"Obviously time to trade her in for a younger model. "
Always remember to trade a 40 in for 2 20's
OT - Bringing back the battleship?
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
Support the Boy Scouts buy Popcorn!
http://www.trails-end.com/estore/scouts ... id=3133025
http://www.trails-end.com/estore/scouts ... id=3133025
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
I'm keeping this one. She actually knows where Port Morosby is and who fought WWII in the Pacific.
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
I'm keeping this one. She actually knows where Port Morosby is and who fought WWII in the Pacific.
Yeah but she'll probably argue with you on your troop placements. [:-]
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
no fear of that.
When WitP pops up and its time to play/test......she rolls her eyes and mutters something that sounds suspiciously like:
boys and their toys......
Been getting that even more lately since my new Aleinware laptop arrived. Might have something to do with the soft coo'ing sounds i keep making while petting the top of it.
[;)]
When WitP pops up and its time to play/test......she rolls her eyes and mutters something that sounds suspiciously like:
boys and their toys......
Been getting that even more lately since my new Aleinware laptop arrived. Might have something to do with the soft coo'ing sounds i keep making while petting the top of it.
[;)]
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
One idea that would meet the concerns of reduced operating costs while still providing 16 inch firepower would be to bring back the monitor. As much as I would hate to see one of the remaining Iowa's cut up, the turrets could provide for three gunfire support monitors (or two in the case of the Iowa).
You don't need a 33 knot 900 ft. long ship for this. It's not supposed to escort carriers or provide AAA anymore. It doesn't have to go up against a enemy battleline. A ship that could travel with the amphibious fleet at 20 knots would work fine.
And even the New Jersey, et al. very rarely fired a full broadside in post WWII gunfire support role. They would most often fire one to three shells at a time from a single turret.
A beamy, hardened, relatively shallow draft gunfire support monitor could do the job at much lower cost in manpower and supplies, remove the effort of supporting 60 year old engineering and even have some steathy design built-in. And still carry a "big stick" for when things had to be positively, absolutely destroyed ASAP.
PBYPilot
You don't need a 33 knot 900 ft. long ship for this. It's not supposed to escort carriers or provide AAA anymore. It doesn't have to go up against a enemy battleline. A ship that could travel with the amphibious fleet at 20 knots would work fine.
And even the New Jersey, et al. very rarely fired a full broadside in post WWII gunfire support role. They would most often fire one to three shells at a time from a single turret.
A beamy, hardened, relatively shallow draft gunfire support monitor could do the job at much lower cost in manpower and supplies, remove the effort of supporting 60 year old engineering and even have some steathy design built-in. And still carry a "big stick" for when things had to be positively, absolutely destroyed ASAP.
PBYPilot
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
[Totally useless in modern warfare. They recommissioned two in the 80s and it was a total waste of money and resources. They might as well take all that money, tie it up into bundles and shoot it at the enemy.[:-]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.
Sigismund of Luxemburg
Sigismund of Luxemburg
-
joliverlay
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 5:12 am
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
Regarding the idea that the recommissioning of the ships was a waste. Ask the marines what the response of the militia in Lebonon was when a single shell from that ship was fired on their positions. How many sorties do you think it would take by aircraft to deliver the ordinance of a 20 min bombardment by Iowa?
Mission? how much of the worlds industry is within 5-10 miles of the coast.
For those of you who say the shells could be shot down by phlanx or equivlanet, I would say, how many? A salvo of several shells fired over a few min. would be more difficult to stop.
The argument that they would be vulnerable to modern surface to surface missles. Are you kidding? These weapons dont carry the penetrating payload of 16 in shells. The Sheffiled was killed by SSMs that would not even damage Iowa.
A major SSM strike would likely have perhaps 30 missles in a salvo (from several ships or aircraft) which would then require significant reload.
The BBs have a mission. 1. Shore bombardment. 2. Absorb hits for the CV. If somone fires a slavo of ssm at a CV task force put the BB in the flight path and let her do her duty. There is even a good chance she will survive.
