|
|
16 Inch Gun Training Film 1955
#988354
03/04/10 04:07 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 364
OP
Mudrunner
|
I found this orig. 1955 training film for 16 inch guns. Wow, these are awesome. Firing a 2500 pound bullet up to 20 miles. youtube video
|
|
Re: 16 Inch Gun Training Film 1955
[Re: Fishen'man]
#988355
03/04/10 05:41 AM
|
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 6,768
Trail Leader
|
That's awesome! I always wondered what the detailed operations of a ships big guns were like. That's far more complicated, and used far more manpower than I ever dreamed it would be.
I was watching a newer video of this operation and it looks like nothing changed, right up the point where they were retired.
|
|
Re: 16 Inch Gun Training Film 1955
[Re: Brian894X4]
#988356
03/04/10 07:27 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 15,887
Toyota & Classifieds Moderator
|
The Fire Control might've changed some for ballistics; check out the demise of these poor dudes. After watching the first vid, I can understand now why the turret crews were dayem near deef by the time they recounted their stories, and the hairy moments too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qalJ9koob2Q&feature=relatedLooks like it whacked the whole magazine, and the one next door.
http://www.walkablecommunities.org/Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. **ubi apis- ibi salus**
|
|
Re: 16 Inch Gun Training Film 1955
[Re: kewlynx]
#988357
03/04/10 07:47 AM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 8,557
Forum Moderator
|
At one point, I had 2 navy chiefs working for me. Both were fire control on battleships with 16 inch guns. They ALWAYS told the same stories over and over about how they worked, and the different cool things about them.
87 Raider 4D56td v5MT1 31's..Basically Stock
|
|
Re: 16 Inch Gun Training Film 1955
[Re: kewlynx]
#988358
03/04/10 07:53 AM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,211
Trail Leader
|
The story behind that incident was very sad. The Navy tried to pin it on a "love-gone-wrong" thing with a couple of sailors. It took years for the real story to prove that B.S. wrong and for their names to be cleared.
John B.
|
|
Re: 16 Inch Gun Training Film 1955
[Re: Fishen'man]
#988359
03/04/10 05:08 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,690
Trail Leader
|
I agree it's better to give than recieve.. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
1999 Mitsu Montero - Crappy Weather 1992 Isuzu Pickup - Zombie Apocalypse 2008 Saturn Sky Redline - Nice Weather
|
|
Re: 16 Inch Gun Training Film 1955
[Re: 87Montero]
#988360
03/04/10 05:24 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 16,227
Web Wheeler
|
Interesting to read this.
I was actively part of the sailor detail during it's 'recommissioning' ceremony here in the Bay Area back in the mid 80's after they finished refitting her and brought her back into the active fleet from the mothball fleet.
As an aside, I was a Data Systems Technician back then. That job designation went away in the 90's and I would have likely ended up being re-designated as an FC ('Fire Control' Technician) since the systems I fixed/maintained were part of the overall FC system.
|
|
Re: 16 Inch Gun Training Film 1955
[Re: Fishen'man]
#988361
03/04/10 08:20 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,950
Trail Leader
|
That was a cool video. I had no idea those were so big. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/zombie.gif" alt="" />
96 Montero LS 24V DOHC 3.0L. 98 Montero 24v SOHC 3.5L, factory rear locker, Winter/tow package. 63 Jaguar XKE 3.8L FHC 2000 Mercedes-Benz e430 07 fj cruiser
|
|
Re: 16 Inch Gun Training Film 1955
[Re: cmonty72]
#988362
03/05/10 03:07 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,211
Trail Leader
|
And yet, a modern strike fighter could deliver enough ordnance to take one out these days. With the increasingly lethal computerized ship-to-ship missle technology and a modern air strike capability, ships like these were limited to beating down a fairly unsophisticated adversary.
But, to think, there's a weapon from 1943 that could repeatedly fling a 2000lb. projectile 20 miles through the air and rain on someone's parade, with accuracy.
Very cool video.
John B.
|
|
Re: 16 Inch Gun Training Film 1955
[Re: JohnnyBfromPeoria]
#988363
03/05/10 05:44 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,649
Web Wheeler
|
Calculating the fall of the shot on those things, or any large artillery piece, is VERY hairy math. Newtonian physics say that the arc of the shot should be a simple parabola, in a vacuum, but artillery flies thru the air, and the navy used analog computers with machined cams and mechanical linkages, HIGHLY complex machines, to calculate the aim before the days of digital computers. Look up Siachi and Vernet who developed the math equations the machines solve. These were derived from multiple linear regression done on simpler mechanical calculators, observing shots and measuring variables, and the simplest equations used variable exponents on the equation terms.
I once met an old cpo who used to race the machine techs using a circular slide rule, and whupped 'em.
Just think of the variables in this problem not in vacuo. Altitude density, air temp, relative humidity, wind direction and intensity, altitude difference, absolute range, and target motion. Now think about time on target shots, where the same gun fires succesive shots at different loadings and gun elevations, so all the shots hit at the same time.
Killing is complex business these days. Oh, for the antelope femur and a handy skull to bash, those were the good old days...
Think about the Japanese battleship Mushashi, with 19" main batteries, or some 42% greater weight of metal per shot.
Ditto on the strike fighter. Japanese Kates with dumb torpedos were enough at Pearl Harbor. Battleships were obsolete even in 1941. The Exocet was the real game changer. Look at what it takes to protect a carrier, and still, all it takes is one cruise missle and it's gone. No place to hide unless you can submerge. And even the old Korean diesel subs are very hard to detect. Heck, all it takes is a flying crowbar. Google Operation Thor. Space is the military high ground these days, and we fail to take it. Think the Chinese are that dumb?
Not responsible for advice not taken...
|
|
|
|