Tony's site has data on the postwar Stalingrad class 12in gun, which supposedly (and, notes Tony, suspiciously) boasted 80-mile range with a light shell at 1,300 m/s MV. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussi ... .php#Range
Tony's probably right to be suspicious of this particular value but I wonder how far off it is, and whether this kind of range might be feasible with a big modern naval rifle.
The basic parameters here are MV and the claimed percentage of "vacuum range" (the range a projectile would fly if earth's atmosphere were a vacuum and we could ignore friction). For the Soviet design at MV= 1,300 m/s, its claimed 139,270yds range is 73.9% of vacuum range (easily calculable here).
While 73.9% of vacuum range is high, other large-caliber shells were approaching this value - for example the UK's WW1 18in shell got ~71% of vacuum range.
The main variables impacting vacuum percentage (basically ballistic carrying power) are (1) Shell size/weight, (2) M/V.
All of this suggests that maybe the Soviets had figured this out when they designed their 12in long range shell. Like maybe they'd have got 70mi range, if not 80mi. It also suggests that maybe a giant, high-MV cannon with good ballistic carrying power through the lower atmosphere, which then flies through the stratosphere easily, would be an efficient means of achieving things like the LRLARP's goals.
Like maybe a 14in naval rifle with MV = 1,400 m/s gets you close to 100mile range. While LRLARP's 6in shells ended up costing ~$1mil each, a dumb shell - even a 14in one - should be well within 5-figure range. Probably in the lower half of that range.
Barrel wear for large, high-velocity guns would be bad but, per Tony's site, USN's discovery of plastic bags around charges largely obviated liner wear on Iowa's during the 1980's.
Caveats/Pre-emptive "Yeah I know's"
Tony's probably right to be suspicious of this particular value but I wonder how far off it is, and whether this kind of range might be feasible with a big modern naval rifle.
The basic parameters here are MV and the claimed percentage of "vacuum range" (the range a projectile would fly if earth's atmosphere were a vacuum and we could ignore friction). For the Soviet design at MV= 1,300 m/s, its claimed 139,270yds range is 73.9% of vacuum range (easily calculable here).
While 73.9% of vacuum range is high, other large-caliber shells were approaching this value - for example the UK's WW1 18in shell got ~71% of vacuum range.
The main variables impacting vacuum percentage (basically ballistic carrying power) are (1) Shell size/weight, (2) M/V.
- (1) Because air friction/drag scales only quadratically with shell diameter, while shell weight/momentum scales cubically with shell diameter, bigger guns have a higher % of vacuum range.
- (2) is two headed:
- (2a) air friction/drag is proportional to the square of speed/velocity, meaning that (ceteris paribus) faster shells have lower % of vacuum range but
- (2b) for long-range, high-angle fires, the "Y" component of MV means you're flying through less-dense air.
All of this suggests that maybe the Soviets had figured this out when they designed their 12in long range shell. Like maybe they'd have got 70mi range, if not 80mi. It also suggests that maybe a giant, high-MV cannon with good ballistic carrying power through the lower atmosphere, which then flies through the stratosphere easily, would be an efficient means of achieving things like the LRLARP's goals.
Like maybe a 14in naval rifle with MV = 1,400 m/s gets you close to 100mile range. While LRLARP's 6in shells ended up costing ~$1mil each, a dumb shell - even a 14in one - should be well within 5-figure range. Probably in the lower half of that range.
Barrel wear for large, high-velocity guns would be bad but, per Tony's site, USN's discovery of plastic bags around charges largely obviated liner wear on Iowa's during the 1980's.
Caveats/Pre-emptive "Yeah I know's"
- LRLARP's shells would have been cheaper if manufactured at scale
- Even a single 14in high velocity gun would be hard to fit on any current navy ships
- "You really think you're the only one to think of this? It would be done already if a good idea." Yes, of course. I guess I'm really looking for the presumably good reasons not to do it.
statistics: Posted by themarcksplan — 12:58 AM - Today — Replies 0 — Views 25