Yes they are old. But NOTHING in the modern fleets has a fraction of the resistance to moderns SSMs as a BB. Just make sure the task force is well escorted by SSNs.
Mission? how much of the worlds industry is within 5-10 miles of the coast.
For those of you who say the shells could be shot down by phlanx or equivlanet, I would say, how many? A salvo of several shells fired over a few min. would be more difficult to stop.
The argument that they would be vulnerable to modern surface to surface missles. Are you kidding? These weapons dont carry the penetrating payload of 16 in shells. The Sheffiled was killed by SSMs that would not even damage Iowa.
A major SSM strike would likely have perhaps 30 missles in a salvo (from several ships or aircraft) which would then require significant reload.
The BBs have a mission. 1. Shore bombardment. 2. Absorb hits for the CV. If somone fires a slavo of ssm at a CV task force put the BB in the flight path and let her do her duty. There is even a good chance she will survive.
Yes they are old. But NOTHING in the modern fleets has a fraction of the resistance to moderns SSMs as a BB. Just make sure the task force is well escorted by SSNs.
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
I almost wish I had the patience to read this thread.
When it all comes down to it, it's "cost effienciecy".
The cost of sending a BB anywhere is -very- expensive.
The technology is old. The engines are old. The guns are old. You're talking about everything from maintenance, to training issues, to the ratio of sailors to tonnage.
As far as how much "BOOM!" can you make? Yes, there's something really cool about watching that fire a broadside on CNN. Definately magnificent, and certainly not what you want to be on the recieving end of. But an airwing can deliver more ordinance, with much greater precision (albeit at greater local risk), than the a BB can.
But let's face it. Carriers give you much more bang for your buck. Even in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. What was the priority? BBs or CVs? CVs can simply deliver the good more effiently, and at better cost in resources (and cash), than a BB can.
I love to watch New Jersey blowing the hell out of stuff. But the simply truth is that, carriers are more effient at that deadly task.
-F-
When it all comes down to it, it's "cost effienciecy".
The cost of sending a BB anywhere is -very- expensive.
The technology is old. The engines are old. The guns are old. You're talking about everything from maintenance, to training issues, to the ratio of sailors to tonnage.
As far as how much "BOOM!" can you make? Yes, there's something really cool about watching that fire a broadside on CNN. Definately magnificent, and certainly not what you want to be on the recieving end of. But an airwing can deliver more ordinance, with much greater precision (albeit at greater local risk), than the a BB can.
But let's face it. Carriers give you much more bang for your buck. Even in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. What was the priority? BBs or CVs? CVs can simply deliver the good more effiently, and at better cost in resources (and cash), than a BB can.
I love to watch New Jersey blowing the hell out of stuff. But the simply truth is that, carriers are more effient at that deadly task.
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
-
joliverlay
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2003 5:12 am
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
Feinder
I think you are wrong about the ordinace delivered by an air wing compared to a battleship. I have seen studies of this, my recollection of this is that there is no comparison whatsoever, the BB can deliver much more tonnage in ordinace much faster and cheaper.
I belive that the shells from Iowa weigh something like 2000 lbs each, maybe more. Firing one gun every 6 mins (9 mins for three turrents) gives you 2000 lbs ordinace/min. In one hour thats 120,000 lbs. How quickly do you think you can turn a CV air wing around and fly to/from the target.
I expect that a modern heavy cruiser (with real armor) and autoloading 8" or 10" or 12" guns might be the way to go today, becuase of age etc. My post was in reference to the reactiviation of the BBs after WW2 and in the 80s.
I think you are wrong about the ordinace delivered by an air wing compared to a battleship. I have seen studies of this, my recollection of this is that there is no comparison whatsoever, the BB can deliver much more tonnage in ordinace much faster and cheaper.
I belive that the shells from Iowa weigh something like 2000 lbs each, maybe more. Firing one gun every 6 mins (9 mins for three turrents) gives you 2000 lbs ordinace/min. In one hour thats 120,000 lbs. How quickly do you think you can turn a CV air wing around and fly to/from the target.
