The most powerful naval guns of World War II

72

Musashi fires main battery, 26 July 1942

The biggest guns in stories... The Second World War demonstrated the importance of large caliber artillery. At the same time, the caliber race took place not only on land, but also at sea. Almost all naval powers developed powerful artillery systems for their battleships, which were supposed to provide ships with superiority over the enemy.

Many countries were able to develop artillery guns with a caliber of more than 400 mm for their surface warships. The Japanese went farthest, armed the Yamato-class battleships with 460-mm naval guns. It was the Japanese naval gun that became the largest and most powerful among all the naval guns that participated in World War II.



At the same time, the 406-mm caliber submitted to the United States, which massively used such weapons on their battleships. Germany and the USSR also created 406-mm naval guns, however, they never made it to the ships. The Germans were able to assemble at least a dozen 406-mm guns, all of which were used exclusively in coastal artillery. The Soviet Union created its 406-mm B-37 naval gun. As part of the MP-10 experimental tower installation, the gun took part in the defense of Leningrad.

The main caliber "Yamato"


Among the most powerful naval guns of the Second World War, the first place rightfully belongs to the Japanese naval naval 460-mm gun Type 94. This gun was in service with the two largest and most famous today Japanese battleships Yamato and Musashi. It was planned that it would be installed on the third battleship of the Yamato-class, but the Shinano was subsequently completed as an aircraft carrier, and it did not need main caliber artillery.


Aft turret of the main caliber of the battleship Yamato with 460 mm Type 94 guns

Work on the 460-mm naval gun was carried out in Japan from 1934 to 1939, the work was supervised by engineer S. Hada. Unique naval artillery was developed in the strictest secrecy. The weapon was adopted under the designation 40-SK Mod. 94. This designation persisted until the end of the war and was part of the disinformation.

The measures taken by the Japanese Navy to maintain secrecy around this artillery system were unprecedented. The Americans were only able to find out about the true caliber of the Yamato-class battleships' artillery only after the end of hostilities, before that they believed that the most advanced Japanese battleships were armed with 406-mm guns.

The release of new guns continued in Japan from 1938 to 1940. During this time, it was possible to create 27 barrels, including two intended for field tests. Six complete three-gun turret installations were installed on two battleships Yamato and Musashi, the remaining barrels were intended for further armament of the third battleship of this type.

The three-gun turret mounts of the battleship "Yamato" weighed 2510 tons, with ammunition - 2774 tons, this exceeded the displacement of most destroyers during the Second World War. For firing 460-mm guns, armor-piercing and incendiary shells were developed. The latter were, in fact, anti-aircraft ammunition containing 600 fragmentation and 900 incendiary elements. The Type 460 91 mm armor-piercing shell was the heaviest shell used in the naval battles of World War II. Its mass was 1460 kg.

The 460-mm Type 94 naval gun could send shells weighing almost 1,5 tons to a maximum range of 42 km, and a height reach of 11 km. The initial speed of the projectile is 780-805 m / s. The maximum rate of fire of the guns was 1,5–2 rounds per minute. Elevation angles from -5 to +45 degrees.


Bow turrets with 460-mm guns of the battleship Mushasi during trials, May-June 1942

Barrel length of 40-SK Mod. 94 was 45 calibers, more than 20 meters. The weight of the barrel together with the bolt exceeded 165 kg. The shells of this artillery system were distinguished by good armor penetration. At a distance of 000 kilometers, the 20-mm Yamato armor-piercing projectile penetrated 460 mm of vertical armor.

Experts assessed the Japanese Type 94 naval gun as very reliable. The artillery system of the most powerful Japanese battleships did not suffer from the "childhood diseases" characteristic of sophisticated equipment. True, this still did not allow the guns and battleships to prove themselves. Created to combat the battleships of the American fleet both Japanese heavy-duty battleships were eventually killed aviationwithout having time to inflict any significant losses on the enemy.

Guns for German super battleships


Before the outbreak of World War II, the battleships Bismarck and Tirpitz were laid down and built in Germany. Battleships were commissioned after the outbreak of hostilities. At the same time, the main caliber of the pride of the German fleet was 380-mm guns. These were powerful and quite successful guns, but at that time many battleships of Germany's opponents could boast of a large caliber of artillery.

The H-class battleships were supposed to rectify the situation at sea. As part of Germany's ambitious shipbuilding program from 1939 (hence the other name for the project "N-39"), it was planned to build six battleships of a new type at once, which would have surpassed the Bismarck in size. The main armament of the new ships was to be 406-mm or 420-mm guns.


Turret mount of the 40 cm SKC / 34 gun on the Trondenes battery in Norway

The development of these artillery systems was carried out in Germany in the 1930s. The guns were created by the Krupp concern and were fully ready by 1934, as were the 380-mm Bismarck guns. The 406 mm guns were designated 40 cm SKC / 34. The project provided for the boring of their barrels to a caliber of 420 mm, in this form of guns it was also planned to use in the development of battleships of the "N" project.

Due to the cancellation of the construction of H-class battleships, the guns were presented only in coastal artillery. Before the start of World War II, only two hulls of new battleships were laid in Germany, the rest of the ships were not even laid down. At the same time, the project was abandoned already in October 1939 after the outbreak of World War II.

