Gun-loading question

[alecsandros]

Hi all,

Do you know if in the pre-1945 era, somebody used guns that were loadable at any practical angle?

Ex: 16" gun loaded at maximum elevation.

This is somewhat important in my opinion, especialy for a lower-mv gun, shooting at long ranges. The time needed to depress, and lift the gun at, say, 30* elevation, can theoreticaly be 6-8 seconds, or even more, thus prolonging the recycling rate.

Any thoughts?

[tommy303]

Presuming you are speaking of the main batteries, yes it was done on a number of designs, such as the 8-inch on the Washington treaty-era County class cruisers of the RN. Also the 15-inch turrets had all angle loading between +5 and +20* though though the hydraulic system was overtaxed at higher elevations and often the guns would stall out and only return to battery slowly; it was sometimes noted that the projectiles did not always seat solidly into the rifling, and at higher elevations would slide out of the breech. As a result, loading tended to be done at between +5 and +10*. Those battleships and battlecruiser that were modernized had the hydraulic systems improved, but the shell seating still remained troublesome.

[alecsandros]

What battleships had this capability ? (besides the 15 inchers of the RN)

[Lutscha]

All 4 French post treaty ships had any angle loading but suffered from jams at higher angles and usually loaded at 15°. They were full of innovations but also seemed to be a bit too much ahead with their wishes resulting in problems/failures (their RPC which was only fitted in R and JB after problems for D and S, their any angle loading, the dispersion and shell problems, their heavy DP guns which suffered from problems with their any angle loading and slow train/elevation rates). All nice features but they caused problems the French could not correct (at that time).

[tommy303]

The 16-inch guns of the Nagato class had this feature as built, as did the 14-inch of the Kongos, Ise, and Fusos, but it was dropped during the post WW1 refits and a fixed elevation was adopted instead, probably for the same reasons as the British did not pursue any angle of elevation loading in their post WW1 battleships. Similarly, the Italian WW1 dreadnoughts also had any elevation loading, but the ones rebuilt in the 1930s and rearmed with 320mm guns reverted back to a fixed loading angle of 12* while the Littorios had fixed loading angles of 15*. Finally, the French Dunkerque and Richelieu class likewise had any angle loading. Even the Russian dreadnoughts had, probably because of Italian influence, any angle loading up to elevations limits of the guns, but like the Italians and Japanese, the feature was removed during post WW1 refits.

It was not used by German or USN battleships, the designs of which all had fixed loading angles. In US battleships, the fixed angle was dictated in part by the designs of the shell hoists and shell handling systems; the Germans appear to have been trying to keep things simple (for once) and already had impressive rates of fire without the any angle loading. In any event, disposal of empty cartridge cases would have been difficult to achieve at any angle loading.

It would seem, that of those powers that used it, most found it troublesome and later discarded it (in the case of the British 15-inch, a lower angle of loading was usually adopted arbitrarily to take the strain off the hydraulics and to prevent the shell from unseating if not rammed hard enough--still, it was not pursued in the Nelsons, KGVs or the cancelled Lions--Vanguard got it by default as she utilized existing spare guns and turrets and had -5 to +20* like other 15-inch gunned RN dreadnoughts).

[alecsandros]

Thank you very much!