevant substance to the topic being discussed. The other half are ignoring evidence counter to the points you make, and are thus delusion.
Still not a conversation. Shamisen's video keeps being relevant.
>The ability to produce big guns for cheap is an indirect indication of industrial decline or health in western economies
the frick????
is this bolt schizo? or has a battleship gun schizo come up to take his place?
Comparing the complexity of a battleship gun to that of an mbt feels like comparing the complexity of a small factory to that of a pretty big 3d-printer.
we stopped because it turns out that you can undercut US prices on steel if you simply stop caring whether the third world workers in your steel plant will live to see another day
if you think you're getting screwed over by companies over here in the west, you should go to china and see exactly how good their "worker rights" are
there's a reason why calling china a sweatshop is a meme
you can throw in all the western exceptionalism you want, but at the end of the day you're not going to get around the fact that workers in the US actually want to be compensated if they lose a hand
The collapse has nothing to do with cost effectiveness of US labor and industry. It has to do with a period in which the US scaled back production (for economic and other reasons) and in that gap other countries increased production to fill the gap, and by which time the US could no longer maintain market competitiveness and instead of doing a long strategic investment in its own industry it instead sold out to corporate greed and maximum profits and buying imported products and materials. It is a self feeding loop hole until you actually throw time and money at it to unfrick it. At the current rate, it is only going to get worse to the point that even throwing time and money at it won't save it.
cost effectiveness, or what you're calling greed, is exactly the same thing
what you're suggesting is that the US continue to keep an industry running at sub optimal production levels simply because
talking about the historical reason why this happened is useful for explaining how other countries overcame the barrier of entry to open their own mills, but it doesn't change the fact that the factories in china can pay their workers less, give them less comprehensive insurance, have them work 60 hour work weeks for years on end with no vacation
and even if you can magically snap your fingers and transport all the equipment and knowledge back into the US, there's no way you'll ever get the average american worker to work under such conditions for 80,000 RMB per year, or about 11,200 dollars a year
unless you can invent some magical form of steel making that allows you to produce more material for cheaper than how china does it, the math simply doesn't work out
You don't understand production, production is essentially the heart of a modern economy (since the 1850s). The corporate greed is always there, if you want to maintain your competitiveness, DON'T scale down your production. The US scaled production down massively from the economic blowback of different resources (primarily the recession and oil crisis in the 70s and 80s) and it recovered fairly well because of cold war spending, bringing production back to competitive levels again. Following the collapse post cold war, it has not rebounded and instead it has collapsed further so that now you have a lead time of at least 5 years of deficit spending (which the US already does anyway except it is not investing in Americans with that deficit spending) to bring production back to levels at which the price and cost effectiveness will stabilize and become competitive again. The US is already a largely deindustrialized country, we can't even refill our arsenals in a 3 years time frame right now from ukraine without importing raw materials from places like turkey and brazil.
what you're talking about is economies of scale
yes, if you ramp up production, things get cheaper
what you need to understand however is that there's nothing stopping china from doing the exact same thing
and if you have two countries with an industry of the exact same size, whichever one can minimize their costs the most (and thus be more efficient) will simply take over and win
China is already the primary producer, and it will stay that way until someone outproduces it. People do not understand this. You increase production, even at a deficit at first, and all of a sudden a few years down the road things get cheaper and you generate surplus which gets sold overseas and which decrease the value of chink shit. The US replaced the UK in the same manner and china replaced the US in the same manner. People do not actually realize the extent of US strategic domestic primary production decline. Right now most of the products americans consume, not just metals and specialized products but mundane things you buy at the super market, come from other countries (some of them ridiculously far away). The USD has already eroded its value to such an extent that within my lifetime a dollar has lost most of its value compared with when I was a young child (because production continues to be outpaced by spending).
again, you're not reading what I typed
being the primary producer has nothing to do with how efficiently you can produce a product at the same economies of scale
and economies of scale appears to be basically your only point
what you're arguing is that the US should have simply increased the amount of steel production even more to make things cheaper
the trouble is, by virtue of having 1.2 billion people and 4x the population of the US, no matter how many people you throw into the US steel industry, china can always throw more
the writing on the wall was already evident back in the 80s, which is why companies went overseas in the first place
also, the second half of your post whining about inflation has nothing to do with steel production or battleships
>being the primary producer has nothing to do with how efficiently you can produce a product at the same economies of scale
Yes, it does.
>china can always throw more
50 years ago china still had 4x the population and had barely a fraction of production. The US over the span of just the last 40 or so years tops, lost its place in being the top primary producer and also the top market economy (which it still competes with or even surpasses china in depending on source and evaluation).
>the writing on the wall was already evident back in the 80s, which is why companies went overseas in the first place
The collapse started and was temporarily mitigated successfully so that it rebound and was competitive for a while, then it collapsed again and was never rebounded 20 years later, resulting in mass industrialization of the US at a level that can now not be easily recovered even if you spent years trying to recover it at a major deficit.
