Thank you for clarifying a couple of things. I was a Gunner's mate on the U.S.S.Saint Paul. I did maintenance on one of two 3" 50 caliber deck mounts during the day and stood watch on the 5 inch 38 as we patrolled the coast of Vietnam. I heard an E-4 explaining the whys of the various designations, such as 5"54, 3"50 etc. Barrel length. For the last 50 years I have assumed that I worked on the 54's. They were 38's. Good weapons, powder and projectile easy to handle. About a year ago I was texting with another 5" gunner from my division. He was describing the potentially hazardous removal of the powder cannister after a misfire. I had never experienced that. And 50 years later, it made me sit up and pay attention. I have 2 questions. #1 In a 5"38 turret on the outboard side of either gun port or starboard between either guns and the exterior wall/bulkhead of the turret are there any mechanisms to fire either of those guns? I say no. I was 1 of 3 people in a 5" turret, ordered by the Chief Gunner to join him. 1 young man (Hawaiian ) crawled up into the gun Captain's seat. You're in a 5" turret with 1 or more weapons loaded, you are (a master chief gunner?) and he saw nothing wrong with a monkey inches from the firing button? The starboard gun did fire just as the Chief stepped over the breach. He missed being crushed by the recoil by maybe 1 second. I believe it was a choreographed event involving the Chief, Hawaiian, fire control and the XO. The Chief was no actor. I believe coordinates were fed into the ship's computer, the gun was loaded, the normal gun crew were gone and it was a simple case of depressing the firing button and with a few minor changes in rudder, when the target came on line the weapon fired. I don't think the Chief or Hawaiian knew exactly when the gun would fire or he wouldn't have come that close to being dead. #2. I really don't want to know the answer to this unless it's common knowledge. For instance, through an act of sabotage on the 5" 38's could someone in "fire control" jack with the fuse on a 5" projectile to the point of it exploding after firing but before leaving the barrel? My regular gun captain went below for mid-rats. I told him as soon as he did they were going to call a firing mission. They did and I did not answer the phone. A cowardly thing to do, yes. But I had doubts about the chain of command. Also remember, I was the guy that had never experienced a misfire.
OSHA maximum weight limit is 50 pounds. One place where I worked in the 80's mandated we lift 100 pounds over our heads. Somebody 😮 called OSHA and they were fined several thousand dollars and the owner launched an investigation to find the person that ratted him out. I had OSHA on speed dial after that. Cool video.
When I was on active duty I made a habit of visiting the Company Library to read all the journals. There was a search underway for a new artillery piece to replace the heavy and large footprint 155mm towed howitzers in Marine Corps inventory. One artillery officer suggested putting a 5" 54 barrel on a copy of the Russian 122mm carriage to use in amphibious actions. It made sense since at the time the Navy was still using 5" 54 guns on cruisers and larger. Ammunition would be readily available without undue strain on naval logistics.
My second ship was DDG 5 and I reported aboard as an IC Electrician at the tail end of a long yard overhaul and upgrade in early 1975. Among other things, the ship had been fitted with the latest version of 5-inch/54 mounts and the associated carrier rooms. A warship is totally emptied of weapons during an extended yard period, so after we finished sea trials, we went to the Naval Weapons Station at Earle, New Jersey, for a full load-out. That facility is essentially just inside Sandy Hook, within sight of New York City. The pier is just over two miles long and the ammo was brought out to us on rail cars. On our Liberty night out, they put us on a gray Navy bus and drove us off the pier to wherever it was we caught public transit into Manhattan. Anyway, it was a fascinating new experience to sit out there at the end of that pier for a couple of days, and the entire crew would form two lines from the boxcars - one line to the aft magazine and another to the forward magazine. I vividly remember being at the top of the hatch down to forward berthing and the Mt 51 magazine. Same spot, all day long. You literally stand elbow-to-elbow from the guys on either side of you. You don't move your feet. You twist your body to the right with your arms in a cradle, and the guy on your right lays that 70 lb. projectile gently there. And you twist to your left, and in turn lay it off on that guy's cradle. 800 rounds forward and 800 rounds aft. Of course, there were also 800 powder canisters, only 40 lbs., that followed. But I don't remember it being all that tiring, you weren't really exerting yourself much. But it was definitely a long day on your feet. And I am sure that there were a bunch of guys at the boxcars that had more "handling" to do, same as the ones down in the magazines.
@@nomar5spaulding while true(and the 5.25 had a better ceiling), the heavier weight associated with the larger gun featured a lower rate of fire. 5”/38 was double.
Rode a DD to Vietnam was right gun powder thrower in mount 51 then moved to projectiles after the guy doing it broke his arm on the edge of the gun tray thousands of rounds!
Having served on a DDG-2 class I always wondered if 5" 38 could be fired out of our 5" 54s. I also searched for a side-by-side comparison, thanks! (FYI our 5" 54 rounds were 72 pounds).
My Uncle served on the Charles F Adams in the early 1970’s. He loved that ship. I wish she could have been saved from being scrapped… Cheers @wilsonle61
@@billbrockman779 Noted Naval Historian Norman Freidman said in his book on US Navy Destroyers that the Adam's class were graceful, balanced ships and lacked the bloating effect modern weapons had on other destroyers of the period. They did have some clean lines. I was aboard DDG-21 from 80 to 84.
I can’t speak to battleships but I served in the ammunition ship Vesuvius in 1972-73, rearming DDs on the gun line off Vietnam. We passed a whole lot of pallets full of fixed 5in38 and 5in54. It was WWII tech and I had nothing but respect for the sailors who had to control those things in heavy seas.
@@krismurphy7711 Except for some Liberty Ships pressed directly into service in WWII, they were ALL named for active volcanoes: Kilauea, Haleakala, Mount Baker, Mount Hood and so on. We understood that the names were to pound the danger of working with explosives into our skulls. Vesuvius was literally a banana boat, purchased from the United Fruit Co. in WWII.
I had the honor of one of my GQ billets aboard Taney being the sight setter for her one remaining 5 inch/38 while she was still in active service. Thanks Ryan for taking care of our country's Historic Ships, You Da' Man Brother!
Aren't they just "downsized" 16/54s??? That's what I gathered from what Ive read, or how I read it. That it was based on lessons learned from the Iowa's and the dead in the water Montana.
