AA Fire Just Got Better (For the American ships anyway....)

[Jracule]

Posted my first question to the Devs and got my answer this morning.

 

Q - Will late tier American ships be able to mount the 3"/50 Marks 27, 33 and 34 guns which came into service in 1947/48. I ask because they were successor weapons to the 40mm Bofors and were used to equip warships like the Des Moines class heavy cruiser and Worcester class light cruiser. (Yours truly)

 

A - That is possible for some ships. (KGB)

 

What does this mean you ask? Well, let me clear this up with a little history lesson.

 

3"/50 mark 27, 33, and 34

(Mark 33)

 

In 1944, American forces noticed that the 20mm Orelikons and 40mm Bofors were becoming increasingly ineffective against Japanese kamikaze attacks. The momentum of the planes carrying them into the ship even if they were struck. Only the 5"/38 had the killing power needed to stop a kamikaze. But its large size and weight prevented it from being used as much as possible. Therefore, US designers sought to create a medium caliber weapon with enough killing power to obliterate Japanese aircraft before they could get close.

 

(A Mark 22, 3"/50 gun, forerunner to the Mark 27)

 

Designers decided on the 3"/50 mark 22 gun. Not only was the existing gun design good, it was the smallest weapon able to fire VT shells. The major benefit of the gun's design was that it was able to be easily adapted for automatic fire. A novel autoloader was created using electrically operating revolving sprockets to hold the shells.

http://www.zhanlieji...anberra_pic.jpg

(Mark 33 mount (Note the shells being loaded into the revolving magazines))

http://svsm.org/albu...33/IMGP0640.jpg

(Mark 33 gun from rear, good view of loader provided.)

 

 

The gun first began test firing on September 1, 1945. Though test results were excellent, the end of the war slowed development. It was not until late 1947 that Naval vessels started to be come equipped with this powerful new weapon. The weapon used a mounting of the same size as the original 40mm Bofors, so originally the 3"/50 replaced 40mm weapons on a 1 for 2 basis. However, on smaller ships, the greater weight often resulted in replacement on a 1 for 3 basis.

 

There were only two downsides to this weapon. One was the rapid firing rate worn down the barrels much faster than the original 3"/50 mark 22 cannon. The other downside was that this weapon was so advanced, it required constant attention to ensure proper operation. This was due to the weapon making use of some of the highest technology available for the time.

 

What was the upside to this weapon? Well, for one thing, AA performance was highly improved compared to the earlier 40mm Bofors. US testing showed that against a target the size of a Japanese aircraft, a single 3"/50 gun was more effective than two 40mm Quad mounts. One gun outperforming eight. Another upside was the more powerful 3" shell provided much greater effective range compared to the 20mm and 40mm weapons.

 

This particular weapon was provided in 3 different variants.

- Mark 27 - Original twin mount

- Mark 33 - Improved Mark 27

- Mark 34 - Single gun mount

 

This weapon operated on US ships from the late 1940s all the way until the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was also produced by Spain for their warships and the mount was used by Norway on their Oslo class frigates.

 

Some technical stats:

Gun size   -  3"/50

Rate of Fire -  45 - 50 rounds per minute

Shell types   - AA round (13 pound shell, 24lbs complete)

- HC round(13 pound shell, 24lbs complete)

Muzzle Velocity   -2,700 feet per second (823 meters per second)

Range - 14,600 yards (at 45 degrees)

AA ceiling - 30,400 feet

Elevation - +85/-15

Elevation rate - 30 degrees per second

Train    - 360 degrees

Train rate    - 24 degrees per second

Crew    - 11 men

 

http://www.destroyer...les/threein.jpg

(Detail of the Gun)

[Wunderwaffen1945]

Nicely done...it would be upperhand for US navy to have this guns on their ships

[triptyx]

Cool writeup!  +1

 

I've seen some of those in person. They're very impressive guns.

[Daltron]

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

 

This is such a good gun!

