Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
While these ships certainly had big guns, they were also relatively big ships, I am thinking of little gunboats with huge guns, like the one on the naval quiz. We can define ship size by displacment. Gun by weight in tons, since some newer guns with smaller bores actually fire heavier projectiles than the earlier weapons with huge bores (mainly in the 19th century), the projectile weight should also be considered.
sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
if we include the guns hardware and protection (you can't fire a gun that is or its crew is disabled via enemy action) then i think the Monitor probably wins. It has almost all of its topside mass devoted to war fighting.
Never mind, American Civil War mortar raft- flat bottomed, no ability to sail under its own power. wooden construction (raft bottom, simple palisade type top structure) and a 13" sea coast mortar, mount, powder and shells. That is a 17,000lb weapon, a few thousand pounds of powder and shells all floating on a few thousand pounds of wood with some cast iron fasteners. Probably something like 3/4's of the total weight devoted to war fighting.
Never mind, American Civil War mortar raft- flat bottomed, no ability to sail under its own power. wooden construction (raft bottom, simple palisade type top structure) and a 13" sea coast mortar, mount, powder and shells. That is a 17,000lb weapon, a few thousand pounds of powder and shells all floating on a few thousand pounds of wood with some cast iron fasteners. Probably something like 3/4's of the total weight devoted to war fighting.
This is an extreme example of what I am thinking of, and the answer may be an ACW vessel, but I am thinking of self propelled ships, gunboats or monitors.
sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."
a question I don't have the answer to - is there a bigger gun on a smaller ship? I am curious about the maximum ratio of ship to gun and projectile weight (not considering missiles).
I suspect the Soviet Novik-class destroyer Engels (ex-Desna) would be hard to beat in that contest. In 1934, at the behest of weapon designer Leonid Kurchevsky, a 10-ton 305mm (12") recoillless rifle, firing 300kg shells, was test-fired attached to various points on the ship.
A later experiment would have placed 5 of these guns (!) on the Karl Marx (ex-Izyaslav) from the same class, however, he fell out of political favor and was sentenced to death before this could be carried out. A Novik-class destroyer weighed in at 1,260 tons normal displacement...
Never mind, American Civil War mortar raft- flat bottomed, no ability to sail under its own power. wooden construction (raft bottom, simple palisade type top structure) and a 13" sea coast mortar, mount, powder and shells. That is a 17,000lb weapon, a few thousand pounds of powder and shells all floating on a few thousand pounds of wood with some cast iron fasteners. Probably something like 3/4's of the total weight devoted to war fighting.
But that's a "raft" and not a "ship."
"Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
I have a question. Since the guns are so big, what is the minimum distance from the gun you have to be to survive the percussion forces? I recall looking at a picture of the largest gun in its day (the Rajput gun) during the 1700s that was fired only once because the percussion force was so great that it killed its gunner who was standing 5 ft away.
I have a question. Since the guns are so big, what is the minimum distance from the gun you have to be to survive the percussion forces? I recall looking at a picture of the largest gun in its day (the Rajput gun) during the 1700s that was fired only once because the percussion force was so great that it killed its gunner who was standing 5 ft away.
It depends on the muzzle energy of the gun, the battleship Yamato had nearly 300 psi of blast pressure near her muzzles when she unleashed a 3 gun salvo, the ship was designed with no small guns near the main turrets, and even at the waist of the ship, they all required blast sheilds. The blast wave is a a hemisphere with the muzzle at the center - the gunner who was killed was probably standing too far forward - close to the muzzle, if he was behind the gun, he would have worried about the gun running him over as it recoiled.
IMO, The railgun will change most theories once it is made compact. Long range, excellent striking velocity and no powder magazine giving more room for projectile storage and alltogether improved safety. All a win win in its design.
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
a rail gun might turn out ot be one of the largest guns on a ship - if we count its power generation gear and consider muzzle energy as a gun size indicator
I remember reading about a future railgun.. 200+ mile range and no warhead on the projectile, since the kinetic velocity would have more "energy" release than any amount of conventional explosive would have when it hit the target.. an electrically powered warship (something like the Zumwalts) could fire up to 6 times a minute, where a warship like the Burkes would be limited to 2 shots a minute due to much smaller power availability to charge the capacitors used to fire the weapons.
I remember reading about a future railgun.. 200+ mile range and no warhead on the projectile, since the kinetic velocity would have more "energy" release than any amount of conventional explosive would have when it hit the target.. an electrically powered warship (something like the Zumwalts) could fire up to 6 times a minute, where a warship like the Burkes would be limited to 2 shots a minute due to much smaller power availability to charge the capacitors used to fire the weapons.
I beleive the kinetic rounds will be most effective against hard targets, especially where penetration is useful, like deep bunkers, against distributed targets like infantry or armor they would not be as effective as existing types like cargo projectiles (the tank that was hit wouldn't say that, but his platoon would probably still be operational) the kinetic type wouldn't provide airburst capability
Comment