By that time, 12 406-mm guns had been assembled at the Krupp factories. Among them, one is experimental, three are in the ship version and 8 are in the coastal version. Ultimately, it was decided to use all the guns in the coastal defense, where they became the basis of the most powerful German coastal batteries.

The 40 cm SKC / 34 guns had a caliber of 406,4 mm, a barrel length of 52 caliber. The weight of the gun barrel alone with the bolt is estimated at 159 kg. The shutter is a wedge, horizontal type. On ship versions, for the convenience of loading guns, the bolt had to open in different directions. The maximum elevation angles of the gun are 900 degrees. Another difference between the marine and coastal versions was the size of the charging chambers. The ship's guns have 52 cubic meters. dm, at coastal guns - 420 cubic meters. dm.

Barrel survivability of 406-mm guns was estimated at 180-210 shots. As ammunition, armor-piercing, semi-armor-piercing and high-explosive fragmentation shells weighing 1030 kg could be used. The maximum speed of their flight was 810 m / s, and the maximum firing range was up to 42–43 km. The rate of fire of the guns reached two rounds per minute.

The most powerful naval guns of World War II
Lindemann battery. German sentry at the post near the 406-mm gun

Later, in 1942, lightweight high-explosive fragmentation shells were designed specifically for coastal defense guns. These 610-kg ammunition at the maximum elevation of the gun developed a flight speed of up to 1050 m / s, and the maximum firing range soared to 56 km.

406-mm coastal battery guns were placed in single installations Schiessgerät C / 39, providing elevation angles from -5 to +52 degrees. For additional protection, they were covered with concrete casemates. The armored towers were located in the circular courtyards of concrete casemates, deepened into the ground to a depth of more than 11 meters. The calculation of each gun consisted of 68 people, including 8 officers.

One of the batteries, consisting of three guns, was positioned by the Germans near the small French town of Sangatte to the west of Calais. The battery was named Lindemann. Since the fall of 1942, this battery has been firing at Dover in Great Britain and the Strait of Dover. In total, 1942 shells were fired across Dover from 1944 to 2226 (up to the capture of battery positions by Canadian troops).

The Germans placed two more batteries in Norway, in 1941 they sent 8 guns there, but one of them sank in transit. Coastal batteries armed with 406 mm 40 cm SKC / 34 guns were used by the Germans to protect Narvik and Tromsø. After the end of World War II, these guns went to the Norwegian army. The last time they fired was in 1957, and in 1964 the batteries were finally disbanded.

The main caliber of battleships of the "Soviet Union" type


In the Soviet Union, as in Germany, there were ambitious plans for the development of the fleet before World War II. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, four Project 23 battleships of the Soviet Union type were laid down within the framework of the approved program for the construction of the Big Sea and Ocean Fleet in the USSR. Soviet battleships were supposed to be the largest and most powerful in the world, but none of them was completed.


Gun B-37 in a single-barrel experimental installation MP-10 in the shop Novokramatorsky plant, 1939 year

The construction of battleships was stopped after the start of the Great Patriotic War, at that time the readiness of the head battleship Sovetsky Soyuz, laid down in 1938 in Leningrad, was 19,44 percent. And if battleships were never created, then the main caliber artillery was developed for them. The artillery armament of the Soviet super-battleships was based on the 406-mm B-37 naval cannon. It was planned to arm the battleships with 9 such main battery guns, arranged in three turrets.

In connection with the termination of the project of battleships of the "Soviet Union" type in July 1941, work on the further development of the B-37 naval gun and the MK-1 turret for it were curtailed. At the same time, a ready-made experimental single-barreled polygon MP-10 with a 406-mm B-37 gun took part in the defense of Leningrad. During the period of hostilities, the gun fired 81 shells at the German troops in the vicinity of the city.

The first B-37 gun was ready by December 1937, the guns were assembled at the Barricades plant. In total, 12 guns and five swinging parts for them, as well as a batch of shells, were fired. By the beginning of World War II, one of the guns in the MP-10 experimental installation was located at the Research Artillery Range near Leningrad (Rzhevka).

Due to its enormous weight, it was not possible to evacuate the installation, so the gun turned out to be a participant in the defense of the city on the Neva. The installations had time to prepare for all-round fire and additionally booked. The Soviet 406-mm cannon fired the first shots at the advancing German troops on August 29, 1941.


406-mm shell for the B-37 cannon. Exhibit of the Naval Museum, St. Petersburg

Being under the shells of this weapon was extremely unpleasant. 406-mm armor-piercing shells weighing 1108 kg left behind a funnel with a diameter of 12 meters and a depth of up to three meters. Depending on the elevation angle of the gun, the rate of fire should have been from 2 to 2,6 rounds per minute. The survivability of the fastened barrel was 173 shots, which was confirmed during the tests. The maximum firing range of the gun was approximately 45 km.

