• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Naval gun rifling cutter photo's

So then why didn’t the big German railway cannons drive themselves all the way back to Berlin?
They didn't drive themselves back to Berlin. The recoil from them, even though dampened like in the ships literally made them unusable.

Just sayin' the ships move. It can be seen in a multitude of pics. There is a tremendous amount of force when those guns go off. It's absorbed and the crew loads another round and moves on. It's not going to turn the ship over, or move it to the next ocean. But, it moves it.
 
They didn't go with high speed. They went with "light and maneuverable". Japanese fighters were lighter, but didn't have as much horsepower and were therefore slower. P-40B/C's were 20-25 mph faster than A6M2/KI-43 fighters (Zeros/land based zeros). P-40's also had self-sealing fuel tanks which meant they didn't catch fire and explode when hit with a few rounds. We also had superior pilot armor. P-40's also had a faster roll rate and higher manueverability at high speeds (lower maneuverability at low speeds). U.S. fighter planes were way more 'tough' as the P-40 could dive at speeds of over 600 mph and absorb damage. Surprisingly, they didn't suffer from the 'compression' that many other U.S. fighters did. The Japanese aircraft could go just over 400 mph in a dive before they began to tear apart. They were light so the p-factor also kept them from turning right as fast as our aircraft.

The concept of early Japanese fighters was a very advanced WWI fighter. Manueverability was the #1 goal. What the U.S. fielded (P-40) was a very primitive WWII fighter. Fast and tough, but could not turn at LOW SPEED with Japanese aircraft.

With ships it was the opposite. Heavier and heavier battleships. But, the carrier concept was embraced by the Japanese, who delved into it deeply. And, had it not been for the "luck" of the U.S. at Midway we would have faced much more formidable odds against Japanese carriers/aircraft. For, even though we had fielded aircraft superior in speed, armor and armament, we still taught WWI tactics to our pilots. Not a trait where we had advantages.
Cool. Thanks!
 
They didn't go with high speed. They went with "light and maneuverable". Japanese fighters were lighter, but didn't have as much horsepower and were therefore slower. P-40B/C's were 20-25 mph faster than A6M2/KI-43 fighters (Zeros/land based zeros). P-40's also had self-sealing fuel tanks which meant they didn't catch fire and explode when hit with a few rounds. We also had superior pilot armor. P-40's also had a faster roll rate and higher manueverability at high speeds (lower maneuverability at low speeds). U.S. fighter planes were way more 'tough' as the P-40 could dive at speeds of over 600 mph and absorb damage. Surprisingly, they didn't suffer from the 'compression' that many other U.S. fighters did. The Japanese aircraft could go just over 400 mph in a dive before they began to tear apart. They were light so the p-factor also kept them from turning right as fast as our aircraft.

The concept of early Japanese fighters was a very advanced WWI fighter. Manueverability was the #1 goal. What the U.S. fielded (P-40) was a very primitive WWII fighter. Fast and tough, but could not turn at LOW SPEED with Japanese aircraft.

With ships it was the opposite. Heavier and heavier battleships. But, the carrier concept was embraced by the Japanese, who delved into it deeply. And, had it not been for the "luck" of the U.S. at Midway we would have faced much more formidable odds against Japanese carriers/aircraft. For, even though we had fielded aircraft superior in speed, armor and armament, we still taught WWI tactics to our pilots. Not a trait where we had advantages.
Some Japanese air craft were called "Burning Betties" they were made of wood to be light and caught fire when shot full of holes. Not a very good trade off for a war machine.
 
In the rifling of 5 inch and 76 mm barrels at Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, KY we used about 125-8 progressive broach cutters to machine the rifling into the barrels. The lubricant of choice was rendered hog fat. Each cutter defined part of the rifling profile. Some cutters produced a wisp of a chip that looked like fine steel wool fibers and others much more substantial. The cutters were mounted on a ram that had a key groove cut into it longitudinally which defined the rifling twist.

Five inch projectiles and larger(I can't recall an image of the smaller 76 mm and 3 in) had rotating bands swaged to the outside surface to engage the rifling
 
I want people to go out and take a 200 gr. bullet and launch it out of a 30-06 @ 2700 fps and tell me the recoil has no effect. That's basically what a 2700 pound shell does out of a 16" gun at 2700 fps.

Now, line up nine of them and shoot at the same time! I'm sure that wouldn't move you.

Put nine of them together and I bet it will move you...to a place you don't want to end up in...
It’s simple physics, the recoil energy of a broadside is negligible compared to the mass of the vessel and resistance of water on the hull. The photos showing disturbances in the water near the bow are caused by the over pressure from firing the guns. It’s an optical illusion.

take a look at this for all the math.


A 9 gun broadside would theoretically move the ship a fraction of a millimeter, IF the vessel were sitting on ice. Add in the resistance of a ~39ft draft along the full waterline length of 860ft at 58,000 tons and the movement is so tiny it isn’t worth calculating.


Velocity of ship = Broadside Momentum / [Mass of ship]
= 2.115 x 106 / [58,000 * (2,240 / 32.174)]
= 0.52 fps. (On ice!)
 
