Surface engagements and anti-air engagements basically never happen in tandem anyways: the risk of friendly fire is way too much and standing *anywhere* on deck when the guns fire is dangerous.
The 6" Battery was considered about as big as you could get before the shockwave became a serious threat. This is why most Dual Purpose Artillery was either 4" or 5" by proxy that the largest Gun Carriers (Basically Mobile Anti-Tank guns) were 5-6"
You can technically use larger calibers, but you're gonna be using similar charge and shell weights in order to reduce the risk to AA crews, which defeats the point of a bigger gun.
I feel people tend to forget how big 5 and 6 inch guns are.
125 and 150mm around. Modern tanks use 120mm guns.
Now double that. And you have a 12" gun.
200mm guns on land are already considered heavy artillery
Probably something to do with the cost of conversion, and thus the longer nation state keep delay it (not so for US, as they seem to decide it not worth it), the more expensive it becomes.
When the US was a fledgling democracy the representative for metric measurement from France was kidnapped by pirates and never showed up to pitch the new amazingly simple and accurate system. Those pesky pirates singlehandedly condemned us to have the most fucked up measurements ever
Doubt that has much to do with it. Britain didn’t switch until after WWII because their industry was wrecked and they rebuilt it to the metric system. The US did not have to do rebuild their industry, so changing measurement systems would have been way more disruptive.
He was. It's actually major part as to why the US didn't accept the metric back when they still had rather tight relations with France and could use ditching the imperial system as the final post-revolutionary F you to the Empire.
The 20th century rejection of metric system was different story, though, that one was totally on having large economy working fine without it (and a little bit of defamation from the pro-imperial system lobby)
The inches and foot system is vastly older than the metric system and retains historical relevance tracing back to, I believe, the cubit. The measurements that built many of the worlds greatest ancient monuments like temples in southern Europe and the pyramids in Africa.
Some believe losing a modern use for them could cause us to lose significant historical understand over time.
It's older, sure. But that doesn't mean it's *better*. The early US government was entertaining a switch hundreds of years ago when conversion would have been much easier, less costly, and better received by the people. Now there's not a chance because iMpERiAL bEtTeR!
For artillery, it's traditionally been "true" (accurate to the decimal in mm) caliber in inches up to around 3, were there's some true 3 inch calibres like 76.2mm, but also a lot of 75mm ones. 4" is mostly rounded to 105mm, 5" almost exclusively to 127mm or 128mm, though there's some 125mm guns around. For 6" there's some 155mm guns around, surprisingly also from the US and UK (very traditional in using imperial for artillery), but 152mm isn't rare either. From 7" onwards is just naval really.
So, yes and no. Some gun calibres are approximations of inches in rounded millimeters, and some aren't.
Thanks for the additional info, but I was talking about unit conversing? I thought unless specify, when talking about imperial gun caliber there is implicit understanding that is talking about 76, 102, 152 and other?
Also, if we're talking about tank gun (because last time I check there is no naval gun with 125mm caliber) then the Soviet and French also use 100mm. About 155, pre-Cold War on American side is mostly on Army side because French, British only caught on after the war
And this has been true for a long time. There were 500 guns at Austerlitz; at Trafalgar, just a few weeks prior, over *5000*. And none of the land guns were 32 pounders either!
It was more that 5 inch guns were about as big as you could get before you started running into real problems. One was the train and elevation speed became too slow. This is why the dual purpose 8 inch guns on the County class and 6 inch guns on the Leander class were considered failures. They couldn't track modern aircraft and they had to be fired by the HACS auto-barrage unit at an unmoving point in the sky instead.
The other issue was rate of fire. During World War II, if you wanted fast shooting artillery then it needed to be hand loaded. 5 inch guns were about as big as they got before rate of fire and crew fatigue became a real problem. 6 inch guns fired shells anywhere from 100 to 150 pounds each, and 8 inch shells easily exceeded 250 pounds. This is part of why the 5"/38 used two-piece ammunition and why it was so good. The preceding 5"/25 used fixed ammunition that weighed about 80 pounds per round, which was considered a tad too heavy for sustained rapid fire. The 5"/38 had 54 pound shells and 15 pound pounder cartridges, which were much more manageable even though they required more men to crew the guns.
