Most effective naval cannons of WWI / WWII

[Scott Cunningham]

Wanted to start a discussion on the technical merits of the various major naval calibers of the two world wars. Fire away!

[Brasidas]

Also please provide references!

 

Regards,

 

Brasidas

[Tiornu]

In my opinion, the finest naval cannon of WWII...off the top of my head, I'd say the American 5in/38 and the 40mm Bofors.

[Scott Cunningham]

I would say the Brit 15" was the best of WWI, and the US 16"/50 was the best of WWII.

 

No references provided.

 

The brit gun was a great design, and far better than the WWI German 15". It outclasses every other naval arm of WWI both in size, and power.

 

In WWII there were plenty of 15/16/18" designs, but I think the US 16/50 clearly stands out.

 

I think the US 12" from the Alaskas was probably the best gun of this size made, but by that point it was irrelevant.

 

For small caliber guns the 5/38 the US used was easily the best/most useful for WWII.

[Guest Sargent]

WW2:

 

Light: 40mm Bofors. No contest.

 

DP: 5"/38; Honourable Mention to the UK's twin 4"/40 MkXIX twin mount.

 

Medium: US 6"/47. UK 6"/50 was probably as good ballistically, but the US gun had a higher RoF.

 

Heavy: I'll go with the US 16"/45, more accurate than 16"/50 and better plunging fire.

 

This may seem like I'm US-centric, but BuWpns did an outstanding job Between The Wars (let's not go into the torpedoes... ).

 

WW1: (different definitions here)

 

Light: US 4"/50. The British DD 4" was a short piece with a 25# shell, the 4.1" in German TBs was likewise a sawn-off version. The 4.1" of their older CLs was an entirely different matter - accurate and long-ranged. The Russians had a powerful 3.9"/60 in their DDs, but I have no data on how well it performed.

 

Medium: Tossup between UK 6"/45 and German 5.9"/45. Both were better than the UK 6"/50, which was less accurate. The UK 5.5" coming along might have turned out to be better had medium guns remained hand-worked, but there were few of them.

 

Heavy: In an individual gun, the UK 15"/42, hands down; but if you get into the actual ships, I prefer the US 14"/45 (14"/50 didn't see service until post-war) in the triple turret. Close to 15" in effectiveness, but 50% more guns. I think Pennsylvania could have taken a Queen Elizabeth.

 

From all I read, it seems that 45 calibers was about optimum barrel length in the WW1 era. The slightly hotter 50cal guns proved to be erratic. About the only thing they did better was wear out the tubes faster.

 

 

 

[Edited by Sargent (11 Dec 2003).]

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Heavy: In an individual gun, the UK 15"/42, hands down; but if you get into the actual ships, I prefer the US 14"/45 (14"/50 didn't see service until post-war) in the triple turret. Close to 15" in effectiveness, but 50% more guns. I think Pennsylvania could have taken a Queen Elizabeth.

 

I have this idle dream that the British might have taken that 18" gun from Furious (which apparently worked very well technically even if it the concept was a tactical disaster) and mounted it in a battleship (as was planned in the pre-1921 ships). Say, replaced all four turrets in a QE with a pair of triple-18 inch, like a super 'pocket battleship'. Probably not very practical, but it would have been fun...

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Tony Williams:

I have this idle dream that the British might have taken that 18" gun from Furious (which apparently worked very well technically even if it the concept was a tactical disaster) and mounted it in a battleship (as was planned in the pre-1921 ships). Say, replaced all four turrets in a QE with a pair of triple-18 inch, like a super 'pocket battleship'. Probably not very practical, but it would have been fun...

 

Tony Williams

 

Well the 18" fired a few shots from monitors, so guess you could say it was a service piece in WW1. There is debate about whether Furious ever actually fired her gun.

[Al]

Good topic on something I don't know a whole lot about. I have read also that the 15" inch on the QE class ships were excellent guns for the shorter range encounters expected in the N Atlantic.

 

 

As a comparison, what are some opinions on the 15" guns carried by the Bismarck & Tirpitz?

