Comments by "Bk Jeong" (@bkjeong4302) on "The development of the Naval Shell - Stop poking holes in my ship!" video.

@TomM-jh8lx Basically? Superheavy shells only make sense if they can achieve an arcing trajectory at realistic combat ranges, because they’re specialized for deck hits and actually perform worse at belt hits compared to standard shells (given that the caliber and muzzle velocity remains the same). The problem was that while the 16”/45 arguably had a low enough muzzle velocity for deck hits (higher velocity = needs more distance for deck hits), the more powerful 16”/50 had a higher muzzle velocity due to being intended to be more powerful, which actually made it useless for deck hits at realistic combat ranges: the 16”/50 would need to engage at well over 30,000 yards to achieve the arcing trajectory needed for deck hits, but testing carried out in 1944 revealed that not even radar-guided fire control was able to reliably hit capital ship-sized targets at that range. So the 16"/50 gun was literally incapable of effective engagement at what was supposed to be its effective endgagement range, with the actual effective engagement range being 25,000 yards or less. At those ranges the 16"/50 would be firing at much flatter trajectories, so the superheavy shell is inferior to standard shells. At that point you’d have been much better off giving up on the idea of long-range deck hits and using the high muzzle velocity to your advantage by for close-quarter belt penetration, which is what the Italians did. The Italians achieved the same levels of penetration as the 16”/50 with their 15” gun, and at realistic combat ranges, using this line of “lighter shell + high velocity = ideal for punching through belt armour at realistic combat ranges”. And of course, by the time superheavy shells (or the Italian 15” for that matter) entered service the entire idea of battleships was obsolete, though this wasn’t initially realized for the 16”/45 (the 16”/50 entered service without any such excuse, however)
8
@donovangray7518 Because they were intended to operate as pairs in minimum, and it was thought they needed to be built that way to do so (eventually they switched over to doing the same as everyone else, a bit before they entered WWII)
5
@nimbusshadow-wings The AP values for the 16”/50 are still quite high (similar to the Italian 15” and Japanese 18.1” in that it can penetrate all deck and belt armour ever, if it hits). The issue is that the superheavy shell was intended for deck hits in arcing trajectories (hence its weight), but the 16”/50 had too great a muzzle velocity to achieve that within reasonable combat ranges. It would have to hit at ranges outside 30,000 yards to achieve the deck hits it was intended for, and testing revealed that even with radar this was actually outside the effective engagement range of the 16”/50 gun. If the 16”/50 fired standard shells and gave up on the idea of deck hits at unrealistic ranges, it would probably be the single most powerful naval gun ever instead of having to share that title.
4
Keep in mind, that test took place under unrealistic (point blank range, armour not inclined) conditions, so it isn’t the best indicator of how effective the 16” superheavy was (in spite of it being frequently used to argue that point); in fact the NavWeaps article discussing this exact test points out the result was highly misleading for this reason. The 16” superheavy could still punch through all belt and deck armour ever put on a ship, but there were a few other guns that could also do this, including the Italian 15” gun.
4
BBB H It was hard enough hitting the ship at all in the first place (beyond 30,000 yards it became virtually impossible, even with the best fire control in WWII). Trying to hit specific parts of an enemy ship would not be feasible.
2
@connormclernon26 Oh fuck, that really solves a lot of problems for the Italians.
2
@crispico4727 Battleships, carriers, and cruisers had them.
1
@WALTERBROADDUS It wasn't put on destroyers.
1
@WALTERBROADDUS The chrysanthemum.
1
@neoconshooter The 16"/50 matched, not exceeded, the 18.1" in terms of armour penetration according to Nathan Okun. The Battle of Second Guadalcanal involved the 16"/45 gun, which had a significantly lower shell velocity than the 16"/50 (thus averting the issue with deck hits having to be at extreme range). South Dakota never achieved anything in that battle-she was disabled due to an electrical failure and Washington did 100% of the work but for propaganda purposes "Battleship X" got undeserved credit (South Dakota has a massively overblown combat record in pop culture history-her supposed AA feats at Santa Cruz is an even worse example of her receiving undeserved credit) Casablanca, not Mers-el-Kabir, and damaging an incomplete ship is hardly an achievement.,
1
@jamesb4789 Taiho was sunk more because of incompentent personnel than design issues; she would probably have survived Albacore's torpedo attack if not for this.
1
@emmanuelmercado4018 I never said it was less dangerous; it's similar in penetration the the 16"/50 or the Italian 15" and has a bigger bursting charge.
1
Spoiler alert; none of the specialized shells really worked that well (even the 16" superheavy had major issues, specifically when fired from the 16"/50 gun, due to being specialized for deck hits which were physically impractical with said gun).
1