IIRC, the liners must be removed through the breech, which means removing the gun from the turret, which sounds like a longer than 24hr job to me.
Italian 15" nearly as good as US 16"/50
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 dunmunro1 |
|||
|
Posts: 1332 (11-Jan-2008 21:46:12) |
|
||
|
P3D |
|||
|
Posts: 709 (11-Jan-2008 21:54:35) |
Then apparently the Italians managed to remove the loose liners from the muzzle end.
|
||
|
dunmunro1 |
|||
|
Posts: 1333 (11-Jan-2008 22:20:29) |
P3D wrote: Navweapons says: "There was also a loose-liner which could apparently be removed from the breech end of the rifle."
now, this could be incorrect, but I've never seen anything to suggest that it is. Additionally,Campbell states that the guns in the Littorio did not use
a loose liner.
Last Edited By: dunmunro1
11-Jan-2008 22:30:50.
Edited 2 times.
|
||
|
nathanokun |
|||
|
Posts: 150 (17-Mar-2008 03:50:07) |
No flashless powder in Italian guns or good radar. Thus, night battles with optical gun-sights would be a major problem.
|
||
|
nathanokun |
|||
|
Posts: 151 (17-Mar-2008 03:55:23) |
E.S.R. ("Equivalent Service Rounds") always means AP projectiles in battleships. HC projectiles were secondary shells for things like shore
bombardment and anti-small-ship actions, not battleship-versus=battleship warfare (the Service in "Sevice"), which is what a battleship was built
for.
|
||
|
Gene Slover |
|||
|
Posts: 6142 (17-Mar-2008 08:47:32) |
17C8. Computation of Initial ballistic correction
A review of chapter 5, section D, which discusses the manner of correcting I. V. loss due to erosion is required at this time, as is an understanding of the term "pseudo equivalent service round (PESR)." An equivalent service round has been previously defined as one which produces an amount of bore enlargement equal to that caused by a full-charge standard round. (Thus several reduced charges make up an equivalent service round) The PESR is the number of equivalent service rounds corresponding to the last accurate measurement of bore enlargement. For a more complete description of equivalent service rounds See: http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/CHAPTER-17-C.html The following links take you to bore enlargement tables (PESR) for the 5"/38 and the 16"/50 gun. http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USNAVY/5-38-PAGE-3.html http://www.eugeneleeslover.com/USN-GUNS-AND-RANGE-TABLES/BORE-ENLARGEMENT.html |
||
|
Red Admiral |
|||
|
Posts: 1831 (17-Mar-2008 12:49:55) |
No flashless powder in Italian guns or good radar.There is no real difference in capability between the decimetric Italian sets and the German decimetric sets, or the allied metric/decimetric sets from the same period (i.e. up to 1941-42). The difference was that Italy spent only about $5,000 (it was 20,000L per year) over 5 years on their program and employed only a handful of people - but got pretty much the same results. |
||
|
ickysdad |
|||
|
Posts: 3066 (17-Mar-2008 16:23:32) |
Red Admiral wrote: Well according to Erminio Bagnasco in "Italian Battleships of World war Two" and M. J. Whitleys " Battleships of World War Two" Italaian radars were having "immense" troubles up to the time of Italy's surrender. I'm also thinking Alfred Price & Louis Brown in thier respective books on radar make the same statement. |
||
|
SteffSap |
|||
|
Posts: 178 ( 8-May-2008 20:50:23) |
According to the best source available now, the new book "Le navi da battaglia Classe Littorio", Authors Bagnasco & De Toro, all the guns had
loose liners, to be changed every 110-140 rounds (according to different sources). As for changing the liner, Supermarina stated in another discussion they
were replaceable from the muzzle end. ROF 1.3 r/m.
|
||
|
williewhizz |
Barrel changing | ||
|
Posts: 354 ( 9-May-2008 09:17:55) |
This reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask for a while. Whatever the nominal life of a barrel, surely it wouldn't have been kept in place
until there were only a few shots left before changing? You wouldn't want them wearing out in the middle of a battle, after all.
So - accepting that 'operational needs' would have had some impact on the exact timing - roughly how far through a nominal barrel life would it generally be expected to be changed? |
||
|
himi coffee |
|||
|
Posts: 77 ( 9-May-2008 10:03:28) |
williewhizz wrote: The barrel life wasn't an absolute limit - the guns wouldn't fail once they passed that point. They were designed to operate at a certain
performance level, within tolerances defined by the /acceptable/ performance - i.e. at the end of a barrel's life it would be operating at the minimum
generally acceptable performance. You could keep using it beyond that point if you were willing to accept the sub-par performance, meaning that wear
wouldn't be a really critical issue.
I imagine you'd schedule gun replacements as part of regular refits rather than worry about getting 100% utilisation out of the guns, particularly since
a ship would have to do a /lot/ of shooting to wear out its guns before it'd go in for its next refit.
|
||
|
emc |
|||
|
Posts: 3736 ( 9-May-2008 11:50:36) |
himi coffee wrote:iirc (from Buxton's Big Gun Monitors), the RN's practice was to replace the gun when its remaining (expected) life was less than the magazine's capacity. I would presume the practice of other fleets was similar. I would also presume that there were times when operational considerations would prevent timely replacements. |
||
|
SirGoodall |
Danger Spaces | ||
|
Posts: 592 ( 9-May-2008 13:01:28) |
Hi All, I know it has been a while since I have posted.
Comparison seems to be mainly just on belt pentration and barrel life! However one should also consider danger spaces and damage likely to be caused. The IT 15in 50 cal has a higher velocity than the USN 16in 45 or even 50 cal guns. The angle of descent is therefore much lower for the IT 15in. Ships tend to be greater in height than they are in beam, so - assuming dispersion between the two weapons are same (which I doubt) - the danger space of the 15in IT gun is greater than the USN 16in. In other words the 15in with have a slight advantage in scoring hits (all else being equal). As the angle of descent for the 15in is lower than that for the 16in, then the chances of it scoring a hit on the belt are also slightly higher (this assumes that in both cases underwater hits are left out of the picture). However - due to the same low angle of descent - the chances of the 15in scoring a hit on the armoured deck is far less than the 16in. Indeed although the danger space of the US 16in is smaller, the deck within it, covers a far greater area of that danger space so that there is a good probability that any hit will be a deck hit. The 16in is also a far better deck penetrator, which combined with the greater probability of hitting the deck, means that the chances of the 16in inflicting serious damage is greatly increased. The 15in might score more hits, but many would be in areas of little importance. While those of 16in will be in areas of greater importance. Both the Italians and the USN would not have shyed away from a 30k yds battle, which would have been quite possible in most likely area of such a battle between two such ships i;e the Med. Rgds John |
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