[Haguro]

(+1) Jracule

As if the USN ships needed another advantage in AA effectiveness.  :Smile_hiding: Now if the Montana class gets 5 inch / 54s and these 3 inch / 50s (in place of 20 & 40 mm mounts) it could be the ultimate AA ship as well as USN top BB.  :Smile_playing:

http://imageshack.us...945template.png

[Gigaton]

Basically, If you guys get this I want the "electric gun" that is mentioned in one of the USN Technical Mission reports for Japan. Can I get it? Lets tamper with it's particulars a bit and call it "mass driver".

[Jracule]

Haguro, on 19 January 2013 - 01:21 AM, said:

(+1) Jracule
As if the USN ships needed another advantage in AA effectiveness.  :Smile_hiding: Now if the Montana class gets 5 inch / 54s and these 3 inch / 50s (in place of 20 & 40 mm mounts) it could be the ultimate AA ship as well as USN top BB.  :Smile_playing:
http://imageshack.us...945template.png

I'm all for it. Montana sketches show anywhere from 40 to 76 40mm weapons. (10 or 19 mounts). That would mean 20x or 38x 3"/50 weapons. Doesn't seem like much until you factor in the US testing for it. A single 3"/50 was more effective than 8x 40mm Bofors. A Montana class armed with this weapon would give us the same effectiveness as 160x 40mm at lowest or 304x 40mm Bofors at highest.

Can you say Iron Curtain   :Smile_playing:

[El3m3nttt]

Very cool, I wonder if 40MM Bofors would then replace the older 20MM guns and remove them and add the 40MM Bofors in the place of 20MM's and have possibly the best AA screen in WWII and later.

[Jracule]

El3m3nttt, on 19 January 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:

Very cool, I wonder if 40MM Bofors would then replace the older 20MM guns and remove them and add the 40MM Bofors in the place of 20MM's and have possibly the best AA screen in WWII and later.

Highly doubtful. If it was possible, they would have done that during the war. A 40mm bofors is a much larger weapon system than the 20mm gun. The 20mm gun was needed because they could cram it in places where they could not fit the Bofors.

[Eyeless_Camper]

Jracule, on 18 January 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

This weapon operated on US ships from the late 1940s all the way until the late 1980s and early 1990s. It was also produced by Spain for their warships and the mount was used by Sweden on their Oslo class frigates.

I belive used by Norway on their Oslo class frigates?, Oslo is norways capital  :Smile-_tongue:

[Jracule]

Eyeless_Camper, on 22 January 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

I belive used by Norway on their Oslo class frigates?, Oslo is norways capital  :Smile-_tongue:

Got that information from a naval book. Found a typo it seems.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

"For some ships", KGB mentioned.  I'm still waiting for the rest of the story.  So they may be included, but the punch line may not be so sweet as we relish and savior this milestone.  I'd be sorely disappointed if this celebration is premature when the only ships to see them are NOT battleships.  I mean, come on now.   The cruelty is in not knowing, and KGB is clever enough not to mention any more than he has too.

[Jracule]

t42592, on 23 January 2013 - 12:18 AM, said:

"For some ships", KGB mentioned.  I'm still waiting for the rest of the story.  So they may be included, but the punch line may not be so sweet as we relish and savior this milestone.  I'd be sorely disappointed if this celebration is premature when the only ships to see them are NOT battleships.  I mean, come on now.   The cruelty is in not knowing, and KGB is clever enough not to mention any more than he has too.

We can dream can't we? You of all people should know that with your thread on the 18" gun armed Montana.

[anonym_auUiRfWCi1jI]

I agree.  And that thread mentioned they were considering a specific gun change for a specific ship.  There is a difference.   :Smile_glasses:

 

ADD EDIT:  Maybe a more specific question as to a category, or even a class.  And even more bolder, narrow it down to a specific ship.  That would be awesome!

 

Jracule, on 23 January 2013 - 03:17 AM, said:

We can dream can't we? You of all people should know that with your thread on the 18" gun armed Montana.

[Commanderjoebob]

So these guns were developed to obliterate kamikazes. SO this then brings up another question: Will there be available kamikaze planes for the Japanese Navy carriers?

[triptyx]

Devs have said No Kamikazes if memory serves.

[MasterWolf]

be interesting to see how AA Cruisers get used in game - suspect RN and USN will have the advantage, which would nicely offset the IJN torp advantage and KM Gun Advantage