|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 27, 2016 8:10:58 GMT -6
16 inch coastal gun range= 56 km (35 mi) (German 16 inch coastal emplacement) 16 inch USN gun= 38 kilometers (maximum listed range for USN gun) Coastal guns could be elevated WAY higher. The Iowa's guns could elevate to 45 degrees if this source is correct. www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php (Go down to turret/mount data) 45 degrees gives max range for any given combo of barrel length/shell design and powder charge right? So if your numbers are correct, and I'm not disputing them, then there must be something else at play. Looking at the Navweaps page for the German 406 mm as a coastal gun, I'm guessing it's the lighter shell (1,323 lb vs. 2,700 lb) with about the same or slightly greater propellant charge, with the resulting greater muzzle velocity for the German gun that gives it greater range.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 27, 2016 8:46:10 GMT -6
16 inch coastal gun range= 56 km (35 mi) (German 16 inch coastal emplacement) 16 inch USN gun= 38 kilometers (maximum listed range for USN gun) Coastal guns could be elevated WAY higher. The Iowa's guns could elevate to 45 degrees if this source is correct. www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php (Go down to turret/mount data) 45 degrees gives max range for any given combo of barrel length/shell design and powder charge right? So if your numbers are correct, and I'm not disputing them, then there must be something else at play. Looking at the Navweaps page for the German 406 mm as a coastal gun, I'm guessing it's the lighter shell (1,323 lb vs. 2,700 lb) with about the same or slightly greater propellant charge, with the resulting greater muzzle velocity for the German gun that gives it greater range. Huh, I have no bloody clue what I was thinking... Erm, yes, coastal emplacements commonly used lighter shells, or more powder...That is the reason for their range (Why the hell did I think more elevation!?)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 27, 2016 8:46:11 GMT -6
16 inch coastal gun range= 56 km (35 mi) (German 16 inch coastal emplacement) 16 inch USN gun= 38 kilometers (maximum listed range for USN gun) Coastal guns could be elevated WAY higher. The Iowa's guns could elevate to 45 degrees if this source is correct. www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.php (Go down to turret/mount data) 45 degrees gives max range for any given combo of barrel length/shell design and powder charge right? So if your numbers are correct, and I'm not disputing them, then there must be something else at play. Looking at the Navweaps page for the German 406 mm as a coastal gun, I'm guessing it's the lighter shell (1,323 lb vs. 2,700 lb) with about the same or slightly greater propellant charge, with the resulting greater muzzle velocity for the German gun that gives it greater range. You might consider the height of the firing weapon in relation to the height of the target. A ship is at sea level, but a coastal gun might be much higher sitting on a bluff or something. The extra height, lower weight of shell all will increase the range of the coastal gun. The coastal gun can have longer barrel also.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 27, 2016 10:20:58 GMT -6
45 degrees gives max range for any given combo of barrel length/shell design and powder charge right? So if your numbers are correct, and I'm not disputing them, then there must be something else at play. Looking at the Navweaps page for the German 406 mm as a coastal gun, I'm guessing it's the lighter shell (1,323 lb vs. 2,700 lb) with about the same or slightly greater propellant charge, with the resulting greater muzzle velocity for the German gun that gives it greater range. Actually, in some cases guns using an elevation greater than 45 degrees will achieve greater range than when firing at 45 degrees - the reason is that the higher the shell flies the thinner the atmosphere is, and in some combinations the reduced aerodynamic drag of this higher trajectory will increase range by as much as 10-20% as compared to range when firing at a 45 degree angle. This situation is why some coastal guns (for example) had maximum elevations in the 50+ degree range.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 27, 2016 17:45:24 GMT -6
Actually, in some cases guns using an elevation greater than 45 degrees will achieve greater range than when firing at 45 degrees - the reason is that the higher the shell flies the thinner the atmosphere is, and in some combinations the reduced aerodynamic drag of this higher trajectory will increase range by as much as 10-20% as compared to range when firing at a 45 degree angle. This situation is why some coastal guns (for example) had maximum elevations in the 50+ degree range. I was curious why this was the case, cheers . On coastal guns and the like, I'm currently reading through Campbell's Naval Weapons of WW2, which discusses a few of them, and when they do have longer ranges, it tends to be because of supercharges and very high muzzle velocities, or similar, but ship guns could have these too. On the USN max ranges (in reply to thatzenoguy), Campbell has the max range of the 16" Mk 7 (Iowa's guns) at 38,720m (at 45 degrees), but the Iowa fired particularly heavy shells (1225kg AP) and didn't have a particularly high muzzle velocity (762 m/s). The French 13" guns for the Dunkerque had a max range of 41,700m (at 35 degrees) by dint of higher muzzle velocities (870m/s) and a lighter shell. That German 16" gun range of 56km is with a 600kg HE Shell at a muzzle velocity of 1050m/s. It's not really fair to compare a 16" gun firing heavy AP charges with a 16" gun firing a HE shell of less than half the weight, and use that as an indication that coastal guns could fire further (as far as I know, at the end of the day the main advantage of a coastal gun was that it was on a stabler foundation, but I'm not aware of any basic reason why it wouldn't have been possible to fire a HE shell of those distances from a ship - although spotting a shell to 56km and correcting and the like would be more difficult than from a fixed position, which may have been one of the reasons it wasn't done - would be interested in any more details on this if anyone is up to speed .
