Jump to content

Reduced Charges Option for heavy Guns


kriegerfaust

Recommended Posts

Ok here me out as I may me crazy, wrong or crazy-wrong.  From my brief bit of ass-covering, I mean research I have found the following.  One ships like the Iowa class did not us HE in ship combat against other ships.  Gasp horror, they used them against targets on shore no Schocker as by the end of the war shore bombardment and aa was their main duty.  Two when doing so they fired for extended periods firing, in many cases far more shells then in combat.  third they used reduced charges mostly using three 660LB bags instead of the normal six.   Fourth for no reason they use three gun not triple gun turrets, why the name because each gun could use its own elevation.   Fifth those clever Germans were an exception using single piece charges, i could wrong, remember asspull, i mean amateur study. 

330px-USS_Iowa_gun_load.jpg

Ok so the big question what does all of this mean and why have i been talking and not spamming pictures.  Well, if Iowa's can hurl, HE and other ships instead of shores like they should.  Can we get reduced charge shots, why for faster rates of fire they would have less range and pend of course.  But HE shells already do that, so AP RC would be between FC AP and HE NC and RC HE well then don't even bother firing that at the same ship classes heavier armor.  I think it's far better than trying to explain a 16-inch autoloader or one that can somehow load gunpowder bag charges and put the poor gunpowder monkies out of business.  (And you know if they don't already have heavy battleships with autoloaders they are coming).  So, in conclusion it could be more fun just like i the Halloween event to see battleships go, ok close enough switch to raid fire instead of trying to ram.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The difficulty of using reduced charges against other ships is due to the increased flight-time of the projectile.
The targeted ship may simply use their rudder to veer out of the impact area of the projectiles that are traveling at reduced speeds due to reduced charges.

On paper, the theory was that the higher arc of heavy & slow projectiles could enable them to improve their chances of diving-down upon a target and penetrating the deck-armor instead of having a flatter trajectory and being forced to deal with the belt-armor.
In practice the longer flight-times allowed targets to maneuver and evade.

Ryan, the curator of Battleship New Jersey Museum, did a video on this, if I recall correctly.

Plunging fire works better for shore bombardment, because the land-based positions cannot evade.  🙂 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

replace BBs Close Quarters Combat commander skill  with this and we have a deal 

-15% reload time of main armament

-15% shell speed of main armament

-15% max range of main armament

so we can finaly get a true brawling skill for BBs that dont have decent secondary guns.

 

 

 

Edited by pepe_trueno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats my idea, you would have less range but would gain rate of fire that way a battleship would have better use of its main guns at short range say half full range and under.  Could also word for heavy cruiser so you are not s.o.l when confronted at short range.  I am sick of light cruisers with crazy armor bouncing battleship rounds playing as ships with all range, also their supper 6-inch guns that seep to be able to pin almost my entire ship and dop thousands of damage.  If a six inch can outrange my eight-inch let me have some close quarters bite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC German capital ship gun caliber loadings were 3 parts - shell, bag, and shell/casing with part of propellant and a detonator in the back because they had the Krupp sliding block mechanism of breach sealing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pepe_trueno said:

replace BBs Close Quarters Combat commander skill  with this and we have a deal 

-15% reload time of main armament

-15% shell speed of main armament

-15% max range of main armament

so we can finaly get a true brawling skill for BBs that dont have decent secondary guns.

 

 

 

OR, just play with what we have, instead of wanting everything adjusted to what you want.

You want this ... that player wants that ... I want this ... and on it goes.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

Ok here me out as I may me crazy, wrong or crazy-wrong.  From my brief bit of ass-covering, I mean research I have found the following.  One ships like the Iowa class did not us HE in ship combat against other ships.  Gasp horror, they used them against targets on shore no Schocker as by the end of the war shore bombardment and aa was their main duty.  Two when doing so they fired for extended periods firing, in many cases far more shells then in combat.  third they used reduced charges mostly using three 660LB bags instead of the normal six.   Fourth for no reason they use three gun not triple gun turrets, why the name because each gun could use its own elevation.   Fifth those clever Germans were an exception using single piece charges, i could wrong, remember asspull, i mean amateur study. 