I expect that a modern heavy cruiser (with real armor) and autoloading 8" or 10" or 12" guns might be the way to go today, becuase of age etc. My post was in reference to the reactiviation of the BBs after WW2 and in the 80s.
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
This site, seems to have do a bit of homework...
NavWeaps.Com
Don't get me wrong. NJ can do a LOT of damage. You're absolutely right, that's a LOT of tonnage to be throwing around. However, NJ carries about 130 round per gun. And then she goes home (and potentially a LONG way home, since it's not like there are stocks of 16" shells everywhere). And after about 300 rounds, she's spends time to replace her barrels. (this is where we further the discussion on cost/effiency). Even if she -could- keep up a sustained rate of fire like that, she's on station for 2 hours, and then goes home.
===
So now we move on CVN. CVW-8, is a typical airgroup that is deployed on board our Nimitz class carriers.
CVW-8 is comprised of
2x Sqdns of F-14s
2x Sqdns of F-18s
1x Sqdn of E-2
1x Sqdn of S-3
Assuming that everyone does their job, the F-14s flying CAP and escort. The E-2 flying command-n-contorol. The S-3 looking for subs (altho they're quite capable of delivering ordinance). That leave us with 2x Sqdns of F-18s that are used in the attack role. At 16 planes per squadron. That's 32 F-18s that we get to use to bomb stuff.
According to the USN, the payload of an F/A-18F is 17,750 pounds. We'll play nice and say that, even tho the mission is short-ranged (if NJ can stand 16 miles off coast, so can we), and we could thus carry more ordinance, we'll also carry anti-air missles to combat a potential air-to-air threat (altho if there -was- one, NJ would -NOT- be standing 16 miles from coast, rest assured). But to give as much pad as possible, we'll halve the payload, and call it 8000 lbs of ordinance per plane.
8000 x 32 = 256,000 pound of ordinance in about 6 minutes. We both know it wouldn't all be dumb-bombs. But let's again say, it's 80% dumb-bombs since we're being cost-effient about the whole thing. I'd bet those pilotss are skilled enough to get -all- of the ordinance within 250 yds of the target (compared the 14 of 15 accuracy of New Jersey, wich still -is- quite accurate mind you).
And then they fly home, and load up some more. They'll be back in a couple hours or less. Nothing needs swapping out. They just need more gas, and more bombs. And there's plenty more where that come from.
===
Now, it's not as simple as multipling the rate of fire times the shell weight. Or the payload times the aircraft. But either way, deploying aicraft is more accurate, more boom, and more cost effective.
-F-
NavWeaps.Com
Don't get me wrong. NJ can do a LOT of damage. You're absolutely right, that's a LOT of tonnage to be throwing around. However, NJ carries about 130 round per gun. And then she goes home (and potentially a LONG way home, since it's not like there are stocks of 16" shells everywhere). And after about 300 rounds, she's spends time to replace her barrels. (this is where we further the discussion on cost/effiency). Even if she -could- keep up a sustained rate of fire like that, she's on station for 2 hours, and then goes home.
===
So now we move on CVN. CVW-8, is a typical airgroup that is deployed on board our Nimitz class carriers.
CVW-8 is comprised of
2x Sqdns of F-14s
2x Sqdns of F-18s
1x Sqdn of E-2
1x Sqdn of S-3
Assuming that everyone does their job, the F-14s flying CAP and escort. The E-2 flying command-n-contorol. The S-3 looking for subs (altho they're quite capable of delivering ordinance). That leave us with 2x Sqdns of F-18s that are used in the attack role. At 16 planes per squadron. That's 32 F-18s that we get to use to bomb stuff.