The weight of the B-37 gun barrel with the bolt was 136 690 kg, the barrel length was 50 calibers. The lifting angles of the gun ranged from -2 to +45 degrees. For firing a gun, it was planned to use armor-piercing, semi-armor-piercing and high-explosive shells. The latter did not have time to develop. At the same time, an armor-piercing 406-mm projectile weighing 1108 kg developed an initial velocity of 830 m / s when fired. At a distance of 5,5 kilometers, such a projectile is guaranteed to penetrate an armor plate 614 mm thick.

After the end of the war, the use of the MP-10 experimental installation for shooting new ammunition continued in the 1950s and 1960s. To this day, one installation with the B-37 gun has survived, which is still located at the Rzhev artillery range near St. Petersburg.
72 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +8
    12 June 2021 05: 56
    The review, of course, is light, but America still had to be examined in more detail, and they were mentioned in passing.
    1. +14
      12 June 2021 06: 27
      I agree with you, but here you can still remember the British with their "Rodney" and "Nelson", which had the main caliber of 9 guns (3 × 3) - 406 mm / 45.

      American battleships of the Colorado class "with a main caliber of 8 x 406 mm guns in four turrets.

      Photo of the battleship "West Virgnia" (BB-48)
      Battleships like "North Carolina", "South Dakota", "Iowa" were armed with 3x3 - 406-mm guns.

      The photo shows the battleship "New Jersey" (BB-62).
      1. +8
        12 June 2021 07: 34
        Yes, in general, some kind of murzilka.
        The Second World War demonstrated the importance of large caliber artillery.

        Only World War II, really?

        The largest guns of the WWII are German railway systems.
        Battleships with the largest guns: Yamato (2 units, 18/45), Iowa (4 units, 16/50), Carolina / Dakota (6 units, 16/45), Nelson (2 units, 16/45), Nagato (2 pieces, 16/45), Colorado (Maryland) (3 pieces, 16/45). Not so little. In addition to the Japanese, the British used 18 inches in combat conditions in WWI (Lord Clive-class monitors with the guns of the canceled LKR Furious).
      2. +3
        12 June 2021 23: 15
        Quote: Sea Cat
        Battleships like "North Carolina", "South Dakota", "Iowa" were armed with 3x3 - 406-mm guns.

        The battleships you listed did not have identical armament. Linkors of the North Caroline and South Dakota type were armed with 406-mm Mk-6 guns with a barrel length of 45 calibers. For the armament of the Iowa-class battleships, a new 406-mm 50-caliber Mk-7 gun was developed, which differed from the “do-Washington” Mk-2 and Mk-3 (for the Colorado-class battleships and the Lexington-class battlecruisers) weight - 108,5 tons versus 130,2 tons. Best regards hi
        1. +1
          12 June 2021 23: 33
          Nice addition, thank you Vladislav. smile drinks
          1. +1
            12 June 2021 23: 39
            Thank you! good drinks hi
            1. +1
              12 June 2021 23: 51
              Not at all, everything is in the case. smile
        2. +1
          13 June 2021 00: 45
          Quote: Vladislav 73
          For the armament of the Iowa-class battleships, a new 406-mm 50-caliber Mk-7 gun was developed, which differed from the “do-Washington” Mk-2 and Mk-3 (for the Colorado-class battleships and the Lexington-class battlecruisers) weight - 108,5 tons versus 130,2 tons.

          )))
          Colorado had nothing to do with it, the 16 "/ 50 Mark 2 and Mark 3 was supposed to be on the Lexington LCR and the South Dakota LK project in 1920. Colorado had less powerful 16" / 45 Mark 1s.

          As for Iowa, they were just supposed to fit these old guns. But the American craftsmen managed to design the LC in such a way that the barbet came out too narrow, so smaller towers and guns were required for it, respectively, too, albeit a little, but smaller. I had to redesign it all.
  2. +3
    12 June 2021 06: 59
    Although the characteristics of these artillery systems command respect (especially the Japanese ones!), The missile weapons are more perfect ...
    1. +1
      12 June 2021 12: 30
      Although the characteristics of these artillery systems command respect (especially the Japanese ones!), The missile weapons are more perfect ...


      Especially V-2.
      1. +1
        12 June 2021 13: 24
        Quote: morose
        Especially V-2.

        I wanted to offer comrade V-1 as a RCC.
        1. +1
          13 June 2021 11: 30
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          I wanted to offer comrade V-1 as a RCC.
          You shouldn't laugh: the Japanese (with their kamikaze) would go to their full height. It would not be easy to intercept a missile at a speed of 800 km / h of an air defense connection, and up to a ton of explosives is a good argument even for a battleship.
          1. +1
            13 June 2021 13: 14
            Quote: bk0010
            You shouldn't laugh: the Japanese (with their kamikaze) would go to their full height.

            What it means would? The Japanese are just fine.


            But the idea turned out to be inoperative. The ship is not the city of London, it is moving, it will not work to launch a rocket using a compass. And Americans in 45 are not Italians in 43. The air control was such that the missile bombers did not have time to reach the launch site.
        2. 0
          13 June 2021 13: 42
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          I wanted to offer comrade V-1 as a RCC.

