Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
JediMasterDraco

What Was Going On?

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

451
[NGA]
Members
1,673 posts
9,076 battles

I was just taking a peak at the USS CLs (and bemoaning the horrid velocity) when I noticed something. The guns on the Omaha are much better than the guns on Dallas and above. What kind of drugs was the navy's design board on prior to and during World War II? Why would you design a gun (6"/47) that was inferior to a previous design (6"/53)? Seriously, if you're going to change something, make sure it's better not worse. And the same applies to the 5" going from 51 calibers to 38 calibers. Please tell me someone got shot for this. I swear, sometimes I get the feeling we only won the war because the other side was a lot stupider. And we never fought a major fleet engagement except with CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[POP]
Members
964 posts
11,260 battles
4 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

I was just taking a peak at the USS CLs (and bemoaning the horrid velocity) when I noticed something. The guns on the Omaha are much better than the guns on Dallas and above. What kind of drugs was the navy's design board on prior to and during World War II? Why would you design a gun (6"/47) that was inferior to a previous design (6"/53)? Seriously, if you're going to change something, make sure it's better not worse. And the same applies to the 5" going from 51 calibers to 38 calibers. Please tell me someone got shot for this. I swear, sometimes I get the feeling we only won the war because the other side was a lot stupider. And we never fought a major fleet engagement except with CVs.

maxresdefault.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
451
[NGA]
Members
1,673 posts
9,076 battles
1 minute ago, Gerbertz said:

maxresdefault.jpg

Opium? I guess that makes sense. In all seriousness though this has got to rank as a foul-up equal to the F-35's "progress". Oh well, nothing I can do but equate those lunatics to Guy of Jerusalem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
[JKSDF]
[JKSDF]
Members
1,603 posts
2,491 battles
40 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

I was just taking a peak at the USS CLs (and bemoaning the horrid velocity) when I noticed something. The guns on the Omaha are much better than the guns on Dallas and above. What kind of drugs was the navy's design board on prior to and during World War II? Why would you design a gun (6"/47) that was inferior to a previous design (6"/53)? Seriously, if you're going to change something, make sure it's better not worse. And the same applies to the 5" going from 51 calibers to 38 calibers. Please tell me someone got shot for this. I swear, sometimes I get the feeling we only won the war because the other side was a lot stupider. And we never fought a major fleet engagement except with CVs.

How are they inferior? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
451
[NGA]
Members
1,673 posts
9,076 battles
1 minute ago, Submarine_Albacore said:

How are they inferior? 

Massive reduce in projectile speed. Thus the "rainbow arcs" that we have in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
[JKSDF]
[JKSDF]
Members
1,603 posts
2,491 battles
2 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Massive reduce in projectile speed. Thus the "rainbow arcs" that we have in the game.

But...That’s just one thing. That alone cannot make them inferior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,072
[XBRTC]
Members
2,720 posts
8,695 battles
7 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

Massive reduce in projectile speed. Thus the "rainbow arcs" that we have in the game.

 

Well, first off, the rainbow arcs that we have in game are not actually how the gun would have shot IRL. Or, it could have been shot that way, but wouldn't have been. You'd shoot with those arcs for doing NGFS, particularly when firing on a target in defilade. For ASuW work, you'd use a much lower angle, and would see a flatter trajectory.

Now, as to why 5"/38 was chosen... it's actually pretty simple, and it makes a lot of sense.

The USN originally had 2 different 5" guns. 5"/51, for the secondary battery on battleships, and then 5"/25, for the AA mounts on battleships.

In the 1930's, it was desired that all these guns be changed to a common type, for simplicity in supply and maintenance. That common type was required to be a DP mount, so that it could be used to engage surface or air targets.

5"/51 mounts were a lot heavier than 5"/25, and a DP mount for them would be too big to install in some of those places. Additionally, the 5"/51 gun itself didn't lend itself easily to a high ROF such as would be needed for anti-air use. The 5"/38 was chosen as a compromise between the two, and was designed with a much more streamlined operating system, in order to maximize the rate of fire. This was successful: a good gun crew could fire 20-25 rounds per minute for a short period of time, whereas the 5"/51's interrupted-screw breech would max out at about 9 rounds per minute.

