BB trivia

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

Apples and oranges.

The M-110A2 8" Howitzer with the M201A1 tube was the most accurate howitzer in the world.

But you are comparing a gun with a howitzer vice a gun with a gun.

Compare any naval gun with either the M-107 175mm gun or the M1918 costal Gun. You will find dispersion to be about the same. A little better because they were not fired on a moving,rotating axis(ship).

Guns are great for direct fire, A howitzer will beat them every time for long range, indirect fires.

Guns are much better for direct fires and for penetration, hence the Navy's fondness for using them. Of course today's naval mounts have so much elevation potential that highly effective high-angle plunging fire can be easily delivered. Obviously this was not the case for the ole' 16" rifles on the battlewagons.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Are you somehow trying to say that there is no difference between your M1A NM rifle and a 16"/50 Mark-7 (calibers aside of course) ?

Nope, if you eliminate the 'shooter' end of things, there is no real difference. The exact same principles are at play.

A M1 is a rifle, a Mk7 is a rifle.

The Mk7 as it exists in the world today is one with worn barrels, obsolete shells, and a dated powder blend.

Put a worn barrel, obsolete shell, and dated WWII powder into a M1A NM, and it will group to a far inferior level than one with a new NM barrel firing modern M852 ammunition.

Just as would be the case if one replaced the liners in a Mk7, then fired modern CAD designed aerodynamic ERFB-BB type shells with the latest in powder advances.

My professional opinion on this matter is....if you dispute this, you are a moron.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

One cannot call a comparison of weapons where one is using WWII era ammo vs another which is using modern high tech ammo "fair", such as is the case when comparing the 16"/50 to the excellent SAI 155mm.

1. What differences do you think there are that would make such a comparison unfair ?

2. Did you read post #62 in this thread ?

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Unless they're a moron.

You a moron Shipwreck?

Argumentum ad personam, once again...

You can't refrain, can you ?

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Just as would be the case if one replaced the liners in a Mk7, then fired modern CAD designed aerodynamic ERFB-BB type shells with the latest in powder advances.

What would be the differences between your *modern CAD designed aerodynamic ERFB-BB type shells* and the existing 16" bullets ?

What benefits do you expect from *the latest in powder advances* ?

Where did you get this idea that dispersion figures we've already discussed were for *worn barrels* and *dated powder blend* ?

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

My professional opinion on this matter is....if you dispute this, you are a moron.

Any opinion can be disputed, especially when it's not supported by empirical and/or theoretical evidences.

A professional will always be able to back up his opinions with such evidences.

To a certain extent, there is some empirical and theoretical material out there that could be used to support your opinion that *accuracy of the 16" guns could be (...) improved*; even your *vastly* statement could be quantified using some of said material.

Let's see what you come up with.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

1. What differences do you think there are that would make such a comparison unfair ?

I just explained in my last post what makes the comparison unfair.

Should i use real big letters and mono-syllabic words for you next time?

"Old time shells not good as new ones we have now. Not fair to judge old gun with old shells vs. new gun with new tech shells."

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

2. Did you read post #62 in this thread ?

I dunno, did i?

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Argumentum ad personam, once again...
You can't refrain, can you ?

I am not noted for my cordiality toward trolls. In case that's too subtle a hint, i don't like you.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

To a certain extent, there is some empirical and theoretical material out there that could be used to support your opinion that *accuracy of the 16" guns could be (...) improved*; even your *vastly* statement could be quantified using some of said material.

So then why are you arguing with me?

Obviously my statement was correct, Mk7 guns would benefit massively from modern high quality CNC quality controlled projectiles and powders.

ANY gun would. From .22 to 18". 'Tis a truism that is simply beyond debate.

PS: Were you in/or off the coast of Beirut at the time in question?

[ArmchairGeneral]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

PS: Were you in/or off the coast of Beirut at the time in question?

Were you?

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

"Old time shells not good as new ones we have now. Not fair to judge old gun with old shells vs. new gun with new tech shells."

Are you trying to suggest that the 175mm M107 had better dispersion than the 155mm M1A1 ?

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Obviously my statement was correct, Mk7 guns would benefit massively from modern high quality CNC quality controlled projectiles and powders.

ANY gun would. From .22 to 18". 'Tis a truism that is simply beyond debate.

If it is such a truism, it shouldn't be too difficult to explain some of its underlying mechanisms, which, incidentally, might eventually lead to some quantifiction of such vague words as *vastly* or *massively*.

[Shipwreck]

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

I am not noted for my cordiality toward trolls. In case that's too subtle a hint, i don't like you.

Whether you like me or not doesn't really matter.

What matters is whether or not this thread can be kept *semi-civilized*.

Argumentum ad personam is *NO SUBSTITUTE* for proper argumentation.

[glyn]

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

So howitzers have lower muzzle velocity and higher maximum elevation?

Essentially , yes.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

Were you?

No i was not.(see how easy that was?)

Shipwreck...were you in Beirut?

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

Whether you like me or not doesn't really matter.

What matters is whether or not this thread can be kept *semi-civilized*.

Argumentum ad personam is *NO SUBSTITUTE* for proper argumentation.

I'll be the judge of that.

[Anon]

Originally Posted by Shipwreck

If it is such a truism, it shouldn't be too difficult to explain some of its underlying mechanisms, which, incidentally, might eventually lead to some quantifiction of such vague words as *vastly* or *massively*.

The sky is blue.

The sky is blue.

The sky is blue.

Shall i explain why?