Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner, OIR)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: RE: Sinking Tankers
Message-ID: <1990Sep13.011857.15963@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 13 Sep 90 01:18:57 GMT
References: <1990Aug31.030327.22986@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner, OIR)

>From article <1990Aug31.030327.22986@cbnews.att.com>, by 
wb9omc@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Duane P Mantick):
> 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?

> [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


Don't forget that the BB's carry high explosive rounds as well as armor
piercing.  The HE is intended for shore bombardment, but it would be
very effective against unarmored ships.  (In fact, since the main
mission is shore bombardment, the BB's might not even carry AP any
more.)  The HE shell for the 16 inch guns weighs 1900 lb, if memory
serves.  I think the fuse has no provision for time delay, and I'm
pretty sure that zero delay is at least an option.

Depending on compartmentation, at most a few shells should be sufficient
to sink even a large tanker.  Larger numbers of smaller shells (from
other ships) would be equally effective, of course.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123         Bitnet:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                 Internet: willner@cfa.harvard.edu