Interesting Battleship gun facts

Post a reply

Confirmation code
Enter the code exactly as it appears. All letters are case insensitive.
BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Interesting Battleship gun facts

by Laurence Batchelor » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:54 am

I still have 1000s on my lists yet to view.
Where did you read this Whitehall?

by ar » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:40 am

Anonymous wrote:
ar wrote:I did read your first post on the subject.
Here are some of the factors that I believe should be taken into account when making comparisions.
Quality of forgings.
Barrel droop and its effect on flight of shell.
Muzzel flare and its effect on life of the gun.
Type of construction. ie all steel, wire wound, hoops, twist characteristics.
Type of propellent used for the shell. Different types effected the accuracy of the gun, ie deposite within barrel.
Type of liner.
Quality of construction and it's consistency from gun to gun.
Effective life of gun at full charge.
If you have numerical basic data on those, I'll be grateful if you share them.

Mind you that, for any data on Quality of construction and Effective life to be taken as sound basis for comparison, the methods and limitations of the measure for things like Quality of construction and Effective life needs to be elucidated.

I do not have the data to hand, and no where is there a study published commercially that I am aware of. A lot of data has been put out commercially but spread over many books over many years in a disjointed way as one would expect.
After the end of WW11 the RN produced a comparitive study of heavy naval guns and mountings which I had a very brief look at, but this was over thirty years ago. Forgive me. Maybe young Laurence has a title or two on his list sitting there waiting for people to look at.

by Guest » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:04 am

ar wrote:I did read your first post on the subject.
Here are some of the factors that I believe should be taken into account when making comparisions.
Quality of forgings.
Barrel droop and its effect on flight of shell.
Muzzel flare and its effect on life of the gun.
Type of construction. ie all steel, wire wound, hoops, twist characteristics.
Type of propellent used for the shell. Different types effected the accuracy of the gun, ie deposite within barrel.
Type of liner.
Quality of construction and it's consistency from gun to gun.
Effective life of gun at full charge.
If you have numerical basic data on those, I'll be grateful if you share them.

Mind you that, for any data on Quality of construction and Effective life to be taken as sound basis for comparison, the methods and limitations of the measure for things like Quality of construction and Effective life needs to be elucidated.

by ar » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:44 am

I did read your first post on the subject.
Here are some of the factors that I believe should be taken into account when making comparisions.
Quality of forgings.
Barrel droop and its effect on flight of shell.
Muzzel flare and its effect on life of the gun.
Type of construction. ie all steel, wire wound, hoops, twist characteristics.
Type of propellent used for the shell. Different types effected the accuracy of the gun, ie deposite within barrel.
Type of liner.
Quality of construction and it's consistency from gun to gun.
Effective life of gun at full charge.

by Guest » Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:10 am

ar wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
You have to be more specific about what aspects makes up quality and how you would compare them.
You are the person that stated that the GUN was inferior. On that basis I feel that it is up to YOU to prove your case by giving a set of comparative figures, not I having to be specific.
The floor is yours.

If you care to read the very first post in this thread, 3 pages back, you would find that I've quantified the inferiority of the British 15"/42 in the specific area of throwing power to 2 decimal places. I also offered an interpretation of what that might mean to the effectiveness of the gun.

The claim that the British gun is the equal or better of any other seems to be made without any effort to identify which traits were being compared, except some vague "combat record", much less any actual figures.

by Guest » Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:04 am

Laurence Batchelor wrote:I would like to add that in actual combat is the best way to compare those 15" guns and mountings.
I still consider the RN 15" unequalled by any piece of naval artillery in any navy from 1912-1960.
Its combat record beats anything else even if a pure technical comparison doesn't.....!

I can not find any particularly convincing justification for that claim.

by Laurence Batchelor » Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:15 pm

Foeth wrote:Well, Bismarck vs Hood is a direct comparision and the RN lost handsomely. So much for combat ratings. The German design is clearly superior.
You make me chuckle sometimes! :lol_1:

by Timmy C » Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:21 pm

I get the feeling that Foeth was being sarcastic in his post.

by 1Big Rich » Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:59 pm

Well, Bismarck vs Hood is a direct comparision[sic]
An engagement between a new battleship and an unmodernized battlecruiser 20 years her senior is hardly a direct comparison, no matter how close their other statistics may have been.