When I started at the Puget Sound NSY in 1978, there was serious consideration of developing the 8” Mk 71 naval rifle for all future USN ships. There were 4 or 5 (?) types of projectiles, with rocket assisted, extra long range camera guided projectiles as an option. The payload was around 250 lbs. There was one built, on the USS Hull. The mount is still around somewhere. It was so cool working on the 8” Mk 71. There was a wooden mock up of the mount and magazine built by the Wood Shop where the Shipyard Dispensary is now. The 8” gun was cancelled in late ‘79 as I recall, the shipyard showed us a 12 minute film of the USS Hull shooting a few rounds and then the project was over. All the blueprints went back to the ordnance folks based out of Louisville, KY.
My dad was a first loader on a five inch 38 gun on the destroyer USS Maury DD-401 in the Pacific in World War 2. About 3 years before his death, I had the joy of finding one of the officers on his ship, who told me, "Number 3 was one of our best guns!" After I spoke with him, I arranged for him to call my father, and these two old warriors got to connect and reminisce.
the 54 may be autoloading at the breach but the projectile and propellant are placed into the hoist manually, that was my general quarters station on my Cruiser and i slung A LOT of rounds.
I "loaded" 5 inch 54 rounds in the magazine on USS Fox CG-33 for 3 years. They told us they weigh 72 pounds. We got a workout while loading during gunnery exercises.
I served on the USS Rathburne DE 1057 from 70 to 73. Our main gun was the 5" 54 Caliber. We used it heavily against NVA in 71 through 72. I recall the gun was very reliable, and highly accurate. Our only downtime was for barrel replacement which was often. Admittedly my memory may be faulty but I'm pretty certain of my claim. I do remember the rounds seemed to weigh a lot during unreps as we had to carry them from the stern to the bow to reach the ammo hoist.
0:52 I was on a 5", 38 cal. in Vietnam - we had 9 in the mount (Pointer, Trainer, 2 gun captains,2 powdermen, 2 projectile men+ the mont captain), 6 in the handling room and 3 in the magazine. Great video, TY!
This brought back some memories from the 70-80s playing a naval war game called something like seakreig with 1:700 scale lead models. It was pretty fun, but with battleships in the fleet, once the range closed to be able to engage with the secondary armament -- between 10-15 miles -- instead of 18 main gun rounds per minute landing near each ship it was now something like 100 secondary rounds as well. While most 5-6 inch secondary battery rounds will have little effect, a few will hit things that are important even on a battleship and the game ended pretty quickly after that. And if I could bring a couple light cruisers -- South Hampton, Cleveland, or Atlanta types -- into that range as well, even if my battleship took some big hits on the way in, the game was over, so me and my opponent had to divert battleship rounds to knock out escort ships before they could get into range to avoid that. I don't know that the mechanics of that game system made any sense, and the only similar engagement in WWII that I am aware of was the sinking of the Bismark. But it is unclear in the narratives I have read what damage was done by which category of ship at what time in the engagement. I'll see if I can find the box with my fleet of 1:700 ships and if I do, I'll send you some pictures. Thank you for your channel, it is great.
The ship I was decommissioning crew on was USS Glover. We had a 5"38 when decommissioned in 1992. It operated as a USNS ship for a couple years after decommissioning, but I expect that they did something to demil the weapons.
Served on CGN California and did a load out in Yorktown a year after commisioning. The bullets were heavy and had to be man handled from the pallet that a crane set on the deck to the passages where they were sent down to the magazines. Everyone except the Captain, XO and the duty crew was part of the load out. It was amazing to see one of those gun barrels swing on a target going across the travel line of the ship. Kind of reminded me of a baseball slugger looking for a grand slam. I can't see a manually operated gun ever being able to do that.
I was on a shipyard seatrial of one of the DDGs (if I recall correctly), and the test coordinators had the admital's stateroom, which was just behind the 5" gun, as their office. I was there coordinating our testing during gunnery drills. They were firing very irregularly, so you never knew when another *BAM*, with the walls shaking and dust drifting down from the overhead, was going to happen. It was quite difficult to explain what I needed, when the discussion continued through a number of shots!
My division officer was a smug know-it-all, always trying to do things his own way and screwing things up so it took several days to redo it the right way. One day the chief found out there was going to be a "surprise" gunnery drill on the port quarter 5"/54 mount (USS Midway CV-41, 1973 or 1974) with only the thin skin of the hull between it and the division office. At the right time, he sent the division officer to get the paperwork he'd been trying to get the chief to do for several days. Apparently his timing was superb. Chief just looked at him and said, "Don't *$%# with the chiefs, sir." I worked nights, didn't see it, drat.
The USS Louisville CA 28 heavy cruiser had (8) 5 inch 25 caliber single mounts Dual Purpose and with Island Bombardment in the Pacific the ship was close to shore and in between the Main Battery of 8 inch 55 caliber guns firing (The Big Shots) the 5 inch would hammer away. The Marine Division on Louisville manned (2) of the 5 inch mounts. When the 8 inch fired a buzzer would sound and the decks were cleared. My dad who passed in 2017 at age 92 proudly served on the Louisville and witnessed (52) sailors and Rear Admiral Theodore Chandler buried at sea due to 3 kamikaze hits in Pacific. They had an area to stand clear when the Main Battery was fired. Thanks for your video!
One of the ships my dad served on was lha-3 uss belleau wood and it had two 5"/54 mounts, one on both sides of the bowel under the flight deck and had an asroc and a phalanx.
How many shells would a loader be expected to handle in an engagement? Asking because, to me even 66 pounds seems like a lot. I've done concrete jobs with 60-pound ready-mix bags and I'm only good for a dozen or so of those before I start slowing down.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 15 per minute was peak, at the second naval battle of Guadalcanal the 5" fired an average of 4 per minute (284 expended out of the starboard batteries including star shells over 7 minutes), though the actual rate varied over the action as they executed slavo fire (51/53 on Kirishima, 55/57 on other targets, 59 firing star shells) to spot the fall of shot.
Having served on EDSON, a Forrest Sherman class destroyer, I'm a fan of the 54. Ours were nominally rated at 28 rounds per minute by the time I was on her, but most GMs had little trouble adjusting the timing to get it up to around 32. There was nothing quite like watching the cradle and dual arms moving over and over again to match azimuth and elevation to feed the twin cradles that loaded the gun at full speed. Really impressive.
While US BB's had either a single type secondary battery of 5"38's or the secondary 5"51/tertiary 5"25's (as designed, cause post 12/7/41 rebuilds are a complete other issue.) Most foreign BB's went with a heavier secondary and lighter tertiary. In these cases, the later battery were mainly AA (while some secondary's had AA capability) as opposed to the pre-dreadnought's A-Z gun selection all for surface targets. For example, the NELSON and RODNEY had twin 6" secondaries and single 4.7's tertiary.