>also, the second half of your post whining about inflation has nothing to do with steel production or battleships
Inflation and primary production decline are directly related and corresponded.
again, you are not reading
being the primary producer has nothing to do with how efficiently you can produce a product ***at the same economies of scale***
say you have two countries, say country A and country B
if country A produces 1000 units of steel and country B produces 10 units of steel, obviously country A can produce steel for cheaper
but if country B ramps up their steel production to the same level of 1000 units (as you keep talking about) it stands to reason that country B should be able to produce steel at the exact same price and cost as country A
this is what happened with china
even if the US kept with the same level of steel production, what is there to stop china from simply eating the costs and ramping up production (again like you keep going on about) to the exact same level as the US, and then go even further to take over the market?
and once you're at that level, things like how much you pay your workers start to matter
>being the primary producer has nothing to do with how efficiently you can produce a product ***at the same economies of scale***
Yes, it does. Production at scale that surpasses the local macro economy is what drives cost efficiency. Production is the single most important metric for economic output, most production in the west is now import based manufacturing rather than primary production. Meaning they are overseas trade vulnerable economies and industries.
>what is there to stop china from simply eating the costs and ramping up production
In comparison with massive economies of scale with primary production at scale, the limiting metrics then become local availability and production of the raw materials (ie reserves). With super common metals like iron this doesn't really mean anything however, and instead the limiting factor becomes political. This is exactly what was going on for the entire duration of the cold war between the US and the USSR, and the winner is the one that holds out the longest and doesn't blink and doesn't have any unforseen circumstances that effect it more than its opponent.
>Production is the single most important metric for economic output
Yes. Correct. So why can't china simply just simply double down and produce more steel than the US and take advantage of everything you said so far? The street goes both ways.
>the winner is the one that holds out the longest and doesn't blink and doesn't have any unforseen circumstances that effect it more than its opponent
you said it right there
what you're suggesting is that the US get into a staring contest against another country with 4x its population, lower wages, a much lower human rights index, a dictatorial government, and almost no workplace safety
Read my post, the same thing happened in the cold war between the US and the USSR. As I said, in those scenarios, the one who doesn't blink and holds out, wins. As the US did, only for it to immediately desiccate its industry and lose out to china.
the fact that the US beat the USSR doesn't really have anything to do with why china's steel industry beat the US steel industry
the USSR fell apart because they kept gulaging everyone and because communism doesn't work
china, for all its claims to be communist, is a very different place from the USSR
I don't understand what you're trying to say
>no matter how many people you throw into the US steel industry, china can always throw more
You're thinking in peacetime economic terms and that doesn't necessarily translate accurately to a wartime economy
In wartime, free trade is suspended and nations are forced to rely on what they can manufacture and buy from allies or neutrals.
You've been given a fine current example in the case of Russia. Theoretically it has a trillion-plus dollar economy that can afford plenty of microchips, optics, ball bearings, steel, manufacturing plant and machinery, ship engines, etc and can sell hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of gas and petroleum to pay for it. In wartime however not only have peacetime sources of supply been cut off, sources of revenue also have been cut off, forcing the country to resort to more expensive, less efficient channels for both.
>The USD has already eroded its value
Stop.
Forex is always relative. The USD has eroded its value you say? Against which currency? Yuan?
>You can't just magically restart everything, it takes years to actually rebuild domestic capability
Yes, the question hangs on how fast the US can rebuild its domestic capacity IN WARTIME, and how fast China can produce IN WARTIME, and how that affects operations.
Once again, current events provides an excellent example. Russia can build more shells than NATO. But this did not translate to an operational advantage; it could not use those shells to win. NATO had time to restart its shell production.
My point is that you guys are debating the issue based on peacetime considerations which is fundamentally wrong. Consider China's rate of shipbuilding under a less-than-free trade environment, and see if that translates to an operational advantage.
Excellent point.
And NATO could obviously have increased shell production even faster if they were really at war. Then there wouldn’t have been any political opposition to immediately placing huge long term orders of millions of shells.
Increasing ship building capacity isn’t like increasing artillery shell production though so we can’t say how fast that could be increased. And unless it’s a total war lasting many years, it’ll mostly come down to what was built during peacetime.
We’ll see how much China can grow its navy before maintaining and replacing the ships they have starts getting too expensive. Many seem to forget that it’s simple to grow when you’re small and don’t have a ton of old ships that have to be replaced to maintain the size of their navy.
>China this and China that
Why do you care? The US could cut a hard shart sideways and the Chink military would cease to be a threat, and they know it. So they’ll continue being the bottom b***h until we pick a new favorite.
1 Chinese factory worker produces a fraction of 1 Western factory worker though so you can’t only compare how much each costs.
>and companies are foreign owned as well.
Well, establish a new company
About 2/3rds to 3/4ths of all US primary production metals are foreign owned interests. It will not change at this point, as you can no longer buy them out, and you can't rebuild US industry without a price markup meaning US industry is no longer competitive and no longer owned by the US. Resulting in deindustrialization. Something similar happened to the UK as well and other super powers in decline previously (for example the UK just bought out US companies and supplies for their own needs rather than become a primary producer again).
nice cope commie
>War were declared
>Oh no guys we can't use our own industry or buy it out, because the owners are foreign!
