Re: Stealth and Countermeasures...

Alan E and Carmel J Brain wrote:

> Imre A. Szabo wrote:
>
> > SunBurns will do damage but they will do far less damage to a BB
> then a
> > super heavy gun.  Why?  Doesn't have the explosive payload or the
> ultra
> > tough armor piercing airframe...  Probably equivalent to heavy guns.
>
> A bit about comparing 16" shells and Missiles.
>
> A 16" shell weighs on the order of 1 1/2 tonnes. Depending on whether
> it's High-Capacity, Armour Piercing or Semi-Armour piercing, this can
> vary a bit, but not much.
>
> In cross-section, the normal 16" SAP (Semi-Armour Piercing) shell has
> about 50% of the volume occupied by explosives. In terms of weight,
> that's maybe 100 kg. For a High-Capaicity shell, it's 200 kg, as the
> metal weighs at least 10x more than the explosive, by volume.
>
> The damage that AP and to a lesser extent SAP shells do is from the
> fact
> that they propel 3-4 large chunks of ironmongery around at hypersonic
> speeds when they go off, plus thousands of small splinters. More and
> Bigger chunks for AP, more splinters and fewer chunks for SAP.
>
> It's for this reason that many small ships have easily survived hits
> by
> large calibre guns. In many cases there was no fuse initiation, and
> the
> shell just made 2 16" diameter holes. In other cases, the 100kg of
> explosives did a bit of damage, none of the 3-4 bowling-ball sized
> chunks hit anything vital, and the splinters just made the immediate
> area (above the waterline) into a collander. The actual explosion is
> remarkably small.

I love the way you conveniently describe 16" HE shell and then don't
mention their effects.	Same goes for the effects of plunging AP and SAP
fire against unarmored targets.  It puts nice large 16" whole straight
threw the bottom of the ship.  It usually doesn't take long for them to
sink after that.  16" HE shell were for lightly and unarmoured targets.
When the over penetraed, they usually did little damage.  When they
don't, one round can kill a destroyer...

>
>
> With a missile like a Sunburn, or the dreaded AS-6 Kingfish, it's a
> different matter. There's far less metal, but a whole heap more
> explosive. We're talking at least 100 kg for the small missiles, and
> 1000 kg for the big ones. Plus the unburnt propellant, which in the
> case
> of solid fuel weapons is as dangerous as the warhead itself. Not
> merely
> that, but as the explosive doesn't have to take a multi-hundred G
> shock
> at the time of firing, a more sensitive and powerful explosive (at
> least
> twice the power for an equivalent amount) can be used.

But you don't have the kinetic energy for shore bombardment.  A very big
minus point.

>
>
> This will not do more than dish in a big slab of armour: but less than
>
> 30% of a Battleship is armoured this way, only the vitals, waterline
> etc. So a big explosion that hits from above can cause all sorts of
> electrical, hydraulic, fuel feed etc problems, plus fire, as well as
> removing large chunks of superstructure, warping decks, etc. Two such
> hits in close proximity would not penetrate the armour - but could
> easily cause large (10s of square meter) areas to detach from the rest
>
> of the ship's structure, causing massive leaks.

A lot of research has been done on this.  Good designs don't have vital
components outside of the protection envelope.	The "turtle deck" design
of the Bismarck and Trippitz were quite bad in this respect, and how
much of a pounding did the Bismarck take with this less then ideal
design after a lucky torpedo hit???  The Iowa's design is very good and
would take much more damage.  A modern battleship would be even
better...

>
>
> So although an Exocet sea-skimmer hitting an Iowa (ie a small warhead
> with large incendiary effects hitting 40cm of armour near the
> waterline)
> would just require a quick re-spray, an Otomat or other small
> terminal-diver coming in could cause serious (non-fatal) grief. And 20
>
> of them would almost certainly result in the ship's destruction.

Let's shoot a Nimitz with 20 too while where at it.  A modern BB would
have a chance survival.  Would the Nimitz???

>
>
> One AS-6 (MUCH bigger missile) would be unlikely to penetrate even the
>
> deck armour, apart from the first one or possibly two decks. But it
> might blow a turret straight off its mountings, and would certainly
> disable all radars, and most optics.

Check the effects of HE shells in Juttland.  One of the German ships was
using them exclussive.	While it did degrade enemy fire, it was not
nearly as effective as they hoped.  These rounds (and missiles) are best
against lightly or unarmored targets.  Nimitz's, Tico's, etc.  With
satellite guided rounds, effects of damage to ship fire control is not
as disabling as you suppose.  As for one AS-6 taking out a turret if it
gets a lucky hit; gee, the battleships got 3 more...  One AS-6 will
probably operationally kill a Nimitz WITHOUT a lucky hit...

>
>
> A Sunburn (Exocet-sized) thus actually has a lot more explosive power
> than a 16" shell. Give it a precursor warhead, and its speed would
> cause
> it go through the deck armour too. But better would be to give it an
> EMP
> warhead to KO the ship's electrical system.

Speed alone will not cause it to go through the deck armour.  It will
have to have an airframe capable of withstanding the shock without
breaking up.  If you do that, you end up with a SAP Sunburn.  But an EMP
warhead would be so much more useful against a Nimitz.	90 airplanes
without functioning avionics.  A large, thin skinned target that can't
maneuver.  The battleship would still require one massive pounding to
put down.

IAS

> --
>		http://www2.dynamite.com.au/aebrain
> aebrain@dynamite.com.au     <> <>    How doth the little Crocodile
> | Alan & Carmel Brain|      xxxxx	  Improve his shining tail?
> | Canberra Australia |  xxxxxHxHxxxxxx _MMMMMMMMM_MMMMMMMMM
>  abrain@cs.adfa.edu.au o O*OO^^^^OO*O o oo	 oo oo	   oo
>			 By pulling MAERKLIN Wagons, in 1/220 Scale