land artillery has to be mobile due to the possibility of counterbattery. battleships are fuckhueg with an entire fleet to back them up. this means they can have retarded big howitzers and fire with impunity. they outrange and out damage land based artillery
Floating is the cheapest way to move something in the world. Cross country without roads (other than orbital) is the most expensive. The “why” behind this “what” is the reason why naval guns got so big.
>but some land artillery is really big and the shells are way smaller
Very, very few pieces of land artillery are that big, 6-8" is usually the maximum for most large land artillery guns. There were some rare siege mortars/howitzers above 10" designed for breaking heavy fortifications mostly made during the world wars but those have been replaced by air dropped bombs. Top picture is a shell for a British BL 15-inch Howitzer, bottom is a 14" shell from the Battleship Texas.
one reason battle ships became a thing is just how much MOAR gun you can put on a platform with 75% of the planet as a recoil pad. land guns have to be towed around 1, and 2, shake themselves to pieces if you don't overbuild the snot out of them.
the peak of battleship design was the Yamato class- it could shell targets 25 miles away, ranges than even modern artillery can't beat without rocketry and special designs.
That means if the Yamato docked at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in NYC it could shell any target from Stamford to Edison without a problem.
>the peak of battleship design was the Yamato class- >optical direction
Lol
I have no idea why you'd use a ship which had hopelessly outdated fire control as an example of 'peak design' when there were plenty of BBs which not only survived the war, but went on to be further modernized and served well into the cold war.
Am I biting the bait?
>Yamato
because it was, and that is absolutely uncontroversial.
It was the biggest, the best armed, best armored battleship to ever sail.
If you want to moan about things like FCS (or more importantly awful Japanese AA guns), and other fungible technology that's just stupid.
Also this thread is about guns or ships
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
Yamato had the thickest armor, but postwar testing showed that it was less effective armor than the Iowa Class, at least for the turrets, and the gun effectiveness was not as different as the size would have predicted.
Even without the fire control and damage control differences between the American battleships and the Japanese battleships, they Iowas were still threats to the Yamatos, and with the advantages, there was really no comparison.
3 weeks ago
Anonymous
>postwar testing showed that it was less effective armor than the Iowa Class
Yamato's turret faces were the only pieces of armor on any warship capable of resisting any WW2 warship shell at point blank lmao. The only times they were pierced in testing was when they were at a 90 degree angle. As fitted they would be at a 45 degree angle.
Yamato amusingly has a higher hit-rate than any WW2 battleship when you account for range, approximately 4% hit rate near 30km which is insane when it's targets were DE's and CVE's.
Iowa for all her advanced technology never got this level of accuracy in WW2.
because it takes an awful lot of kinetic energy, and a great big lump of explosives to damage a battleship with a foot of krupp plate on the sides. weirdly enough, a .45 shell isnt going to do much
How far inland can say an Iowa-class fire it's main guns? I know they got used in Desert Storm, but I'm wondering if fired today with modern firing solutions, and propellants theoretically how far could they go?
>theoretically how far could they go?
Same distance. They're black powder guns, you aren't gonna push them much harder. The BP manufacturer GOEX is the commercial remnant of the old minden ammunition plant that made the charges, I can remember riding by the burning charcoal piles nearby as a kid, near where I-220 crosses the red river.
No they aren't.
They have a small pouch of BP sewn to the powder bag for the primer to ignite. The actual propellant is massive grains of smokeless powder.
>How far inland can say an Iowa-class fire it's main guns?
With subcaliber muntions,very far. An iowa with a 28 cm shell using a discarding sabot will reach about 185 km.
Yeah, you aren't hitting fucking anything unless you go to guided munitions, and at that point you already have TLAMs at about the same price already on your ships.
True enough. But at the time of battleships, that didn't matter quite so much.
A town up the way from me got wrecked because the Germans decided to simply bombard the fuck out of it with naval guns.
They didn't hit the specific houses they were aiming at, but they did fuck it up.
Because most combat formations still rely on tube arty for their fire support, and therefore you can sell it as a massive upgrade in capability to their existing weapons rather than having to sell them a brand new GMLRS system.
Base Bleed and guided shells have been proposed for the Mk 7 16 inch gun. Base bleed shells are generally between 75% and 100% longer ranged than conventional artillery, and advanced guided shells can exploit lifting body aerodynamics to reach further than a pure ballistic arc.
