WesWorld

King of Riva
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 78
(4/27/03 6:47:21 pm)
Reply Gun size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi folks,

no design to discuss but a question for you:

Which is the best DD gun caliber pre-1935 (non-DP) and why? Which one did you choose for your units and in what mounts?

The smaller the gun (caliber) the easier it is to controll by the guns crew. The smaller the gun is, the lighter the shells, the higher the ROF and less stress for the men.
On the other hand a light shell from a small caliber gun lacks the power and range of a projectile fired by a heavier gun. It also lacks the potential for a good AA gun once DP-mounts are developed (post-35) which means a navy would need a new/other gun for AA purpose.

So what to choose? 105mm? 115mm? 120mm? 127mm? 130mm? The latter caliber is the largest allowed by the Cleito Treaty.

How would you decide if the navy in question already has a 133mm or 135mm gun or plans for such a gun as DP-secondary for heavy units? A 130mm gun on DDs and a 133mm gun on capitals surely doesn´t make sense but 130mm seems somewhat small to be used as secondary armament.

Thanks for your input.

The Rock Doctor
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 56
(4/27/03 7:38:34 pm)
Reply Re: Gun size
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
130 mm doesn't seem that small for secondaries; the US got by with 127 mm, while the Brits used 133 mm (I think) on their later units.

Standardizing medium-caliber guns isn't a problem for me yet, though I'm sure the issue will arise whenever I do acquire a new battleship. A 105 mm (4.1") gun is the largest destroyer-sized gun India operates, but since other navies are starting to equip their destroyers with larger guns, the Ordnance Bureau is testing 120 mm (4.7") and 125 mm (4.9") weapons.

Once the decision is made to develop a dual-purpose mount, I expect that either of those two weapons would be the starting point for it.

thesmilingassassin
Spammer wanna be
Posts: 53
(4/27/03 7:55:51 pm)
Reply secondary armament
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 5.5"/140mm was used widely by the japanese as a cruiser armament, and most battleships tend to carry the armament of a cruiser as its secondary armament. Both the Hood and Nagato class carried 5.5"/140mm as their secondary battery. In turn cruisers tended to carry a destroyers armament as its secondary armament, but in WW1 they carried QF and AA guns instead of 4" guns which is what most destroyers carried.
It all depends on your navy's outlook, if you look at Britains navy they used smaller caliber guns in larger numbers suggesting they wanted to overwhelm a target with a higher rate of shell fire rather than a smaller rate of larger shells. Broad side weight may be different between guns per salvo but rate of fire may change that over time. It also depends on the effective hitting power of each gun, if a 5.5" gun fails to posess enough punch than the 6" to do damage, then the higher rate of fire may not make a difference. The fact that Britain and Japan used the 5.5"/140mm in significant numbers must mean it was effective enough. I tend to favour the 4"/102mm pre WW2 while in WW2 the british 4.5 and American 5" guns were the best the allies had to offer.
This would be a good post for the warships1 forum as well, as guys like tiornu and barry are a wealth of knowledge on stuff like this, every time they post i learn something.