MC202, believe me, Italian 15'/50 guns were terribly unnacurate,and I mean terribly.
A gun that after 100 rounds is absolutely wored out, and needs a relining, is enough proof. Each shot that the gun fires will make the next one less accurate. Imagine what will happen after ,say 25, shots. And after 50?...I won't say anything about 70 or more...
Not only that, but this is not aerial gunnery, where the shell ballistics improve with weight and speed. Here a high muzzle speed doesnt mean that the shell will be accurate, most times is the inverse. Remember that there are three barrels firing at the same time, and the incredible concussion of one barrel will affect the shell from the other two barrels,so making dispersion a REAL problems.
IIRC a french or italian (cant recall it) battleship reported once that the shells actually COLLIDED after going out the guns. As you see the dispersion was nothing less than monstruous.
That is the reason why migh muzzle velocity naval guns used to be less accurate at long ranges than low muzzle velocity guns. American 16'/45 and 16'/50 guns are good examples of low velocity very reliable and accurate guns. British 15'/42 was also a good example.
The guns aboard Bismarck,for instance, are a good example of this problem, too. Well, in a much lesser extent than Littorios, thats true. First, because the muzzle velocity was lower in the german 14.96'/52 gun than in the italian 15'/50 gun; and second because there were only two barrels per turret compared with Littorio's three. But they were high muzzle velocity guns and payed the good hitting power at low and medium ranges for lower accuracy and hitting power at long ranges.
The second problem with a hispeed shell is just that, as they are faster, the arc they describe is shallower. Lower velocity shells did a more pronounced arc.
The main effect of this was that the allied plunging fire was much more powerful than Axis, as a shell coming at a higher angle will probably hit the deck,not the hull. And deck hits are probably the worst a battleship can sustain, because they have less horizontal deck armor than vertical belt armor, and because a deck hit is very able to reach the critical internal systems of the ship deep into the hull, as boilers, turbines, even magazines...much easier than a standard hit.
The tradeoff is less penetration at short ranges...but with a 16'/50 gun, or a 15'/42 gun you are able to penetrate most armors at short ranges regardless of gun muzzle velocity.
And lastly, but nonetheless VERY important, Italian gun's rate of fire was 1.3 Rounds/minute. It is abysmal. That was in good conditions, in a real battle expect some a 30% disminution. That means a RoF under 1 round per minute!!!!!
compare with other guns:
German 14.96'/52: 2.6 rounds/minute (Aprox)
German 11.1'/54.5: 3.5 rounds/minute.
British 15'/42: 2 rounds/minute
British 16'/45: 1.5 rounds/minute
British 14'/45: 2 rounds/minute
French 14.96/45: 2 rounds/minute (aprox)
French 13.4'/45: 2 rounds/minute
Japanese 14'/45: 2 rounds/minute
Japanese 16.1'/45: 2-2.5 rounds/minute
Japanese 18.1'/45: 1.7 rounds/minute (aprox)
American 14'/50: 1.75 rounds/minute
American 16'/45: 2 rounds/minute
American 16'/50: 2 rounds/minute
Italian 15'/50: 1.3 rounds/minute
Italian 12.6'/50: 2 rounds/minute
----------------------------------------
At short ranges, Rate of fire is way more important than muzzle velocity. Italian 15' gun was a complete failure in this department, too, while Bismarcks and Scharnhorsts were literally "machineguns"
As you see the italian gun looked good. But it was quite worse than it seems.
Ah, and Yamatos rule
[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 10-18-2000).]