I remember loading amo at Earl in 1962.I live in NC now and fly to NY .Right before you get to NY the plane usually fly right over Earl. They are still loading amo.
Are my favorite secondary guns the 8” mounts on BB-16? No, but they seem wildly impractical and kinda amusing. I’d love to have y’all do a bit more BB-16 content!
80 lbs is a fairly common weight for bags of dry concrete. Carrying/manhandling those will quickly get to you. I speak from personal experience. addendum: As weird as it sounds, it could be easier to carry 2 of said bags. Balanced you out, one per side. Carrying your own body weight will REALLY get to you quick though. (Over my own weight by 10 or 20 pounds back when I had to do this even)
The 54 & 62 caliber 5” guns nowadays are automatic loading guns. I think the only human part is in magazines for reloading them with shells & powder and maintenance.
The 5" gun was developed in the first place as a 'take the average' effort. The Royal Navy and German Navy were trying to develop a proper secondary battery for their ships. The British 6" and German 15cm (5.9") guns had good range and a large shell to do lots of damage but were slow and heavy, making them less effective against fast torpedo boats or Destroyers where the British 4" and German 105mm (4.1") were lighter and faster, making them better at getting shots onto fast targets but those shots were much smaller with a smaller blast effect. The US Navy slit the average and developed the 5"/51 so that it's faster firing than the 6" but with a bigger projectile than the 4". Both japan and the RN tried to improve on this, with 14cm or 5.5" guns and later with the 4.5" and 5.25" but these fell short.
Those secondary guns that were originally in those casemates on the sides and rear of Texas are interesting, seems most of them were removed very quickly though.
They proved to be mounted too low and were too wet to use if the sea wasn't dead calm. The refit in the 30's moved 6 of them to the superstructure, which were eventually all she had left. Similar refits were done to the Nevadas, with the New Mexicos and following classes being built with them in the superstructure. I looked all that up just now. Say what you want about Wikipedia, it's good for a quick lookup of uncontroversial facts.
"War-chester" class, Ryan? Would that be actually pronounced "Wooster"? It's spelled "Worcester" and the city is only an hour away from where I am in Massachusetts. 😊
Updating the 5 inch mounts on USS. New Jersey during the Vietnam war. Should've been totally done. By the way, please. I would love to see an example of battleship bowling, please? Gotta see it.
I spent 6 weeks on the Charles F Adams, DDG-2, (or as Ryan called her Charlie Adams) at Mayport as a UVA ROTC Midshipman on my first summer cruise June 1974. Witnessed missile and ASROC launches and chipped paint after the launches. Shot off the forward 5” 54. Remember other midshipmen taking the spent brass with them. Nothing much scarier that a gaggle of midshipmen on the fan tail firing off 45 caliber pistols and rifles.
I was aboard the USS Long Beach during Rimpac 88 with the USS Missouri and USS New Jersey. We conducted an exercise on a hulk ship. The main guns on the BBs were impressive but the sustained 5" fire (sounded like popcorn) was devastating. Nothing modern (thin skinned) could have survived.
All three of my ships used "5in 54" DD-965 CG-54 and DD-991. Most of what I remember was how the elevators almost never worked, and we would carry the rounds and powder hand over hand.
The 5"/54 is still in use even in modern ships. For example the 7 provinces class of air defense and command frigates of the Dutch navy, launched in the early 2000s, use them.
The 5-inch 38 Caliber was no doubt the best secondary gun design in the world at that point. Now though they feel nearly useless. Also, I'm more into the the Phalanx CIWS, 25MM Bushmaster, and the 30MM secondary guns.
So Ryan, Texas comes out of dry dock tomorrow, fog dependent..... Is New Jersey going to have cams set up for us to watch the operation? Texas has been very interesting during her time in drydock. Thank you!
My understanding is that the design people who would have done the work for building the Montanas were subsequently assigned to the Midway aircraft carrier project.
In WW2, the 5"/38 was about as good as it was going to get for a heavy AA gun - anything much bigger than the 120-127mm caliber was too heavy for manual loading, and autoloading hadn't really gotten reliable enough. That said, autoloading could have seriously changed the game if missiles didn't do it first - OTO Melara built a 127mm/62 gun that can fire 45 rounds per minute (the Italian navy uses it today, so do a few others). Bofors also built a 120mm gun capable of 80 RPM. Either of those, in a lightweight mount, with VT fuzes, would have been a terrifying AA weapon. The longer barrel would mean a higher velocity for shorter time of flight, and the higher ROF would mean that you could more easily bracket a single aircraft, to both get hits more easily, and to get more hits in case one proximity burst didn't do the job. 6" guns capable of elevating to hit aircraft didn't really become useful in time to matter, though again, had missiles not arrived to change the whole game, that might have done so. The MCLWG, had it ever gone into production, might have been interesting to see too - coupled to 1970s fire control, it could engage aircraft too. That said, I think even had missiles, all-weather aircraft, guided bombs and nuclear-powered submarines not changed things, and battleships continued in production into the 70s, I think an 8" gun would have been too big for a secondary battery. (But we might have seen a 155mm secondary on the successors to the Montanas.)
The 5 inch 38 was a deadly weapon. It put the fear of God into Japanese sailors who encountered it and the German defenders found out the hard way what it could do on Omaha beach.
I always thought they should have had a couple of 8 inch for when the 16 where over kill but the 5 might have been a little under size but that would increase the logistics of supply and other things. Still would have been nice to see
On board DDG73 I was allowed to lift a training round. It was at my then physical limit and the Gunners Mate was worried I would drop it. For easy handling one needs to go down to 3". So if I was going to arm my non existent yacht, 3" would be it
Move day, 21 March is best viewed from our pier, or on Olympia across the river from us. We won't pull into the drydock until the 27th and that will be...not that fun to watch. It's like watching paint dry.
If you're new to ships and just arrived in this channel, this is actually the Navy's 38 Super, people. They are not actually using regular 38s in ships, so no need to be concerned 😂😂
I think the US Navy should have kept the 5"/38 gun through the modern day - update it with modern autoloaders sure, but it had a great rate of fire, a powerful punch and was overall the best 5" weapon we ever put to sea.
The 5"54 Cal system is just superior to the 5"38 in every way. Rate of fire, accuracy and range are all much better on the 54s due to it being a longer barrel, a more powerful propellant charge and a self loader that uses a cartridge system rather than a projectile and powder bag system. It also requires lower staffing level as there is no one in the top of the turret.