          What for?
          The Germans themselves have come to this.
          Google - Fieseler Fi 103R Reichenberg
          1. 0
            13 June 2021 14: 04
            Quote: Macsen_Wledig
            Fieseler Fi 103R Reichenberg

            )))
            Well, the Germans have their own atmosphere. There is an air defense cruise missile, not an anti-ship missile.
            1. 0
              13 June 2021 14: 26
              Quote: Cherry Nine
              am an air defense cruise missile, not an anti-ship missile.

              You are joking?
              With an 850-kg TGA?
              Is it to blow up the "box" of B-17s from the inside? :)
              1. 0
                13 June 2021 14: 50
                Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                You are joking?
                With an 850-kg TGA?
                Is it to blow up the "box" of B-17s from the inside? :)

                )))
                It is difficult to say for what purpose such projects could be implemented. Sometimes one gets the impression that these ideas in the last year of the war have largely had the results of polishing. In this they partly resemble the activities of the modern Russian military-industrial complex.

                But for the Germans, work against ships in the second half of 44 has already lost a little relevance, it seems to me.
                1. -1
                  13 June 2021 18: 54
                  Quote: Cherry Nine
                  Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                  You are joking?
                  With an 850-kg TGA?
                  Is it to blow up the "box" of B-17s from the inside? :)

                  )))
                  It is difficult to say for what purpose such projects could be implemented. Sometimes one gets the impression that these ideas in the last year of the war have largely had the results of polishing. In this they partly resemble the activities of the modern Russian military-industrial complex.

                  But for the Germans, work against ships in the second half of 44 has already lost a little relevance, it seems to me.

                  what is wrong with the military-industrial complex?
                  1. 0
                    13 June 2021 19: 34
                    Quote: Usher
                    what is wrong with the military-industrial complex?

                    )))
                    We'll discuss it some other time. In short, the RF Armed Forces lack a lot, starting with equipment. And there is, they say, a long list of wunderwafels.
    2. 0
      12 June 2021 21: 59
      Quote: Krabong
      but rocket weapons are more perfect ...

      Actually, already the first gliding bombs put an end to the battleships. The Italians know this for sure. They arrived first.
      1. 0
        13 June 2021 13: 15
        Quote: Saxahorse
        Actually, already the first gliding bombs put an end to the battleships.

        They didn’t. Moreover, the successes of the Germans not against the Italians, but against the British in the Atlantic with these very bombs were extremely moderate. Because the British were able to quickly in electronic warfare.

        And what can I say. In 44, gliding bombs did more or less nothing.
        1. 0
          13 June 2021 20: 20
          Quote: Cherry Nine
          Because the British were able to quickly in electronic warfare.

          No not like this. The bombs were of little help to the Germans, primarily due to the overwhelming Allied air superiority. Suffice it to recall that the landing in Normandy was covered by 20 thousand aircraft. There it was simply not possible to push through to the goal, even with an ordinary bomb, even with a planning one. For the same reason, the Japanese were not helped by the kamikaze, in fact, also guided bombs. As you can imagine, electronic warfare is powerless against them. However, the result is almost as small.
          1. 0
            13 June 2021 21: 21
            I do not mean Normandy, but actions in the Atlantic. From Roma to Normandy for more than six months.
  3. +5
    12 June 2021 09: 08
    At the same time, the 406-mm caliber submitted to the United States, which massively used such weapons on their battleships. Germany and the USSR also created 406-mm naval guns, however, they never made it to the ships. The Germans were able to assemble at least a dozen 406-mm guns, all of which were used exclusively in coastal artillery. The Soviet Union created its 406-mm B-37 naval gun. As part of the MP-10 experimental tower installation, the gun took part in the defense of Leningrad.

    British BL 16-inch Mk I.

    American 18-inch / 48-caliber Mark 1

    The article is another hack from this author.
    1. +7
      12 June 2021 09: 26
      Quote: Undecim
      American 18-inch / 48-caliber Mark 1

      According to Navwaps, the Americans came to the conclusion that the transition to 18 "is counterproductive. On the other hand, the American version of the 16/50 + super heavy is the strongest possible in this caliber. So even Montana decided to increase the number of 16" guns, not their caliber. ...
      1. +6
        12 June 2021 12: 46

        https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Dahlgren/Who-We-Are/History/Blogs/18-Inch-Gun/
      2. 0
        13 June 2021 16: 31
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Quote: Undecim
        American 18-inch / 48-caliber Mark 1

        According to Navwaps, the Americans came to the conclusion that the transition to 18 "is counterproductive. On the other hand, the American version of the 16/50 + super heavy is the strongest possible in this caliber. So even Montana decided to increase the number of 16" guns, not their caliber. ...


        The Americans went for it for the sake of unification with the Iowa Group.
        1. +1
          13 June 2021 16: 45
          Quote: NF68
          The Americans went for it for the sake of unification with the Iowa Group.

          )))
          Unification with GC Iowa did not have any independent value. The idea was that, having an additional displacement, the Americans added a 4th tower, and did not begin to make a 3x3x18, which would have weighed about the same.
          1. 0
            13 June 2021 16: 51
            Quote: Cherry Nine
            Quote: NF68
            The Americans went for it for the sake of unification with the Iowa Group.

            )))
            Unification with GC Iowa did not have any independent value. The idea was that, having an additional displacement, the Americans added a 4th tower, and did not begin to make a 3x3x18, which would have weighed about the same.