The rate of fire improvements came from two different directions, as well. First, the mechanical system was just a lot better. A much slicker, smoother, more ergonomic design. Second... the men serving the gun didn't get tired as quickly, because the propellant charges were lighter. They could sustain a higher rate of fire for a much longer period of time, which could be crucial in an air attack.

In reality, the 5"/38 was the single most effective intermediate-caliber naval gun ever, until the introduction of the Mk45 5"/54 that you see on US DDG's and CGs today. 

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,072
[XBRTC]
Members
2,720 posts
8,695 battles

6"/47 vs /53 is a similar sort of argument, but with the added innovations of shell design.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,226
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,985 posts
9,298 battles

Well, the 5/51 was an anti-ship gun, unlike the 5/25 which was an AA gun mostly. The 5/38 was essentially a compromise between the two that made it more effective as a dual purpose weapon. 2 jobs by 1 gun. the longer barrel was enough that it improve AA over the 5/25 but still maintained a decent train rate. It also had about double the rate of fire as the 5/51 and similar guns of other nations - generally reflected in the game with that higher RoF. And your talking a time when things were shifting due to CV's. There's also the fact the 5/38 could load from any angle, and I'm pretty sure the 5/51 had a certain range it could load at, meaning it would have to fire, achieve load angle, be re-targeted, and then fire again, where as the 5/38 you just kept firing. 

I have less available info on the 6/53, other than yeah, it was a higher velocity gun, but seems to have only been single mounts other than the ones made for Omaha. The 6/47 itself though had a longer barrel life by a few rounds, fired a 130 lb "super heavy" round instead of a 105 lb round, and later modifications to it's elevation abilities allowed it to match range with the 6/53. Not to mention possible reduction of weight, later 2 barrel DP version, increase in fire, traverse and elevation rates and was using a  smaller charge by about 10 pounds. 

 

Or, put simply, if the 5/51 and 6/53 are bolt action rifles, or maybe akin to the M1 Garand, than the 5/38 and 6/47 are basically the more modern assault rifles/carbines. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[TSG4B]
Members
183 posts
4,849 battles
3 hours ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

 

Well, first off, the rainbow arcs that we have in game are not actually how the gun would have shot IRL. Or, it could have been shot that way, but wouldn't have been. You'd shoot with those arcs for doing NGFS, particularly when firing on a target in defilade. For ASuW work, you'd use a much lower angle, and would see a flatter trajectory.

Now, as to why 5"/38 was chosen... it's actually pretty simple, and it makes a lot of sense.

The USN originally had 2 different 5" guns. 5"/51, for the secondary battery on battleships, and then 5"/25, for the AA mounts on battleships.

In the 1930's, it was desired that all these guns be changed to a common type, for simplicity in supply and maintenance. That common type was required to be a DP mount, so that it could be used to engage surface or air targets.

5"/51 mounts were a lot heavier than 5"/25, and a DP mount for them would be too big to install in some of those places. Additionally, the 5"/51 gun itself didn't lend itself easily to a high ROF such as would be needed for anti-air use. The 5"/38 was chosen as a compromise between the two, and was designed with a much more streamlined operating system, in order to maximize the rate of fire. This was successful: a good gun crew could fire 20-25 rounds per minute for a short period of time, whereas the 5"/51's interrupted-screw breech would max out at about 9 rounds per minute.

The rate of fire improvements came from two different directions, as well. First, the mechanical system was just a lot better. A much slicker, smoother, more ergonomic design. Second... the men serving the gun didn't get tired as quickly, because the propellant charges were lighter. They could sustain a higher rate of fire for a much longer period of time, which could be crucial in an air attack.

In reality, the 5"/38 was the single most effective intermediate-caliber naval gun ever, until the introduction of the Mk45 5"/54 that you see on US DDG's and CGs today. 