I love the 5" guns like the entire family. Now I am curious. Across the pond in the UK. We brits seem to use the 4" gun. Not sure why. I know there is quite the family of guns there. Would love to see some talk about that vs the american 5"
The Brits used a 5.25 inch firing an 80 pound shell. So rate of fire would have been lower than the US 5 inch. After the war with Vanguard they used auto loaders for the 80 pounders giving them the same rate of fire as an American manual loaded 55 pounder.
I was hoping you could clarify something for me. Why couldn't the 51's elevate to engage air targets? It seems like the shells would have been manually loadable.
The Midway class' semi-auto single 5"/54's worked fine. They were sold to Japan for fitting to destroyers when some were removed from the Midway's to make room for angled decks. The automatic Mk 42 mount which came later and was fitted to many classes in the 1950's and 60's was not so great and the rate of fire had to be drastically reduced to make it usable. If you really want terrible the twin 3"/70 was absolute garbage, only fitted to 3 ships IIRC and it only lasted a few years in service. The British version (which saw the most use in Canada) was only a bit better - by cutting the rate of fire in half.
Would be interesting to find out how the US navy came up with the 65lb limit, on the ground side of things 155mm artillery crews are hand loading 100lb shells
My Opinion? Since auto loading didn't exist in WWII, the 5" 38 was almost ideal for those conditions....coupled with the new Proximity Fuse, GREAT AA/Surface weapon. NOW, since ships are not armored, you don't need big shells to penetrate...and the main surface weapons are missiles. So... 5" is enough for AA/Surface/Even Shore Support. (Hard to intimidate some since no one points missiles at anyone....but slew around the gun and have it pointed at your vessel, watching it move up and down with the motion of the ship....it is intimidating.
Makes me think a bit about .38 special vs .357 magnum. Not all .38 revolvers have a cylinder long enough to take the magnum load. I also wonder if there's some concern about the guns themselves being able to take it. Even if you got a .357 into a .38 only gun, you probably wouldn't want to fire it because it wasn't meant to take that kind of pressure. The velocity looks about the same, but you're pushing a round with ~50% more weight to it at the same speed as a lighter one. That's going to take more force, maybe more than what the barrels and breech were meant to.
Which class of Naval AA guns shot down the most Japanese planes in WW2? Light/medium/heavy. I would guess it's between the 40mm bofor and and the 5in gun but I don't recall ever hearing any stats on which gun shot down the most planes.
Yes, to a point. The Mk 45 5"/54 can fire about 19 per minute, compared to a peak of 15 in the 5"/38 per barrel. However, in longer engagements, the autoloader can be fed faster than a tired gun crew can continuously load, so in practice they put about the same number of projectiles downrange over 5 minutes or so.
This isnt a secondary gun, but the USS Hull's modification was sweet. Pint sized destroyer with a 8" (or 6", cant remember) gun. Talk about overcompensating.
Ryan said in the video, they wanted a heavier shell with more stopping power since aircraft and surface vessels were getting sturdier. Such shell didn't fit in the breech of the L/38 gun.
My favorite gun was never mounted on a battleship but should have been in my opinion when the Iowa class was reactivated. The MK45 5"/54cal with the MK86 fire control system would have given the Iowa class a very good dual purpose gun system that is proving itself as a lower cost alternative to missiles when having to defend against drones and even several classes of cruise missiles. The Burke class DDGs have been regularly swatting nuisance Houthi attacks using Mount 51 instead of much more costly missiles. The rate of fire of the mount is between 15 and 20 rounds per minute and good for anti-air up to around 30k feet altitude and out to 8 or so miles from the ship. The MK86 version I was used to could control 2 mounts in tandem (laying 2 mounts on the same target) so NJ could have mounted 2 guns on each side of the ship with a single MK86 in place of one of your current 5" directors. While not ideal this would have been something I would not have said "No" to mounting.
The post-war 3 inch AA guns were newer mounts than early in the war 3 inch guns. These were autoloaded and were radar controlled. The smallest radar proximity fuses made during the war were for 5 inch projectiles and were shrunk in size to fit the 3 inch projectiles either near the end of the war or right after. Overall the 3 inch autoloader had a higher firing rate than the 5 inch guns, and more punch than the 40mm guns. I know that cruisers were getting them post war. The USS Salem museum ship is equipped with them.
Thank you for clarifying a couple of things. I was a Gunner's mate on the U.S.S.Saint Paul.
I did maintenance on one of two 3" 50 caliber deck mounts during the day and stood watch on the 5 inch 38 as we patrolled the coast of Vietnam.
I heard an E-4 explaining the whys of the various designations, such as 5"54, 3"50 etc. Barrel length. For the last 50 years I have assumed that I worked on the 54's. They were 38's. Good weapons, powder and projectile easy to handle.
About a year ago I was texting with another 5" gunner from my division. He was describing the potentially hazardous removal of the powder cannister after a misfire. I had never experienced that. And 50 years later, it made me sit up and pay attention.
I have 2 questions. #1 In a 5"38 turret on the outboard side of either gun port or starboard between either guns and the exterior wall/bulkhead of the turret are there any mechanisms to fire either of those guns? I say no.
I was 1 of 3 people in a 5" turret, ordered by the Chief Gunner to join him. 1 young man (Hawaiian ) crawled up into the gun Captain's seat. You're in a 5" turret with 1 or more weapons loaded, you are (a master chief gunner?) and he saw nothing wrong with a monkey inches from the firing button? The starboard gun did fire just as the Chief stepped over the breach. He missed being crushed by the recoil by maybe 1 second. I believe it was a choreographed event involving the Chief, Hawaiian, fire control and the XO. The Chief was no actor. I believe coordinates were fed into the ship's computer, the gun was loaded, the normal gun crew were gone and it was a simple case of depressing the firing button and with a few minor changes in rudder, when the target came on line the weapon fired. I don't think the Chief or Hawaiian knew exactly when the gun would fire or he wouldn't have come that close to being dead.
#2. I really don't want to know the answer to this unless it's common knowledge.
For instance, through an act of sabotage on the 5" 38's could someone in "fire control" jack with the fuse on a 5" projectile to the point of it exploding after firing but before leaving the barrel?
My regular gun captain went below for mid-rats. I told him as soon as he did they were going to call a firing mission. They did and I did not answer the phone. A cowardly thing to do, yes. But I had doubts about the chain of command. Also remember, I was the guy that had never experienced a misfire.
OSHA maximum weight limit is 50 pounds. One place where I worked in the 80's mandated we lift 100 pounds over our heads. Somebody 😮 called OSHA and they were fined several thousand dollars and the owner launched an investigation to find the person that ratted him out. I had OSHA on speed dial after that. Cool video.