Back in the 60's, my father who was a retired Gunnersmate worked at a factory that made those barrels. He took me to work oone time and showed me how it was done. Very impressed for even a 16 year old kid.
 
I was stationed just off the coast in the central highland in 68. On occasion you could hear what you thought was thunder in the direction of the ocean and then thunder inland on a clear day with out storm clouds. At night you could see the illumination on both horrizons with the sound effects to follow later. If the light was right you could see the garbage cans going overhead. This was harder to detect because the sound came later. The other 'naval' gun that came into play for us was 40mm pom pom guns mounted on a light tanks. They traveled in teams of two. At night it was like watching the 4th of July fireworks finally up close and personal. Was it worth my hearing? Yep
 
They didn't go with high speed. They went with "light and maneuverable". Japanese fighters were lighter, but didn't have as much horsepower and were therefore slower. P-40B/C's were 20-25 mph faster than A6M2/KI-43 fighters (Zeros/land based zeros). P-40's also had self-sealing fuel tanks which meant they didn't catch fire and explode when hit with a few rounds. We also had superior pilot armor. P-40's also had a faster roll rate and higher manueverability at high speeds (lower maneuverability at low speeds). U.S. fighter planes were way more 'tough' as the P-40 could dive at speeds of over 600 mph and absorb damage. Surprisingly, they didn't suffer from the 'compression' that many other U.S. fighters did. The Japanese aircraft could go just over 400 mph in a dive before they began to tear apart. They were light so the p-factor also kept them from turning right as fast as our aircraft.

The concept of early Japanese fighters was a very advanced WWI fighter. Manueverability was the #1 goal. What the U.S. fielded (P-40) was a very primitive WWII fighter. Fast and tough, but could not turn at LOW SPEED with Japanese aircraft.

With ships it was the opposite. Heavier and heavier battleships. But, the carrier concept was embraced by the Japanese, who delved into it deeply. And, had it not been for the "luck" of the U.S. at Midway we would have faced much more formidable odds against Japanese carriers/aircraft. For, even though we had fielded aircraft superior in speed, armor and armament, we still taught WWI tactics to our pilots. Not a trait where we had advantages.
But our tactics changed pretty quick.
I often wonder what the first Japanese pilot who jumped on a Hellcat thinking it was a Wild Cat Said. “Chikuso”.
That old crap about the Japanese “invincibility” ended pretty quick.
that quote from Admiral Yamato might have never been said, but whether he actually said it or not soon rang true. “We have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.
 
But our tactics changed pretty quick.
I often wonder what the first Japanese pilot who jumped on a Hellcat thinking it was a Wild Cat Said. “Chikuso”.
That old crap about the Japanese “invincibility” ended pretty quick.
that quote from Admiral Yamato might have never been said, but whether he actually said it or not soon rang true. “We have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.
No, it actually took a couple years before the rest of the military decided that better tactics was a better answer. The Hellcat didn't see combat until August of 1943. It was definitely superior to the Zero's. In the meantime, the Navy used the Thach Weave. Which worked as long as our fighters stayed together. The tactic required at least two aircraft. In the South Pacific the P38 was racking up kills well. Pretty much because it had no chance of turning with a Zero and relied on its speed. While fast in level flight, it wasn't very acrobatic. Meaning chances of survival in combat going straight up like a Wildcat or Hellcat (Hellcat climbed immensely better) were low. By proxy, P-38 drivers pretty much adopted Chenaults 'Hit and Run' tactics. That aircraft could pull away from anything in straight and level flight and even in 'best climb' attitude. But, unlike the P-40 it was not very good at diving. The P-40 was not good at straight up climbing either. They had their weaknesses, but one way or another each had better speed.
 
A story told by a fellow who was a Forward Air Controller - Airborne.

NVN coastal defense batteries dug into mountains were making life difficult for USN surface ships with only 5” guns and the U.S.S. New Jersey (BB-62) with its 16” guns was called in to silence them.

After relaying the coordinates of the offending guns, one 16” round was fired to verify the FAC-A’s target versus the ship’s target coordinate location. As the round was in-flight, the ship called time-to-impact with the following dialogue, “Standby. Five. Four. Three. Two. One. Impact.”

There was a difference of less than 100 meters to the targets and the FAC-A provided the weapon impact location. A second round was fired, and the dialogue was the same; that is, “Standby. Five. Four. Three. Two. One. Impact.” The second hit was virtually perfect with good azimuth and elevation.

With both the FAC-A and the ship satisfied with the target/impact location, New Jersey fired a broadside. Once again, the dialogue was identical. “Standby. Five. Four. Three. Two. One. Impact.”

The weapons impacted the correct location, but there was nothing else. Nothing. The FAC-A reported, “Good hits, no explosions.”, but was immediately silenced with, “STANDBY!! Three. Two. One.”

At that point, the top of the mountain simply lifted up and then settled back down with half of it going in the Gulf and those guns were never heard from again.
 
A story told by a fellow who was a Forward Air Controller - Airborne.

NVN coastal defense batteries dug into mountains were making life difficult for USN surface ships with only 5” guns and the U.S.S. New Jersey (BB-62) with its 16” guns was called in to silence them.

