Longest service life possible for Iowa Class (barrel life related)

Pretty specific question but I think I might be able to get an answer here. Big guns, actually all guns, from my understanding have a limited service life on the gun barrels. I've read descriptions of gunnery tests on battleship guns where shell targeting became inconsistent on worn out barrels. And the fix for this was to replace the barrel and sometimes the worn out one was sent back to the steel mill for relining.

Did the US Navy have plans when these ships were reactivated for replacing/refurbishing the barrels? Did that industrial capacity exist anymore?

The whole reason behind this thread was a debate I overheard where one of the participants claimed we no longer had the ability to manufacture the "greats of the past" such as the Saturn V rocket and then went into battleships and claimed that the steel mills necessary to forge the thick armor plates on Iowa class no longer existed. And by that logic I later on began to wonder if the support infrastructure for the guns/turrets was still around. Was this perhaps the reason when USS Iowa suffered her turret explosion, that the turret was never repaired?
 
Pretty specific question but I think I might be able to get an answer here. Big guns, actually all guns, from my understanding have a limited service life on the gun barrels. I've read descriptions of gunnery tests on battleship guns where shell targeting became inconsistent on worn out barrels. And the fix for this was to replace the barrel and sometimes the worn out one was sent back to the steel mill for relining.

Did the US Navy have plans when these ships were reactivated for replacing/refurbishing the barrels? Did that industrial capacity exist anymore?

The whole reason behind this thread was a debate I overheard where one of the participants claimed we no longer had the ability to manufacture the "greats of the past" such as the Saturn V rocket and then went into battleships and claimed that the steel mills necessary to forge the thick armor plates on Iowa class no longer existed. And by that logic I later on began to wonder if the support infrastructure for the guns/turrets was still around. Was this perhaps the reason when USS Iowa suffered her turret explosion, that the turret was never repaired?
The USN found a load of 16" barrel liners lying in a field in China Lake somewhere, and with modern propellant additives (polyurethane and titanium dioxide) plus radar calibration of each individual shell, those liners are now good for roughly 1500 rounds each.
The gun barrels, elevating gear, rammers, powder/shell cradles etc. - those are all genuine no-spares items that would need recreating or cannibalization to fix eg a blown-up turret. Ditto with the turbines, gesaring, etc etc etc if a mechanical problem arose. Basically the only thing that wouldn't be a problem to replace is the barrel liners.....
 
The USN found a load of 16" barrel liners lying in a field in China Lake somewhere, and with modern propellant additives (polyurethane and titanium dioxide) plus radar calibration of each individual shell, those liners are now good for roughly 1500 rounds each.
The gun barrels, elevating gear, rammers, powder/shell cradles etc. - those are all genuine no-spares items that would need recreating or cannibalization to fix eg a blown-up turret. Ditto with the turbines, gesaring, etc etc etc if a mechanical problem arose. Basically the only thing that wouldn't be a problem to replace is the barrel liners.....

IIRC the machinery for the last two Iowas (Kentucky and Illinois IIRC) was taken for use in some underway replenishment ships, so there may be some engineering spares. The turret and gunnery components are unique and the ability to build them would need to be recreated.
 
The lathes to make the turret rings were highly specialised items. AFAIK the last lathe to make big ship turret rings were in a British yard until the early 80's.

It appears during WW1 the UK was in the process of preparing for building really big turrets for ships with 18" and 20" guns. One of the things one yard commissioned was the special giant size lathe. When the ships were cancelled in one of those weird occurrences, rather than scrap them they were mothballed and actually had a very young engineer allocated to keep them in full working order, which is what he did until the the yard was rationalised in the 1980's at which point the now very old engineer was given retirement and the lathe was sold for scrap.
 
Too bad. What about the forges etc... to make the armor plate these battleships wore? What process was in place to repair battle damage a ship such as this might suffer. The ships would not expect to be on the receiving end of battleship sized guns but the threat from smaller calibre gunfire, mines, torpedoes and especially anti-ship missiles were still present. Could the armor be reproduced/repaired?
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The lathes to make the turret rings were highly specialised items. AFAIK the last lathe to make big ship turret rings were in a British yard until the early 80's.