            And why did the Americans not want to use the 18 ", perhaps because they did not want to bother with the new main battery for battleships of the" Montana "-type to develop a third model of main battery for battleships in addition to 406 mm / 45 and 406 mm / 50?
            1. +1
              13 June 2021 18: 00
              Quote: NF68
              And why didn't the Americans want to use 18 "

              It seems that this is described in some detail on the same navveps. Compared to superhevy, 16 "18" did not give such a gain. On the contrary, the angle of incidence at long range was flatter and the armor penetration of the deck decreased. Plus a decrease in the rate of fire, plus a decrease in the number of barrels, plus time to design all this wealth from scratch.
              And most importantly - why? If they knew about Yamato - maybe they began to do it. But they didn't know. We can say lucky.
              1. 0
                13 June 2021 18: 32
                Quote: Cherry Nine
                It seems that this is described in some detail on the same navveps.


                I'm not good at English.

                Compared to superhevy, 16 "18" did not give such a gain. On the contrary, the angle of incidence at long range was flatter and the armor penetration of the deck decreased.


                It was possible to use a very heavy projectile with a muzzle velocity lower than 406 mm / 50. And then this deficiency would be eliminated.

                Plus a decrease in the rate of fire, plus a decrease in the number of barrels, plus time to design all this wealth from scratch.


                On their "previous" 10 battleships, the Americans installed 3x3 406 mm each. and that was fine with them. Development 457 mm. The Americans have been leading the GC since the 20s. And, as far as I know, and later also continued research in the part of 457 mm. GK. But for some reason they abandoned the 457 mm.

                And most importantly - why? If they knew about Yamato - maybe they began to do it. But they didn't know. We can say lucky.


                A more powerful GC in the future would not be superfluous. Most likely, the point here is also because the Americans, although they lagged behind the Japanese with the construction of aircraft carriers at the beginning of WWII and later, too, then the blagadiers of the powerful industry had the opportunity to build many more large ships than the Japanese. And aircraft carriers as well. By this time, the Americans had already also assumed that aircraft carriers could become a decisive factor in the fight against the same Japanese battleships, and if so, then the American battleships were mostly to deal with the Japanese ships already battered by American carrier-based aircraft.
                1. +3
                  13 June 2021 19: 53
                  Quote: NF68
                  It was possible to use a very heavy projectile with a muzzle velocity lower than 406 mm / 50. And then this deficiency would be eliminated.

                  It is possible, and it was done experimentally. At 1,8 tons like.
                  Quote: NF68
                  But for some reason they abandoned the 457 mm.

                  Because why? According to the bible of battleship building, guns in 18 "mean armor by 18 inches, and Montana is already hefty and has 30 knots of aircraft carrier.

                  Once again, they would know about Yamato - maybe. It would be necessary to dance from the armor, and if there is armor from 18 ", then the guns of course need to be installed. But since Yamato was considered a new version of Nagato, they did not get worn out.
                  Quote: NF68
                  By this time, the Americans also assumed that the aircraft carriers

                  Partly. Vinson's second act of the 38th year envisaged the construction of 3 additional LCs (135 thousand tons) and only two relatively small AB (40 thousand tons). The "Fleet of Two Oceans" Act of the middle of the 40th year, when it was already hot, meant 385 thousand tons of battleships (5 Montans, 2 Iowas in addition to 6 Alaska, which were sitting in the cruising limit and 9 already approved by LC, Carolyn, Dakot and Iowa), and only 200 thousand tons of AB. They write that this is as much as 18 AB, but this is only if you take small independencies. Essexes of 200 thousand tons will fit only 7.
                  So if you look at the paper, we get 23 LK and LKR (in addition to 15 old ones) and only 9 new ABs (in addition to 6 old ones), the total score is 38:15.

                  The talk of American aircraft carrier foresight is greatly exaggerated. Taranto's attack at the end of 40 forced them to change priorities somewhat, but there were no sharp turns. Naturally, Pearl Harbor dotted all the i's. Before him, the Americans laid down only 5 Essexes in the 41st year, and 2 of them on December 1.
                  1. 0
                    14 June 2021 10: 41
                    Quote: Cherry Nine
                    and Montana is already a hefty one and can barely pull out 30 knots of aircraft carrier.

                    If you believe comrades Dolin and Garzke - no more than 28 knots.
                    1. 0
                      14 June 2021 10: 56
                      There was talk about the forced mode. Although the rollback from LCR heresy to real American chests is striking, of course.
                      1. 0
                        14 June 2021 13: 18
                        Quote: Cherry Nine
                        There was talk about the forced mode.

                        In the 67-3 variant - forcing up to 212 thousand hp. and 29 knots.
                        In the final version, we decided that one node was not worth it and settled on 172 thousand and 28 nodes.
                      2. +1
                        14 June 2021 13: 38
                        Quote: Macsen_Wledig
                        In the final version, we decided that one node was not worth it and settled on 172 thousand and 28 nodes.

                        Well, thank you for the clarification. In this situation, the picture of American battleship development acquires an aesthetic completeness.

