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

US Destroyers Upgunning?

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
199 posts
458 battles

Were there ever any proposals in the US Navy to go ahead and replace the 5"/38's on destroyers with 5"/54's?  The original plan wasn't just for the secondaries of the Montana, it was a project to replace all 5"/38's.  Ingame this would materialize in giving high tier US destroyers about 17km range.  I know the Akizuki and Murasame class Japanese destroyers went ahead and threw them on there; curious due to the Akizuki present ingame mounting dual 100's, but what they hey.  Unsure how they were functionally on a destroyer mount.  Can't seem to find any data on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,047
[NMKJT]
Members
3,753 posts
17 minutes ago, Blackgunner said:

Were there ever any proposals in the US Navy to go ahead and replace the 5"/38's on destroyers with 5"/54's?  The original plan wasn't just for the secondaries of the Montana, it was a project to replace all 5"/38's.  Ingame this would materialize in giving high tier US destroyers about 17km range.  I know the Akizuki and Murasame class Japanese destroyers went ahead and threw them on there; curious due to the Akizuki present ingame mounting dual 100's, but what they hey.  Unsure how they were functionally on a destroyer mount.  Can't seem to find any data on it.

The Akizuki and Murusame post war classes had the 5" guns. The WW2 Akizuki had the 100mm guns and the Murusame was a Poi boat - Shiratsuyu class with the standard 127mm guns. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
199 posts
458 battles

Explains the different gun sets.  Still doesn't explain if the US ever actually considered following through with their original plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,211 posts
4,968 battles

No, to the best of my knowledge the USN never gave serious consideration to giving their destroyer fleet larger caliber guns outside of a very few projects. The destroyers were performing well in their assigned roles. The Mitschers, which were basically a testbed class of four ships to see what systems worked best moving forward after the war, had the 127s. These quickly gave way to the guided missile platform which we've been using ever since.

That said however I wouldn't mind seeing some uptiered gun options on high tier US DDs, premium or otherwise.  Not so much for range but for flatter trajectories and more muzzle velocity. Less floaty shells would be great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,211 posts
4,968 battles
12 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

The 5" L38s were dual purpose guns, the longer caliber at the time were single purpose guns. Something of a compromise

The Mk42 5"/54 was dual-purpose as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,609
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,067 posts
629 battles

A lot of US DDs went on to use some variation of the 5"/54. The post-war Akizuki as mentioned above. The Forrest Sherman-class DDs, the first US post-war DD, also used them in single mounts.

 

0593171.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,211 posts
4,968 battles
2 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

Yes but that was post war. 

Never browse forums tired. I completely ignored the MK16s. These were only used on aircraft carriers i think and given to the fledgling JDF when they went to a different, lighter system. I dont believe it was ever installed on an American DD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
575
[NGA]
Members
1,836 posts
9,664 battles
5 minutes ago, Wombatmetal said:

Yes but that was post war. 

So's pretty much every Russian cruiser after the Budyonny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,047
[NMKJT]
Members
3,753 posts
2 minutes ago, KingCakeBaby said:

Never browse forums tired. I completely ignored the MK16s. These were only used on aircraft carriers i think and given to the fledgling JDF when they went to a different, lighter system. I dont believe it was ever installed on an American DD.

They were on the Adams Class and the Forrest Sherman class I believe

 

2 minutes ago, JediMasterDraco said:

So's pretty much every Russian cruiser after the Budyonny.

When I say post war I mean mid-50s. They didn't come into service until post Korea. US, UK, Fr, KM, IJN stick to the WW2/just past WW2 era in game

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
575
[NGA]
Members
1,836 posts
9,664 battles
1 minute ago, Wombatmetal said:

When I say post war I mean mid-50s. They didn't come into service until post Korea. US, UK, Fr, KM, IJN stick to the WW2/just past WW2 era in game

And I believe a couple ships still qualify. JK. In all seriousness though, considering the Republique, Conqueror, and Grosse Kurfurst, I figure giving the US DDs a decent gun is hardly asking too much. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,047
[NMKJT]
Members
3,753 posts
Just now, JediMasterDraco said:

And I believe a couple ships still qualify. JK. In all seriousness though, considering the Republique, Conqueror, and Grosse Kurfurst, I figure giving the US DDs a decent gun is hardly asking too much. 

Agree with that. The floaty guns drive me nuts. Can't wait for the IJN gun boats coming. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,211 posts
4,968 battles
9 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

A lot of US DDs went on to use some variation of the 5"/54. The post-war Akizuki as mentioned above. The Forrest Sherman-class DDs, the first US post-war DD, also used them in single mounts.

