On the other hand, assigning guns and speed top priority works against rugged sides. Below that, in an upset, comes Richelieu's 15"/45, as the best all-around 15" gun, and feel the most useful in an actual combat situation. Early trials did worse and I'd bet it comes down to experience with the gun loading systems.
A battleship loaded down with the biggest guns and thickest armor would waddle from place to place. Dispersion issues mostly boiled down to variable shell quality, which isn't due to the gun or it's mounting. If shells fell short, the range would be extended. 5"/62 Mark 45 Mod 4 (USA) Atago (2003) class.
150 mm Electromagnetic Rail Gun. As for penetration ability, NavWeaps seems to suggest that the M1934 is roughly comparable (somewhat superior in some areas and inferior in others) to the German 38cm SK C/34 and inferior to the Japanese 46cm Type 94. Effectiveness? Just no. Navweaps quips are entirely subjective.
Background Information.
US DDs, or at least the newer ones, were among the best. Great Britain's Royal Navy triumphed repeatedly during the age of sail. The guns were fired centrally, using an electric circuit. So there was that. Modern Weapons. Emden (1925) and AMCs of World War II As for the RM 15" gun's performance, you can take my sources or you can leave them. Ultimately what we have is the only major publication about the guns says that they performed about even with the Yamato's 18" guns, and is in agreement with the biggest analysis source on gun performance.
But again, you can't have everything in the real world. Still, we need some standard for distinguishing between battlewagons.
4-5" DP guns I'd probably say the UK's 4"/45 offered the best compromise during the war between capability in the surface role and AA fire. Mine also included prewar designs though.So what was the result of this thread? Sure, they hit like a train. But at least taking the measure of individual men-of-war involves comparing one apple with one orange. It was also very light, which meant that even relatively small destroyers could ship fairly large numbers of this gun. 1980 to Present. Background Information. Please clarify your definition of best in this situation. Accuracy? Question there: I heard the Japanese 10.0 cm AA gun was pretty good at the end of the war, outperforming their own 12.7 cm. Please clarify your definition of best in this situation. What would you consider the best naval guns used in WW2? What makes a ship great? A battleship's name becomes legend if it helps win a grand victory, loses in dramatic fashion, or perhaps accomplishes some landmark diplomatic feat. Dispersion issues were also caused by the excessive muzzle velocity, which also contributed to rapid barrel wear (life expectancy was only about half as long as its foreign equivalents). I general I'd say though that building a DP weapon that provided both satisfactory AA capability and surface fire was a bit beyond WWII technology. I'm not sure exactly what the consensus was on the French, Italian, Dutch, and Soviet vessels is.As ever, what do you want to do with them, where and when? What about these guns would you say makes them capable? It also had a relatively slow reload time. No. Power? As to who had the best, that's tricky.
Navweas say otherwise, such as being under powered for anti surface work in contrast to the US 5"/38 guns which is described as "one of the finest Dual Purpose guns of World War II". I'll try to find the exact post, but as I recall, here's a rough summary. That's not remotely comparable to killing your own AAA gunners if stock AAA mounts are used. Though I'm really not sure how much that mattered, because accuracy only matters if have some idea where the other guy is, and radar fire control is one hell of a thing. Thread starter TrivetLurker; Start date Aug 29, 2016; Prev. Certainly in an unarmored destroyer or superstructure, which is all these guns were really good for shooting, a 4" gun would deal less damage than a 5", but I doubt that it'd be half the amount. The 4" gun provides better ballistics than the 5" gun, has a similar rate of fire if not actually better- the 20+ rates of fire on the 5"/38 are outliers and represent burst rate only, the mounts were never capable of more than 15 rpm sustained. There's an element of opportunity, of sheer chance. More lighter shells are better for AA, because the lethal radius does not scale linearly with shell size and burster. How did it fare against the competition? USN Naval Gun Designations. These systems had higher power outputs than Seetakt, and could survive the concussion of a … Menu. Flamethrowers M1A1 flamethrower M2-A1 flamethrower Ronson flamethrower When I was looking I noticed quite a few listed as incomplete which might be the difference in our numbers. The best hardware meets the best software.But adding the human factor to the mix still isn't enough. The weapon in question has to actually have been made and placed on a ship, though it doesn't need to have actually been used in combat. There was no line-of-battle ship in the modern sense before England's "great sea-king" founded the sail-driven Royal Navy in the 16th century. GENERAL COMMENTS: The Japanese 18.1"/45 reigned supreme as the most destructive piece of naval ordnance ever mounted afloat.However, its ballistic performance was not particularly inspiring, and the performance of its Type 91 shells was inferior to the norm, partly because they were optimized for underwater trajectories 7.Immediately below it in terms of power is the US 16"/50. 1; 2; First Prev 2 of 2 Go to page.