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 27, 2016 20:24:16 GMT -6
Of course, being able to fire at a target at extreme range does not mean hitting the target at that range, and shore batteries were rarely fitted with the newest equipment or largest rangefinders. They did have the advantage of a stable firing platform and a larger working area than a shipboard turret, but the WW1 and WW2 record of shore batteries is not good. They didn't score many hits and could usually be suppressed or taken out by ships - or aircraft - or both.
The single great success would be the Norwegian 11" guns taking out the Blucher... but, really, if you are so dumb as to sail into rock-throwing range then even an ancient gun can wreck you.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 27, 2016 22:15:20 GMT -6
Of course, being able to fire at a target at extreme range does not mean hitting the target at that range, and shore batteries were rarely fitted with the newest equipment or largest rangefinders. They did have the advantage of a stable firing platform and a larger working area than a shipboard turret, but the WW1 and WW2 record of shore batteries is not good. They didn't score many hits and could usually be suppressed or taken out by ships - or aircraft - or both. The single great success would be the Norwegian 11" guns taking out the Blucher... but, really, if you are so dumb as to sail into rock-throwing range then even an ancient gun can wreck you. While they usually didn't have the best aiming tech, they had the advantage of pre-aimed firing areas, practically turning their range of fire into a giant grid. Or at least, according to a forum I frequent, that is the case.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 28, 2016 1:10:33 GMT -6
Actually, in some cases guns using an elevation greater than 45 degrees will achieve greater range than when firing at 45 degrees - the reason is that the higher the shell flies the thinner the atmosphere is, and in some combinations the reduced aerodynamic drag of this higher trajectory will increase range by as much as 10-20% as compared to range when firing at a 45 degree angle. This situation is why some coastal guns (for example) had maximum elevations in the 50+ degree range. That's very interesting, thank you. Were these superelevating guns common? Seems kind of crazy to try to hit a moving ship from 50 km away.
|
|
|
Post by thatzenoguy on Aug 28, 2016 5:13:19 GMT -6
That's very interesting, thank you. Were these superelevating guns common? Seems kind of crazy to try to hit a moving ship from 50 km away. Well, at the least, I know the 16 inch german ones elevated more...
|
|
|
Post by Bullethead on Aug 28, 2016 11:17:13 GMT -6
Shore guns not only had greater ranges from supercharges, but also high elevation.
Many coast defense guns were originally naval pieces salvaged from scrapped, obsolete ships, so tended to be smaller than the main batteries of contemporary battleships. However, because weight was no object on land, they could be beefed up a bit for supercharges, given higher elevation, etc., and thus have considerably greater range than they'd had afloat while generally firing the same shells as before. This enabled them to pose a significant threat to deck armor. This was actually a continuation of the idea of coast defense mortars, which was a major part of US, Japanese, and German defenses in the early 1900s.
In the WW1 and interwar years, there were also a fair number of fully modern battleship guns available from ships that were never completed due to the war, or were scrapped due to treaties. In shore batteries, these guns got the same treatment as the smaller, older guns, so had insane ranges compared to similar guns then afloat.