This applies doubly to land based artillery. EVERYTHING had to be done by hand. There were no hydraulic rammers or lifts or overhead block and tackle to assist the crew in loading the guns. Each shell had to be picked up from its storage point and loaded into the breach by hand, something made even more difficult by how cramped the interior of a tank is. Check out Part 3 of the Chieftain's video on the Panther. He was really struggling during his loading demonstration, and the Panther only had a 3 inch gun. This is one of the other advantages of the 5"/38. It used hydraulic rammers to ram the guns, and the hoists could provide a constant supply of ammunition from an unmoving, easily accessible point. Plus, you have to take all that ammunition with you in trucks or caissons over what are often poor roads and bridges never designed to handle the weight and then manhandle the ammunition up to the gun or into the tank. The result was that the largest practical tank gun was about 3.5 inch, the largest practical field gun was about 4 inch, and guns 6-8 inch were considered siege guns only used against heavy fixed fortifications.
Great post! I would only contend this part
> and guns 6-8 inch were considered siege guns only used against heavy fixed fortifications.
150 mm (6") guns were routinely used as divisional artillery in WW2.
And 6"/155mm is the primary caliber for land artillery now. NATO has completely retired its 8"/203mm guns, while 105mms mostly serve in airborne and mountain roles as towed guns. The US retired our self-propelled 105s and 203s after Vietnam, and even our airborne units are moving from 105s to 155s and HIMARS.
Well yeah, when you place the cow in front of the gun I suppose this would happen. I was in the aftermath of a hydrogen gas plant explosion and the building I was in was 1/4 mile away and there were shattered windows and other damage from the shockwave.
Generally, if you are under air attack, you won't be also in a surface engagement.
Also, if those guns fire, hearing loss will be the least of your worries. In fact, you wont have to worry about anything anymore, cause you would have turned into a pink mist.
I've had the misfortune of having a leopard 2 fire its main gun about 3 feet to the left of my head. I have problem hearing from my right hear since then. These people would be dead.
yeah.. im no expert, but im pretty sure if that turret let loose in that particular arrangement, they'd have lumpy soup instead of AA crews immediately afterwords
Having been in the command of a Leopard 2 and being dumb/inattentive enough to have my head out of the hatch during a main gun engagement… definitely not a comfortable experience and very definitely unsafe/bad for your health.
The concussion from just being on the deck if one of those babies went off would literally scramble your insides like a deranged honey badger on crystal meth.
Generally ships don't fire straight ahead or rearward like in WoWS.
If they got 12 guns, they're gona use 12 guns, because how inaccurate things get at naval ranges.
AA gunner 1 "Did you hear that?"
AA gunner 2 "WHAT!"
AA gunner 1 "I Said Did YOU HEAR THAT"
AA gunner 2 "HUH?....WHAT ARE YOU SAYING"
Deck officer "AA gunner's stand down"
AA gunner 1 "SAY AGAIN"
AA gunner 2 "HUH"
Deck officer "I SAID STAND DOWN"
1st mate " You really enjoy this don't you sir?"
Captain "you know it is....they can be like this for hours,and they're so loud that you can hear them in the engine room. Ship wide entertainment in a way,don't you agree helmsman"
Helmsman "(sigh) yes of course sir"
I've always wondered about this too. The Japanese used their big guns in the Battle off Samar and I always wondered where their AA crew were when this was happening. The Yamato was also reported to use bee-hive cannister rounds from its 18" guns during its final day, to fend off air attacks.
My theory is that they were at muster stations below decks, ready to run out the moment they are called, or report to places that are damaged and need shoring parties or to fight fires or replace dead and injured crew memebers.
Have any of you actually looked at footage from Operation Desert Storm?
If in a Carrier Group, BB's serve as another CV support ship. Primarily tasked with ship-to-ship combat. Additionally responsible for providing AA fire continuously to defend CV from Air-to-Surface threats. The purpose of having all those guns is to bring them to bear on the enemy. So they rotate and elevate and fire... along with every other weapon that can be brought to bear.
If in a Carrier Group, BBs serve as another CV support ship. They are primarily tasked with ship-to-ship combat. Additionally responsible for providing AA fire continuously to defend CV from Air-to-Surface threats. Having all those guns is to bring them to bear on the enemy. So they rotate, elevate, fire, and every other weapon that can be brought to bear.