                        However, to the credit of the Americans, they changed their minds in time. Also, I will not miss the opportunity to screw that LKR of the "Alaska" type, which is considered to be a victim of drunken conception, when laid down in 41-42, are much more meaningful and useful ships than Montana.
                      3. 0
                        15 June 2021 12: 23
                        Sincerely grateful!
                        I also believe that monster cannons have a limited niche of application: the destruction of their own kind (battleships). All other targets are confidently destroyed with a caliber of 280 - 305 mm.
                        Regarding the "Alaska" one must understand that they were simply late for the real war, and the "Baltimore" was pretty much a hindrance to them. Of the technical shortcomings, it should be noted the low speed, which made it impossible to dictate the battle conditions to Japanese heavy cruisers. An increase in power by 25%, combined with work to improve the propulsive qualities and with the inevitable lengthening of the MCO, would allow an increase in stroke by 2 knots, which was actually required.
                        But the main caliber of "Alaska" is really a masterpiece. Due to the heaviest projectile in their class, these cruisers could fight any battleship of the Axis countries at long distances and inflict fatal damage on all "Washington" cruisers. It was necessary to strengthen the air defense with universal installations and cruisers would have been obtained that could replace battleships in most operations.
                      4. +2
                        15 June 2021 15: 37
                        So to speak.
                        Looking back, a person sees endless rows of ships from the end of the 45th year. But, unfortunately, the real American navy was never like this. In particular, surprisingly, the American navy lacked ships.

                        Here's the thing. According to the estimates of the main American avikavod Mitcher, the optimal AUS consists of 4 aviks, 6-8 large ships and 18-24 EVs. In the event of a breakthrough of enemy aircraft through air defense formations, the ships must go in a dense group at full speed, covering each other with artillery fire.
                        So, AB, taking into account the independencies, by the middle (July 1) of 44, the Americans had two dozen, in addition to escorts. But even 30 modern 30-node ships were not recruited in any way. The old RCs had weak air defense, the new LCs were slow, and there were few new RCs. Iowa only 3. Balts 4 (so no, Balts did not interfere with Alaska), Cleves - and there are only 14. Here every strong ship counts.
                        It turns out that 2 Alaskas were perhaps less needed than 4 Balts at the same time. But to change them, even if for Montana, but only one and a year later, is clearly no longer a win.

                        As for the shortcomings of the project, the main thing was, perhaps, PTZ. Armor and main battery are adequate for Congo. The air defense could be better, but in general it's a sin to complain. Both in conjunction with AB and in the strike group with Iowa could be quite useful.
                      5. 0
                        15 June 2021 12: 10
                        Good afternoon, Maxim!
                        The American ship power industry of the 1940s was two caps ahead of everyone else. So 172 hp is the full power of four GTZA, and with a stroke of 000 knots, the Montana could cut until it ran out of fuel. As for the forcing, the Americans calculated the main power engineering with a 28% margin, and not only the turbines, but also the boilers withstood such a boost (20 hours). In this case, the course of "Montana" in normal load increased to 2 knots.
                      6. 0
                        15 June 2021 18: 36
                        Quote: Victor Leningradets
                        As for the forcing, the Americans calculated the main power engineering with a 20% margin, and not only the turbines, but also the boilers withstood such a boost (2 hours). In this case, the course of "Montana" in normal load increased to 29,5 knots.

                        Who writes? Where?
            2. 0
              15 June 2021 16: 49
              Quote: NF68
              And why did the Americans not want to use the 18 ", perhaps because they did not want to bother with the new main battery for battleships of the" Montana "-type to develop a third model of main battery for battleships in addition to 406 mm / 45 and 406 mm / 50?

              We are talking about the very Americans who, having seventy 16 "/ 50s of canceled Washingtonians", decided not to change the "wrong" barbets on the "Iowas", but to develop another "new" 16 "/ 50" specially for them? wink
              They had four serial types of naval guns for the WWII in caliber 16 "- two types 16" / 45 and two types 16 "/ 50 (the" old "naval 16" / 50, in the absence of ships for them, served on the shore - among the army, together with purely army 16 ").
              1. +1
                15 June 2021 17: 30
                Quote: Alexey RA
                They had four serial types of naval guns for WWII in caliber 16 "

                )))
                The budget will not master itself.
    2. 0
      12 June 2021 16: 06
      dough on a quick "cut down" wanted.
  4. +3
    12 June 2021 10: 00
    The author forgot the 406mm cannons on the British battleships Nelson and Rodney, as well as the Lion-class battleships laid down in 1939 - also with 9 406mm guns.
  5. +2
    12 June 2021 14: 49
    Moreover, the British sixteen-inch, unlike the German and Soviet ones, quite fought at sea. "Nelsons", of course, can not be compared with "Iowa", but 16 "is 16" ...)
  6. +1
    12 June 2021 16: 58
    The project provided for the boring of their barrels to a caliber of 420 mm, in this form of weapons it was also planned to use in the development of battleships of the "N" project.