You're a gigamoron. In a time of war they'd be forced to produce it, otherwise the government will physically take possession of the company's assets in the US and administer it themselves or hire another company to do it
You can't just magically restart everything, it takes years to actually rebuild domestic capability. You're a delusional moron if you think otherwise. The cost to restart a dead industry is significantly higher than the cost of maintaining that industry at its peaks. Like I said right now the US is asking countries like turkey and brazil to sources resources to rebuild its arsenal in a 3 year timespan, without those imported resources, it would take at least 5-6 years.
the point is that even if you do manage to get super cheap steel, the gun plus the battleship is still going to cost a shit ton of money because the material cost of a weapon is only like 20% of the overall cost nowadays since US labor is no longer cheap
and unless you're okay with ww2 levels of accuracy, you're still going to need things like modern radars and electronics and all the other systems to go along with that and oh wow would you look at that your new iowa class battleship 2.0 now costs half of what an aircraft carrier costs and is also facing budget overruns because it turns out that building ships is hard
and that's before you even throw in all the other costs of running a ship like the crew
even if you cut the historical figures in half from about 3000 by adding in some automation, 1,500 sailors at $50,000 a year each is 75 million per year
across 10 years, that's 750 million and you're not even guaranteed that you'll actually get to use that battleship during that time
then you throw in actually having to feed them plus the fuel it takes to run the thing plus repairs and a whole bunch of other stuff and all of a sudden it makes sense why building an arleigh burke at a fifth of the displacement with a crew of only 300 and 50 tomahawk missiles at 1 million each makes sense
The cost of the gun itself is dirt cheap in modern terms, material cost and even labor cost is not an issue if you have maintained the necessary industry (kept the heavier mills and forges operating). Industry collapse is a self feeding loophole, as the more industry you lose the more it costs and takes to restart it again. The most recent collapse in US industry has made such constructs impossible to infeasible, however even just 20-30 years ago these guns and their ammo could be pumped out cheaper than modern tanks, the production is not complicated even if material cost is higher. My point was you could easily build long range artillery now still (just not huge bore) for cheaper than modern missilery and it would be more useful in many battlefield circumstances now.
Actually with better powders and a package to brown done when combusted into a material that adheres to and protects the interior of the barrel the life was extended in the 60s to thousands of rounds.
If you discount construction from the Chink economy so that the numbers measure the same things then the US actually has more industrial output than the Chinks, about twice as much in fact. China counts construction and any service that supports it as well as elections, elevator maintenance, automotive repair, ect as industrial.
Now chinks do make the steel in particular and the government(coughisraelitescough) deliberately tanked american steel corporations to give first the Japs and then the Chinks a leg up. That's not even up for debate they deliberately destroyed US Steel for that reason.
The issue with the ship building is slipways, the US just makes warships and its barges for is massive river/lake system and territorial watters. Despite being a huge exporter and importer imports and exports account for less of our economy than any other nation. Cut off the nogs and hispanics and the US needs nothing it doesn't make itself.
If you want autarky make a white empire and then sink all international trade and let the rest of the world starve to death.
The US the soft manufacturing capability (import based factories) but no longer does it have the primary production capability. For example; iron, copper, aluminum (90% import), rare earths, titanium, tungsten etc etc all the important resources for advanced manufacturing and necessary for primary industry are all import majority or from non-primary sources (ie old scrap) now. If you wanted to unfrick that right now, and started right now, it would take at least a few years to catch up.
Why do we have to look at only what the USA can make by itself and not include what it could buy from allies, like Australian iron ore or Swedish steel?
>Actually with better powders and a package to brown done when combusted into a material that adheres to and protects the interior of the barrel the life was extended in the 60s to thousands of rounds.
You have a source, right?
The US hasn't built an 8" gun in over 50 years, and no longer has the ability to arsenal manufacture anything over 8 inch period
A Private contractor like National Forge in Irvine could probably Black person together a hooped gun up to 12" but the institutional knowledge and tooling is gone
You are a moronic Black person who has no idea what he’s talking about. When selling steel to government entities or contractors that shit has to be DFARS and ROHS complaint and guess what? Chinese imports sure as shit aren’t compliant and if you’re busted selling that then you’re fricked. All those steel imports are for cheap shitty consumer goods. Anything for the DoD is 100% going be required to be made and melted in the US.
I work for a contractor and can confirm the metals are imported. No one seems to fricking care that gov suppliers are lying about where they source their metals.
300kg of special propellant isn't cheap
Neither the production line for shell casing weighting ~1 ton. There're still +10,000 16" shells in stockpiles iirc.
>forging
>heat treating
>machining
For a huge projectile.
Compared to other battleships it didn't fire a lot to destroy its target.
>the size of it
I'm always impressed by how big they are, I'd love to see an 18" shell from Yamato IRL.
If anyone's ever interested in seeing a 15" shell there's one in the cathedral in Genoa, fired by HMS Malaya in 1941. It hit the cathedral but the shell had an AP cap so it failed to detonate when it hit the soft limestone.
Did they ever deactivate it?
nope, it's just a live shell with thousands of pounds of explosives. one day it will blow up the cathedral so they only hire suicidal priests (who want to die but can't actually kill themselves because suicide is a sin)
they wait and pray for the day it will finally blow up and kill them all.
>It hit the cathedral but the shell had an AP cap so it failed to detonate when it hit the soft limestone.