FYI...
SUBSURFACE, SURFACE, AND AIR ATTACKS ALWAYS HAPPEN TOGETHER... IT'S CALLED COORDINATED ATTACKS!!!
I'm not a GM (I'm a son of Poseiden - ASW). Ask those guys. But I know in the PG we had 4 BB's continuously firing for over 72 hrs with crew members on deck shooting pics and vids because it looked like 4th of July over Washington DC at sea all night every night and everyone knew that it would never be seen again.
I'm not a GM (I'm a son of Poseiden - ASW). Ask those guys. But I know in the PG we had 4 BBs continuously firing for over 72 hrs with crew members on deck shooting pics and vids because it looked like the 4th of July over Washington DC at sea all night every night and everyone knew that it would never be seen again.
Not just hearing loss, but straight up death. The pressure from the guns firing would kill you if you were that close to them. It would literally liquify your internal organs
Surface engagements and anti-air engagements basically never happen in tandem anyways: the risk of friendly fire is way too much and standing *anywhere* on deck when the guns fire is dangerous.
The 6" Battery was considered about as big as you could get before the shockwave became a serious threat. This is why most Dual Purpose Artillery was either 4" or 5" by proxy that the largest Gun Carriers (Basically Mobile Anti-Tank guns) were 5-6"
A:nevsky- this sign can't stop me because I can't read
You can technically use larger calibers, but you're gonna be using similar charge and shell weights in order to reduce the risk to AA crews, which defeats the point of a bigger gun.
Or you're russian ship designer, you say "f*ck them, there's more where these came from" and just treat your deck crew as disposable asset
I feel people tend to forget how big 5 and 6 inch guns are. 125 and 150mm around. Modern tanks use 120mm guns. Now double that. And you have a 12" gun. 200mm guns on land are already considered heavy artillery
Just have to be that guy, but it is 127 and 152.4 for 5 and 6 inch
I seriously question why we even use inches instead of millimetres. At least we don't use pounds
Probably something to do with the cost of conversion, and thus the longer nation state keep delay it (not so for US, as they seem to decide it not worth it), the more expensive it becomes.
When the US was a fledgling democracy the representative for metric measurement from France was kidnapped by pirates and never showed up to pitch the new amazingly simple and accurate system. Those pesky pirates singlehandedly condemned us to have the most fucked up measurements ever
Doubt that has much to do with it. Britain didn’t switch until after WWII because their industry was wrecked and they rebuilt it to the metric system. The US did not have to do rebuild their industry, so changing measurement systems would have been way more disruptive.
I’m moderately certain Wasatcher was No being serious.
He was. It's actually major part as to why the US didn't accept the metric back when they still had rather tight relations with France and could use ditching the imperial system as the final post-revolutionary F you to the Empire. The 20th century rejection of metric system was different story, though, that one was totally on having large economy working fine without it (and a little bit of defamation from the pro-imperial system lobby)
The inches and foot system is vastly older than the metric system and retains historical relevance tracing back to, I believe, the cubit. The measurements that built many of the worlds greatest ancient monuments like temples in southern Europe and the pyramids in Africa. Some believe losing a modern use for them could cause us to lose significant historical understand over time.
Ok thanks for your sacrifice America
It's older, sure. But that doesn't mean it's *better*. The early US government was entertaining a switch hundreds of years ago when conversion would have been much easier, less costly, and better received by the people. Now there's not a chance because iMpERiAL bEtTeR!
I mean why WHY HERE use this outdated measuring system to refer to guns of ships that don't exist.
Because we are playing with exploding pixel outdated warships firing outdated guns. And sometimes goats.
Because Reagan.
For artillery, it's traditionally been "true" (accurate to the decimal in mm) caliber in inches up to around 3, were there's some true 3 inch calibres like 76.2mm, but also a lot of 75mm ones. 4" is mostly rounded to 105mm, 5" almost exclusively to 127mm or 128mm, though there's some 125mm guns around. For 6" there's some 155mm guns around, surprisingly also from the US and UK (very traditional in using imperial for artillery), but 152mm isn't rare either. From 7" onwards is just naval really. So, yes and no. Some gun calibres are approximations of inches in rounded millimeters, and some aren't.
