Naval guns, big or small

[dy031101]

Recently I've been playing around with Shipbucket drawings.

When I proceeded to that of the OH Perry class, I began wondering if the FFG is indeed stuck with the 76mm gun, which isn't particularly noted for coastal bombardment roles.

When I saw an entry for the Swedish TAK-120 gun, which was said to be develped for large fast attack craft and seems to have the attributes of DP artilleries......

How big is the whole combo of the gun and its magazine compared to that of the Mk75 76mm?

Thanks in advance.

[jcf]

Amazing what a simple query in Google will return:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_47-46_TAK120.htm

[dy031101]

Amazing what a simple query in Google will return:

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_47-46_TAK120.htm

The way the numbers are presented kind of throws me off though......  

(2200?  From where to where again?)

I'm interested in the turret ring and magazine sizes.

[Amphion]

The way the numbers are presented kind of throws me off though...... 

(2200?  From where to where again?)

I'm interested in the turret ring and magazine sizes.

As the note says the measurements (dimensions) are in millimetres. I.e. 2200 mm = 220 cm = 2.2 meters ≈ 86.62 inches.

Looking at the bottom view (showing the top view) the two measurements 1900 and 2200 are from the centreline (the middle line) to the front and the aft end of the cupola, respectively. This is also the centreline of the turret ring so its diameter should be easy to calculate.

[dy031101]

After some quick and dirty estimation of turret ring diametres...... ~3145mm (TAK120) vs 2075mm (Mk75)......

Can the OH Perry handle something this large?

[jcf]

Diameter is not much of an issue, however, weight is far more critical.

Comparative weights without ammunition:
Tak 120 = 56,000 lbs (28 tons)
Mk 75 = 16,800 lbs (8.4 tons)

The Navweaps site (which I linked for the TAK 120 info) has most of the info you are looking for:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm

Jon

[dy031101]

I've seen two kinds of 85mm guns on North Korean patrol boats.

One is an adopted T-34 turret.  A small superstructure is erected on the gun position, and the turret would be mounted on top.

The other is mounted in a turret that appears bigger but is not mounted on any superstructure.  See the "Other unidentified SES Fast Attack Craft" section in the Bluffer's Guide.  This is the one that I am interested in.

I can't seem to find any info on the web, and my local libraries have all disposed off their collections of Jane's books (they are no newer than 2001 anyway).  Can anyone provide me with info on the weapon?  Like if it's dual-purpose or anti-ship/bombardment only, what kind of gun it uses, the variety of shells that it uses, and the like.....

Thanks in advance.

[dy031101]

I remember that the Midway class CV, before adopting the armoured flight deck, were planned to have 8-inch guns in single mounting.

I can't find the line drawing now, but the guns seemed like installed in open-mountings to me.

Would someone identify the guns and their mountings that were to be used?

Thanks in advance.

[jcf]

I remember that the Midway class CV, before adopting the armoured flight deck, were planned to have 8-inch guns in single mounting.

I can't find the line drawing now, but the guns seemed like installed in open-mountings to me.

Would someone identify the guns and their mountings that were to be used?

Thanks in advance.

In the design sequence that led to the Midway, Scheme CV-A called for nine 8in/55, according to Friedman U.S. Aircraft Carriers,
Scheme CV-A  was never worked out in detail. The number of guns (9) would imply triple-mounts, especially as it was conceived as an
anti-cruiser defense.

The Midways were built to Scheme CV-E.

Jon

[dy031101]

In the design sequence that led to the Midway, Scheme CV-A called for nine 8in/55, according to Friedman U.S. Aircraft Carriers,
Scheme CV-A  was never worked out in detail.

Looks like there's an error in my memory.

I finally found the address to this page again, and you're right, the guns are in three triple or three-gun turrets.

[Joe C-P]

Diameter is not much of an issue, however, weight is far more critical.

Comparative weights without ammunition:
Tak 120 = 56,000 lbs (28 tons)
Mk 75 = 16,800 lbs (8.4 tons)

The Navweaps site (which I linked for the TAK 120 info) has most of the info you are looking for:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm

Jon

That settles it - tripling the weight up high would be very bad for metacentric height.

The German Navy did a demonstration of one of their F12x frigates with a howitzer forward in place of the gun. However, that was on a lower deck, on a larger vessel, and lighter mount.

Joep

[Weaver]

Diameter is not much of an issue, however, weight is far more critical.

Comparative weights without ammunition:
Tak 120 = 56,000 lbs (28 tons)
Mk 75 = 16,800 lbs (8.4 tons)

The Navweaps site (which I linked for the TAK 120 info) has most of the info you are looking for:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.htm

Jon

That settles it - tripling the weight up high would be very bad for metacentric height.

The German Navy did a demonstration of one of their F12x frigates with a howitzer forward in place of the gun. However, that was on a lower deck, on a larger vessel, and lighter mount.

Joep

Worth pointing out that the TAK-120 has, IIRC, a 4mm steel turret, so replacing that with a GRP one would save a significant chunk of weight. It still wouldn't make up the difference with the Mk.75 though.

I always though the RN would have been better off getting Vickers to put a GRP turret on the TAK-120 instead of adopting the 4.5" Mk.8, which, despite having the same calibre as the older Mk.6, doesn't have compatible ammunition. Anyway, 4.7" (120mm) goes back even further with the RN than 4.5" does.....

[sequoiaranger]

>In the design sequence that led to the Midway, Scheme CV-A called for nine 8in/55, according to Friedman U.S. Aircraft Carriers,<

Eight-inch, Schmeight-inch! If you want REAL guns on the Midway carrier class, check out:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/midway_f.htm

The second picture down.  

[dy031101]

Eight-inch, Schmeight-inch! If you want REAL guns on the Midway carrier class, check out:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/furashita/midway_f.htm

The second picture down.  

Well asthetically speaking I prefer the Odin-style modification......  

On the other hand, I've always figured that if big guns are to be included in a through-deck carrier, casemate mountings like those on the Graf Zeppelin and Akagi or sponsoned platforms off the deck edges would be the way to go...... at least they don't cut into the flight deck space.  

[sagallacci]

The problem, as I see it, for big gunned carriers, is that if the enemy is close enough to shoot at, it is way too close to a high value asset like an aircraft carrier. The lesson of the war was that  carrier's aircraft could project power beyond the range of surface combatants, keeping them from harm's way. And every ton used for armament, and presumably armor, cut into aviation support/endurance/speed.
Of course, having been all rational and spoil-sporty, these are so cool. More, more.