Where they hoping to hit a bunker or was AP all they carried onboard?
imagine being within the same zipcode of an explosion that propels these things instantaneously
big guns are nice and all but i imagine both ship and crew would have drastically reduced lifespans if you fire these things often enough
There is documented cases where during prolonged battles ships would literally tear the entire deck off themselves with the concussive force of firing.
The Yamato and Musashi had a habit of completely destroying the radar array every time they fired the main guns, though that was actually a problem that some US battleships ran into as well. They also required no crew to be on any deck anywhere on the ship when the main guns fired, which turned out to be a problem when some genius decided to fire the main gun's AA shells while the Yamato was under air attack during Operation Ten-Go, knocking out half her AA gun crews and even killing some. Also I remember reading an account from a turret crewman on one of the British dreadnoughts that had their midships turrets en echelon, I think it was the HMS Neptune but I can't remember exactly, where he describes having the muzzle blast from the other side's gun going off right next to the armor plating of his turret, and then the ship swinging around and the joy he felt getting to do the same thing to the poor fricks in the other turret. The deck, the boats, the cranes, and everything that was on the decks amidships was turned into a mangled mess by the firing though.
I think it uses special 9mm tracers
>The Yamato and Musashi had a habit of completely destroying the radar array every time they fired the main guns
It was more the effect of sustained firing, which wouldn't happen in training in peacetime, but did happen in battle of course. (also Jap electronics were dogshit then)
>that was actually a problem that some US battleships ran into as well
I'm not sure if they actually sustained damage, but it's the main reason why British battleships don't carry seaplanes on the stern. Although when asked by an RN admiral why the USN decided to carry seaplanes aft, the reply given was "how likely will it be to fire the guns directly aft?" The pre-WW2 USN was rather inexperienced.
>The deck, the boats, the cranes, and everything that was on the decks amidships was turned into a mangled mess by the firing
Rodney's firing on the Bismarck destroyed plumbing, urinals, and even parts of the deck. Probably due to the British inexperience of a fully forward mounted battery of the biggest battleship guns they'd ever operate.
>I think it uses special 9mm tracers
right, right
can't remember what calibre they are
You forgot HMS Furious had 18"
>The Yamato and Musashi had a habit of completely destroying the radar array every time they fired the main guns
Nah. That was Nelson and Rodney, and Bismarck to some extent.
The issue with Nelson and Rodney was that they went to extreme lengths with their all-or-nothing armor scheme to get it in udner the treatyy limits. Basically everything outside the armored citadel was built as lightly as they thought they could get away with, and it turned out they were a bit too optimistic when they estimated that.
Shop teachers dad was on a Battleship in the war, he lived into his 80s, but as you can expect he was deaf as shit.
I wish one of the museum Iowas (or, really, anything compatible with 16" shells) still had operational guns so we could a badass rendition of the 1812 overture.
>still had operational guns so we could a badass rendition of the 1812 overture.
If one has enough time and the space to do it, why not just cast your own?
There was an desert storm ANGELICO guy who was still in when I was a SWO, he was the last guy to call in and correct 16" naval gunfire. He had been briefed on it, but assumed the safe distance calcs were bullshit because they seemed absurdly large, so he called in a full 9-shot salvo and was bodily picked up and thrown about 80' by the shockwave despite being nowhere close to the impact point.
Motherfricker that shell is a precision manufactured hunk of HARDENED steel, combined with fusing and high explosives.
Presumably they had practice ammunition that didn't stress the guns as much.
300 EFC probably, 6 bags of gunpowder. Using 1 to 3 bags would reduce a lot the wear.
I mean you realistically would need to gunnery practice like once a month, and probably not even that often. If you fire 10 shells a month that's 120 per year, still leaving you with 180 rounds to fire in combat. That's a still a lot of shells.
The general principle is the same if you're using a 5 or 8 inch gun on a practice vessel. The real practice comes from the eggheads calculating the firing computer based on the range guy's callout. Any monkey can load a shell and push a button.
Did we really have good enough tables in the 40s that some nerd in the CIC could tell the turret where exactly to aim and how many bags of powder to load, and they'd generally hit their target? I'm not disputing America's naval success, it's always just seemed like a fair amount of guesswork when the range is in fricking miles against moving targets.
>Did we really have good enough tables in the 40s
yes, the Americans at least had the math figured out during the interwar years. Modern improvement is largely on real time computation and measurement.
>yes, the Americans at least had the math figured out during the interwar years
The british as well, during the battle of north cape, the duke of york managed to straddle scharhorst 55 times out of 71, thats an evading target in rough seas at night, most of the misses being the brief period in which her radar was out.
>The issue with Nelson and Rodney was that they went to extreme lengths with their all-or-nothing armor scheme to get it in udner the treatyy limits. Basically everything outside the armored citadel was built as lightly as they thought they could get away with, and it turned out they were a bit too optimistic when they estimated that.
it didnt help that they also upped the sie of shell and the charge of the gun during the design process after the initial calculations had been done. still the damage to Rodney is overstated, she wasnt in danger of sinking or becoming combat ineffective due to the damage, it was aall minor, a lot of minor damage, but still only minor
>Did we really have good enough tables in the 40s that some nerd in the CIC could tell the turret where exactly to aim and how many bags of powder to load
You'd only need to use range tables if the ship's electrical systems had been destroyed.