It appears during WW1 the UK was in the process of preparing for building really big turrets for ships with 18" and 20" guns. One of the things one yard commissioned was the special giant size lathe. When the ships were cancelled in one of those weird occurrences, rather than scrap them they were mothballed and actually had a very young engineer allocated to keep them in full working order, which is what he did until the the yard was rationalised in the 1980's at which point the now very old engineer was given retirement and the lathe was sold for scrap.
"Grandpa, what was your job?"

"I polished a lathe."
...
"No, that's it."
 
Too bad. What about the forges etc... to make the armor plate these battleships wore? What process was in place to repair battle damage a ship such as this might suffer. The ships would not expect to be on the receiving end of battleship sized guns but the threat from smaller calibre gunfire, mines, torpedoes and especially anti-ship missiles were still present. Could the armor be reproduced/repaired?

re: Naval Institute Proceedings, unfortunatly I dont have the volume or issue date. There is a article that includes a description of the replacement of the auxillary generator power, a diesel engine. It was necessary to dry dock the ship so the diesel could be removed through the lower portion of the hull, below the armor. The electric welding rod or wire of the correct alloy no longer existed to repair the armor were the generator engine removed by making a hole in the armor. The welding rod would have had to be custom made. There was also the question of electric welding equipment of the correct voltage/amperage being located. The possibility that would have to be custom built existed.

The diesel engine itself was less of a issue as companies like Caterpillar routinely adapt their motors to fit generator assemblies fifty years or more in age.
 
As for the comment about rolling mills no longer being able to produce armour plate thick enough ... perhaps you should research the U.S. Army depots that repaired and over-hauled M-1 Abrams tanks returned from fighting in Iraq.
It took amateur insurgents a while, but they eventually learned how to penetrate the thickest tank armour by building mines with TONS of explosives. Some of those mines were powerful enough to flip a 60 ton tank!
Some of those hulls were too badly warped or cracked to ever return to service, but it would still be interesting to learn what was the largest patch welded on, etc.

Keep in mind that M-1 Abrams tanks have composite armour made of several different layers of steel, ceramics, rubber, etc. to blunt all the different shells fired at them: solid shot, armour piercing discarding sabot, APDS fin stabilized, high explosive anti-tank, dual charge HEAT, squash head, explosively formed war heads, etc.
 
Build and rebuild

People are always saying that we can't rebuild the greats of the past--Iowas, Saturn V, and the like.

We can.

It might take a LOT of work, but the basic technology exists, and if it's been lost (as many diagrams and the like a may have been) we can recreate it. We may need to build the tools to build a gun pit, then build the gun pit, but, if there's a demand, it will happen. It's an engineering problem, not a science one--and engineering problems WILL be solved if there's the effort devoted to it.
 

Delta Force

Banned
With modern technology it would probably be possible to start building heavy cruiser type ships again. They would be more practical for the modern naval environment too. There's really no need for anything larger than a 12" gun now, if we had to build new gun ships again, and an 8" is good enough for most roles.
 

Nick P

Donor
The lathes to make the turret rings were highly specialised items. AFAIK the last lathe to make big ship turret rings were in a British yard until the early 80's.

It appears during WW1 the UK was in the process of preparing for building really big turrets for ships with 18" and 20" guns. One of the things one yard commissioned was the special giant size lathe. When the ships were cancelled in one of those weird occurrences, rather than scrap them they were mothballed and actually had a very young engineer allocated to keep them in full working order, which is what he did until the the yard was rationalised in the 1980's at which point the now very old engineer was given retirement and the lathe was sold for scrap.

A friend who worked in the British steel industry told me of the time in the late 70s or early 80s when the oil rigs were being built. They needed extra thick pipes to be made but that would have involved spending millions on creating a new machine.

During a conference one of the old hands in a steel yard heard of this order, perked up and said 'Follow me'. He took them to a shed at the back of the yard and uncovered a large machine that had last been used in 1945 to create the gun barrels for a battleship (HMS Vanguard?) and had been in storage ever since. The measurements were close enough for the job in hand.
Apparently these gun barrels were formed by rolling a block of hot steel over a solid mould (like a condom!).
 
I doubt it would have been for Vanguard - wasn't she specifically armed with the 15'' because they were already built and in stores after being removed from the Courageous class when they were converted to carriers?
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
As said, all it takes is money.

Barrel liners, armor, all of it can be done.

All it takes is someone (well a big pile of someones) to decide that the Return on Investment is there. There, of course, is the problem. Short of a Posleen invasion, not sure that the sort of money needed to reactivate the old ships to modern standards can be justified.
 