Combine several of these range extension techniques, firing 11 inch (28cm) sabot shells at extreme velocity, base bleed, and an Excalibur style guidance package exploiting lifting body aerodynamics, to something like a W19, and you're able to sling 20kts 250 miles or further,
Look, if someone brakes into my house at night I want to be confident that the direct-fire artillery strike that I'm about to unleash won't over penetrate and kill my neighbor in the next apartment.
Us poorfags have to defend ourselves with the guns we have, not the guns we want.
For about 75 years there was an arms race between more powerful guns and stronger armor. As a result battleships got bigger and bigger so they could carry heavier armor schemes and larger guns.
Yes, they made 20kt shells for the Iowas (look up W19). These were relatively primitive gun type devices though.
In theory you could fit a MT yield into a 16" shell but two obvious issues would be ensuring it can survive the firing process and also you don't hopelessly irradiate your own ship because your firing range is limited.
>MT yield
Probably not, I don’t think you’d even want that much power at the ranges the Mk7 16 inch gun was capable of with full caliber ammunition. But the Mk23 shell is a thing that existed and it was a 20kt warhead.
I thought the range of the 17 inch guns with something like 20-25 miles. If I recall correctly, a 1 to 5 Mt device is usually not going to be a problem for something in the water that far away?
Air burst 1 MT warheads will not sink battleships. Underwater 20 kt warheads will. Also 20 kt warheads are much better for close support of amphib landings, and simpler, lower yield warheads are more robust, which is important when you’re firing them out of a cannon.
Another reason why smaller warheads are better is the fact that you’re salvoing 9 of them at a go. You’re likely to have fratricide issues with bigger weapons unless you ripple-fire the turrets in order to give the shots time for range dispersion.
Another reason why smaller warheads are better is the fact that you’re salvoing 9 of them at a go. You’re likely to have fratricide issues with bigger weapons unless you ripple-fire the turrets in order to give the shots time for range dispersion.
>MT yield
Probably not, I don’t think you’d even want that much power at the ranges the Mk7 16 inch gun was capable of with full caliber ammunition. But the Mk23 shell is a thing that existed and it was a 20kt warhead.
Resource constrained economy with an inexperienced shipbuilding industry hamstrung by treaty constraints. They weren't going to go from 0-60 in building one of the most complex types of machines ever created.
Bismark was a full size battleship. It was just hideously inefficent compared to its peers. It was roughly a contemporary of something like the USS North Carolina but was less well armed and armored.
The extent to which Europeans went to flex on each other and kill each other in increasingly violent fashion cannot be underestimated. It has been essentially gang warfare except they got so good at it it became world wars
Because, battleships have large guns anon.
but some land artillery is really big and the shells are way smaller
land artillery has to be mobile due to the possibility of counterbattery. battleships are fuckhueg with an entire fleet to back them up. this means they can have retarded big howitzers and fire with impunity. they outrange and out damage land based artillery
>Howitzer
Only elevates to 30 degrees maximum
What did they mean by this
Anon, many battleships could elevate to 45 degrees.
Floating is the cheapest way to move something in the world. Cross country without roads (other than orbital) is the most expensive. The “why” behind this “what” is the reason why naval guns got so big.
>but some land artillery is really big and the shells are way smaller
Very, very few pieces of land artillery are that big, 6-8" is usually the maximum for most large land artillery guns. There were some rare siege mortars/howitzers above 10" designed for breaking heavy fortifications mostly made during the world wars but those have been replaced by air dropped bombs. Top picture is a shell for a British BL 15-inch Howitzer, bottom is a 14" shell from the Battleship Texas.
They're really cute
Cool, what's the firing rate of the Dora? Is it less then 30 seconds? Because that's how fast the 16 inch gun fires.
>Manly Tears considers his new .22LR reloading setup
one reason battle ships became a thing is just how much MOAR gun you can put on a platform with 75% of the planet as a recoil pad. land guns have to be towed around 1, and 2, shake themselves to pieces if you don't overbuild the snot out of them.
the peak of battleship design was the Yamato class- it could shell targets 25 miles away, ranges than even modern artillery can't beat without rocketry and special designs.
That means if the Yamato docked at the Brooklyn Cruise Terminal in NYC it could shell any target from Stamford to Edison without a problem.