    In German documents, there is no information about the possibility of such a "modernization" of the 40 cm SKC / 34 gun.
    In various sources (for example Gröner), there is a mention of the 42-cm artillery system, but without any details.
    1. 0
      12 June 2021 20: 42
      The 420-mm M.14 / 16 coastal howitzer fired at the Maginot line in 1940
      1. +2
        12 June 2021 21: 50
        Quote: Alex013
        The 420-mm M.14 / 16 coastal howitzer fired at the Maginot line in 1940

        This is not a ship's weapon.
    2. 0
      13 June 2021 16: 35
      Quote: Macsen_Wledig
      The project provided for the boring of their barrels to a caliber of 420 mm, in this form of weapons it was also planned to use in the development of battleships of the "N" project.

      In German documents, there is no information about the possibility of such a "modernization" of the 40 cm SKC / 34 gun.
      In various sources (for example Gröner), there is a mention of the 42-cm artillery system, but without any details.


      40.6 cm / 52 (16 ") SK C / 34
      42 cm / 48 (16.5 ") SK C / 40

      http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_16-52_skc34.php

      The Germans originally designed these cannons taking into account reaming up to 420 mm.
      1. 0
        13 June 2021 16: 51
        Quote: NF68
        The Germans originally designed these cannons taking into account reaming up to 420 mm.

        Let's just say, for a long time I don't believe in NavVips ... :)
        1. 0
          13 June 2021 17: 01
          Quote: Macsen_Wledig
          Quote: NF68
          The Germans originally designed these cannons taking into account reaming up to 420 mm.

          Let's just say, for a long time I don't believe in NavVips ... :)


          They decided to increase the caliber of the main guns to 420 mm. When discussing this issue with the Krupna concern, the Department of Naval Armaments decided to leave the structure of the body of the guns and turrets the same as for the 406 mm guns. The dimensions of the barrels are 406 mm. guns were designed with a margin, so it turned out to be possible to drill them to a diameter of 420 mm. no additional alterations. A study of the issues of ammunition hoists and loading equipment showed that here, too, minimal alterations can be dispensed with. 420 mm. gun based on 406 mm. they did not do it, but they tested the ammunition with a special projectile. It was expected that a greater firing range could be achieved using special gunpowder and a sub-caliber projectile. The transition to a larger caliber was in line with Hitler's 1939 directive that every German ship should be stronger than any foreign enemy. Caliber 420 mm. in the German fleet was considered earlier - for ships of the 1917 project. It was expected that 420-mm shells would be able to inflict heavy damage on any enemy, since most modern battleships carried "only" 380 and 406 mm. tools. Since in the First World War, German naval guns were superior to British ones of equal caliber, the German designers believed that, creating such a powerful weapon, they were on the right track. For a time, it would be the most powerful in the world. The Germans knew that in 1938 the British had begun work on the 406 mm. a weapon for the supposed to be built battleships of the "Lion" type. Even if they could learn something about the new German gun, they would have to spend a lot of time to catch up with the Germans who had gone ahead.

          http://germanfleet.narod.ru/html/hiotiplinkor.htm
          1. 0
            13 June 2021 17: 27
            Quote: NF68
            http://germanfleet.narod.ru/html/hiotiplinkor.htm

            Everything would be fine, but there is nothing for 420-mm guns even in the Bundesarchive: for drilling a 406-mm liner, or for an "independent" artillery system.
            Information from people who "dug" this topic for professional reasons.
            1. 0
              13 June 2021 17: 34
              Quote: Macsen_Wledig
              Quote: NF68
              http://germanfleet.narod.ru/html/hiotiplinkor.htm

              Everything would be fine, but there is nothing for 420-mm guns even in the Bundesarchive: for drilling a 406-mm liner, or for an "independent" artillery system.
              Information from people who "dug" this topic for professional reasons.


              Where is the guarantee that these people had the opportunity and time to dig deeply in the archives? I also searched the Internet for information on German piston aircraft engines for a long time. Until I finally saw a link in a German source. I ordered the book indicated there and copied what I needed. Then I came across another book. Then I found a book about the development of tank engines by Maybach in the 30s-40s.
              1. 0
                13 June 2021 17: 45
                Quote: NF68
                Where is the guarantee that these people had the opportunity and time to dig deeply in the archives?

                There is a guarantee ...
                Due to the circumstances, I cannot say who was looking for and why, but they were looking thoroughly.
  7. Alf
    0
    12 June 2021 20: 57
    Dear Colleagues ! Explain, please, to a layman, how a semi-armor-piercing projectile differs from a high-explosive one and why semi-armor-piercing is only in the navy, but not in army artillery.
    1. +4
      12 June 2021 21: 20
      Quote: Alf
      what is the difference between a semi-armor-piercing projectile and a high-explosive

      If roughly - semi-armor-piercing has a bottom fuse, so it can be triggered with a slowdown, without being destroyed when thin armor is penetrated.
      Quote: Alf
      but not in army artillery.

      Why does he need army artillery?
      1. Alf
        +1
        12 June 2021 21: 22
        But the high-explosive can also be put on deceleration.
        1. +4
          12 June 2021 22: 00
          Quote: Alf
          But the high-explosive can also be put on deceleration.

          Shells vary in design.
          Semi-armor-piercing is, so to speak, a "lightweight" (not in the literal sense) armor-piercing projectile, which has a thinner projectile glass, due to this, the explosive charge is increased. Due to its "lightness" design, the PBB penetrates thinner armor.

