Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests

The next steps in gunnery w/ gunboats and Canals

This fascinating series is a combination of historical seafaring, swashbuckling adventure, and high technological science-fiction. Join us in a discussion!
The next steps in gunnery w/ gunboats and Canals
Post by RunsInShadows   » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:23 pm

RunsInShadows
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Ok, so we now have 6" breech loading long guns with pneumatic recoil systems. I can't remember if their maximum range (on steady platform) was mentioned, but I'm guessing that these guns have reached a point in which the naval armament can't use its range to full effect given any sort of ripple in the water.

This brings me to wonder about mechanical, steam/pneumatic/hydraulic powered gyroscopes and fire control. Given that they will eventually have something with a range greater than 9 miles like the 4"/50, something will have to be done. Especially if they develop something like the 16" battleship main armament (which is still probably a long time out), that can spit projectiles more than 20 miles.

Doing this without electric could get a bit ticklish.
Last edited by RunsInShadows on Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
RIS

"Ack!" I said. Fearless master of the witty dialogue, that's me.
― Harry Dresden, Changes by Jim butcher
Top
Re: The next steps in gunnery.
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:36 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2538
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

Generally for what reason they may want even more powerfull artillery? They just haven't any sufficient targets for the guns they already building (KH's 10-inch RBL); for what, for Langhorne's sake, they may want even MORE powerfull artillery?
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The next steps in gunnery.
Post by RunsInShadows   » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:47 pm

RunsInShadows
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Well, I would think that given the planet was planned out and settled with much of the same reasoning that was used as people settled the earth. Most population centers can be found along a water source. Be it canal, river, ocean, or lake. At which point it would make sense to have the longer ranges, and higher precision so that you can hit land targets farther inland, and without hitting as many civilian targets.
RIS

"Ack!" I said. Fearless master of the witty dialogue, that's me.
― Harry Dresden, Changes by Jim butcher
Top
Re: The next steps in gunnery.
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Mar 01, 2015 12:59 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2538
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

RunsInShadows wrote:Well, I would think that given the planet was planned out and settled with much of the same reasoning that was used as people settled the earth. Most population centers can be found along a water source. Be it canal, river, ocean, or lake. At which point it would make sense to have the longer ranges, and higher precision so that you can hit land targets farther inland, and without hitting as many civilian targets.


Generally speaking, in current situation Charisian simply have no reason to mantain distance; they have a ironclads with armor on the level of late-XIX century Harvey armor. Nothing that Church or some other could build in foresable future could really penetrate it (probably, something like Rodman XV-inch smoothbore on the very small distance may be able to punch plates hard enpught to dislocate them). So, instead of little-to-no-effect long-range bombardment, why don't they simply steam closer?
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The next steps in gunnery.
Post by RunsInShadows   » Sun Mar 01, 2015 1:20 pm

RunsInShadows
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Dilandu wrote: So, instead of little-to-no-effect long-range bombardment, why don't they simply steam closer?


I very much doubt Precision bombardment has little to no effect, and unless you are saying that the ships can steam over land, they cant get any closer than the shore. at which point the more range they have, the more land they can cover. not to mention the bigger the gun the more energy/HEpayload that can be delivered.

Purely marine targets are nearly non existent, so the need has now begun to switch to land based targets, and troop landing support. Have a look at the Iowa class battleships and their roles in Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait. look at the use of long range support during troop landings on the islands in the pacific and D-day.
RIS

"Ack!" I said. Fearless master of the witty dialogue, that's me.
― Harry Dresden, Changes by Jim butcher
Top
Re: The next steps in gunnery.
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Mar 01, 2015 2:04 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2538
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

RunsInShadows wrote:I very much doubt Precision bombardment has little to no effect, and unless you are saying that the ships can steam over land, they cant get any closer than the shore. at which point the more range they have, the more land they can cover. not to mention the bigger the gun the more energy/HEpayload that can be delivered.


Generally speaking i knew no exaplme of really effective long-range bombardment by naval artillery in pre-electric era.

Purely marine targets are nearly non existent, so the need has now begun to switch to land based targets, and troop landing support. Have a look at the Iowa class battleships and their roles in Korea, Vietnam, and Kuwait. look at the use of long range support during troop landings on the islands in the pacific and D-day.