>the peak of battleship design was the Yamato class-
>optical direction
Lol
I have no idea why you'd use a ship which had hopelessly outdated fire control as an example of 'peak design' when there were plenty of BBs which not only survived the war, but went on to be further modernized and served well into the cold war.
Am I biting the bait?
>Yamato
because it was, and that is absolutely uncontroversial.
It was the biggest, the best armed, best armored battleship to ever sail.
If you want to moan about things like FCS (or more importantly awful Japanese AA guns), and other fungible technology that's just stupid.
Also this thread is about guns or ships
Yamato had the thickest armor, but postwar testing showed that it was less effective armor than the Iowa Class, at least for the turrets, and the gun effectiveness was not as different as the size would have predicted.
Even without the fire control and damage control differences between the American battleships and the Japanese battleships, they Iowas were still threats to the Yamatos, and with the advantages, there was really no comparison.
>postwar testing showed that it was less effective armor than the Iowa Class
Yamato's turret faces were the only pieces of armor on any warship capable of resisting any WW2 warship shell at point blank lmao. The only times they were pierced in testing was when they were at a 90 degree angle. As fitted they would be at a 45 degree angle.
Yamato amusingly has a higher hit-rate than any WW2 battleship when you account for range, approximately 4% hit rate near 30km which is insane when it's targets were DE's and CVE's.
Iowa for all her advanced technology never got this level of accuracy in WW2.
First salvo straddle on nowaki at 37,500 yards
>maybe I can be your propellant tonight
Floaty ship can carry bigger shells then wheely trucks.
Big ships big guns.
They're not. That guy is just really smol.
That's actually .22lr
>when will they learn
>manly tears poses with Ruger’s new .22 magnum rounds
Daily reminder that Bismarck was scuttled, not sunk.
Because she wasn't sinking fast enough to avoid being raided for intel.
It was a hideously inefficient design that any competent navy would have laughed out of the room.
So were Akagi, Kaga, Soryū and Hiryū. So by your retarded logic the Japanese won at midway 1:0
because it takes an awful lot of kinetic energy, and a great big lump of explosives to damage a battleship with a foot of krupp plate on the sides. weirdly enough, a .45 shell isnt going to do much
like hell it wont TWO WORLD WARS!
Love that scene in Saving Private 2: Electric Boogaloo where Tom Hanks blows up the Bismark with his trusty ol 1911 on the 8th round
Thank God, somebody who isn't retarded or underage.
So god is white....
Yes, and he was fucking American 🙂
Purely for entertainment purposes.
bigger shells can reduce even large fortifications into rubble
How far inland can say an Iowa-class fire it's main guns? I know they got used in Desert Storm, but I'm wondering if fired today with modern firing solutions, and propellants theoretically how far could they go?
>theoretically how far could they go?
Same distance. They're black powder guns, you aren't gonna push them much harder. The BP manufacturer GOEX is the commercial remnant of the old minden ammunition plant that made the charges, I can remember riding by the burning charcoal piles nearby as a kid, near where I-220 crosses the red river.
No they aren't.
They have a small pouch of BP sewn to the powder bag for the primer to ignite. The actual propellant is massive grains of smokeless powder.
>How far inland can say an Iowa-class fire it's main guns?
With subcaliber muntions,very far. An iowa with a 28 cm shell using a discarding sabot will reach about 185 km.
not him but whats the CEP on that?
Yeah, you aren't hitting fucking anything unless you go to guided munitions, and at that point you already have TLAMs at about the same price already on your ships.
True enough. But at the time of battleships, that didn't matter quite so much.
A town up the way from me got wrecked because the Germans decided to simply bombard the fuck out of it with naval guns.
They didn't hit the specific houses they were aiming at, but they did fuck it up.
if missiles are more cost effective than guided shells why would raytheon make Excalibur shells? not trolling truly curious
Because most combat formations still rely on tube arty for their fire support, and therefore you can sell it as a massive upgrade in capability to their existing weapons rather than having to sell them a brand new GMLRS system.
Because they got paid
zumwalt btfo
what? Iowa had 40.6cm guns, where are these 28cm guns coming from?
It’s a 28cm sub caliber round in a gigantic fucking sabot.
oh, I see those big shells and I could easily imagine they're 406mm wide, I didn't know that was just encapsulating the actual saboted round itself.
