Commonality of Artillery for the Army and Navy

[tigercat]

I have  a quick question would it be feasible for an army artillery opiece to share parts with a Navy weapon
I am  a laymen and know little of the technicalities . The thought was inspired by the Foresight War where 40 mm AA ammunition is used in tank guns.

for example if you took the 5.5 inch howitzer and adapted it for Navy use  and stuck it on a Destroyer would it be feasible

Is an army 5.5 inch gun similar to a navy 6 inch gun  or do they measure different things.

If I stuck enough 5.5 inchers on an LST would it have near enough equivalent firepower to a 6 inch cruiser or are the 2 completely different things

[Old Wombat]

Your biggest problem is trajectories.

Most terrestrial artillery is of the howitzer type with low muzzle velocities & high, arching trajectories.

Naval guns are designed for sea warfare, where there are few hills between opponents (usually), & have high muzzle velocities & flat trajectories.

There are field guns, which have high MV's & flat trajectories, but they tend to be relatively small calibre anti-tank/bunker weapons & AA guns are another story entirely.

If I remember correctly, the US Navy & Marines used LST-mounted howitzers to add their high-angle fire-power to beach assaults - but against cruisers? Forget it!

Cruisers were fast & armoured & their high velocity, low trajectory shells would rip slow, lightly armoured LST's to pieces before the LST's 1st low velocity, high angle shots hit the water kilometres behind where the cruisers now were.

[beowulf]

as i remember the soviets used what was originally a naval gun on one of its tank destroyers..........the su122 or su152 or such like

[rickshaw]

In theory, yes, it is possible for Naval and Ground artillery pieces to be common.  In fact, many HV AT guns, particularly in the fUSSR once began life as naval artillery and traditionally, thats usually been the way things have gone.  Naval guns because of the nature of their task, have tended to be in the forefront in the development of higher velocities and greater penetrating power.  Those developments have been utilised to improve army AT weapons until the coming of the missile age.  

Today, however there is a movement towards commonality because of the reasons of economy in the development of ammunition of different and specialised types.  There have been and still are, several projects to try and get 155mm calibre guns onboard ships.  However cost and the difficulties of adapting army artillery to the more exacting naval environment have prevented them coming to any fruition.

Its not so much a matter of developing the gun tube or the breech that is the problem.  Its the mountings and the Ammunition handling where the difficulties lie.  Naval guns today do not utilise separate loading ammunition, whereas army artillery does (it enables greater finesse with determining range) while naval mountings are nowadays more akin to MBT mountings - stabilised in three axis while army artillery is not.  While not insurmountable, as recent projects have found, they tend to simply make solving the problem much more expensive.

[tigercat]

I was thinking more for Coastal bombardment than going head to head with a cruiser.

Weren't some landing craft armed with ex army  17 pounders or 25 pounders

[NARSES2]

I was thinking more for Coastal bombardment than going head to head with a cruiser.

Weren't some landing craft armed with ex army  17 pounders or 25 pounders

In the Burma theatre 14th Army fiited out some landing craft used in the crossing of the Chindwin with some 25pdrs. The Army even went so far as to give the ships names, much to the chagrin of their Lordships in the Admiralty.

Like you I have a memory from somewhere of sea/river bourne 17pdrs as well.

As a temporary expediant especially for riverrine operations it would probably work

[tigercat]

With High Velocity being the key would an AA gun fit the bill  I believe they have high velocity

for example it could be used as an AA gun/ AT gun/ fitted to tanks and given an appropriate mounting fitted to naval craft. The Germans had a 12.5 inch  AA gun I believe which would give a 4.9 inch Naval gun if mounted in the correct mounting

[pyro-manic]

BAE Systems is currently investigating mounting surplus 155mm guns from the Army's AS90 SPGs into the 4.5" turret found on current RN surface ships. It seems to be progressing quite well, though of course politics will probably get in the way of it actually going into service.

[proditor]

BAE Systems is currently investigating mounting surplus 155mm guns from the Army's AS90 SPGs into the 4.5" turret found on current RN surface ships. It seems to be progressing quite well, though of course politics will probably get in the way of it actually going into service.

And that would be a shame.  I had a lot of hope for MONARC, pity that was a bust.

iirc, the main issues tend to be stabilization and making the gun sea-worthy. 

[Hobbes]

I think in practice the biggest obstacle is tradition. The engineering is doable, certainly if you develop naval and army versions from the start. You won't end up with much commonality beyond ammo and gun tubes, though.

[buzzbomb]

BAE Systems is currently investigating mounting surplus 155mm guns from the Army's AS90 SPGs into the 4.5" turret found on current RN surface ships. It seems to be progressing quite well, though of course politics will probably get in the way of it actually going into service.

The German attempt using the PHz 2000

[RLBH]

The Soviets used a 130mm naval gun on shore as the M-46 long-range artillery piece, mostly for counterbattery and rear-area interdiction. I believe that they looked at using the 180mm S-23 at sea when the twin-barrel automatic 130mm AK-130 was having development difficulties, too. Similarly, the early MCLWG studies, which eventually yielded the 8" Mark 71, were based on the 175mm gun used in the M107.

[rickshaw]

I was thinking more for Coastal bombardment than going head to head with a cruiser.

Weren't some landing craft armed with ex army  17 pounders or 25 pounders

Yes but had to be used either quite close in - in order to hit pin point targets or could only be relied upon for area bombardment.  Basically the role of the LCT(G)s were to provide on the beach support to knock out strongpoints in that short period while the first and second waves are trying to get ashore.  The DD tank was another solution, bringing armoured support straight onto the beach.

[rickshaw]

With High Velocity being the key would an AA gun fit the bill  I believe they have high velocity

for example it could be used as an AA gun/ AT gun/ fitted to tanks and given an appropriate mounting fitted to naval craft. The Germans had a 12.5 inch  AA gun I believe which would give a 4.9 inch Naval gun if mounted in the correct mounting

12.5inch?  I think you mean 12.8cm.  It started life as a navy AA gun, got transformed into an Army AA gun and then from there into a tank, anti-tank and field gun.  It was a huge beast of a thing and showed how towed guns at really reached the end of the road as far as being a viable anti-tank weapon when firing AP.  Just as the 3.7in had for the British and the 105mm for the Americans.  Only the Soviets persisted producing a 130mm AT gun in the 1970s.

[rickshaw]

I think in practice the biggest obstacle is tradition. The engineering is doable, certainly if you develop naval and army versions from the start. You won't end up with much commonality beyond ammo and gun tubes, though.

And that is basically the conclusion everybody has come to.  You simply can't take a land SP Gun turret and plonk it on a ship.  As the Germans found, its doable but as soon as you start to marinise the land turret, you start to lose any real commonality.   They'd be much better off starting with common ordnance and working from there in two seperate directions.  Different mountings, gun houses and finally, a semi-fixed round for the navy to enable speedier autoloading.