The USN is justly famous for its heavy projectiles of WWII, which in 16" and 8" were 30% overweight from the formula: weight in pounds equals half
caliber in inches cubed. It is often mentioned that the British Navy of WWI used heavy projectiles in their 13.5" and 15" guns of 13.8% overweight
that worked out very well. In both navies, the weight was compensated by reducing MV, to 2500 fps in the USN 50 cal guns, and ~2400 fps in the RN.
I wish to ask for more information about the Russian Navy doing the same thing with their Model 1911 projectiles, which were 20% overweight, a full 5 calibers in length, and kept a heavier bursting charge than the USN heavy shells of about 4.5 calibers length. Did these Russian AP projectiles prove to have the structural strength to penetrate without breaking up? How did they compare to the projectiles of other navies?
Perhaps most interesting, they managed to retain a higher MV despite using heavy shell, increasing the ME rather than trading V for M at similar ME as did Britain and the USN. In some cases this was a substantial increase in ME. Their later high performance guns used both the heavy projectile and very high MV. Yet the tables I have seen suggest they did not trade off the life of the gun the way the Italians did in WWII trying to have it both ways. How did they do this? Perhaps it was cooler propellants or deeper rifling or different standards for gun wear.
I would also like to hear about their Model 1928 projectiles, which went back to about 12% overweight in order to streamline more in 5 calibers length, and seem to have achieved an all time high standard of ballistic performance.
I wish to ask for more information about the Russian Navy doing the same thing with their Model 1911 projectiles, which were 20% overweight, a full 5 calibers in length, and kept a heavier bursting charge than the USN heavy shells of about 4.5 calibers length. Did these Russian AP projectiles prove to have the structural strength to penetrate without breaking up? How did they compare to the projectiles of other navies?
Perhaps most interesting, they managed to retain a higher MV despite using heavy shell, increasing the ME rather than trading V for M at similar ME as did Britain and the USN. In some cases this was a substantial increase in ME. Their later high performance guns used both the heavy projectile and very high MV. Yet the tables I have seen suggest they did not trade off the life of the gun the way the Italians did in WWII trying to have it both ways. How did they do this? Perhaps it was cooler propellants or deeper rifling or different standards for gun wear.
I would also like to hear about their Model 1928 projectiles, which went back to about 12% overweight in order to streamline more in 5 calibers length, and seem to have achieved an all time high standard of ballistic performance.
