Joined: November 13th, 2008, 10:19 pm

July 6th, 2018, 1:30 pm #541

I didn't.  I said if a design team does a good job in 5" they may be expected to do a good job in 4", 4.7", 10.5cm, 5.1" or 5.25" for that matter.
You touch an important point wrt the OP; are we restricting ourselves to actual guns, and if so by what criteria of service - would a notional naval application of the land service 3.7" be within the discussion for instance - or are we asking what calibre should be selected for the designers to go away and do their best?
Back to the 5", RoF is not merely a matter of manual handling the ammunition important as that might be - sometimes.
Selecting 5" pre war might preclude automation whereas 4" (or 3") might not.  In 1945 fully automated 3" were possible, not long after 6" and 8" followed.
Even so a semi automatic gun designed by the same talent will operate faster in a smaller calibre, it's moving less mass a shorter distance.
Then the RoF that matters is not that of the gun but of the ship, more exactly total aimed at the target.  Bigger gun, heavier gun, fewer of them, lower RoF.
"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."

"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 8th, 2007, 8:30 pm

July 6th, 2018, 1:39 pm #542

If the US had designed say a 4" gun that was a scaled down version of the 5"38 I would expect it to have a bit faster initial ROF and probably a significantly fast sustained ROF.  Fatigue coming into play with the heavier round.  When people suggest that a gun with a smaller shell has a higher rate of fire I think they are either talking in generalities or assuming the designs are similar.  This obviously breaks down when making some comparisons of actual guns.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 13th, 2008, 10:19 pm

July 6th, 2018, 2:58 pm #543

Exactly my point; are we talking about minimum calibre in general or of particular designs?
"Be harmonious, enrich the soldiers, and scorn all other men"

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster himself."

"We take pride in the terminatory service we provide"
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: May 5th, 2006, 5:38 am

July 6th, 2018, 3:58 pm #544

For some reason, most modern navies have gone with 5" (127mm) guns if the ship is large enough to mount them.  This is in spite of the fact that they could undoubtedly design a 4" or smaller gun which fires faster (and they have).  I think this argument has been decided with similar logic to that used by those navies in WWII.

In any case, sustained rate of fire is seldom a factor in actual combat.  Short term rate of fire tends to be more relevant most of the time, in part because high sustained rate of fire tends to be self limited by heat.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 11th, 2004, 1:10 pm

July 12th, 2018, 7:53 am #545

Steve Crandell wrote: For some reason, most modern navies have gone with 5" (127mm) guns if the ship is large enough to mount them.  This is in spite of the fact that they could undoubtedly design a 4" or smaller gun which fires faster (and they have).  I think this argument has been decided with similar logic to that used by those navies in WWII.

In any case, sustained rate of fire is seldom a factor in actual combat.  Short term rate of fire tends to be more relevant most of the time, in part because high sustained rate of fire tends to be self limited by heat.
And the international success of 5" has nothing to do with the USN using them - 5"/54 & 5"/62 and  76/62 are the marine equivalent of 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm. The only (naval canon) caliber in common use that has not been a US project is 57mm. 

 
Rule .303
Shoot straight ya bastards.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 8th, 2007, 8:30 pm

July 12th, 2018, 3:42 pm #546

Isn't the current US 76mm naval gun the one developed by the Italians?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 27th, 2010, 6:20 pm

July 12th, 2018, 11:56 pm #547

The Argus wrote:
Steve Crandell wrote: For some reason, most modern navies have gone with 5" (127mm) guns if the ship is large enough to mount them.  This is in spite of the fact that they could undoubtedly design a 4" or smaller gun which fires faster (and they have).  I think this argument has been decided with similar logic to that used by those navies in WWII.

In any case, sustained rate of fire is seldom a factor in actual combat.  Short term rate of fire tends to be more relevant most of the time, in part because high sustained rate of fire tends to be self limited by heat.
And the international success of 5" has nothing to do with the USN using them - 5"/54 & 5"/62 and  76/62 are the marine equivalent of 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm. The only (naval canon) caliber in common use that has not been a US project is 57mm. 

 
The 76/62 used by the USN is an Italian Design, first introduced by OTO-Melara in 1963, and not used by the US Navy until 1971 ... and is nearly ubiquitous in Western Navies. The Royal Navy has been using a 4.5" since 1935. The French use a 100mm, 3.9", gun (Also used by China, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Portugal).

Would you care to re-phrase that statement?
(And slightly Ninja'd)
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 8th, 2007, 8:30 pm

July 16th, 2018, 6:47 pm #548

You did a much better job of things though.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 11th, 2004, 1:10 pm

July 19th, 2018, 10:17 am #549

The 76/62 gun is Italian, the cartridge is not, it came out of a joint USN/RN effort. I never said other calibres were not in use, just that 76mm and 5" are so very common largely because of their association with the largest navy in the world - how is this controversial?  
Rule .303
Shoot straight ya bastards.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 27th, 2010, 6:20 pm

July 19th, 2018, 11:26 am #550

The Argus wrote: The 76/62 gun is Italian, the cartridge is not, it came out of a joint USN/RN effort. I never said other calibres were not in use, just that 76mm and 5" are so very common largely because of their association with the largest navy in the world - how is this controversial?  
Because you said "The only (naval canon) caliber in common use that has not been a US project is 57mm." Which is manifestly not true, and verges on arrogant presumption.

And even the 76/62 statement above is false, the OTO Melara gun was in use by over a dozen navies before its adoption by the USN. Its widespread use has got nothing to do with the US Navy, and anyway it uses a different cartridge from the RN/USN round which is a 76*669mm, the Italian round is a 76*635.5mm.
Quote
Like
Share