Hello all:
I have seen some discussion on the internet recently (see e.g. a recent Dr. A Clarke YouTube video) about what the maximum battleship gun size would likely have become if battleships had not been rendered obsolete for another couple of decades. What was the point of "diminishing returns"? Had it already been reached at 18"? Sixteen inches, even? The main issues of course are weight, ammo load, and above all firing rate. If a 16" can do "damage enough" and be fired at a significantly higher rate (and/or more ammo be carried), then why bother going higher?
Early on of course, increasing ranges made larger shells more attractive as their increased accuracy at long range tended to offset slightly lower firing rates. But what happens when maximum practical range for gunnery has been reached? If I can't see you I can't shoot at you right? Perhaps a 20" shell would be hypothetically accurate at a range beyond which you can range on your opponent -- doesn't do one a lot of good one would think. I tend to believe that as far as the "optical era" goes anyway, 16" is probably pretty close to a sweet spot. But how might the emergence of increasingly sophisticated radar fire control have effected this evaluation? What would the maximum practical radar controlled range of (non rocket assisted) ballistic projectiles be? Would larger guns be more likely to be useful in a radar-infused but still battleship-enthused environment?
I have seen some discussion on the internet recently (see e.g. a recent Dr. A Clarke YouTube video) about what the maximum battleship gun size would likely have become if battleships had not been rendered obsolete for another couple of decades. What was the point of "diminishing returns"? Had it already been reached at 18"? Sixteen inches, even? The main issues of course are weight, ammo load, and above all firing rate. If a 16" can do "damage enough" and be fired at a significantly higher rate (and/or more ammo be carried), then why bother going higher?
Early on of course, increasing ranges made larger shells more attractive as their increased accuracy at long range tended to offset slightly lower firing rates. But what happens when maximum practical range for gunnery has been reached? If I can't see you I can't shoot at you right? Perhaps a 20" shell would be hypothetically accurate at a range beyond which you can range on your opponent -- doesn't do one a lot of good one would think. I tend to believe that as far as the "optical era" goes anyway, 16" is probably pretty close to a sweet spot. But how might the emergence of increasingly sophisticated radar fire control have effected this evaluation? What would the maximum practical radar controlled range of (non rocket assisted) ballistic projectiles be? Would larger guns be more likely to be useful in a radar-infused but still battleship-enthused environment?
statistics: Posted by Whwalls — 1:52 PM - 1 day ago — Replies 18 — Views 330