Very well written and informative... well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,260 posts
4,206 battles

While WanderingGhost and LT did great job explaining the change, I'll just chime in with this: BuOrd probably knew a he** of a lot more about gunnery, ballistics, and sundry fields than you do, or think you do. To add to what LT said, in essence the 5"/25 and 51 were getting long in the tooth and not satisfactory weapons based on current and projected trends. The 5"/38 and 6"/47 were considered far superior, all things considered. Just sayin....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
451
[NGA]
Members
1,673 posts
9,076 battles
6 hours ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

 

Well, first off, the rainbow arcs that we have in game are not actually how the gun would have shot IRL. Or, it could have been shot that way, but wouldn't have been. You'd shoot with those arcs for doing NGFS, particularly when firing on a target in defilade. For ASuW work, you'd use a much lower angle, and would see a flatter trajectory.

Now, as to why 5"/38 was chosen... it's actually pretty simple, and it makes a lot of sense.

The USN originally had 2 different 5" guns. 5"/51, for the secondary battery on battleships, and then 5"/25, for the AA mounts on battleships.

In the 1930's, it was desired that all these guns be changed to a common type, for simplicity in supply and maintenance. That common type was required to be a DP mount, so that it could be used to engage surface or air targets.

5"/51 mounts were a lot heavier than 5"/25, and a DP mount for them would be too big to install in some of those places. Additionally, the 5"/51 gun itself didn't lend itself easily to a high ROF such as would be needed for anti-air use. The 5"/38 was chosen as a compromise between the two, and was designed with a much more streamlined operating system, in order to maximize the rate of fire. This was successful: a good gun crew could fire 20-25 rounds per minute for a short period of time, whereas the 5"/51's interrupted-screw breech would max out at about 9 rounds per minute.

The rate of fire improvements came from two different directions, as well. First, the mechanical system was just a lot better. A much slicker, smoother, more ergonomic design. Second... the men serving the gun didn't get tired as quickly, because the propellant charges were lighter. They could sustain a higher rate of fire for a much longer period of time, which could be crucial in an air attack.

In reality, the 5"/38 was the single most effective intermediate-caliber naval gun ever, until the introduction of the Mk45 5"/54 that you see on US DDG's and CGs today. 

In my defense I wrote this little complaining spiel after a twelve-hour work shift and at 4 in the morning. So I suppose I would've been the one with impaired judgement. Still, be interesting in the game if we could choose between mounting 5"/38 (and thus giving better AA) or a 5"/51 and having flatter arcs. Atlantas would be a nightmare. And before someone points out that it would be ahistorical, I'll counter with pointing to the completely fictional 8"/50 that Pensacola has stock. Thanks for the info on the 5"/38. real informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,226
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,985 posts
9,298 battles
22 hours ago, JediMasterDraco said:

And before someone points out that it would be ahistorical, I'll counter with pointing to the completely fictional 8"/50 that Pensacola has stock.

No one will deny there are some A-historical upgrades on some ships, well, least not anyone that knows anything. Though, admitting cruisers are not generally my area, I never noticed that and now that I do it's an.... odd choice. I don't see why at that point simply just have the single, historical guns so the ship is that little bit better trying to get the B hull for much needed survivability. That or make the historical gun stock and a fictional upgrade at least. Though, I wouldn't rule out that somewhere Wargaming staff might have dug up some little known plan that called for a 8/50 instead as they do get access to archives at times others don't always get. Unless it's aircraft though, that they just do what they want which kinda grinds my gears.

Personally, I'm not against the idea in terms of theory on the two gun options. Considering my AA is usually off as a DD to some extent that is wasted on me. That said though, do they keep the 5/51 historical with a lower rate of fire, traverse, elevation, etc or create a new age 5/51 basically with the flatter arcs? Beyond that is getting the community on board and not opening Pandora's box on changes to ships like that. There are players who don't care or are willing to embrace some A historic options and all, but then you have the purists that kick up a fuss over those kinds of things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×