The range was measured in feet (measured by radar), and the movement of the target, and many, many other factors, were all calculated as inputs for mechanical computers which controlled the guns electronically. They were profoundly accurate. The same fire control systems were used to individually destroy fighters and torpedo bombers.
electrically controlled mechanically calculated firing solution instructional film gang
How much did they need to factor wind? I know the shells are heavy as frick but those ocean winds can be fierce and they're shooting so far.
Sorry if they say in the films, I cannot watch currently
>How much did they need to factor wind?
the computer did in fact compensate for wind
though it could only measure wind from where the ship actually was, though it could be assumed that any target you could reasonably hit experienced the same wind you did
idk, but the console has inputs for wind direction and speed
It was ridiculously complicated. You have the roll and pitch of the ship, the bearing, the turn rate, and then have to put in their bearing and turn rate, but thankfully there was a gyroscope on the guns. Room full of nerds to get the boom on target, all done electro-mechancially so instead of pushing a button to calculate .35% or whatever it was done by a gear which hit another gear to physically calculate it at that rate. Shit was nuts.
>It was ridiculously complicated. You have the roll and pitch of the ship, the bearing, the turn rate, and then have to put in their bearing and turn rate, but thankfully there was a gyroscope on the guns. Room full of nerds to get the boom on target, all done electro-mechancially so instead of pushing a button to calculate .35% or whatever it was done by a gear which hit another gear to physically calculate it at that rate. Shit was nuts.
NNNEEEEEEERRRRRRDDDD!!!!!
well, it was worth the cost
especially when combined with centimetric radar, which gave accurate readings on range, bearing, and speed of the enemy
the USS missouri could accurately fire at targets while performing evasive action
a huge advantage if the enemy could only get a firing solution while sailing in a straight line
Here's the crazy part: the calculations for all of these variables were increasingly performed by the early analog computers, which would go on to give the US a massive advantage in fire control accuracy. But the results of those calculations were print-outs full of numbers that were used by specialized machinists to carve out cams and rotors... BY HAND. These cams were what "told" the ship's fire control computer to point the guns in a particular direction once all of the variables were entered in.
naval warfare used to be cool
Roll was not a factor. Sims realized inertia helped keep guns at the correct angle despite the ship rolling.
thats cool shit
>hit the target
Not so much, they could definitely bracket the target though just by using radar. There's a lot that goes into getting accurate gunnery so it wasn't uncommon even during the 40s for lots of shells to be expended for comparatively few hits. The amount of shells fired by the US during Suriago Strait just during the main fleet action for example was pretty crazy. It's still leagues better than what was expended at Jutland
In the 40's we had computerized fire control with the radars tied in.
The computers were analog electro-mechanical. Stupid complicated and very accurate. USN and RN were the only ones to full integrate radar into their fire control during WW2 and had the best gunnery by far.
yea we were leet
the japs couldn't hit shit lmao, skill issue
YOU HAVE TO EAT ALL THE EGGS
Big guns are extremely based, we need to bring back the big guns with modern ballistics knowledge and technology. 100 km propellant only artillery guns are doable now, and given the terminal ballistics of artillery it is very difficult or near impossible to intercept above a certain projectile weight.
Guided missiles can do the same job with much better accuracy and way more maneuverability.
GMs also can be intercepted with up to 99% accuracy in the current era, including those equipped with countermeasures. It is much more difficult tp try intercepting a 2000lb high density projectile at supersonic impact velocity. We already have a similar concept with missiles (THAAD/other kinetic kill munitions), however their penetrators are tiny by comparison (1/10 to 1/20th of a 16" shell) and while they can hit an incoming 16" shell at best they would only knock it off course a bit (it's unlikely for aerial charge detonation given it was made to survive its muzzle velocity) and the shell will still hit somewhere and leave a massive crater. In areas with extremely over saturated accurate AA systems (see ukraine war) a long range big gun is actually more useful than cruise missiles in field. Shells are also fairly cheap, and the guns themselves are also fairly cheap given your country still has a decent steel and forge industry.
I think they had a subcaliber gun firing from inside the big gun for target practice.
Naval guns did not.
Japanese Destroyer Captain is a great account of Nip v Yank action in WW2. By an actual Japanese Destroyer Captain. He recounts a lot of engagements. Talks about a time when the Americans scored a first salvo hit. It was a radar controlled gun, iirc. I read it 55 years ago.
>I read it 55 years ago.
holy shit brah how old are you
This thread made me look up the New Jersey's service in Vietnam. Full broadsides removing entire villages. I wish there was a book I could read about it. The most you get is the entire published government service report, and anecdotes off of Youtube comments.
There's a bit I heard somewhere that basically went like
>murican infantry sees tank column rushing them down
>Gets on radio, o shidd helb us someone :~~*, gives coords
>They hear back "take cover", assume it's regular arty
>They were in range of the 16 inch guns on a Battleship in the area, the entire tank column is fricking obliterated along with a massive section of the forest
Those things are able to hit moving targets at insane ranges, it's not even fair what they can do to stationary targets on land.