100 lbs over your head is nuts! Even 50lbs over shoulder height is a big strain on your body
Last place I worked had that too
you mean to tell me that osha max is only 50? I feel like this is forgotten knowledge.
Hire Samoans.
When I was on active duty I made a habit of visiting the Company Library to read all the journals. There was a search underway for a new artillery piece to replace the heavy and large footprint 155mm towed howitzers in Marine Corps inventory. One artillery officer suggested putting a 5" 54 barrel on a copy of the Russian 122mm carriage to use in amphibious actions. It made sense since at the time the Navy was still using 5" 54 guns on cruisers and larger. Ammunition would be readily available without undue strain on naval logistics.
My second ship was DDG 5 and I reported aboard as an IC Electrician at the tail end of a long yard overhaul and upgrade in early 1975. Among other things, the ship had been fitted with the latest version of 5-inch/54 mounts and the associated carrier rooms. A warship is totally emptied of weapons during an extended yard period, so after we finished sea trials, we went to the Naval Weapons Station at Earle, New Jersey, for a full load-out.
That facility is essentially just inside Sandy Hook, within sight of New York City. The pier is just over two miles long and the ammo was brought out to us on rail cars. On our Liberty night out, they put us on a gray Navy bus and drove us off the pier to wherever it was we caught public transit into Manhattan.
Anyway, it was a fascinating new experience to sit out there at the end of that pier for a couple of days, and the entire crew would form two lines from the boxcars - one line to the aft magazine and another to the forward magazine. I vividly remember being at the top of the hatch down to forward berthing and the Mt 51 magazine. Same spot, all day long.
You literally stand elbow-to-elbow from the guys on either side of you. You don't move your feet. You twist your body to the right with your arms in a cradle, and the guy on your right lays that 70 lb. projectile gently there. And you twist to your left, and in turn lay it off on that guy's cradle. 800 rounds forward and 800 rounds aft. Of course, there were also 800 powder canisters, only 40 lbs., that followed. But I don't remember it being all that tiring, you weren't really exerting yourself much. But it was definitely a long day on your feet. And I am sure that there were a bunch of guys at the boxcars that had more "handling" to do, same as the ones down in the magazines.
I’ll bet sailors today would find that a real challenge. Seems to be very hard work. You guys were great
The 5”/38 was an amazing weapon. Married to fire control that was state of the art in WWII, and nothing else was close.
The British had some pretty damn good DP AA guns. It took them some time to get the mounts for the 5.25" working, but once they did it was very good.
@@nomar5spaulding while true(and the 5.25 had a better ceiling), the heavier weight associated with the larger gun featured a lower rate of fire. 5”/38 was double.
@williamashbless7904 yeah. It's an engineering trade off.
Rode a DD to Vietnam was right gun powder thrower in mount 51 then moved to projectiles after the guy doing it broke his arm on the edge of the gun tray thousands of rounds!
I would not want to be a Kamikaze facing them.
Having served on a DDG-2 class I always wondered if 5" 38 could be fired out of our 5" 54s. I also searched for a side-by-side comparison, thanks! (FYI our 5" 54 rounds were 72 pounds).
Best looking destroyer ever.
My Uncle served on the Charles F Adams in the early 1970’s. He loved that ship. I wish she could have been saved from being scrapped… Cheers @wilsonle61
@@billbrockman779 Noted Naval Historian Norman Freidman said in his book on US Navy Destroyers that the Adam's class were graceful, balanced ships and lacked the bloating effect modern weapons had on other destroyers of the period. They did have some clean lines. I was aboard DDG-21 from 80 to 84.
The last flush decked destroyers. Great lines!
why not simply lengthen the barrel and use the same ammo
I can’t speak to battleships but I served in the ammunition ship Vesuvius in 1972-73, rearming DDs on the gun line off Vietnam. We passed a whole lot of pallets full of fixed 5in38 and 5in54. It was WWII tech and I had nothing but respect for the sailors who had to control those things in heavy seas.
LOL....Ammunition Ship named for an Italian Volcano. Someone with a sense of humor came up with that....and another one who approved it. LOL!!!
@@krismurphy7711 Except for some Liberty Ships pressed directly into service in WWII, they were ALL named for active volcanoes: Kilauea, Haleakala, Mount Baker, Mount Hood and so on. We understood that the names were to pound the danger of working with explosives into our skulls. Vesuvius was literally a banana boat, purchased from the United Fruit Co. in WWII.
I had the honor of one of my GQ billets aboard Taney being the sight setter for her one remaining 5 inch/38 while she was still in active service. Thanks Ryan for taking care of our country's Historic Ships, You Da' Man Brother!
I would like an in depth presentation of the 12" guns on the Alaska class cruisers.
That would be a good video!
Aren't they just "downsized" 16/54s??? That's what I gathered from what Ive read, or how I read it. That it was based on lessons learned from the Iowa's and the dead in the water Montana.
When I started at the Puget Sound NSY in 1978, there was serious consideration of developing the 8” Mk 71 naval rifle for all future USN ships.
There were 4 or 5 (?) types of projectiles, with rocket assisted, extra long range camera guided projectiles as an option. The payload was around 250 lbs.
There was one built, on the USS Hull. The mount is still around somewhere.
It was so cool working on the 8” Mk 71. There was a wooden mock up of the mount and magazine built by the Wood Shop where the Shipyard Dispensary is now.
The 8” gun was cancelled in late ‘79 as I recall, the shipyard showed us a 12 minute film of the USS Hull shooting a few rounds and then the project was over.
All the blueprints went back to the ordnance folks based out of Louisville, KY.
American guns are 38 caliber while Soviets are 54. During WW2 Americans complained lifting big shells was too much work.
My dad was a first loader on a five inch 38 gun on the destroyer USS Maury DD-401 in the Pacific in World War 2. About 3 years before his death, I had the joy of finding one of the officers on his ship, who told me, "Number 3 was one of our best guns!" After I spoke with him, I arranged for him to call my father, and these two old warriors got to connect and reminisce.
Cool Story
the 54 may be autoloading at the breach but the projectile and propellant are placed into the hoist manually, that was my general quarters station on my Cruiser and i slung A LOT of rounds.
Helped pass plenty of 5" 54 shells on Knox class FF's during VertRep and UnRep. Good exercise.
I "loaded" 5 inch 54 rounds in the magazine on USS Fox CG-33 for 3 years. They told us they weigh 72 pounds. We got a workout while loading during gunnery exercises.
