WesWorld

This is the first report in a series by this Office, reccomending actions to be taken to ensure the most efficient and effective development of the Marina de Filipinas in the coming decade.

Report on Naval Weapons (Gunnery) of the Marina de Filipinas
2 March 1929

13.7mm Machine Gun
This heavy machine gun has proven satisfactory in all respects. Continued production and installation, in single and quad "Buzzsaw" mounts, on all MdF vessels is reccomended.

25mm Cannon and 40mm "Pom-Pom"
While the 25mm anti-aircraft weapon is currently satisfactory, however it is the considered opinion of the Design Office that production be discontinued and the weapon be phased out of service.

This is based on the following considerations:
-The quad 13.7mm weapon, with its faster rate of fire, is in many ways equivilant to the triple 25mm;
-Although lethal against the current generation of aircraft, the introduction of "all-metal" aeroplanes may reduce its effictivness in the future;
-And if the reccomendation of the adoption of the Indian 35mm weapon is accepted (see below), the twin 35mm is nearly equivilant in deck-space requirements to the triple 25mm.

The British 40mm weapon is considered by the Design Office to be obsolete, with the Indian 35mm being a much superior weapon. It is the reccomendation of the Design Office that this weapon should be replaced by the Indian 35mm anti-aircraft cannon both in new production and in older ships as they are refit.

Vessels currently fitting these weapons should be re-equipped with the quad 13.7mm and/or the twin 35mm as they are refit.

57mm QF
With the adoption of the Japanese 75mm QF weapon, the 57mm is now considered by the Design Office to be superfluous. It is reccomended that no further installations of this weapon should be undertaken, with its replacements being either the 35mm or 75mm weapons, as the installation dictates.

75mm QF
Although this weapon has seen little action, due to its recent intoduction, it is the belief of the Design Office that it shows a considerable potential, and it is reccomended that this weapon be officially considered as the MdF's standard "light medium" calibre naval rifle.

100mm and 130mm Naval Rifles
Although the 100mm rifle has proven satisfactory in service, due to its slower rate of fire it is considered very much equivilant to the 75mm QF, despite the former's shell being 2.5 times the weight of the latter weapon.

The 130mm rifle has proven in combat to be unsatisfactory. Due to the weight of its projectiles the average Filipino seaman has difficulty maintaing an adequate rate of fire during nearly any engagement, while even those of more European stock find the transport of ammunition during an extended battle to be considerably fatiguing.

Given these factors, it is the reccomendation of the Design Office that the Skoda-Davao arms works be tasked with the expedited development of a new weapon of 115mm calibre, to replace both the 100mm and 130mm weapons currently in service. This should be developed as a "dual-purpose" weapon for both anti-destroyer and anti-aircraft work.

Vessels currently equipped with the 100mm and 130mm rifles should have them replaced with the 75mm or 115mm weapons as they are refit.

155mm Naval Rifle (and 152mm Treaty Naval Rifle)
With the defeat of the proposal to amend the Cleito Treaty to permit 155mm weapons, it is the reccomendation of the Design Office that these weapons should be rebored to 150mm calibre.

This will allow a standardised installation which is Treaty-compliant on all vessels, and will also standardise calibres with our allies in the SATSUMA alliance.

Vessels currently mounting these weapons should have them re-lined to 150mm calibre as they are refit.

Vessels mounting older calibres of 6" (152mm) rifles should retain this calibre until the current stocks of ammunition are exhausted, at which point they should either be retired or re-bored.

180mm Naval Rifle
Development of this weapon was suspended due to the Greco coup. Prior to this it was proving most unsatisfactory in proof testing. It is strongly reccomended that development of this weapon should be cancelled.

210mm Naval Rifle
This weapon appears satisfactory in all respects.

305mm and 320mm Naval Rifles
It is reccomended that production of the 320mm weapon should be terminated following the completion of Bohol following the defeat of the Revolutionary forces. The Treaty-compliant 12" weapon should be standardised upon.

It is also requested that the Design Office be authorised to begin studies on the re-equiping of Samal and Bohol with the 305mm/55 weapon, for purposes of standardisation.

Future Heavy-Calibre Naval Rifles
It is the opinion of the Design Office that the Battleship 1932 project should be developed using the Indian 350mm weapon, both for purposes of economy and standardisation.

In addition, preliminary development of a "post-Treaty" rifle of (censored) calibre should be started in the near future.



Commander R. de la Croix
Chief Designer
MdF Design Office

This will undoubtedly please the Indian ordnance industry.

Filipino guns have now been used in real-life situations a few times, but you only comment on some weapons. Any insight into thoughts on the 12" and 12.6" weapons combat-wise?