Delta Force

Banned
As said, all it takes is money.

Barrel liners, armor, all of it can be done.

All it takes is someone (well a big pile of someones) to decide that the Return on Investment is there. There, of course, is the problem. Short of a Posleen invasion, not sure that the sort of money needed to reactivate the old ships to modern standards can be justified.

It would depend on why someone wants to reactivate the old ships or build new battleships. If gunfire support is the primary reason, it wouldn't be too difficult to design a heavy gun mount for retrofit onto existing warships, or for inclusion on a new heavy cruiser design.

Somewhat related to this, I wonder if some of the World War II era cruisers could have seen continued service if they had been retained in the reserve fleets. Why did the Iowa class survive for so long in the reserve fleet while the heavy cruisers were out of service and being scrapped after 25 years or so? Could the turrets have been salvaged for use on fire support ships? There were twelve of the excellent 8"/55RF Mark 16 turrets on the three Des Moines class cruisers, more than enough to create a whole fleet of single ender heavy cruisers to replace or supplement the Iowa class, and even more of the 8"/55 Marks 12 and Mark 15 mounts.
 
Iowas and reserve

The Iowas survived in reserve for so long for a few reasons.

First of all, for many gunfire support missions, a bigger gun is just plain better. Not only can it punch through thicker concrete, but close is often good enough. The 8" shell has 21 pounds of explosive in the high capacity round; the 16' has 153 pounds. It can also reach further inland.

Second of all, battleships are just plain intimidating--very useful for gunboat diplomacy.

Also, an attack that will severely damage a cruiser might just scratch the paint of a battleship.

Overall, very useful beasties...
 
It would depend on why someone wants to reactivate the old ships or build new battleships. If gunfire support is the primary reason, it wouldn't be too difficult to design a heavy gun mount for retrofit onto existing warships, or for inclusion on a new heavy cruiser design.

Somewhat related to this, I wonder if some of the World War II era cruisers could have seen continued service if they had been retained in the reserve fleets. Why did the Iowa class survive for so long in the reserve fleet while the heavy cruisers were out of service and being scrapped after 25 years or so? Could the turrets have been salvaged for use on fire support ships? There were twelve of the excellent 8"/55RF Mark 16 turrets on the three Des Moines class cruisers, more than enough to create a whole fleet of single ender heavy cruisers to replace or supplement the Iowa class, and even more of the 8"/55 Marks 12 and Mark 15 mounts.

I've seen several threads on other boards that go into why the remaining US heavy cruisers were not reactivated in the 80's. IIRC amongst other reasons the Iowas were in comparatively better condition, and there were four Iowa's available. IMHO the larger hull size probably made the various upgrades a bit easier to deal with.

At the time the Iowas were reactivated I also recall reading in the popular press at the time that the engineering plants of the Iowas were considered to be in quite good shape and were believed to have a lot of life left in them.

The political aspects of having battle ships in the fleet when the USSR was launching so called battle cruisers was probably important as well.

I'm not sure the armor was really all that useful against the likely Soviet threats. I figure the Soviets would likely have worked out how to have their large anti shipping missiles bypass the belt armor or at least strike it a the optimum impact angle.
 
...

Somewhat related to this, I wonder if some of the World War II era cruisers could have seen continued service if they had been retained in the reserve fleets. Why did the Iowa class survive for so long in the reserve fleet while the heavy cruisers were out of service and being scrapped after 25 years or so? Could the turrets have been salvaged for use on fire support ships? There were twelve of the excellent 8"/55RF Mark 16 turrets on the three Des Moines class cruisers, more than enough to create a whole fleet of single ender heavy cruisers to replace or supplement the Iowa class, and even more of the 8"/55 Marks 12 and Mark 15 mounts.

I've seen several threads on other boards that go into why the remaining US heavy cruisers were not reactivated in the 80's. IIRC amongst other reasons the Iowas were in comparatively better condition, and there were four Iowa's available. IMHO the larger hull size probably made the various upgrades a bit easier to deal with.

....

Things like that were proposed, but the budget was never large enough, for that or any of the other related fire support ships. Last such I remember was a late 80s or early 90s proposal to reactivate the last two Salem class cruisers in storage. The Salem & Des Moines IIRC. There was a article in the marine Corps Gazette presenting the arguments for.
 
Last edited:
Top