According to the USN, the payload of an F/A-18F is 17,750 pounds. We'll play nice and say that, even tho the mission is short-ranged (if NJ can stand 16 miles off coast, so can we), and we could thus carry more ordinance, we'll also carry anti-air missles to combat a potential air-to-air threat (altho if there -was- one, NJ would -NOT- be standing 16 miles from coast, rest assured). But to give as much pad as possible, we'll halve the payload, and call it 8000 lbs of ordinance per plane.
8000 x 32 = 256,000 pound of ordinance in about 6 minutes. We both know it wouldn't all be dumb-bombs. But let's again say, it's 80% dumb-bombs since we're being cost-effient about the whole thing. I'd bet those pilotss are skilled enough to get -all- of the ordinance within 250 yds of the target (compared the 14 of 15 accuracy of New Jersey, wich still -is- quite accurate mind you).
And then they fly home, and load up some more. They'll be back in a couple hours or less. Nothing needs swapping out. They just need more gas, and more bombs. And there's plenty more where that come from.
===
Now, it's not as simple as multipling the rate of fire times the shell weight. Or the payload times the aircraft. But either way, deploying aicraft is more accurate, more boom, and more cost effective.
-F-
"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me
-
Lord_Calidor
- Posts: 402
- Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 8:00 am
- Location: Rijeka, CRO
- Contact:
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
Morale effect of any warship popping up in enemy territory shouldn't be underestimated.
I remember some 14 years ago, during the war in Balkan, 2 Yugoslav destroyers showed up in 2 instances in front of a Split city, or 3 patrol gunboats in front of Rijeka city, both Croatian. Although their firepower was almost negligable, morale effect they caused among that cities' civilians and military was tremendeous. Croatian Army started to pull artillery elements of nearby brigades defending inland areas from heavy land attacks just to counter the warships, and seriously weakend that fronts. Only when the ships retreated, guns were sent back. It was by pure luck and quite chaotic command structure in Yugoslav Army/Serbian paramilitary units that they didn't execute simultaneous attack by land & sea.
I remember some 14 years ago, during the war in Balkan, 2 Yugoslav destroyers showed up in 2 instances in front of a Split city, or 3 patrol gunboats in front of Rijeka city, both Croatian. Although their firepower was almost negligable, morale effect they caused among that cities' civilians and military was tremendeous. Croatian Army started to pull artillery elements of nearby brigades defending inland areas from heavy land attacks just to counter the warships, and seriously weakend that fronts. Only when the ships retreated, guns were sent back. It was by pure luck and quite chaotic command structure in Yugoslav Army/Serbian paramilitary units that they didn't execute simultaneous attack by land & sea.
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage.
Then imitate the action of the tiger;
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage.
-
steveh11Matrix
- Posts: 943
- Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 8:54 am
- Contact:
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
I believe this document is of relevance. Apparently extended range 5 inch guns, not yet developed and delayed since 2001, are supposed to fill the gap until around 2018...
If I were a US Marine, I'd be hopping mad.
Steve.
If I were a US Marine, I'd be hopping mad.
Steve.
"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci
-
barbarrossa
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
- Location: Shangri-La
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
As a former main battery FC and plankowner of Wisconsin 1987-88, I'll chime in on some stuff I saw as I glanced through the thread. Nice to be back I'll add. Love the 1.4 patch, BTW.
As much as I love the Iowas, bringing them back into service really isn't feasable either cost-wise or combat wise.
There's the fuel problem --- nothing in the fleet uses the type of fuel an Iowa uses anymore. Everything now is either nuc or GSE. So you'd have to have an oiler dedicated to just this one ship class -- not very practical.
There's the size of the crew --- about 1500. That's 1500 to service (in '80's configuration) 16 Harpoons, 32 Tomahawks, about 1000 or so 16" rounds and a whole bunch of 5" rounds and that's it.
The ABL's (armored box launcher) used on BB's isn't even in the fleet anymore, so you'd have to have dedicated support for those. I think the vertically-launched T-hawk birds are different from ABL-launched birds too. Again, more assets dedicated to this one class of ship.