>shells Tarawa for days
>does fricking nothing
If you dig in deep enough those big guns do frick all.
Ah yes how could I forget the deadly underground mole-driller tanks.
Right because no one ever puts big guns underground. The point is even an 11in gun doesn't do much for an entrenched position despite their sheer power.
With modern drone spotting and such id imagine you could do something like
>Encounter Mobikinot Line in range of 16 inch cannons
>Use drone to find all entrances/exits
>Administer earthshakers on those points
>Bunker "defeated" via burying all the exits, by the time the enemy can dig out, (if they can), they dig out into waiting machineguns
>does fricking nothing
the commander in chief of the island defense was killed by the shelling, leaving the defense to occur in piecemeal
and the lack of effect was more because a majority of the shells were smaller 8in guns from cruisers not big 16in shells from battleships and because of a lack of coordination in firing
accurate, well-spotted, battleship fire was extremely effective at normandy
where the first panzer brigade to try and respond to the allied beachhead was annihilated before ever seeing a single allied soldier after being on the receiving end of 14 and 16in shells
>the first panzer brigade to try and respond to the allied beachhead was annihilated before ever seeing a single allied soldier after being on the receiving end of 14 and 16in shells
fuddlore
it was air attack that did it, from heavy bombers
Substantiate your claim.
A panzer column sure as hell got fricked up by naval gunfire after the landings, but I don't remeber too much daytime bombing.
you should probably consider that the bursting charge on those things was about 150lbs at the most. so take all of that with a dose of salt. more than a 105 or 155, but there is a reason why dropping bombs from fast jet is now the preference.
…
You know that they had more than just AP, right?
moron alert! moron alert everybody! The largest conventional Iowa warhead was like 70-80 kilograms, which is basically the payload of a 200kg bomb.
The non-AP shells (and GP bombs today) were close to 50/ 50 explosive/ case.
Look up Operation Sea Dragon it's basically
>USN realizes that the entire coast of Vietnam is free real estate
>proceeds to sink anything that floats near the coast and shell anything within 30km of the coast
>conducts SEAD and counter battery fire this way
>does it for years unopposed
Yet, it let USSR and Chinese flagged vessels make port completely unopposed.
It's almost like unrestricted naval warfare is a bad idea.
Of course you underaged moron
Firing on neutral shipping is a big fricky wucky
>and yet the US didnt provoke nuclear war
What morons, I would have sunk all the ships!
It is a little unfortunate that piracy has been effectively eliminated. Could you imagine the cold war if each side were able to send privateers to harass eachother?
Imagine the kino.
Some pile of shit launching an antiship missile.
Isnt that sort of what they think china might do with all their aggressive fishing vessels?
>Ahoy, moron!
Convince Japan to retake its islands from Russia. Then let Russia go through the Suez when they need to replace their sunken pacific fleet. That way they can get captured by Somali pirates and we get to see pirates with real ships again.
?t=479
Ahh, that's the stuff.
Why does the narrator talk like a huge gay?
Coasties got in on the action too.
If you could afford to build and operate a battleship in the first place, you could afford the barrel replacement interval.
A 10"+ barrel isn't exactly an off the shelf buy and it requires a not insignificant lead time from the forge. It was so much of a hassle that the USN and IJN would attempt to reline the barrel or bore out a new one in the case of the latter
Everybody relined barrels.
some opted to replace the gun entirely
Bullshit. Who?
I maybe misremembering because while it was absolutely considered for the Yamato class due to cost and the hybrid design of the gun, I was sure some other classes did as well but I'm drawing blanks atm, sorry.
The 18"s were almost completely shot through when they approached their shot life that it took almost the same amount of time to make the barrels fit for function as it did to produce a new barrel.
The US. But replace the entire gun is more of a "we have this in inventory so let's replace it while the used one gets relined," type of thing so they could get it back out there more quickly.
So, relining.
Pretty sure the French and Italians did as well, but, they're French and Italian. Their shit was knocked out from the start so I don't know if that counts.
Is there any reason to use a massive gun when missiles are as advanced as they are?
I suppose the fact they aren't used at all now answers my own question. A shame since 16 inch cannons are COOL.
Yes; in a permissive environment, shells are way cheaper than guided missiles
that's half the point of mounting a 5" cannon on board destroyers; the other half is air defence
And those 5" guns are extremely versatile.
Cost per shot is lower, but that advantage is negated by the price of the frickoff huge ship and tje crew needed to get the gun into place.
>Battleship guns are pointless
>Aircraft don't dogfight
>Nukes are verboten
>Everything having to do with drones
The world marches forward but war loses its SOVL.
There should be a global treaty banning airplanes and rockets at sea
is that you, Koko?
I remember reading somewhere that the rounds flying overhead sounded like a freight train.
They did dry drills most of the time. Loading, aiming, etc, with not as much actual live firing. The actual 'hitting a target' skill was derived mostly down to math and fire directory charts used by the officer in the Fire Control tower, who co-ordinated the range and direction that all the guns would be firing. The turrets with the bigger weapons were rarely aimed and fired by themselves.