Retard, thats the size of the shell when using a sabot
Forget, but there' some special guided shit that was supposed to extend it considerably.
Base Bleed and guided shells have been proposed for the Mk 7 16 inch gun. Base bleed shells are generally between 75% and 100% longer ranged than conventional artillery, and advanced guided shells can exploit lifting body aerodynamics to reach further than a pure ballistic arc.
Combine several of these range extension techniques, firing 11 inch (28cm) sabot shells at extreme velocity, base bleed, and an Excalibur style guidance package exploiting lifting body aerodynamics, to something like a W19, and you're able to sling 20kts 250 miles or further,
Supplies of .45ACP were diverted to the Army so the Navy had to come up with something equivalent.
Question: Can I get that in hollow point? I'm going hunting....
I have to ask, what are you hunting with 16.0" hollow points.
wabbits
Look, if someone brakes into my house at night I want to be confident that the direct-fire artillery strike that I'm about to unleash won't over penetrate and kill my neighbor in the next apartment.
Us poorfags have to defend ourselves with the guns we have, not the guns we want.
*breaks
goddamnit
This. Shooting 9mm, there's a chance you may not penetrate.
Why take the risk?
To piece Battleship armor. The armor started at a foot thick and kept getting thicker.
To get to the other side.
Bigger shell = bigger boom.
>boss-tier weapon is just a scaled-up version of basic weapon
boring
For about 75 years there was an arms race between more powerful guns and stronger armor. As a result battleships got bigger and bigger so they could carry heavier armor schemes and larger guns.
/k/, could a MT yield physics package be put in those? Did any of our battleships get fitted with nuclear ordnance?
full nuclear broadside
Yes, they made 20kt shells for the Iowas (look up W19). These were relatively primitive gun type devices though.
In theory you could fit a MT yield into a 16" shell but two obvious issues would be ensuring it can survive the firing process and also you don't hopelessly irradiate your own ship because your firing range is limited.
I thought the range of the 17 inch guns with something like 20-25 miles. If I recall correctly, a 1 to 5 Mt device is usually not going to be a problem for something in the water that far away?
Air burst 1 MT warheads will not sink battleships. Underwater 20 kt warheads will. Also 20 kt warheads are much better for close support of amphib landings, and simpler, lower yield warheads are more robust, which is important when you’re firing them out of a cannon.
I mean for land targets
Another reason why smaller warheads are better is the fact that you’re salvoing 9 of them at a go. You’re likely to have fratricide issues with bigger weapons unless you ripple-fire the turrets in order to give the shots time for range dispersion.
well they basically never fired all 3 guns at once, I thought they were always staggered?
also I don't think they ever fired all 9 guns at once beyond demonstrative reasons.
>MT yield
Probably not, I don’t think you’d even want that much power at the ranges the Mk7 16 inch gun was capable of with full caliber ammunition. But the Mk23 shell is a thing that existed and it was a 20kt warhead.
When the big guns go off, do all crew mates have to be below deck?
I cant imagine the DBs and concussion from such a large explosion.
About the Bismarck. I’ve read various things and like a definitive answer if possible from the PrepHole Admiralty.
Why, exactly, could the 3rd Reich NOT build a full-size battleship? Why were they limited to such a design?
Resource constrained economy with an inexperienced shipbuilding industry hamstrung by treaty constraints. They weren't going to go from 0-60 in building one of the most complex types of machines ever created.
Bismark was a full size battleship. It was just hideously inefficent compared to its peers. It was roughly a contemporary of something like the USS North Carolina but was less well armed and armored.
how do they get these up from wherever they're stored to the guns themselves?
Elevators
What happens if a fire breaks out where the yellow stuff is stored?
Everyone dies.
I believe thats HMS Barham
The Battle of Jutland
How does that little grey pacman suck up and spit out the yellow tokens?
Four sailors doing gruntwork.
where's sadam hussein?
The extent to which Europeans went to flex on each other and kill each other in increasingly violent fashion cannot be underestimated. It has been essentially gang warfare except they got so good at it it became world wars
Those are .45 ACP viewed from within a Thompson drum mag. Very rare photo.
Because ships got really big and got a lot of armor, and advanced fire control enabled extremely long range accurate fire
Because you touch yourself at night.