          1. Alf
            +1
            12 June 2021 22: 50
            Thank you ! I'll know.
        2. +2
          12 June 2021 22: 00
          Quote: Alf
          But the high-explosive can also be put on deceleration.

          You can't. At a land mine, the fuse will be the first to cut into the armor and collapse. He's ahead.
          1. 0
            12 June 2021 22: 01
            Dear, bottom fuses hi
            1. +2
              12 June 2021 22: 02
              Quote: smaug78
              Dear, bottom fuses

              A high-explosive projectile? laughing
              Bottom for armor-piercing and semi-armor-piercing.
              1. +1
                12 June 2021 22: 04
                And so and so hi
                High-explosive shells HC Mark 13, 14:
                Both bottom and head percussion fuses were used.
          2. Alf
            0
            12 June 2021 23: 01
            Quote: Saxahorse
            Quote: Alf
            But the high-explosive can also be put on deceleration.

            You can't. At a land mine, the fuse will be the first to cut into the armor and collapse. He's ahead.

            What about
            ?
            Or
            ?
            1. 0
              12 June 2021 23: 57
              The question is where we are going to go. Digging into relatively soft soil allows a large crater to be created at the point of impact. And destroy light field shelters, if any. On the other hand, it is often required to detonate immediately, at the first touch, in order to provide a large radius of destruction by a shock wave and shrapnel in ground battles.

              In naval battles, a sensitive detonator made it possible to fire even if it hit a fairly thin unarmored side and to provide a huge hole at the first touch. This is achieved due to the protruding forward easily deformable fuse that responds to the first touch. However, when hitting the armor, such a fuse will be completely destroyed, often together with the nose of a thin-walled land mine, and the slowdown installed there will not play any role.

              Bottom fuses have the opposite problem. No matter how sensitive they are, they are essentially inertial fuses. Those. for triggering, it is not the deformation of the nose that is required, but a sharp deceleration of the entire projectile. If you remember that a large-caliber projectile can weigh 300-800 kg (under a ton!), Then it is immediately clear that it is not easy to drastically slow it down. Unarmored ship parts are often not enough for this. Remember Yamato shooting at escort aircraft carriers? He has only semi-armor-piercing ammunition, and they pierced the aircraft carrier through all the sides and bulkheads without even noticing some kind of obstacle. laughing
              1. 0
                13 June 2021 12: 28
                Quote: Saxahorse
                The question is where we are going to go.

                Everything depended on the weapons. The Germans, for example, in large-caliber guns (128-mm and higher) used an "unregulated" fuse, and, for example, in 88- and 105-mm high-explosive grenades they used an AZ C23 / 28 shock fuse of instant and inertial action with the possibility of setting a deceleration in 0 or 0,1 s.
      2. 0
        12 June 2021 23: 24
        Quote: Cherry Nine
        Why does he need army artillery?

        Concrete-piercing shell. By design - armor-piercing / semi-armor-piercing (depending on the depth of "deepening"), except perhaps without a "Makarov cap" with a ballistic tip and a bottom fuse.
        1. +1
          13 June 2021 00: 34
          Quote: Vladislav 73
          Concrete-piercing shell.

          In general, the idea is similar, you are right, but the concrete breaker has a number of features.
  8. +1
    12 June 2021 23: 34
    The Americans were only able to find out about the true caliber of the Yamato-class battleships' artillery only after the end of hostilities, before that they believed that the most advanced Japanese battleships were armed with 406-mm guns.
    The Japanese have never had a 406 mm GK. Was 410 mm, as for example, on "Nagato" or "Mutsu".
  9. 0
    13 June 2021 16: 29
    The 40 cm SKC / 34 guns had a caliber of 406,4 mm, a barrel length of 52 caliber. The weight of the gun barrel alone with the bolt is estimated at 159 kg. The shutter is a wedge, horizontal type. On ship versions, for the convenience of loading guns, the bolt had to open in different directions. The maximum elevation angles of the gun are 900 degrees.


    German 40,6 cm. Was designated -40.6 cm / 52 SK C / 34
    42 cm was designated -42 cm / 48 SK C / 40

    The maximum elevation angle of 52 degrees was only for coastal installations. Normal 1030 kg. the shells of these installations had a range of 43 km. For ship installations, the range was 36,4 microns. since the maximum angle of the barrel evocation of these installations was only 30 degrees.

    Here-

    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/index_weapons.php

    More detailed information is available on naval artillery.
  10. 0
    31 July 2021 16: 27
    we are talking about powerful naval guns, not about ships armed with them. and I would like to read about the effectiveness of our MP-10.81 shell, this is something for the whole war!
  11. 0
    18 August 2021 10: 16
    Smaller caliber and muzzle velocity of the projectiles gave better armor penetration for horizontal armor at long ranges, but within the framework of acceptable accuracy and line of sight (no more than 20-25 kilometers).
    Mainly for this reason, the British not only did not increase, but reduced the main caliber of their battleships from 381 to 356 mm before the war.
    German and Italian novie battleships were created according to the old concept - combat at close and medium distances (5-15 kilometers) and breaking through horizontal armor.