The 300 average barrel life assumes full power charges firing armor piercing projectiles. The only time you're firing the armor piercing shells are when you're firing at another ship. HE shells do considerably less damage to the barrels as they are not as heavy. Practice shells do even less damage.
Is that what happened to the Iowa? It fired more than 300 and got into an accident after that?
If you mean when that turret blew up it was because of gay lovers doing what gays do and overramming the powder.
>it was because of gay
Gay drama was the US cold war version of a smoking accident
Right, it couldn't be because the control rod setup was worse than a RBMK.
Bootlicker gets thrown around too much, but JFC.
I swear the collective IQ of /k/ drops by 20 points the second the word battleship is spoken out loud
If I wanted to open a factory capable of making yamato tier armor plate how much money would I need? (asking for a friend)
Holy shit you fricking autists ruined a comfy thread. Go frick yourselves with your gay bickering like a married couple.
things are fricked on the manufacturing side too. they used these big ass lathes to make the battleship gun barrels. the machines don't exist anymore. the capability to produce the machines doesn't exist anymore. the people who knew how to run them are all dead. there's a reason they never fixed iowa's gun after it exploded.
>there's a reason they never fixed iowa's gun after it exploded.
lmao yeah, that's why. no other reason
oh noes we don't know how to knap flint any more we're so fricking dead in the next war
This is bullshit, we absolutely have the knowledge to build more bigass lathes you fricking moron, the reason is expense, when bigass cannons are innaccurate as shit and short range compared to missiles, FFS
just like we have the knowledge to build more saturn 5s right? some guy on the internet saying it's easy is not the same as having institutional knowledge.
I think the point is that our resources and energy is better applied to manufacturing a superior technology (missiles)
And for everyone’s reference.. we absolutely still have lathes big enough to build a gun barrel.. what do you think the shaft on a container ship is made using?
opposite: some guy on the internet saying it's difficult is not the same as not having institutional knowledge
>saturn 5
Yes and I'll not pretend that is impossible. There're engines like the J-2 and RS-25 that are essentially identical (plus some improvement) to engines of the Saturn V...
And that¡s the problem, even after continuous updates those engines are 10-100 times more expensive than a Raptor or Merlin, they simply don't use as many modern techniques as SpaceX engines
You are clearly not a machinist. Lathes are not complicated even if you want to think so. Saturn 5 is considerably different with many components more complex than any lathe. Big lathes are early 1900s tech and that bigger lathes which are newer exists invalidates your contention the tech is lost.
Non-machinists should stay in the their moronic lane regarding machining. There are few giant lathes because there is little demand for them, not because they're exotic. Expensive and exotic mean very different things.
>You are clearly not a machinist.
frick no wonder I have so much trouble at work. working on a .30 caliber barrel is a completely different job than a 16 in one.
>Most heavy parts are not particularly long
ok now how long is a battleship gun barrel? which american company makes a lathe as big as the massive pratt and whitney ones they used to make iowa's guns?
>we can't do (thing)
and
>we can't do (thing cost-effectively during peacetime)
are not at all the same. learn the difference.
damn why didn't the axis powers just spend enough money to find a way to make oil out of potato peels? what fricking morons.
As a matter of fact, the majority of Nazi Germany's fuel in the 40s was synthetic, usually from hydrogenised coal, because of course it could not meet its fuel requirements from petroleum. Germany has massive coal deposits, but as coal is now more expensive than petroleum and natural gas however, they don't mine it any more.
Fricking moron.
so why did they care about the caucasian oil fields? just spend more money on coal. why did japan declare war on america? just buy oil from someone else.
>so why did they care about the caucasian oil fields? just spend more money on coal.
because it takes time to set up new mines and synthetic fuel refineries, time they didn't have.
>why did japan declare war on america?
because America was not just embargoing petroleum and gas, but also a wide array of metals, vegetable and animal oils, chemicals, plant machinery, fertiliser, even leather. and of course, technical plans including the plans to make synthetics. and on top of that the USA froze Japanese assets and began providing Lend-Lease and "volunteers" to China.
Japan also didn't have the tankers needed to
>just buy oil from someone else
>because it takes time to set up new mines and synthetic fuel refineries, time they didn't have.
so you mean that we can't just build giant cannons again on demand and it will take years to rebuild production and retrain workers?
oil is just 300 million year old potato peels
>we can't just build giant cannons again on demand and it will take years to rebuild production and retrain workers?
yes, AND
>we can't do (thing)
>and
>we can't do (thing cost-effectively during peacetime)
>are not at all the same. learn the difference.
if someone declares war on you today it doesn't help you if your industry can build what you need 3 years from now.
The US doesn't need giant spergcannons or battleships.
ok, but that isn't what was being argued
this is the third or fourth goalpost shift in this thread
and if you follow the thread back up to
you'll see that absolutely was what was being argued
>if someone declares war on you today it doesn't help you if your industry can build what you need 3 years from now
ok, but that isn't what was being argued
what was being argued was
>we've totally lost the knowledge to make battleship gun barrels ZOMFG!!
you are the one shifting goalposts. I said that the ability to produce guns like that no longer exists in the country. now you are saying that it could exist several years later after there was a need for it. the fact is that if you wanted a battleship turret built in america right now you wouldn't be getting one right now no matter how much you were willing to pay.