A couple of things you might not know about the 16" ordinance. The projectiles (AP 2700 lbs. HE 1800 lbs) and the powder, all date from WW2. They weren't made during reactivation and service in the '80's, but rather utilized from stores. The powder bags themselves were new, but not the powder grains.
The fuzes are in the nose of the projectiles, you arm them with a screwdriver.
The primer charge that fires the gun looks like and is about the same size as a 4-10 shotgun shell.
The 5" guns are actually louder and more unpleasant to the ear than the main battery.
A few tidbits......
As much as I love the Iowas, bringing them back into service really isn't feasable either cost-wise or combat wise.
There's the fuel problem --- nothing in the fleet uses the type of fuel an Iowa uses anymore. Everything now is either nuc or GSE. So you'd have to have an oiler dedicated to just this one ship class -- not very practical.
There's the size of the crew --- about 1500. That's 1500 to service (in '80's configuration) 16 Harpoons, 32 Tomahawks, about 1000 or so 16" rounds and a whole bunch of 5" rounds and that's it.
The ABL's (armored box launcher) used on BB's isn't even in the fleet anymore, so you'd have to have dedicated support for those. I think the vertically-launched T-hawk birds are different from ABL-launched birds too. Again, more assets dedicated to this one class of ship.
A couple of things you might not know about the 16" ordinance. The projectiles (AP 2700 lbs. HE 1800 lbs) and the powder, all date from WW2. They weren't made during reactivation and service in the '80's, but rather utilized from stores. The powder bags themselves were new, but not the powder grains.
The fuzes are in the nose of the projectiles, you arm them with a screwdriver.
The primer charge that fires the gun looks like and is about the same size as a 4-10 shotgun shell.
The 5" guns are actually louder and more unpleasant to the ear than the main battery.
A few tidbits......
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe
"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
ORIGINAL: crsutton
[Totally useless in modern warfare. They recommissioned two in the 80s and it was a total waste of money and resources. They might as well take all that money, tie it up into bundles and shoot it at the enemy.[:-]
Why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel instead of waffling?[:D]
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
Regarding the idea that the recommissioning of the ships was a waste. Ask the marines what the response of the militia in Lebonon was when a single shell from that ship was fired on their positions. How many sorties do you think it would take by aircraft to deliver the ordinance of a 20 min bombardment by Iowa?
Well, given previous quoted 17,500 pounds/sortie figure - vs. 9 x 2700 x 10 salvoes = about 14 sorties, less if we park the carrier just off the coast and put on a heavy load.
Despite the claimed "pinpoint accuracy" of the 16" shells - they don't all wind up hitting at the exact same spot, and when firing inland in Lebanon, they often came nowhere near the enemy, as demonstrated by reports from bitter Lebanese civilians and footage showing new "swimming pools" out in the middle of an empty field (and not anywhere near the fighting). How many new El Qaida members were created by this action. Who knows?
For those of you who say the shells could be shot down by phlanx or equivlent, I would say, how many? A salvo of several shells fired over a few min. would be more difficult to stop.
First of all, the statement was made that nothing can stop the 16" shell ("no countermeasures") - so now that it is shown that maybe something CAN stop the 16" shell, the cry goes up, "Yeah, but there would be too many to stop". This seems like a fruitless argument. I could reply that you don't need to stop every shell, just the ones about to hit your ship, but i won't say this.[:'(]
The argument that they would be vulnerable to modern surface to surface missles. Are you kidding? These weapons dont carry the penetrating payload of 16 in shells. The Sheffiled was killed by SSMs that would not even damage Iowa.
True enough. No need to put an AP (including shaped charged) warhead on a missile today (unless you count torpedoes as missiles), since no one bothers with much armor. However, if someone fielded a BB, it would be a simple matter to produce such a warhead (not really high tech, nor hard to make).
However, you don't really need that - you can use napalm or a FAE (Fuel Air Explosive). The vulnerability of the BB to these has been pointed out numerous times in the professional naval literature (well, USN Proceedings, anyway).