I served on the USS Rathburne DE 1057 from 70 to 73. Our main gun was the 5" 54 Caliber. We used it heavily against NVA in 71 through 72. I recall the gun was very reliable, and highly accurate. Our only downtime was for barrel replacement which was often. Admittedly my memory may be faulty but I'm pretty certain of my claim. I do remember the rounds seemed to weigh a lot during unreps as we had to carry them from the stern to the bow to reach the ammo hoist.
0:52 I was on a 5", 38 cal. in Vietnam - we had 9 in the mount (Pointer, Trainer, 2 gun captains,2 powdermen, 2 projectile men+ the mont captain), 6 in the handling room and 3 in the magazine.
Great video, TY!
This brought back some memories from the 70-80s playing a naval war game called something like seakreig with 1:700 scale lead models. It was pretty fun, but with battleships in the fleet, once the range closed to be able to engage with the secondary armament -- between 10-15 miles -- instead of 18 main gun rounds per minute landing near each ship it was now something like 100 secondary rounds as well. While most 5-6 inch secondary battery rounds will have little effect, a few will hit things that are important even on a battleship and the game ended pretty quickly after that. And if I could bring a couple light cruisers -- South Hampton, Cleveland, or Atlanta types -- into that range as well, even if my battleship took some big hits on the way in, the game was over, so me and my opponent had to divert battleship rounds to knock out escort ships before they could get into range to avoid that.
I don't know that the mechanics of that game system made any sense, and the only similar engagement in WWII that I am aware of was the sinking of the Bismark. But it is unclear in the narratives I have read what damage was done by which category of ship at what time in the engagement.
I'll see if I can find the box with my fleet of 1:700 ships and if I do, I'll send you some pictures.
Thank you for your channel, it is great.
The ship I was decommissioning crew on was USS Glover. We had a 5"38 when decommissioned in 1992. It operated as a USNS ship for a couple years after decommissioning, but I expect that they did something to demil the weapons.
Served on CGN California and did a load out in Yorktown a year after commisioning. The bullets were heavy and had to be man handled from the pallet that a crane set on the deck to the passages where they were sent down to the magazines. Everyone except the Captain, XO and the duty crew was part of the load out. It was amazing to see one of those gun barrels swing on a target going across the travel line of the ship. Kind of reminded me of a baseball slugger looking for a grand slam. I can't see a manually operated gun ever being able to do that.
I was on a shipyard seatrial of one of the DDGs (if I recall correctly), and the test coordinators had the admital's stateroom, which was just behind the 5" gun, as their office. I was there coordinating our testing during gunnery drills. They were firing very irregularly, so you never knew when another *BAM*, with the walls shaking and dust drifting down from the overhead, was going to happen. It was quite difficult to explain what I needed, when the discussion continued through a number of shots!
My division officer was a smug know-it-all, always trying to do things his own way and screwing things up so it took several days to redo it the right way. One day the chief found out there was going to be a "surprise" gunnery drill on the port quarter 5"/54 mount (USS Midway CV-41, 1973 or 1974) with only the thin skin of the hull between it and the division office. At the right time, he sent the division officer to get the paperwork he'd been trying to get the chief to do for several days. Apparently his timing was superb. Chief just looked at him and said, "Don't *$%# with the chiefs, sir." I worked nights, didn't see it, drat.
The USS Louisville CA 28 heavy cruiser had (8) 5 inch 25 caliber single mounts Dual Purpose and with Island Bombardment in the Pacific the ship was close to shore and in between the Main Battery of 8 inch 55 caliber guns firing (The Big Shots) the 5 inch would hammer away. The Marine Division on Louisville manned (2) of the 5 inch mounts. When the 8 inch fired a buzzer would sound and the decks were cleared. My dad who passed in 2017 at age 92 proudly served on the Louisville and witnessed (52) sailors and Rear Admiral Theodore Chandler buried at sea due to 3 kamikaze hits in Pacific. They had an area to stand clear when the Main Battery was fired. Thanks for your video!
One of the ships my dad served on was lha-3 uss belleau wood and it had two 5"/54 mounts, one on both sides of the bowel under the flight deck and had an asroc and a phalanx.
Great job, Ryan. You've come a long way since the early days and your presentation is natural and a pleasure to watch.
I was on a Garcia class fast frigate and we had 5 inch 38 single mount. We had one forward one midship one on the main deck one01 level.
I know alot of of history and have visited the battleship but i think you guys should make a video about what certain guns on the ship did
We should bring back the 8" guns for Cruisers. No more million dollar ammo!
The military/industrial complex does not like that kind of talk!
You forgot the full auto version of the 3" 70 caliber (or 3"L70 in some navies that got our older ships)!
How many shells would a loader be expected to handle in an engagement? Asking because, to me even 66 pounds seems like a lot. I've done concrete jobs with 60-pound ready-mix bags and I'm only good for a dozen or so of those before I start slowing down.
15 rounds per minute, roughly. And air engagements are generally many minutes long.
@@grizwoldphantasia5005 15 per minute was peak, at the second naval battle of Guadalcanal the 5" fired an average of 4 per minute (284 expended out of the starboard batteries including star shells over 7 minutes), though the actual rate varied over the action as they executed slavo fire (51/53 on Kirishima, 55/57 on other targets, 59 firing star shells) to spot the fall of shot.
During Vietnam at one point in New Jersey fired so many rounds that the 5 inch 38 Mounts got clogged. They emptied one of the batteries....
Having served on EDSON, a Forrest Sherman class destroyer, I'm a fan of the 54. Ours were nominally rated at 28 rounds per minute by the time I was on her, but most GMs had little trouble adjusting the timing to get it up to around 32. There was nothing quite like watching the cradle and dual arms moving over and over again to match azimuth and elevation to feed the twin cradles that loaded the gun at full speed. Really impressive.
I've always wondered this, thank you for covering.
While US BB's had either a single type secondary battery of 5"38's or the secondary 5"51/tertiary 5"25's (as designed, cause post 12/7/41 rebuilds are a complete other issue.) Most foreign BB's went with a heavier secondary and lighter tertiary. In these cases, the later battery were mainly AA (while some secondary's had AA capability) as opposed to the pre-dreadnought's A-Z gun selection all for surface targets. For example, the NELSON and RODNEY had twin 6" secondaries and single 4.7's tertiary.
Great video. Thanx for all of the detail in the explanation.
Great episode! I'm a fan and have never heard of the 5in 54 before so it was great to see the evolution. Thank you!
I remember loading amo at Earl in 1962.I live in NC now and fly to NY .Right before you get to NY the plane usually fly right over Earl. They are still loading amo.
Are my favorite secondary guns the 8” mounts on BB-16? No, but they seem wildly impractical and kinda amusing. I’d love to have y’all do a bit more BB-16 content!
