The next steps in gunnery w/ gunboats and Canals

Dilandu wrote:

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 Outdated, but not used a lot.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!

I agree with your dates, however they were still old, as advances in technology made them that way. they were old before their first active duty was over because of aircraft. however, that is subjective and irrelevant to the topic. What matters is the usefulness of their guns, and given no airplanes in Safehold, there is much to say for having a gun that can penetrate so far from the sea or body of water, do so much damage, and have so much control over shot placement.

n7axw wrote:
Haven't you ever heard of the good old American way? BIGGER IS BETTER!

Ain't that the truth! Part of the reason my gun collection keeps getting bigger and bigger.
.

It's already been established the naval guns will not be able to aim fire out to their maximum range. Land-based artillery has the same problem. IMHO the biggest need now is not for the biggest bang (and we know that's coming) but for better forward observation and fire direction techniques techniques. We have heliograph but that's not gonna be very helpful in heavy overcast or rain. I believe we have some sort of artificial light (lime light)heliograph night use. Topography may also make heliograph links difficult to establish.

Consistency in powder manufacture is the next big factor in accuracy. The gunners and fire direction people have to know how far a given tube elevation is going to send a round. Increased precision in elevation controls is going to be necessary. I would be very surprised if the new guns and ammunition don't come with range and elevation tables.

Variable charge rounds will of course take accuracy to a new level. Greater precision in tube elevation controls is a requirement here as well in order to optimize the effect of the variable charge.

EdThomas wrote:It's already been established the naval guns will not be able to aim fire out to their maximum range. Land-based artillery has the same problem. IMHO the biggest need now is not for the biggest bang (and we know that's coming) but for better forward observation and fire direction techniques techniques. We have heliograph but that's not gonna be very helpful in heavy overcast or rain. I believe we have some sort of artificial light (lime light)heliograph night use. Topography may also make heliograph links difficult to establish.

Consistency in powder manufacture is the next big factor in accuracy. The gunners and fire direction people have to know how far a given tube elevation is going to send a round. Increased precision in elevation controls is going to be necessary. I would be very surprised if the new guns and ammunition don't come with range and elevation tables.

Variable charge rounds will of course take accuracy to a new level. Greater precision in tube elevation controls is a requirement here as well in order to optimize the effect of the variable charge.

Ah, ye ol communication that seems to me to be the biggest limiting factor. I doubt the powder consistency will remain a problem for too much longer considering the state of the industry as it stands. Besides the bigger guns are still probably quite a ways out, but I don't see any reason why we couldn't see something like a 4"/50 in the next few books. And maybe with shorter barrels for field artillery (howitzer style barrel length 15-25 times the caliber).

You don't need electricity for fire control computers. My first tank gunnery in 1975 used a mechanical cam based computer that was mechanically linked to an optical range finder. Hit area targets at ranges of up to 4500 meters. Need consistency with the powder so that firing tables can be developed and cams machined.

USMA74 wrote:You don't need electricity for fire control computers. My first tank gunnery in 1975 used a mechanical cam based computer that was mechanically linked to an optical range finder. Hit area targets at ranges of up to 4500 meters. Need consistency with the powder so that firing tables can be developed and cams machined.

Agreed.
Maybe I'm crazy but this is the idea I have had rolling around in my head for the last couple of hours. You could use a hot air balloon for target finding, direction, and communication at extended ranges(tethered to the ship and only in decent weather?). In clear weather I would expect a viewing distance of 3+ miles from 6ft off the ground (eye-level-ish on level ground to horizon)(how does safehold's diameter compare to earth?), and much farther the higher you are. hence the ballon.
What say you?
.

EdThomas wrote:It's already been established the naval guns will not be able to aim fire out to their maximum range. Land-based artillery has the same problem. IMHO the biggest need now is not for the biggest bang (and we know that's coming) but for better forward observation and fire direction techniques techniques. We have heliograph but that's not gonna be very helpful in heavy overcast or rain. I believe we have some sort of artificial light (lime light)heliograph night use. Topography may also make heliograph links difficult to establish.

Consistency in powder manufacture is the next big factor in accuracy. The gunners and fire direction people have to know how far a given tube elevation is going to send a round. Increased precision in elevation controls is going to be necessary. I would be very surprised if the new guns and ammunition don't come with range and elevation tables.

Variable charge rounds will of course take accuracy to a new level. Greater precision in tube elevation controls is a requirement here as well in order to optimize the effect of the variable charge.

What everyone chatting about how wonderful and useful big naval guns are or were in the Pacific campaign, in the Korean war or the Vietnamese war seems to have forgotten is that Haven and Howard are not some skinny peninsula like Korea or some skinny country like Vietnam or some island in the middle of an ocean. They are continents much deeper than the 20 or so miles that large naval guns can reach. Yeah, they're fun to talk about, but there is no need for them in the present environment. The current naval armament is quite sufficient to the task at hand.

Keith_w wrote:What everyone chatting about how wonderful and useful big naval guns are or were in the Pacific campaign, in the Korean war or the Vietnamese war seems to have forgotten is that Haven and Howard are not some skinny peninsula like Korea or some skinny country like Vietnam or some island in the middle of an ocean. They are continents much deeper than the 20 or so miles that large naval guns can reach. Yeah, they're fun to talk about, but there is no need for them in the present environment. The current naval armament is quite sufficient to the task at hand.

This might be true if most of the population centers were based in cities that weren't along the coast, canals, or rivers capable of supporting boats or ships that are in turn capable of carrying the guns. Besides, I think there is a lot to be said for building a few cruisers, a small fleet of destroyers, and a bunch of big steamer merchies. Leave the battleships alone. By the time the EOC has built one they will have already won the war, and thus don't need it.
.

The new guns on HMS Delthak and her sisters are presently being used virtually "over open sights" and at not much more than point-blank range.

These guns have more capability and it is the nature of things that the use of that capability will be required, sooner or later.

At that point it may well become necessary to use higher elevations to enable the shells' trajectories to clear intervening obstacles.

Some form of fire control will become necessary at this point such as a "Dreyer Table" and a "Dumaresq".

RunsInShadows wrote: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.

I think the next big advance in gunnery/gun technology is going to come from the COGA in defense against the long-rifles of the ICN.

Shore/Harbor batteries with guns similar to the ICN's breech-loading Long-rifles will have better accuracy over any given range than the same guns afloat. Atop cliffs or fortresses, they gain the advantage of longer sight distances and increased range.

Until they do face significant shore/harbor defenses, the six-inch breech-loaders of the Delfak and King Harald VII classes will be as much or more than Charis needs.

The computations for long range gunnery are not the issue here. The correction for wave action is the area that needs electricity to fix the problem. For shore guns mechanical computers work great. However you need multidimensional inclinometer for accurate long range naval fire so your guns fire exactly when the ship is level in all three directions. Pretty hard to do without an electrical firing circuit of some type.

IIRC the Iowa class had mechanical ballistics computers with director controlled fire