FW: [Military-appl-society] RE Question on BB and Lebanon

[Siegel, Adam]

On this issue, I went to my best source on BBs -- Captain Seaquist (USN,
Ret'd) who commanded Iowa and is very thoughtful about issues related to
BBs. As noted below, he provided a POC and is willing to be contacted
directly re the subject.

Adam 


Adam B. Siegel
Senior Analyst
Northrop Grumman Analysis Center
1000 Wilson Boulevard
Suite 2407
Arlington, Virginia  22209

703-875-0005
fax:  703-351-6663

-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Seaquist [mailto:larry at strategygroup.org] 
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 10:52 PM
To: Siegel, Adam
Subject: Re: [Military-appl-society] Fw: Miami MAS


Adam,
 The best overall source of information on the New Jersey's wild
firing (and it was very bad, not least because no one used as spotters
a shore fire control party of Marines that we actually operating in
the hills under cover.  Major caliber fire MUST be adjusted) is
Charlie Thompson, the former Vietnam gunfire liaison officer and
former 60 minutes producer who wrote the book on Iowa.  Charlie is in
McLean at 703-237-0276.

There were some civilian casualties but in Arab villages, not refugee
camps.  Otherwise, of course, the professor is nuts -- blaming us for
this?!!

You might also ask the Col to call me -- back in the SSG and enroute
Iowa I spent some time tracking this incident down in order to be able
to fix whatever the cluster of problems was.  The  analysis below
addresses one of the several parts of the problem but has the facts
only slightly right.

And thanks for the phone call about my friends who died in the Pentagon, 
Adam.  I really appreciate your thoughtfulness.  No memorial is ever going 
to replace all those fine people or ease the pain for their families and 
shipmates.

Very best wishes to you both,
Larry

----- Original Message -----
From: "Siegel, Adam" <Adam_Siegel at mail.northgrum.com>
To: "Larry Seaquist (E-mail)" <larry at strategygroup.org>
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 12:28 PM
Subject: FW: [Military-appl-society] Fw: Miami MAS


> Larry -- Any thoughts / ideas on the below as former BB skipper?
Adam
> (Where should I send this guy?)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: BKlimack at aol.com [mailto:BKlimack at aol.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 12:21 PM
> To: S.G.C.Stoop at wmw.utwente.nl; ervin at rodin.wustl.edu;
> AWashburn at nps.navy.mil; DSHartley3 at home.com;
> Military-appl-society at www.informs.org
> Cc: rntyte at dstl.gov.uk; staniecc at erols.com; sas026 at ebrinc.com; Lese,
> William; Siegel, Adam; Quattromani, Anthony F.;
samuel.h.parry at boeing.com;
> gparnell at toffler.com; kevinng at ora.dnd.ca; JMOFFAT at dstl.gov.uk;
> mcgradyk at cna.org; huber at informatik.unibw-muenchen.de;
hartman at dmso.mil;
> jacqueline.henningsen at pentagon.af.mil; OR at monterey.nps.navy.mil
> Subject: Re: [Military-appl-society] Fw: Miami MAS
>
>
> Any in the military OR community have any knowledge about this or
can assist
> COL Benson?  He's studying for a year at MIT for SSC credit.
>
> His email:
> Bill,
> I need your help.   A professor here at MIT said that we, the
military,
> emptied the New Jersey's magazines into refugee camps above the city
of
> Beirut in 1983, after the bombing of the Marine Barracks.   He said
> reflexive acts like this are part of the reason people in the
Mid=east hate
> us.
> Can you check with the History Department guys and get me some
facts?  I
> asked for equal time at the next policy forum.  I need to know about
> civilian casualty figures, what really happened, when did it happen,
who
> ordered what, etc.
> This really upset me.  I actually heard some kids leaving the
auditorium
> saying 11 September was the military's fault because we bombed
innocent
> Arabs.
> How are things at the Academy?
> Best Regards,
> Kevin
>
>
>
> Here's what I sent back, FYI.
>
> As you can see I'm not there yet.  I'll also forward your email on
some
> listservs and try a few POCs at other places.
>
> Here are a few facts of which I am personally aware.  I remember
when the NJ
> shelled Lebanon and there was a wirephoto in the newspaper showing a
> civilian standing in a crater that was where his house had been.  I
recall
> the paper saying that his house had been a significant distance from
the
> apparent target, significant being maybe a mile, give or take
(memory is
> vague on the specific distance).  A number of months later I was on
the
> Dahlgren Navy base where they do surface weapon testing, the
equivalent of
> what I working in at the time at APG.  I met socially a Navy O3 who
was also
> involved in ballistic engineering and we where discussing projects
we worked
> on.
>
> He mentioned that he was involved in reworking the firing tables for
the
> NJ's (and all Iowa Class BB) 8" guns.  It turns out that the US Navy
had
> quite a lot of 8" powder bags (or whatever the Navy calls those
drum-like
> things) in inventory at the end of WWII.  To save money they didn't
buy any
> more.  And when the BBs were mothballed they suspended the ammo
surveillance
> program over the 8" materiel because of cost.  When the BBs were
pulled from
> mothballs (don't remember the year) they were loaded with the old
powder and
> projos.  Urgency to get underway either prevented sea trial gunnery
or
> greatly curtailed it (don't recall details).
>
> When the NJ fired into Lebanon the rounds were off target.  They
fired a few
> rounds (I think it was a few -- that is what my memory says, but
that isn't
> definitive) and noticed that some were very short.  Some may have
hit their
> intended target, but the one that hit the house was a definite short
round.
> The NJ ceased firing as soon as they realized that they had an
accuracy
> problem.
>
> The Navy O3 became involved in developing new FTs for the 8" gun
using 5"
> powder bags.  As the Navy has a lot of 5" systems in their inventory
they
> had kept buying new propellant and running the normal surveillance
programs.
> They developed FTs that allowed the NJ to fire the 8" guns
accurately and
> new 8" powder was manufactured.  I don't think the NJ fired into
Lebanon
> again, although I don't know for sure.
>
> Bottom line the shelling into Lebanon is another example of how when
you
> neglect the military (or aspects of it) then expect it to conduct
missions
> that stretch its capabilities you set them up to fail.  Had the Navy
> maintained surveillance and procurement of 8" ammo, and the BBs
never again
> left the yards, imagine how they would have been criticized for
wasting
> money.
>
> Bottom line, based on my personal conversation with a sea officer
personally
> involved in the issue, is that the NJ did not intentionally fire on
civilian
> targets.  The targets were NCA approved for military or strategic
political
> value and were not people-based revenge but were valid military
targets
> (even the papers said we were shooting at HQs and materiel
concentrations).
> Some rounds were on target, or at least close enough that they
didn't
> realize that the powder was bad.  When they got clearly inaccurate
fire,
> they ceased.
>
> Here's my additional analysis: the problem with the powder was that
because
> it is hydroscopic (absorbs water) it did not burn well or evenly.
And not
> every powder bag burned the same way, some being drier than others.
As you
> know, naval gun fire has a very flat trajectory (not as flat as an
M1, but
> much flatter than a field howitzer). The powder problem, flat
trajectory,
> and firing into the hills resulted in large deviations from the
target.  The
> powder introduced a random error rather than an expected bias (which
can be
> compensated for) and so initially they likely tried to adjust fire
thinking
> that wind or other met conditions where causing sensing rounds to
miss.