After relaying the coordinates of the offending guns, one 16” round was fired to verify the FAC-A’s target versus the ship’s target coordinate location. As the round was in-flight, the ship called time-to-impact with the following dialogue, “Standby. Five. Four. Three. Two. One. Impact.”

There was a difference of less than 100 meters to the targets and the FAC-A provided the weapon impact location. A second round was fired, and the dialogue was the same; that is, “Standby. Five. Four. Three. Two. One. Impact.” The second hit was virtually perfect with good azimuth and elevation.

With both the FAC-A and the ship satisfied with the target/impact location, New Jersey fired a broadside. Once again, the dialogue was identical. “Standby. Five. Four. Three. Two. One. Impact.”

The weapons impacted the correct location, but there was nothing else. Nothing. The FAC-A reported, “Good hits, no explosions.”, but was immediately silenced with, “STANDBY!! Three. Two. One.”

At that point, the top of the mountain simply lifted up and then settled back down with half of it going in the Gulf and those guns were never heard from again.
Thanks for the story, sir. Why I like this site. Unfiltered / zero BS information from people who know their stuff.
 
Last edited:
CT10ring – many thanks for the link to Battery Townsley.

“Seacost fortifications of the United States” by Emanuel Raymond Lewis is a long out of print softcover book detailing defensive positions and the armament around the US. Unfortunately, there is very little about individual batteries such as Battery Townsley; and in fact, is not mentioned by name. Nonetheless, there is a line drawing that depicts the design of the pre-WWII positions such as Battery Townsley. Equally unfortunate however, are the prohibitions on reproducing any portion of the book; which is a shame.

The National Park Service has custody of these pre-WWII fortifications, but unless something has changed, most are off-limits to visitors; which is truly regrettable, because they really are quite remarkable.

Here are images from John Stanton of Fort Rosecrans, Battery Ashburn on Point Loma, in San Diego, California. Notice the inviting fence around one of the entrances and the seaward facing portion of the facility.
 

Attachments

  • Battery_Ashburn_-_2.jpg
    Battery_Ashburn_-_2.jpg
    204.7 KB · Views: 28
  • Battery_Ashburn_-_6.jpg
    Battery_Ashburn_-_6.jpg
    164.7 KB · Views: 27
  • FortRosecransBatterAshburn.jpg
    FortRosecransBatterAshburn.jpg
    43.5 KB · Views: 29
CT10ring – many thanks for the link to Battery Townsley.

“Seacost fortifications of the United States” by Emanuel Raymond Lewis is a long out of print softcover book detailing defensive positions and the armament around the US. Unfortunately, there is very little about individual batteries such as Battery Townsley; and in fact, is not mentioned by name. Nonetheless, there is a line drawing that depicts the design of the pre-WWII positions such as Battery Townsley. Equally unfortunate however, are the prohibitions on reproducing any portion of the book; which is a shame.

The National Park Service has custody of these pre-WWII fortifications, but unless something has changed, most are off-limits to visitors; which is truly regrettable, because they really are quite remarkable.

Here are images from John Stanton of Fort Rosecrans, Battery Ashburn on Point Loma, in San Diego, California. Notice the inviting fence around one of the entrances and the seaward facing portion of the facility.
Yup, those fences - have meaning. At least the history is intact. At the tip of Long Island NY are ( years back and I don't know if these relics are there now ) are remains of sub pens (concrete roads only, now), a massive radar installation, and concrete "houses" facing the Atlantic - built to look like wooden framed structures, but for spotting Nazi subs. If memory serves, some Nazi subs did make their way here, and many did terrible damage down to Cape Hatteras, NC in the early days of WWII. Further south down the coast -- 500 lb training bombs from training drills ( rafts - targets on the Albemarle Sound) washed up on the shore at my families farm, or hit the beach, more likely? They were filled with sand and no other arming fuzes. We had one for years...
 
Last edited:
Yup, those fences - have meaning. At least the history is intact. At the tip of Long Island NY are ( well- it's a few years for me ) are sub pens, some massive radar installations, and concrete "houses" facing the Atlantic- Built to look like wooden framed structures, but for spotting Nazi subs with some short range 105mm etc available. I've been in all of em. If memory serves, some Nazi subs did make their way here, and many did terrible damage down to Cape Hatteras, NC in the early days of WWII. Further south down the coast --my family farm is not so far away - Edenton, NC. Dummy 500 bombs lbs from training drills ( rafts on the Albemarle Sound) washed up on the shore. We still have a few. They were filled with sand and no other arming fuzes.
Amazing how much stuff from WWII is still around in many places. It was at least 50 years after WWII that the Navy went and cleaned up their practice torpedoes in Pyramid lake in NV. NAS Fallon, Van Voorhis Field, is a remnant of WWII, with some of the original hangars still in use today. Lewistown, MT has a hangar that was WWII. A bunch of fields in MT were Training/Testing fields. WY, ID, WA, NM, NV have a bunch too.
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,024
Messages
2,188,178
Members
78,639
Latest member
Coots
Back
Top