by Werner » Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:47 pm

Foeth wrote:Well, Bismarck vs Hood is a direct comparision and the RN lost handsomely. So much for combat ratings. The German design is clearly superior.
I think this engagement was a test of the entire system from gun to the supply department on shore and from armor to director computer. Don't forget to add a huge element of luck, which was not smiling on the British that day.

by Foeth » Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:37 pm

Well, Bismarck vs Hood is a direct comparision and the RN lost handsomely. So much for combat ratings. The German design is clearly superior.

by bengtsson » Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:26 pm

Laurence Batchelor wrote:I would like to add that in actual combat is the best way to compare those 15" guns and mountings.
I still consider the RN 15" unequalled by any piece of naval artillery in any navy from 1912-1960.
Its combat record beats anything else even if a pure technical comparison doesn't, but those comparisons are mere paper talk!
I tend to agree with you on that point Laurence. It is in combat that the weapons system must function and prove itself of value. The technical comparisons are interesting and show up some differences. But are these differences of such a vast scale that they would have a large effect in battle? Reliability with a reasonable weight of shell is what is wanted. The whole weapons system package is a different subject than just the technical characteristics of a gun. Shells, powder, fire control, loading and aiming speed etc. etc. so much goes into it all, the guns characteristics are simply one part.

Bob B.

by Laurence Batchelor » Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:20 am

I would like to add that in actual combat is the best way to compare those 15" guns and mountings.
I still consider the RN 15" unequalled by any piece of naval artillery in any navy from 1912-1960.
Its combat record beats anything else even if a pure technical comparison doesn't, but those comparisons are mere paper talk!

by Mark Petersen » Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:42 am

All of this assumes that the projectile is hitting it's intended target. Without proper fire control systems all you are doing is raising latge splashes in sea water in a ship versus ship vs ship duel.

I fixed this, for some reason I had power fire conrtol systems

:Oops_1:

by ar » Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:19 am

Anonymous wrote:
ar wrote:There are advantages that one gets with a low velocity heavy shell.
I will let others go over them for me, as I like to keep things brief.
Basically your argument I believe is flawed though, as you have negleted to compare the qualities of the GUN.

You have to be more specific about what aspects makes up quality and how you would compare them.
You are the person that stated that the GUN was inferior. On that basis I feel that it is up to YOU to prove your case by giving a set of comparative figures, not I having to be specific.
The floor is yours.

by Guest » Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:07 am

Incidentally, the French and Italian 15" guns both fire heavier shells than the British 15" gun.

by Guest » Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:07 am

ar wrote:There are advantages that one gets with a low velocity heavy shell.
I will let others go over them for me, as I like to keep things brief.
Basically your argument I believe is flawed though, as you have negleted to compare the qualities of the GUN.

You have to be more specific about what aspects makes up quality and how you would compare them.

Re: BB Guns

by Guest » Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:06 am

Roger T wrote:
Anonymous wrote:In terms of power, The British 15" gun is considerably inferior to every other 15" naval gun that ever saw service, except for the WWI German 15" gun on the Baden class.
Well, seeing as it was designed in 1912, and every other 15" gun (except the comparable German example you quote) was designed at least 20 years later, that's hardly a criticism.

Yes, but that's it's been in service for 20 more years doesn't make it equal to its younger counterpart.

by ar » Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:59 pm

There are advantages that one gets with a low velocity heavy shell.
I will let others go over them for me, as I like to keep things brief.
Basically your argument I believe is flawed though, as you have negleted to compare the qualities of the GUN.

Re: BB Guns

by Guest » Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:04 pm

ar wrote:
Anonymous wrote: Power is an inaccurate word. Muzzle velocity squared times weight of shell. Effectively the energy which the gun impart onto the shell. This, when shell quality are equal, translates to either the ability to fire a heavier shell out to the same range, or to fire a equal weight shell to a greater distance, or to enable an equal weight shell to strike a target at the same distance with greater velocity and penetrative potential.

Could you then please give (in laymans terms) a set of comparative figures for the RN 15" of WW1 and the German 15" also of the same period? THank you.
The British MK 1 15"/42 gun fires a 871 KG AP shell at 785 m/s. The German SLK L45 380mm gun fires a 750 KG AP shell at 800 m/s. The much greater weight of British shell more than makes up for slightly high muzzle velocity of the German gun. So the gun imparts 1.12 times as much kinetic energy to its shells as could the German gun.

Top