330px-USS_Iowa_gun_load.jpg

Ok so the big question what does all of this mean and why have i been talking and not spamming pictures.  Well, if Iowa's can hurl, HE and other ships instead of shores like they should.  Can we get reduced charge shots, why for faster rates of fire they would have less range and pend of course.  But HE shells already do that, so AP RC would be between FC AP and HE NC and RC HE well then don't even bother firing that at the same ship classes heavier armor.  I think it's far better than trying to explain a 16-inch autoloader or one that can somehow load gunpowder bag charges and put the poor gunpowder monkies out of business.  (And you know if they don't already have heavy battleships with autoloaders they are coming).  So, in conclusion it could be more fun just like i the Halloween event to see battleships go, ok close enough switch to raid fire instead of trying to ram.

reduced charges were not done using 3 bags instead of 6 bags, they were done with 6 bags of reduced diameter, this was the same for both the 16"/45 and 16"/50.

16"/45 AP full charge = 535 lbs / 6 bags

16"/50.AP full charge = 660 lbs / 6 bags

16"/45 AP reduced charge = 295 lbs or 315 lbs flashless / 6 bags

16"/50.AP reduced charge = 305 lbs or 325 lbs flashless / 6 bags

 

Edited by b101uk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, majmac said:

OR, just play with what we have, instead of wanting everything adjusted to what you want.

You want this ... that player wants that ... I want this ... and on it goes.

unfortunately when it comes to close range combat "what we have" is terrible for 2 reasons:

first is that we are shoehorned into secondary guns which sucks because only a handful of ships have secondary guns  worth something

second are the mechanics. shots from close range have flat arks and high shell speed at the moment of impact, two things that will turn penetrations and citadel hits into overpens

 

the changes i suggest for close combat skill help mitigate both problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are times when it is practical to "use what we've got" to the best of our ability, instead of spending our effort to wish for something we think is *ideal*.

Ernest Borgnine instructed fresh troops on the use of a shovel in the 1979 version of All Quiet on the Western Front.

Time-stamp approximately 3 minutes 30 seconds into the linked video.


Edited to add
https://www.wearethemighty.com/popular/this-is-how-the-shovel-became-a-deadlier-weapon-than-a-bayonet/

 

Edited by Wolfswetpaws
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Battleship powder ram question?
The rammer operator rams the projectile until it is seated, the rotating band must be forced into the rifling so that the projectile will not move to the rear when the gun is elevated. The rammer-man rams 6 powder bags, the rearmost bag not more than 4" from the mushroom when the breech is closed (a +4" gap between the last bag and the primer might prevent the powder from igniting, causing a misfire) When using reduced numbers of bags or 55 lb reduced service bags this step is a little tricky, the reduced service bags are smaller in diameter as well as shorter, If they are pushed too far into the breech, elevating the gun barrel will cause the bags to flop back against the mushroom head, this will result in the red patch of black powder igniter to slump out of position where the primer charge cannot get to it. On April 16, 1989 there was an explosion in a gun turret on the U.S.S. Iowa, the experiment being done on the center gun required the loading of only 5 bags of powder. There were two basic kinds of shells, a 2,700 pound armor piercing shell and a 1,900 lbs. high explosive shell. The lower weight shell required more powerful powder, called D-846. The D-846 bags could not be used with the 2,700 pound shells, and were actually stenciled with "WARNING: Do Not Use with 2,700-pound projectile". The experiments involved placing 5 bags of D-846 propellent behind a 2,700 pound shell.

OK now to my question, and PLEASE PLEASE this is not for a discussion on what caused the IOWA turret explosion....