Colleague, it's the electric era. And generally speaking, the main reason to use the "Iowa's" was just because there was a lot of 406-mm shells and spare barrels for them, and the battleships was almost new.
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The next steps in gunnery.
Post by RunsInShadows   » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:07 pm

RunsInShadows
Lieutenant (Junior Grade)

Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:12 pm
Location: New Hampshire

Dilandu wrote:
Generally speaking i knew no example of really effective long-range bombardment by naval artillery in pre-electric era.

Bombardment by naval canon has been around for ages, but their accuracy was low, and they didn't have very good range comparatively speaking because a) they used round shot up until just before the American Civil war, b) the quality of steal/iron/brass couldn't contain the bore pressures necessary for rifling and/or the newer powders.
Dilandu wrote:
Colleague, it's the electric era. And generally speaking, the main reason to use the "Iowa's" was just because there was a lot of 406-mm shells and spare barrels for them, and the battleships was almost new.


It wasn't until just prior to the era of electric (1870-90s) that truly effective bombardments could conceivably come into play mainly because the metal industry wasn't up to making the steal alloys that were needed, except in very small quantities, until that point.

But, now, we have a situation where electric devices are being deliberately suppressed meaning no Internal combustion engines, no electric computers (fire control systems), no airplanes. the Firearm/artillery industry has no barrier to it's advancements except the ingenuity of the human mind. Electricity is certainly not holing it back. Thus, we have to start thinking in terms of replacing electric with other things. Mechanical computers can be made to replace the analog fire control computers, though they might not work as well or as fast.

In my opinion having a shell that could flatten an area 200 yards in diameter and defoliate trees 300 yards beyond that could be rather useful. especially at a range of 30,000 yards ~17mile with a decent accuracy(2.7% chance to hit a 250x35m target at 30km) given the range(substantially increased to shot placement within 0.6% of the range once radar and a few other things were added).

almost new? they were completed 1940-42, so they were 15 years old during the korean war, 30 for vietnam, and 50 for kuwait. I wouldn't call those young ships.
.
RIS

"Ack!" I said. Fearless master of the witty dialogue, that's me.
― Harry Dresden, Changes by Jim butcher
Top
Re: The next steps in gunnery.
Post by JeffEngel   » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:19 pm

JeffEngel
Admiral

Posts: 2074
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 6:06 pm

Charis has reason to consider designing weapons and systems for which they have no targets yet, and designing defenses against weapons they have and their enemies don't yet. They may not be in any rush to field those weapons, defenses, and systems, but the arms race will keep going til Safehold is one happy planet once again, and Charis has to keep deployed equipment far ahead of needs to make up for the huge population and resource disparity. In addition, there's the fact that they're making the pioneering steps (or re-pioneering ones, if you count the Terran precedents), and the Church only has to copy to keep in shouting range in gear quality.

So yeah, certainly considering what they may need later ahead of what they can even use now is timely.
Top
Re: The next steps in gunnery.
Post by Dilandu   » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:22 pm

Dilandu
Admiral

Posts: 2538
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 1:44 pm
Location: Russia

RunsInShadows wrote:
almost new? they were completed 1940-42, so they were 15 years old during the korean war, 30 for vietnam, and 50 for kuwait. I wouldn't call those young ships.
.


Yes, almost new. Outdated, but not used a lot. And you make a mistake; the "Iowa"'s were completed in 1943-1944. In 1948-1949, all exept "Missouri" were mothballed after only a 5 years of not-too-extensieve service and reactivated only in 1950-1951, after Korean War started.

After the Korean War, they served only about 4-5 years, and were all again mothballed by 1958. Only "New Jersey" was reactivated to Vietnam War in 1967 (largely because almost all gun-armed heavy and light cruisers were already scrapped) and in 1969 were again mothballed.

So, by the time of their reactivation in 1986, all "Iowa"'s have no more than 10-15 years of active service, and their resources weren't even near limit; they were projected for at least 25 years of active service!
------------------------------

Oh well, if shortening the front is what the Germans crave,
Let's shorten it to very end - the length of Fuhrer's grave.

(Red Army lyrics from 1945)
Top
Re: The next steps in gunnery.
Post by n7axw   » Sun Mar 01, 2015 4:28 pm

n7axw
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 5997
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:54 pm
Location: Viborg, SD

Dilandu wrote:Generally for what reason they may want even more powerfull artillery? They just haven't any sufficient targets for the guns they already building (KH's 10-inch RBL); for what, for Langhorne's sake, they may want even MORE powerfull artillery?


Haven't you ever heard of the good old American way? BIGGER IS BETTER! :lol:

Don
When any group seeks political power in God's name, both religion and politics are instantly corrupted.
Top

Return to Safehold