Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: RE: Sinking Tankers
Message-ID: <1990Aug31.030327.22986@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 31 Aug 90 03:03:27 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 42
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick)

Let me pose a hypothetical question about chasing and sinking tankers
in the Persian Gulf (or elsewhere for that matter).

What effect would a 16" shell from the Wisconsin have (aside from the
obvious ignition of any combustibles on board) to the ship?  Now that
may seem like an obvious question with an obvious answer....what I
am thinking of is: while there would be a big hole in the thing (assuming
for the sake of arguments, holds with NO oil, mostly empty), would
it get blown in half with one well placed round?

I have seen what 16" HE can do to granite mountains (that is, making
lots of little rocks) but I'm curious about what the dynamics of
hitting the hull or upper deck and exploding would have on the rest
of the structure.

Any theories (and yes I *do* know that the 16" round can go through
xx inches of Krupp steel used in an armor belt....this is a *slightly*
different case  :-)  )????

Duane

[mod.note:  The problem when engaging such "soft" targets with large-
caliber guns is mostly one of fusing.  The fuses of these shells can be
set to various delays; the idea being that the fuse activates upon
striking the target, and should have enough delay to allow the shell
to travel on to the ship's vitals before exploding.
	The thing is that if the target is armored, you need a longer
delay, because the shell loses part of its velocity in penetrating the
armor.  The thicker the armor, the greater the delay needed.  This was
a problem in the Battle of Leyte Gulf, where the Japanese shells were
fused too long; many of their battleship shells thus completely penetrated
the "baby flattops" before exploding after passing through.
	However, the problem can be solved.  I'd feel confident that
modern US Naval practice has anticipated this, given that any ship
target these guns would now engages would probably be unarmored.  Too,
during the war, battleship guns did from time to time strike and
detonate against targets as small as destroyers.  The large beam of
a tanker should simplify the problem still further. - Bill ]