80 lbs is a fairly common weight for bags of dry concrete. Carrying/manhandling those will quickly get to you. I speak from personal experience.
addendum: As weird as it sounds, it could be easier to carry 2 of said bags. Balanced you out, one per side. Carrying your own body weight will REALLY get to you quick though. (Over my own weight by 10 or 20 pounds back when I had to do this even)
Did some time in the magazine of a 5 in 54
The USS Hull DD945 was equipped with an awesome forward gun, 8"/55 Mark 71 lightweight mount. The weight of each projectile was 300 plus pounds!
Where will the videos be filmed while NJ is in drydock?
UNDER the New Jersey :)
Once new Jersey is in dry dock the videos will be right here on this channel. But it's still a few weeks out till then
I know it's a long shot,but you think it would be possible to bring Ole Girl to Lake Tahoe for a tour😂
Aswome dedication to preserving History!
Interesting , Thank You .
Thanks!
5”38 fav. Dad was in “X” twin 5” on Shangri La in WW2. He was from Boston so its pronounced “Woo-sta” 😁
OK I have one question what is battleship bowling? And can we get a video on that.
Try bowling with 16'' shells. That requires massive balls.
The 5" 54 cal and the 62 cal use the same round. The 62 cal barrel is 8x5" longer to increase muzzle velocity thus increasing range.
The 54 & 62 caliber 5” guns nowadays are automatic loading guns. I think the only human part is in magazines for reloading them with shells & powder and maintenance.
The 5" gun was developed in the first place as a 'take the average' effort. The Royal Navy and German Navy were trying to develop a proper secondary battery for their ships. The British 6" and German 15cm (5.9") guns had good range and a large shell to do lots of damage but were slow and heavy, making them less effective against fast torpedo boats or Destroyers where the British 4" and German 105mm (4.1") were lighter and faster, making them better at getting shots onto fast targets but those shots were much smaller with a smaller blast effect. The US Navy slit the average and developed the 5"/51 so that it's faster firing than the 6" but with a bigger projectile than the 4". Both japan and the RN tried to improve on this, with 14cm or 5.5" guns and later with the 4.5" and 5.25" but these fell short.
I would like a depth presentation on the 6" 47 cal guns on the AA cruisers.
Those secondary guns that were originally in those casemates on the sides and rear of Texas are interesting, seems most of them were removed very quickly though.
They proved to be mounted too low and were too wet to use if the sea wasn't dead calm. The refit in the 30's moved 6 of them to the superstructure, which were eventually all she had left. Similar refits were done to the Nevadas, with the New Mexicos and following classes being built with them in the superstructure. I looked all that up just now. Say what you want about Wikipedia, it's good for a quick lookup of uncontroversial facts.
"War-chester" class, Ryan? Would that be actually pronounced "Wooster"? It's spelled "Worcester" and the city is only an hour away from where I am in Massachusetts. 😊
Yup this broke my brain a little bit too 🤣
Updating the 5 inch mounts on USS. New Jersey during the Vietnam war. Should've been totally done. By the way, please. I would love to see an example of battleship bowling, please? Gotta see it.
I spent 6 weeks on the Charles F Adams, DDG-2, (or as Ryan called her Charlie Adams) at Mayport as a UVA ROTC Midshipman on my first summer cruise June 1974. Witnessed missile and ASROC launches and chipped paint after the launches. Shot off the forward 5” 54. Remember other midshipmen taking the spent brass with them. Nothing much scarier that a gaggle of midshipmen on the fan tail firing off 45 caliber pistols and rifles.
I was aboard the USS Long Beach during Rimpac 88 with the USS Missouri and USS New Jersey. We conducted an exercise on a hulk ship. The main guns on the BBs were impressive but the sustained 5" fire (sounded like popcorn) was devastating. Nothing modern (thin skinned) could have survived.
All three of my ships used "5in 54" DD-965 CG-54 and DD-991. Most of what I remember was how the elevators almost never worked, and we would carry the rounds and powder hand over hand.
thank god they worked on my ship (CG-71) i was in the forward magazine for General Quarters.
Ditto for Arkansas CGN 41
The 5"/54 is still in use even in modern ships. For example the 7 provinces class of air defense and command frigates of the Dutch navy, launched in the early 2000s, use them.
Ryan, I think it is 5"/62 caliber, not 61. BIW shipbuilder, 37 years seniority.
And they are on newer Burkes and Ticos that went through the cruiser modernization program.
The 5-inch 38 Caliber was no doubt the best secondary gun design in the world at that point. Now though they feel nearly useless.
Also, I'm more into the the Phalanx CIWS, 25MM Bushmaster, and the 30MM secondary guns.
So Ryan, Texas comes out of dry dock tomorrow, fog dependent..... Is New Jersey going to have cams set up for us to watch the operation? Texas has been very interesting during her time in drydock. Thank you!
Im sure Texas will have a video on there channel of her going back in the water
I read that in 1980, the navy still had 750,000 5" 38 rounds in storage.
My understanding is that the design people who would have done the work for building the Montanas were subsequently assigned to the Midway aircraft carrier project.
In WW2, the 5"/38 was about as good as it was going to get for a heavy AA gun - anything much bigger than the 120-127mm caliber was too heavy for manual loading, and autoloading hadn't really gotten reliable enough. That said, autoloading could have seriously changed the game if missiles didn't do it first - OTO Melara built a 127mm/62 gun that can fire 45 rounds per minute (the Italian navy uses it today, so do a few others). Bofors also built a 120mm gun capable of 80 RPM. Either of those, in a lightweight mount, with VT fuzes, would have been a terrifying AA weapon. The longer barrel would mean a higher velocity for shorter time of flight, and the higher ROF would mean that you could more easily bracket a single aircraft, to both get hits more easily, and to get more hits in case one proximity burst didn't do the job.
6" guns capable of elevating to hit aircraft didn't really become useful in time to matter, though again, had missiles not arrived to change the whole game, that might have done so. The MCLWG, had it ever gone into production, might have been interesting to see too - coupled to 1970s fire control, it could engage aircraft too. That said, I think even had missiles, all-weather aircraft, guided bombs and nuclear-powered submarines not changed things, and battleships continued in production into the 70s, I think an 8" gun would have been too big for a secondary battery. (But we might have seen a 155mm secondary on the successors to the Montanas.)
The 5 inch 38 was a deadly weapon. It put the fear of God into Japanese sailors who encountered it and the German defenders found out the hard way what it could do on Omaha beach.
If the Worcester class light cruisers are named after Worcester Massachusetts, then they should be pronounced wo͝ostər, not like how they're spelled.