Liar. You fricking double downed on your horseshit right here
claiming the institutional knowledge itself was gone.
Now you're shifting the goalposts to demand that the battleship barrel be delivered
>right now
the institutional knowledge is gone. where are you going to find people experienced in using the huge ass machines used to make the barrels? the industry is already complaining that there aren't enough skilled machinists to run the comparatively smaller machines we have now. and you don't just need machinists, but toolmakers and millwrights and shop foremen. you can't just take people that make ar barrels and tell them to make a cannon barrel. the scale is hugely different and requires additional skills.
You don't need living experience to know how to do it. It's BEST to have it but not essential. Essentially you start over from scratch, but not all is lost as we humans have invented such things as pen and paper and bureaucracy to write information down.
In fact with advanced computer modelling, the ongoing development of modern naval gunnery, and the Zumwalt AGS project data we could build a better modern battleship-calibre gun faster, more efficiently and with less problems than starting again in WW1.
>you start over from scratch
which again takes time and can't simply be bought with money
which again was never the original assertion
generally, yes
but we don't need boomers from the 1930s telling us how to manufacture big guns, we actually know more about it today than they do thanks to computer aided modelling and new discoveries in physics and metallurgy
>which again was never the original assertion
yes it was you fricking homosexual. the original argument was that the us has offshored all of its production capability and there would be years worth of backlog to get it back. your stupid claim was that "in war time the government could just spend a trillion dollars to make it happen overnight."
>the original argument was that the us has offshored all of its production capability and there would be years worth of backlog to get it back. your stupid claim was that "in war time the government could just spend a trillion dollars to make it happen overnight."
No
The original argument, posted by another anon I might add, was that
>we absolutely have the knowledge to build more bigass lathes you fricking moron
to which you insisted that
>just like we have the knowledge to build more saturn 5s right? some guy on the internet saying it's easy is not the same as having institutional knowledge.
Nobody said anything about it happening
>overnight.
You took an extreme view that we had totally lost all knowledge, you got schooled, and now you're trying to squirm your way out of it.
you are a mongoloid who keeps bringing up cam and metallurgy when the issue is skilled labor. just because an engineer can design something doesn't mean that people can actually make it.
>the issue is skilled labor. just because an engineer can design something doesn't mean that people can actually make it.
tripling down on your moronation I see
I see you're out of ideas
>You don't need living experience to know how to do it. It's BEST to have it but not essential.
Having a car isn't essential but walked 20 miles each way to work isn't exactly a walk (please clap) in the park. Having people who know what they're doing makes teaching new guys A LOT easier. Look at how the Allies handled aces during WWII vs the Axis - the US sent a lot of their aces back to the US to train new pilots, ensuring that there was a constant supply of well-trained pilots, whereas in 1945 the Axis had Erich Hartmann, Saburo Sakai, and a bunch of rookies who had no clue what they were doing.
I used to work as a QC technician in a machine shop, and being taught by someone who did it for 15 years worked wonders and I guarantee I wouldn't have been spun up as quickly if I was just given a textbook and told to figure it out. When it comes to manufacturing, there are a million little tips and tricks that you can only pick up by actually doing something instead of just reading about it, doubly and triply so for complicated things like computer chips, or if you want to make anything in massive quantities.
Based, we backed the wrong horse in Asia and have been paying for it ever since.
>this dude thinks you can make petroleum from potatoes
the rest of your posts make sense now
You are aware that a rocket over 2x the size of saturnV was flown 3x in the last year?
Large part turning machines are custom. We do indeed have the capability and Phoenix is an example.
https://www.machinetoolsonline.com/doc/us-made-large-part-machine-tools-rise-from-ph-0001
I want to stab and mangle and burn people who make statements regarding equipment and industries they don't understand. That level of dumbfrickery is inexcusable.
Most heavy parts are not particularly long so the mechanism which could turn a horizontally mounted chuck is placed thusly. CNC makes cuts no manual machinists can perform. Here's a little one (note the chuck is more than ample for battleship barrel diameter):
The tech isn't exotic but fixing Iowa would have been silly. Building that lathe is not an enormous project but missiles have far greater range than battleship rifles which have been obsolete for a very long time.
Even South Africa build a much larger one but there was an economic case for doing that.
https://www.industrytap.com/worlds-largest-lathe-sale/14280#:~:text=It's%20been%20reported%20Waldrich%20Siegen,%E2%80%93%2016%20ft%20(4.87m)
Battleship fetishes are cute and cumpulsive like train fetishes, but the thing was obsolete and returned to service for dickwaving.
frick you train will never be obsolete until they invent teleporter
Trains remain the most cost-effective method for transporting large amounts of heavy goods over land. Precision guided missiles however are much more cost-effective than battleship guns. Your analogy is moronic and you should KYS forthwith.
The US has extra 16"/ 50 barrels.
Whoever said the big guns were inaccurate is just straight up wrong. I remember watching a video Demonstrating a big gun shooting down an aircraft. With modern computers they are incredibly accurate.
I love threads like this. Watching the Missouri and the New Jersey shell the crap out of Lebanon in the early 80's was very cool.
more importantly, did they have tracer rounds for these? what about rat shot? that would be fun.