-
barbarrossa
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
- Location: Shangri-La
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
ORIGINAL: crsutton
[Totally useless in modern warfare. They recommissioned two in the 80s and it was a total waste of money and resources. They might as well take all that money, tie it up into bundles and shoot it at the enemy.[:-]
Why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel instead of waffling?[:D]
Actually, all 4 were recommissoned in the '80's.
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe
"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
-
barbarrossa
- Posts: 358
- Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:16 am
- Location: Shangri-La
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
For those of you who say the shells could be shot down by phlanx or equivlent, I would say, how many? A salvo of several shells fired over a few min. would be more difficult to stop.
First of all, the statement was made that nothing can stop the 16" shell ("no countermeasures") - so now that it is shown that maybe something CAN stop the 16" shell, the cry goes up, "Yeah, but there would be too many to stop". This seems like a fruitless argument. I could reply that you don't need to stop every shell, just the ones about to hit your ship, but i won't say this.[:'(]
The IV (intial velocity) of a 16" projectile was roughly anywhere between 2200 feet per second to 2500 fps depending on the powder charge being used and the projectile (AP or HE). Do the math to calculate MPH.
IMHO I don't think it's realistic to think that CWIS, Sparrow or any other point defense system could successfully engage an incoming 16" round.
It would be hard enough to lock on to something as small as a 16" round then factor in the fact that it is travelling at such a high rate of speed then factor in that it was fired less than 23 miles away. I don't think it possible to get a good enough fire control solution for successful intercept.
I've been out of the FC world for a long time, but I don't think it's feesable.[:)]
I'd be more worried about the Harpoons anyway![:D]
"It take a brave soldier to be a coward in the Red Army" -- Uncle Joe
"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
"Is it you or I that commands 9th Army, My Fuhrer?" -- Model
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
The IV (intial velocity) of a 16" projectile was roughly anywhere between 2200 feet per second to 2500 fps depending on the powder charge being used and the projectile (AP or HE). Do the math to calculate MPH.
Yeah - but you don't intercept a projectile at initial velocity - you intercept it after its gone several miles (hopefully, or else you don't have enough time to intercept!) I have seen statements that this velocity is around 1000 mph. At least one British DD engaging Scharnhorst was able to use its radar to dodge several salvoes of 11" shells mentioned that they travelled at about this speed. Iirc, i have seen other mention of speeds in the 1000 mph range. Flight time over 20 miles of a salvo is something like 45 seconds (don't know the exact numbers off the top of my head) which gives a first order approximation AVERAGE velocity of 1600 mph (not counting the exact arc or the curve of the shell, etc) , so the shell is likely to be travelling rather slower than that towards the end of the trajectory since it starts out at about 2 miles/sec = 7200 mph.
EDIT - IIRC, various CIWS like Phalanx, Goalkeeper, etc. were designed to cope with threats in that range of speeds (ie - some supersonic (c. 1000-1200 mph) Soviet antiship missiles).
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
If the fire is at long range (plunging), the shell will be accelerating again as it nears its target.
If you are talking about using a point defense system, chances are you are near (or on!) the shell's target. Good news for fire control solution - no deflection! Bad news for other reasons.[X(]
If you are talking about using a point defense system, chances are you are near (or on!) the shell's target. Good news for fire control solution - no deflection! Bad news for other reasons.[X(]
Fear the kitten!
RE: OT - Bringing back the battleship?
ORIGINAL: irrelevant
If the fire is at long range (plunging), the shell will be accelerating again as it nears its target.
If you are talking about using a point defense system, chances are you are near (or on!) the shell's target. Good news for fire control solution - no deflection! Bad news for other reasons.[X(]
True enough - but the only figures i've ever seen for a BB shell at the end of its trajectory is in the 1000 mph range. Anyone have any other numbers?[&:]
EDIT - PS - the British DD that was dodging the Scharnhorst's shell eventually got tagged, which killed at least part of the radar crew, ending that "experiment". I think the ship survived, though.