Mitscher came first. The Forrest was the end result of the experiment. The Forrest had the Mk42s. I honestly have no clue about the CFA but if they came after the Forrest I would wager they had the 42s as well. I'll have to look into it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,609
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,067 posts
629 battles
5 minutes ago, KingCakeBaby said:

Mitscher came first.

 

True, but they were reclassified as destroyer leaders while still under construction so they weren't actually "destroyers". At least not until they were reclassified as DDGs later. More of a step between a DD and a CL. Atlanta was actually designed as a destroyer leader. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,211 posts
4,968 battles
7 hours ago, Wombatmetal said:

Agree with that. The floaty guns drive me nuts. Can't wait for the IJN gun boats coming. 

I wonder if WG would get behind the USS Hull as a premium. A USN DD with 8" guns. It's a hell of a stretch but could be pretty fun. I'd buy it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,211 posts
4,968 battles
2 minutes ago, ramp4ge said:

 

True, but they were reclassified as destroyer leaders while still under construction so they weren't actually "destroyers". At least not until they were reclassified as DDGs later. More of a step between a DD and a CL. Atlanta was actually designed as a destroyer leader. 

Splitting hairs but I'll give it to you. It's not often these threads become so engaging and enjoyable.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,506
[SYN]
Members
15,333 posts
12,427 battles

Japan got Mk16 single 127mm/54 hand-me-downs from Midway when Midway had those removed during modernization.

USN designed the Mk42 single 127mm/54 to replace the Twin 127mm/38 mounts.

Mk42 was autoloading and was supposed to hit 40RPM, thus putting out the same number of shells as an older model Twin mount.

Japan got a slightly different version of the Mk42

France also has the same Mk16 gun on post war ships, but they managed to get theirs into light weight twin mounts

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
199 posts
458 battles

The Mk42 was a fully automatic gun.  On paper it was supposed to hit 40 rpm but was later downrated to 28 rpm.  Essentially the 5"/54 'project' as a whole was to upgun all 5"/38 guns already in use.  It was intended as a new standard, but with the cancellation of the Montana class battleships that were supposed to use the 5"/54 Mark 16 mounts as their secondary batteries, the investment in them dwindled.  With the advent of newer technologies and such.  That being said, the 5"/54 Mark 16's were also dual purpose.  Though I'm unsure if there was ever a turret mounting devised specifically for the guns for a destroyer in single mounts.  I think they were used in single mounts on Midway though.  As a comparison gunwise:

 

5"/54 - 70 lbs Projectile; 15-18 RPM; 2,650 ft/s (810 m/s)

5"/38 - 53-55 lb Projectile; 15 RPM; 2,600 ft/s (790 m/s)

 

You can see from this, the two guns were virtually identical in some regards, the main difference between the caliber length and the shell weight.  Heavier shells fired at a little higher velocity give a flatter arc and more sustained kinetic energy.  Would also increase damage potential a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
439
[REVY]
Members
1,467 posts
9,381 battles
6 hours ago, Blackgunner said:

Were there ever any proposals in the US Navy to go ahead and replace the 5"/38's on destroyers with 5"/54's?  The original plan wasn't just for the secondaries of the Montana, it was a project to replace all 5"/38's.  Ingame this would materialize in giving high tier US destroyers about 17km range.  I know the Akizuki and Murasame class Japanese destroyers went ahead and threw them on there; curious due to the Akizuki present ingame mounting dual 100's, but what they hey.  Unsure how they were functionally on a destroyer mount.  Can't seem to find any data on it.

 

5 hours ago, KingCakeBaby said:

Never browse forums tired. I completely ignored the MK16s. These were only used on aircraft carriers i think and given to the fledgling JDF when they went to a different, lighter system. I dont believe it was ever installed on an American DD.

The 5"/54  Mark 16 only saw use on the Midway-class, the Akizuki-class, and the Murasame-class. USS Mississippi also mounted it during her training ship days. If they had been built, Montana-class would have had it.

The Mark 42 is the one that got mounted to most post-war DDs, and to the Forrestal-class.

 

France had a domestically produced 4in gun for their DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,353 posts
4,406 battles
5 hours ago, KingCakeBaby said:

The Mk42 5"/54 was dual-purpose as well.

....starting in 1953, bro. The Mk 42 was not the gun planned for Montana; she was gonna carry the Mk 16 guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,372
[ARGSY]
Members
12,478 posts
7,908 battles
6 hours ago, Wombatmetal said:

and a 2010 Akizuki class destroyers. 

Imagine the radar and hydro horror if one of those made it into the game. Probably 20KM perma radar, 10KM perma-hydro. Ridiculously small dispersion, sigma somewhere in the double figures; only one main gun, though, and not that high a rate of fire. But perma-DFAA with two Phalanx guns would be murder. BRRRRRRRRRT, goodbye to your bomber squadrons.

Come on, WG, do it for a special event mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×