1- When the guns are raised how do the 6x standard powder bags not drop back on the primer 4" under it?
2- How could the Rammer-man push 5x D-846 powder bags in....the right distance into the breech while leaving the required 4"?
3- Does the increased space between the 5x D-846 powder bags and the base of the 16" projectile change any ballistics?
(see photo below)
4- And finally.....If a hypothetical ultra-modern layered propellant, with split stick powder was developed for a hypothetical
BB 16" gun with only 3 powder bags necessary for a full charge, how would one ram it.......hypothetically speaking?

Untitled-4.jpg

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to use of small charges or fewer number i defer to you i saw reference to both and did not do more research my point was that it should be possible to use fewer charges to launch the smell a lesser distance, after minimal research into  the Iowa turret explosion that may not be the case, but it should be possible to launch a lighter shell with fewer charger perhaps four instead of three which would still cut down on reload time,  if world of warship can have the Iowa's use HE against other ships can't they do so with reduced number charges, i think using the reduced charge size would be more a safety measure as no way a charge half the weight takes up the same space in the gun, don't want an 18 sailor blowing up you're gun oops.  I mean its not like they can just use filler, so if you can use 6 charges that add up to 300 pounds instead of 6 that add up to 600 pounds why can't you use 3 full size charges.

https://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6805

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@kriegerfaust, while battleship guns and infantry rifles differ in size, they share many principles.

~If the battleship gun projectile is rammed sufficiently far enough into the gun barrel, then it should engage the rifling (grooves) within the barrel.
~Then gunpowder can be added/rammed into the gun barrel.
~If the gunpowder charge will generate sufficient force to propel the projectile out of the barrel, then all should be okay.
~The rifling will hold the projectile until it is pushed out of the muzzle by the expanding gases produced when the gunpowder is ignited and burned.

There is a minimum amount of gunpowder required, though.
Because if the charge is too small, then the projectile may become stuck inside the barrel.  
And that is a real pain-in-the-aft situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, kriegerfaust said:

i think using the reduced charge size would be more a safety measure as no way a charge half the weight takes up the same space in the gun

Gunpowder can be manufactured with different sizes of the granules or flakes.
Also the formula used can change the "burn rate" of the gunpowder, in addition to the size & shape of the granules or flakes altering the burn-rate.

Essentially, within certain limits, the gunpowder can be formulated to provide the desired burning characteristics.

Ideally, the proper formulation of gunpowder would be used to fill most of the volume behind the projectile.

By varying the formulation or adding 'filler' or by some other method, the total volume of the gunpowder/propellant may be adjusted (to an extent).
Gun manufacturers and gunpowder manufacturers know this, and they know how far they can take a given formula in either direction.

The gun barrel and breech-locking-system can only withstand so much pressure.
Too much pressure will cause a mechanical failure of some sort.  The breech mechanism may fail or the barrel may split or *something* will break.
There's also a minimum pressure, or the projectile won't leave the barrel.

There's another consideration.  Barrel wear.
The heat and pressure of burning the gunpowder does some interesting things inside the barrel.
Short answer, every shot fired will put some wear on the barrel.
Gunpowder formulations that produce more heat tend to cause more wear per shot fired.
The phenomena is most easily observed where the rifling of the barrel meets the breech, and is often called "throat erosion".
While the erosion may be more obvious there, the rest of the barrel is subject to erosion, too.

For additional reading. 
Quick article.
https://precisionrifleblog.com/2020/03/24/how-fast-does-a-barrel-wear/

Longer and more in-depth articles.
https://precisionrifleblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/understanding-and-predicting-gun-barrel-erosion.pdf

https://maritime.org/doc/firecontrol/partb.php
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kriegerfaust said:

Battleship powder ram question?
The rammer operator rams the projectile until it is seated, the rotating band must be forced into the rifling so that the projectile will not move to the rear when the gun is elevated. The rammer-man rams 6 powder bags, the rearmost bag not more than 4" from the mushroom when the breech is closed (a +4" gap between the last bag and the primer might prevent the powder from igniting, causing a misfire) When using reduced numbers of bags or 55 lb reduced service bags this step is a little tricky, the reduced service bags are smaller in diameter as well as shorter, If they are pushed too far into the breech, elevating the gun barrel will cause the bags to flop back against the mushroom head, this will result in the red patch of black powder igniter to slump out of position where the primer charge cannot get to it. On April 16, 1989 there was an explosion in a gun turret on the U.S.S. Iowa, the experiment being done on the center gun required the loading of only 5 bags of powder. There were two basic kinds of shells, a 2,700 pound armor piercing shell and a 1,900 lbs. high explosive shell. The lower weight shell required more powerful powder, called D-846. The D-846 bags could not be used with the 2,700 pound shells, and were actually stenciled with "WARNING: Do Not Use with 2,700-pound projectile". The experiments involved placing 5 bags of D-846 propellent behind a 2,700 pound shell.

OK now to my question, and PLEASE PLEASE this is not for a discussion on what caused the IOWA turret explosion....

1- When the guns are raised how do the 6x standard powder bags not drop back on the primer 4" under it?
2- How could the Rammer-man push 5x D-846 powder bags in....the right distance into the breech while leaving the required 4"?
3- Does the increased space between the 5x D-846 powder bags and the base of the 16" projectile change any ballistics?
(see photo below)
4- And finally.....If a hypothetical ultra-modern layered propellant, with split stick powder was developed for a hypothetical
BB 16" gun with only 3 powder bags necessary for a full charge, how would one ram it.......hypothetically speaking?

Untitled-4.jpg

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to use of small charges or fewer number i defer to you i saw reference to both and did not do more research my point was that it should be possible to use fewer charges to launch the smell a lesser distance, after minimal research into  the Iowa turret explosion that may not be the case, but it should be possible to launch a lighter shell with fewer charger perhaps four instead of three which would still cut down on reload time,  if world of warship can have the Iowa's use HE against other ships can't they do so with reduced number charges, i think using the reduced charge size would be more a safety measure as no way a charge half the weight takes up the same space in the gun, don't want an 18 sailor blowing up you're gun oops.  I mean its not like they can just use filler, so if you can use 6 charges that add up to 300 pounds instead of 6 that add up to 600 pounds why can't you use 3 full size charges.

https://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6805

because the charges also use a different propellent grain size and or non-volatile stabilisers, reduced hydroscopic stabilisers etc etc. [SPD 839, SPD 840* or SPDN*, SPD D846, SPD D845* or SPCG*, "*" reduced change]

because 3 full charge bags dose not equal the same propellent amount as 6 smaller reduced charge bags (that also use a different propellent).

6 bags regardless of size is better than 3 bags in a reduced change, because statistically 6 bags has a grater chance of smoothing out deviation in change bag weight etc, given you want "chance" to favour.

 

as for 3 bag statements, keep in mind test were done in the 80's, that instead of pushing 6 bags in one go, then would ram 3 bags at a time, but still 6 bags total would be used regardless of full or reduced charge, and the only exception to that was the 5 bag tests.

Edited by b101uk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks everyone i learned a lot and am grateful for the help, of course this is also a game which while either using realism or being realist is not real world, again the Iowa and real-world battleships did not go around smamming HE.  Just though it would be fun to have a game mechanic to give heavy/super cruisers, light-heavy and super battleships a rapid-fire close firing mode. I mean we have battleship breaking 40 knots 19–20-inch guns and auto loaders on some eight-inch guns or drills or something, still i guess we don't want to lean into it too much or power creep will make the Iowa one of the weakest ships at its tier or force every ship to slide into a tier below or in time add an official 11th and 12th tier.

 

Edited by kriegerfaust
Error
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, majmac said:

At close range I aim just below the waterline, thus arming the "shell" earlier.

doing that for a while but it's a crapshoot at best because the area where that works is rather thin. On top of that we have to deal with a combination of dispersion RNG and the aiming mechanic that feels bugged when aiming below the waterline (shots tend to go below the aiming point way to often) making close range combat quite frustrating.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.