I'm slightly puzzled by the reference to the 'Treaty-compliant 12" weapon', which seems to imply that the 320mm is not compliant somehow. Or is something else meant?

Quoted

I'm slightly puzzled by the reference to the 'Treaty-compliant 12" weapon', which seems to imply that the 320mm is not compliant somehow. Or is something else meant?

The limit for Coast Defense Armorclads is 12 inch. If he were to mount a 320mm gun onto such a ship, it would end up as a capital ship.
It is misleading and I had to think about that one for a moment as well.

Ah, OK, I get it. I think.

Heh, there's a bit of convergence going on, since Germany's first class of new capital ships under the CT is likely to be armed with a 350mm weapon (though it's a Krupp creation, rather than the Indian gun). 305mms or 380mms are still possibilities, but the 350mm is looking like the winner right now.

I should have made that one clearer, sorry 'bout that.

The adoption of the 320mm seemed logical at the time; it was the largest gun the designers could fit on the Samals without cutting speed or armour, and 6x320mm felt to be sounder politically than 6x12". However it's now seen to be a mistake; with the 12"/55 being in service anyway on the Dagupan-class CDBB due to the CDA gun limitation, the added punch of the larger shell is considered a poor trade for the added logistical difficulties.

Quoted

Any insight into thoughts on the 12" and 12.6" weapons combat-wise?

The 12"/55 is considered to be a satisfactory weapon, save for the (relativly) short barrel/liner life, but that was an accepted tradeoff when the decision was made for a 55-calibre gun.

The 320mm has been used rather less; it seemingly has poor accuracy, however it is not yet known if that is intristic to the weapon or is the result of poor technique on the part of Samal's gunnery crew.


It is likely that, when construction of Bohol resumes post-Revolution (and post-repair...), she will be completed with 6x12"/55 and Samal will be refit with that configuration (and the 100mm AA battery replaced by 75mm) at her first refit.

Any more details on your weapons Swampy? Things like rate of fire, shell types and weights, any other info...

I'd expect it to be easier to "down-gun" Samal's armament than to up-gun something similar. Ammo handling and storage ought to be a matter of "re-lining" to accommodate a smaller shell.

Sim-wise, I'd leave her simmed with 12.6" guns but change the notes to list her with 12". But then, what do I know?

Quoted

Any more details on your weapons Swampy? Things like rate of fire, shell types and weights, any other info...

Hmm, aside from shell weights (which are in the gun posts in the Encyclopedia) I'll have to work on that a bit.

Quoted

Sim-wise, I'd leave her simmed with 12.6" guns but change the notes to list her with 12".

She'll retain the 320mm guns until she comes in for refit, which will be "early" (~1934). At that point they will be "completly" swapped for the 12"/55, and the weight savings used for improvements elsewhere (deck armour?).

Quoted

At that point they will be "completly" swapped for the 12"/55, and the weight savings used for improvements elsewhere (deck armour?).

How do you completely swap the guns? Surely you just put new 305mm guns into the old 320mm cradles. Or, re-line the 320mm down to 305mm, which makes more sense and is more economical, and eliminates the 320mm calibre. The 1st won't save much weight, the second will gain slightly.

Quoted

How do you completely swap the guns? Surely you just put new 305mm guns into the old 320mm cradles. Or, re-line the 320mm down to 305mm, which makes more sense and is more economical, and eliminates the 320mm calibre. The 1st won't save much weight, the second will gain slightly.

My thoughts for the process were:

1. Remove entire old twin 320mm turrets (and sell them).

2. Install newly-built entire twin 305mm turrets.

Quoted

My thoughts for the process were:

1. Remove entire old twin 320mm turrets (and sell them).

2. Install newly-built entire twin 305mm turrets

That means you have to spend lots of money on new turrets and new guns. The 305mm turret will have to be the same size as the old 320mm one, and so will weigh more or less the same. It is far more economical to simply reline the existing guns down to 305mm, or to put 305mm guns into the cradles.

Is the change of a capital ships main gun caliber allowed under the terms of the CT?

I believe one of the revisions agreed was to allow reductions in main gun size?

I don't think so.

The most recent proposed wording was:

No increase to the extent or thickness of side armor, or increase in calibre or number of main armament, shall be permitted.

If made part of the treaty, I'd interpret it as allowing decreases with respect to the above.

That would be a logical concussion that only increasing guns sizes is bad. Decreasing the size of a weapon should be fine.

I do wonder if the original treaty actually made replacement of any capital ship guns illegal. I ask because one could replace the guns with new guns of the same size, but would that be considered invalid by treaty? Did larger and smaller also include gun caliber? Changing 45 cal to 50 cal for instance (which is expensive). Or replacing the old barrels with new and improved barrels, such as was done with most of the American guns in the 1930s?

So i've no problem with the legality of the proposal.