[Tiornu]

The American 4in DD gun was not all that great from an operational standpoint. It was given to coppering and to throwing its bands. The Russian gun was 4in (102mm) and was very popular. In WWII, its primary shortcoming was its lack of a good HE shell, but there was never a complaint about performance.

[Tiornu]

I doubt I would pick any US guns among the WWI choices. They all had obsolescing AP caps along with fuze/detonation issues--not to mention big problems with accuracy.

My favorite 12in gun is the Russian one. It's the closest thing in WWI to a super-heavy, and the AP cap was pretty good. The Austrian gun had good potential, but in the Tegetthoffs, the mounting was simply awful.

The Germans were near the front of the pack in developing AP caps. This is the one thing that might make me favor their 15in gun over the RN model, but I believe the British got an improved shell design into service before war's end.

[Tiornu]

The Bismarck gun fired a shell proportionally lighter than that of any modern foreign battleship. Vertical armor penetration was good at short to medium range due to good velocity and shell form. Unfortunately, fuze and cap designs had progressed little since WWI. French and Italian 15in guns were much more powerful, but not as accurate. The only noteworthy disadvantage for the British 15in gun was its lesser range.

Among other WWII battleship guns, it would seem the biggest bang for the buck comes from the US 16in/50.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Al:

Good topic on something I don't know a whole lot about.  I have read also that the 15" inch on the QE class ships were excellent guns for the shorter range encounters expected in the N Atlantic.

 

The 15"/42 had good range, provided it could be given sufficient elevation. One goal of the many reconstructions was to increase elevation from 15 degrees to 30 degrees. The Japanese went all the way to 43 degrees, but that involved so much work they might as well have built new ships.

 

The range issue was more a problem of vision and fire control constraints than limitations on the gun. Guns had progressed a lot fater than FC apparatus, and the range-finder and director developers were panting in the gun's dust trying to catch up.

 

Battle ranges roughly quadrupled between 1900 and 1915 and it took the gunners years to learn to utilize the performance possibilities of their guns.

[Redbeard]

By WWII the USN 16†guns as on NC, SoDak and Iowa classes simply were in a class of their own combing good accuracy with excellent penetration, that is superb! But the main factor is probably the 2700lbs. shell. The backside is a relatively small burster charge, and had the British 16†for the Lions ever been in service it probably would have been better for all other targets than the most heavily armoured (like Yamato). I will rate the 45cal (NC and SoDak) over the 50 cal (Iowa) mainly for being in service a couple of years before.

 

I agree on what has been said about the 5â€/38 and Bofors - marvellous guns, but I think the 20mm Oerlikon also deserves mention for being a cheap and practical way to enhance AAA. The German quad 20mm is neat too.

 

In short to medium range fights the continental European 15†probably were second to none, and the French 15†apparently wasn’t that inaccurate after the initial bugs had been found.

 

By WWI I’m not in doubt about the British 15â€/42 taking a unchallenged 1st position. It was even good in WWII. All USN heavy guns from WWI had severe dispersion problems and did no get satisfactory shells until well into the 30’s.

 

Regards

 

Steffen Redbeard

[EchoFiveMike]

What about the 16's on the Colorados? It was a WWI design, if not fielded during the war. S/F...Ken M

[Tiornu]

Colorado's 16in guns give a good example of what Redbeard is talking about. Initial potential was hampered by inferior gunnery and outdated shells, but improvements during the interwar era made for an excellent weapon. Note that the 45cal guns of the NC and SoDak classes were closely related, and the Colorados could have been converted for superheavy shells with relative ease.

My personal taste is such that I would pick the 2700-lb shell over the Lion's 2375-lb shell despite the 50% larger burster, mostly because I love the way the super-heavy shell gets down into a target hull. However, I have to agree that Lion would have been a real bruiser.

Here's an example of the anti-deck ability of a super-heavy shell. At Casablanca, a 16in shell struck the side of Jean Bart's barbette II hard enough for its trajectory to be deflected to the side by about 35 degrees. It continued its trajectory into the armor deck and bounced off--after first inflicting a dent 4 inches deep.