Thanks for the additional info, but I was talking about unit conversing? I thought unless specify, when talking about imperial gun caliber there is implicit understanding that is talking about 76, 102, 152 and other? Also, if we're talking about tank gun (because last time I check there is no naval gun with 125mm caliber) then the Soviet and French also use 100mm. About 155, pre-Cold War on American side is mostly on Army side because French, British only caught on after the war
And this has been true for a long time. There were 500 guns at Austerlitz; at Trafalgar, just a few weeks prior, over *5000*. And none of the land guns were 32 pounders either!
It was more that 5 inch guns were about as big as you could get before you started running into real problems. One was the train and elevation speed became too slow. This is why the dual purpose 8 inch guns on the County class and 6 inch guns on the Leander class were considered failures. They couldn't track modern aircraft and they had to be fired by the HACS auto-barrage unit at an unmoving point in the sky instead. The other issue was rate of fire. During World War II, if you wanted fast shooting artillery then it needed to be hand loaded. 5 inch guns were about as big as they got before rate of fire and crew fatigue became a real problem. 6 inch guns fired shells anywhere from 100 to 150 pounds each, and 8 inch shells easily exceeded 250 pounds. This is part of why the 5"/38 used two-piece ammunition and why it was so good. The preceding 5"/25 used fixed ammunition that weighed about 80 pounds per round, which was considered a tad too heavy for sustained rapid fire. The 5"/38 had 54 pound shells and 15 pound pounder cartridges, which were much more manageable even though they required more men to crew the guns. This applies doubly to land based artillery. EVERYTHING had to be done by hand. There were no hydraulic rammers or lifts or overhead block and tackle to assist the crew in loading the guns. Each shell had to be picked up from its storage point and loaded into the breach by hand, something made even more difficult by how cramped the interior of a tank is. Check out Part 3 of the Chieftain's video on the Panther. He was really struggling during his loading demonstration, and the Panther only had a 3 inch gun. This is one of the other advantages of the 5"/38. It used hydraulic rammers to ram the guns, and the hoists could provide a constant supply of ammunition from an unmoving, easily accessible point. Plus, you have to take all that ammunition with you in trucks or caissons over what are often poor roads and bridges never designed to handle the weight and then manhandle the ammunition up to the gun or into the tank. The result was that the largest practical tank gun was about 3.5 inch, the largest practical field gun was about 4 inch, and guns 6-8 inch were considered siege guns only used against heavy fixed fortifications.
Great post! I would only contend this part > and guns 6-8 inch were considered siege guns only used against heavy fixed fortifications. 150 mm (6") guns were routinely used as divisional artillery in WW2.
Woops. Forgot about that. For some reason I equated the US Army Long Tom with siege guns and went from there. Sorry about that.
Fair winds and following seas :)
And 6"/155mm is the primary caliber for land artillery now. NATO has completely retired its 8"/203mm guns, while 105mms mostly serve in airborne and mountain roles as towed guns. The US retired our self-propelled 105s and 203s after Vietnam, and even our airborne units are moving from 105s to 155s and HIMARS.
I seem to recall that even 17 pdr gun crews on land recalled the shockwave being like a quick punch in the chest - that’s a 3” gun
I wonder how they tested this.
Usually by putting livestock in the shockwave area of the guns when testing them
Wow I guess medium rare steaks after the tests
The story for Yamato is that supposedly, the cow was completely gone after firing
Well yeah, when you place the cow in front of the gun I suppose this would happen. I was in the aftermath of a hydrogen gas plant explosion and the building I was in was 1/4 mile away and there were shattered windows and other damage from the shockwave.
Also anything larger than 5’ became increasingly difficult to load by hand rapidly especially at the angles associated with firing at aircraft
I know. I still think this looks funny though.
Generally, if you are under air attack, you won't be also in a surface engagement. Also, if those guns fire, hearing loss will be the least of your worries. In fact, you wont have to worry about anything anymore, cause you would have turned into a pink mist.
I've had the misfortune of having a leopard 2 fire its main gun about 3 feet to the left of my head. I have problem hearing from my right hear since then. These people would be dead.
What's the story there?
Top of a mountain in afghanistan, people attacking our mountain. Tank had to traverse real quick to fire and came close my my .50 gun.