The very long ranges possible with coast defense guns naturally put a premium on fire control. There are many reasons why shore-based fire control was superior to that of ships, and in practice it definitely worked better. This can be seen from the often very small number of major caliber guns in coast defense installations, compared to how many a contemporary battleship mounted. Batteries of only 1 or 2 big guns were the norm at a time when naval gunners considered 4 guns per salvo to be the minimum for accurate spotting. Yet there are many reports of these 1- and 2-gun heavy batteries being quite accurate even at their extreme ranges.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Aug 28, 2016 15:38:18 GMT -6
Cheers for the info Bullethead, very interesting stuff . Actually, in some cases guns using an elevation greater than 45 degrees will achieve greater range than when firing at 45 degrees - the reason is that the higher the shell flies the thinner the atmosphere is, and in some combinations the reduced aerodynamic drag of this higher trajectory will increase range by as much as 10-20% as compared to range when firing at a 45 degree angle. This situation is why some coastal guns (for example) had maximum elevations in the 50+ degree range. That's very interesting, thank you. Were these superelevating guns common? Seems kind of crazy to try to hit a moving ship from 50 km away. I'm only meandering through the British part of Campbell at the moment, but quite a few (but not all, by any stretch) of their older guns had mountings that went to 50 or 55 degrees. The main aim seemed to be to fire across the channel.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 28, 2016 18:30:46 GMT -6
Cheers for the info Bullethead, very interesting stuff . That's very interesting, thank you. Were these superelevating guns common? Seems kind of crazy to try to hit a moving ship from 50 km away. I'm only meandering through the British part of Campbell at the moment, but quite a few (but not all, by any stretch) of their older guns had mountings that went to 50 or 55 degrees. The main aim seemed to be to fire across the channel. Thanks Axe. I have to think the vast majority of cases of superelevating guns (guns as opposed to mortars) had to be for reaching other land targets. Putting a shell that high is going to cause problems with the wind affecting the shell to the point that I don't see any chance of hitting a moving target with it no matter the fire control. Just my hunch, that doesn't mean that it's impossible that someone designed and installed a gun thinking they could hit a ship from 50-60 km away. Can't write off the capacity for officers and political figures to prioritize "sounds great" over realistic capabilities.
|
|
|
Post by Bullethead on Aug 28, 2016 21:21:44 GMT -6
Thanks Axe. I have to think the vast majority of cases of superelevating guns (guns as opposed to mortars) had to be for reaching other land targets. Putting a shell that high is going to cause problems with the wind affecting the shell to the point that I don't see any chance of hitting a moving target with it no matter the fire control. Just my hunch, that doesn't mean that it's impossible that someone designed and installed a gun thinking they could hit a ship from 50-60 km away. Can't write off the capacity for officers and political figures to prioritize "sounds great" over realistic capabilities. 50-60km is well over the horizon so no matter what they were shooting at, they somebody closer or overhead to observe the target. But superelevation was applied to guns of many calibers, simply to get longer range against ships. For example, take the Brit 9.2" Mk X, originally for various armored cruisers and the KE7 battleships, was also about the most common Brit coast defense gun from WW1 until all the batteries were decommissioned in the 1950s. In fact, significantly more of these guns were made for the army than the navy. Afloat, it had an elevation of only 15^ but ashore it had 35^. This, even without supercharges, essentially doubled its range out to about 26km, right up there with contemporary battleship guns. With supercharges it could reach about 30km. www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_92-47_mk10.htmAs to the effect of high altitude winds on passing shells, that is indeed a thing. I myself was in the (land-based) artillery and we had a platoon of meteorologists to keep track of such things for us. These guys released weather balloons at intervals, tracking them with radar to see what the winds were doing at different altitudes, and the balloons carried thermometers, barometers, etc., which radioed back their findings. With WW1 technology, you obviously couldn't do all that but you could still track the balloons visually, which was something. I believe artillerymen started launching balloons back in the WW1 timeframe, when they started having guns that needed them.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Aug 28, 2016 22:06:17 GMT -6
I was curious so I started playing with a visual horizon calculator and you could see that far if you have an observation point roughly 800 ft or higher above sea level not accounting for the height of the ship itself. There are certainly places that fit that bill like Gibraltar.
|
|
|
Post by HolyDragoon on Aug 29, 2016 5:51:00 GMT -6
Hm... idea. Some way to create custom maps and be able to select them as we do nations.
Of course, if people wanted to use this with custom nations, some kind of tool to match both would be needed... this idea came when I recalled my countries in Nation states, and on how one of them would be less than 50 years old (in its current incarnation) as of 1900.
Maybe some short fluff description on the nations and what challenges you might find from playing them?
|
|