[Colin]

What about the British 4.7" twin mounts that you saw on the Tribal's? Also the 6-pounder that went onto the MGB's and Fairmiles was supposed to be quite good for it's size.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by Sargent:

Well the 18" fired a few shots from monitors, so guess you could say it was a service piece in WW1. There is debate about whether Furious ever actually fired her gun.

 

 

I've read that when it was fired, it rained rivets in the ship, might be an urban legend though.

[Scott Cunningham]

Damage from blast was a common thing with battleships. Seams would split, electronics fail, windows would blow in, I think the South Dakota or Washington set her Kingfisher Floatplanes afire near Guadalcanal in one engagement, then blew the junk overboard with the next salvo.

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Colin:

What about the British 4.7" twin mounts that you saw on the Tribal's? Also the 6-pounder that went onto the MGB's and Fairmiles was supposed to be quite good for it's size.

 

The 4.7" can't really be counted as it was strictly surface action, without a high enough elevation for DP use. The later twin 4.5" was much better.

 

The 6pdr was based on the anti-tank gun with a Molins autoloader. It was an interesting piece of kit - see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Molins.htm

for details.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

[Tiornu]

I like the 6-pdr as it put a lot of firepower onto a small hull, but its deployment was so limited that I don't think it qualifies as one of the top guns of the war.

Most British 4.7in guns were fine weapons; I just wish there weren't so many of them. I like the 4.5in model both for its performance and for its looks.

[shep854]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

[Here's an example of the anti-deck ability of a super-heavy shell. At Casablanca, a 16in shell struck the side of Jean Bart's barbette II hard enough for its trajectory to be deflected to the side by about 35 degrees. It continued its trajectory into the armor deck and bounced off--after first inflicting a dent 4 inches deep.[/i]

 

Was that Massachusetts?

[Yama]

I think honorary mention should go to Japanese twin 100mm DP. And "best gun you've never heard of" -award should go to Bofors 10"/45 - in retrospect, rather questionable calibre, but at least the gun was a good design

 

As for WW1, I'm in agreement that obvious candidates are British 15"/42 and Russian 12"/52, and I'd like to nominate Swedish 283mm.

 

[Edited by Yama (12 Dec 2003).]

[Tiornu]

Yes, it was Massachusetts that hit Jean Bart. In the same exchange she also dropped one shell into a magazine (which fortunately was empty) and delivered a hit aft that sent shell fragments shooting all the way out the ship's bottom.

If I had to complain about the Japanese 10cm DP gun, I'd point to its barrel life--about the same as that of the US 16in/45 gun.

I get the impression that the Swedish 28cm gun was not as practical a design as was intended. The RoF appears to have been slow, despite ambitious design figures (in the Sveriges, at least).

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by EchoFiveMike:

What about the 16's on the Colorados?  It was a WWI design, if not fielded during the war.  S/F...Ken M 

 

 

I interpret WW1 to be actual war service, not a few years later.

 

re Colin: note I gave RN's MkXIX twin 4" an Honourable Mention.

 

The Rn 4.5 DP did not see actual WW2 service AFAIK, except one experimental twin DP mount on Savage - prototype for the mounts later fitted on the Battle class. The single mount 4.5" was a 4.5" barrel slipped into a 4.7" LA mounting that had the same restricted elevation as all Brit DD guns except the 4" AA.

 

Yama, I could have given the IJN 3.9" a mention, but I don't know how well it actually worked. It certainly didn't have the radar fire control fitted to most 5"/38s by 1945.

[Guest Sargent]

Originally posted by Tiornu:

Note that the 45cal guns of the NC and SoDak classes were closely related, and the Colorados could have been converted for superheavy shells with relative ease.

 

Depends how you define 'ease.' IIRC the long shells wouldn't fit in a Colorado's shell hoist tubes. Converting them would have involved extensive rebuilding of the turrets.