Comments by "Vikki McDonough" (@vikkimcdonough6153) on "The Drydock - Episode 256" video.
-
1
-
Given that total shell mass is irrelevant for armor penetration, with the important factors instead being the impact speed and angle and the construction of the shell, on the one hand, and its sectional density (its mass per unit frontal cross-sectional area), on the other, why did navies continually keep increasing their guns' shell caliber rather than their shell length?
As an example, consider three different guns:
- A British 12"/45 Mk X gun (shell mass 850 pounds, frontal area [6^2]π=113.1 in^2, sectional density 850/113.1=7.52 lb/in^2)
- A British 15"/42 Mk I gun (shell mass 1,938 pounds, frontal area [7.5^2]π=176.7 in^2, sectional density 1,938/176.7=10.97 lb/in^2)
- A gun firing a 12" shell with twice the length of the 12"/45 Mk X's shell (shell mass 1,700 pounds, frontal area [6^2]π=113.1 in^2, sectional density 1,700/113.1=15.03 lb/in^2)
The third gun (the one firing the long 12" shell) would punch through armor almost half again as well as the 15"/42 Mk I (in practice, this increase would be even higher, as the high aspect ratio of the third gun's shell would reduce the aerodynamic drag experienced by the shell compared to that experienced by a shorter, fatter shell, causing the shell to lose speed more slowly and retain a higher speed at impact upon a target at a given distance) and do so with a lighter shell (allowing the ship to either carry more shells and propellant charges, or carry the same number of these smaller shells and charges and use the saved displacement for things like more armor or more fuel bunker or more powerplant). So why didn't navies go down the route of longer-shell guns, instead choosing to upgrade to guns whose shells were just bigger overall (a much-less-efficient way of increasing armor penetration)?
1
-
1
-
1