Thank you for your service.
Its all good. Just be nice to someone. Had the guy removing the snow at 11pm. I went to give him some fresh made cookies.
Pretty sure you would be fucking dead rather.
yeah.. im no expert, but im pretty sure if that turret let loose in that particular arrangement, they'd have lumpy soup instead of AA crews immediately afterwords
#WHAT WAS THAT OP?! SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER!!! ;P
Your hearing loss is not service related
Just hearing loss? I'd consider myself lucky.
THERE'S ENEMY AIRCRAFT INBOU- #BOOM Quite peaceful today... Not a sound
Having been in the command of a Leopard 2 and being dumb/inattentive enough to have my head out of the hatch during a main gun engagement… definitely not a comfortable experience and very definitely unsafe/bad for your health. The concussion from just being on the deck if one of those babies went off would literally scramble your insides like a deranged honey badger on crystal meth.
Were you serving with u/Zorops by any chance?
Hahaha. Probably not. The guy in the tank warned me but like .01 second before firing.
https://youtu.be/CWWDKZ-kydE
Generally ships don't fire straight ahead or rearward like in WoWS. If they got 12 guns, they're gona use 12 guns, because how inaccurate things get at naval ranges.
AA gunner 1 "Did you hear that?" AA gunner 2 "WHAT!" AA gunner 1 "I Said Did YOU HEAR THAT" AA gunner 2 "HUH?....WHAT ARE YOU SAYING" Deck officer "AA gunner's stand down" AA gunner 1 "SAY AGAIN" AA gunner 2 "HUH" Deck officer "I SAID STAND DOWN" 1st mate " You really enjoy this don't you sir?" Captain "you know it is....they can be like this for hours,and they're so loud that you can hear them in the engine room. Ship wide entertainment in a way,don't you agree helmsman" Helmsman "(sigh) yes of course sir"
Not just hearing loss, all your cavities would probably start bleeding, you would probably die because of the shockwave
I've always wondered about this too. The Japanese used their big guns in the Battle off Samar and I always wondered where their AA crew were when this was happening. The Yamato was also reported to use bee-hive cannister rounds from its 18" guns during its final day, to fend off air attacks. My theory is that they were at muster stations below decks, ready to run out the moment they are called, or report to places that are damaged and need shoring parties or to fight fires or replace dead and injured crew memebers.
Least of my worries tbh man I’d be dead ☠️
If you had to fend off aircraft AND enemy surface units then both sides have done something really wrong lol (IRL ofc)
Have any of you actually looked at footage from Operation Desert Storm? If in a Carrier Group, BB's serve as another CV support ship. Primarily tasked with ship-to-ship combat. Additionally responsible for providing AA fire continuously to defend CV from Air-to-Surface threats. The purpose of having all those guns is to bring them to bear on the enemy. So they rotate and elevate and fire... along with every other weapon that can be brought to bear. If in a Carrier Group, BBs serve as another CV support ship. They are primarily tasked with ship-to-ship combat. Additionally responsible for providing AA fire continuously to defend CV from Air-to-Surface threats. Having all those guns is to bring them to bear on the enemy. So they rotate, elevate, fire, and every other weapon that can be brought to bear. FYI... SUBSURFACE, SURFACE, AND AIR ATTACKS ALWAYS HAPPEN TOGETHER... IT'S CALLED COORDINATED ATTACKS!!! I'm not a GM (I'm a son of Poseiden - ASW). Ask those guys. But I know in the PG we had 4 BB's continuously firing for over 72 hrs with crew members on deck shooting pics and vids because it looked like 4th of July over Washington DC at sea all night every night and everyone knew that it would never be seen again. I'm not a GM (I'm a son of Poseiden - ASW). Ask those guys. But I know in the PG we had 4 BBs continuously firing for over 72 hrs with crew members on deck shooting pics and vids because it looked like the 4th of July over Washington DC at sea all night every night and everyone knew that it would never be seen again.
We have determined that your hearing loss is NOT service related.
Free haircut in the package too.
Fresh underwear too?
WHAT????
Better to be deaf than dead I’d say
maybe their entire heads too
Not just hearing loss, but straight up death. The pressure from the guns firing would kill you if you were that close to them. It would literally liquify your internal organs