Yeah, it's "wooster".
If your bowling pins are 55 lbs each, what do you use for the ball?
Don't know, but they probably use one of those baseball pitching machines to send it down the lane.
A 16" shell.
Perhaps some good 'n old cannonballs.
The latest version of the Mk 45 5 inch gun has a 62 caliber long barrel, not 61 as stated in the video.
I always thought they should have had a couple of 8 inch for when the 16 where over kill but the 5 might have been a little under size but that would increase the logistics of supply and other things. Still would have been nice to see
On board DDG73 I was allowed to lift a training round. It was at my then physical limit and the Gunners Mate was worried I would drop it. For easy handling one needs to go down to 3". So if I was going to arm my non existent yacht, 3" would be it
I really like the 8/55 auto
I got the day off to come down to watch you guys move out. Assuming your dock is going to be full, any suggestions on other places to watch from?
Move day, 21 March is best viewed from our pier, or on Olympia across the river from us. We won't pull into the drydock until the 27th and that will be...not that fun to watch. It's like watching paint dry.
If you're new to ships and just arrived in this channel, this is actually the Navy's 38 Super, people. They are not actually using regular 38s in ships, so no need to be concerned 😂😂
The 5" 38 seemed to handle it all
I think the US Navy should have kept the 5"/38 gun through the modern day - update it with modern autoloaders sure, but it had a great rate of fire, a powerful punch and was overall the best 5" weapon we ever put to sea.
The 5"54 Cal system is just superior to the 5"38 in every way. Rate of fire, accuracy and range are all much better on the 54s due to it being a longer barrel, a more powerful propellant charge and a self loader that uses a cartridge system rather than a projectile and powder bag system. It also requires lower staffing level as there is no one in the top of the turret.
Favorite? I've always liked the 5" 51.
What of the 5.25 British dual purpose weapons installed on the British battleships and anti aircraft cruisers ?
I love the 5" guns like the entire family.
Now I am curious. Across the pond in the UK. We brits seem to use the 4" gun.
Not sure why. I know there is quite the family of guns there. Would love to see some talk about that vs the american 5"
The Brits used a 5.25 inch firing an 80 pound shell. So rate of fire would have been lower than the US 5 inch. After the war with Vanguard they used auto loaders for the 80 pounders giving them the same rate of fire as an American manual loaded 55 pounder.
I was hoping you could clarify something for me. Why couldn't the 51's elevate to engage air targets? It seems like the shells would have been manually loadable.
The Midway class' semi-auto single 5"/54's worked fine. They were sold to Japan for fitting to destroyers when some were removed from the Midway's to make room for angled decks.
The automatic Mk 42 mount which came later and was fitted to many classes in the 1950's and 60's was not so great and the rate of fire had to be drastically reduced to make it usable.
If you really want terrible the twin 3"/70 was absolute garbage, only fitted to 3 ships IIRC and it only lasted a few years in service. The British version (which saw the most use in Canada) was only a bit better - by cutting the rate of fire in half.
Would be interesting to find out how the US navy came up with the 65lb limit, on the ground side of things 155mm artillery crews are hand loading 100lb shells
A ship is pitching and rolling, and a turret is more cramped than a towed gun so might be harder to get in a good position for lifting?
My Opinion? Since auto loading didn't exist in WWII, the 5" 38 was almost ideal for those conditions....coupled with the new Proximity Fuse, GREAT AA/Surface weapon. NOW, since ships are not armored, you don't need big shells to penetrate...and the main surface weapons are missiles. So... 5" is enough for AA/Surface/Even Shore Support. (Hard to intimidate some since no one points missiles at anyone....but slew around the gun and have it pointed at your vessel, watching it move up and down with the motion of the ship....it is intimidating.
I think the Coast Guard also uses 5 inch on there Cutters. Did someone Fall in the Ship and needed help getting them out from below decks?
What’s a “war-chester”? Is that similar to a wuh-stah? 😉
Makes me think a bit about .38 special vs .357 magnum. Not all .38 revolvers have a cylinder long enough to take the magnum load. I also wonder if there's some concern about the guns themselves being able to take it. Even if you got a .357 into a .38 only gun, you probably wouldn't want to fire it because it wasn't meant to take that kind of pressure. The velocity looks about the same, but you're pushing a round with ~50% more weight to it at the same speed as a lighter one. That's going to take more force, maybe more than what the barrels and breech were meant to.
Which class of Naval AA guns shot down the most Japanese planes in WW2? Light/medium/heavy. I would guess it's between the 40mm bofor and and the 5in gun but I don't recall ever hearing any stats on which gun shot down the most planes.
War-Chester???
What else would you call Nimitz in war-time?
It’s pronounced just like it’s spelled, “Wuustah”.
I am from the school of thought that the deck must have more potato.
How are the calibers of those guns calibrated?
Can the dual 5/38 fire more rounds per minute than the single 5/54?
Yes, to a point. The Mk 45 5"/54 can fire about 19 per minute, compared to a peak of 15 in the 5"/38 per barrel. However, in longer engagements, the autoloader can be fed faster than a tired gun crew can continuously load, so in practice they put about the same number of projectiles downrange over 5 minutes or so.
So who won the bowling?
Libby - Of Course...
what about the 5"/25 and 5"/51 compared to these?
This isnt a secondary gun, but the USS Hull's modification was sweet.
Pint sized destroyer with a 8" (or 6", cant remember) gun. Talk about overcompensating.
The 5 inches .38 caliber cannon was an all around good weapon system. Why replace what is not broken?
Ryan said in the video, they wanted a heavier shell with more stopping power since aircraft and surface vessels were getting sturdier.
Such shell didn't fit in the breech of the L/38 gun.
@@ottaviobasques I heard that. At the time of outfitting these secondary batteries were sufficient. This is my comment. Thanks.
⚓️
Judging by the Navy's use of the guns, I say it is hard to beat the 38, or 54 with autoloader.
In terms of the 5 inch gun, for example. What does the “caliber” refer to?
Length of the barrel
My favorite gun was never mounted on a battleship but should have been in my opinion when the Iowa class was reactivated.
The MK45 5"/54cal with the MK86 fire control system would have given the Iowa class a very good dual purpose gun system that is proving itself as a lower cost alternative to missiles when having to defend against drones and even several classes of cruise missiles.
The Burke class DDGs have been regularly swatting nuisance Houthi attacks using Mount 51 instead of much more costly missiles. The rate of fire of the mount is between 15 and 20 rounds per minute and good for anti-air up to around 30k feet altitude and out to 8 or so miles from the ship.
The MK86 version I was used to could control 2 mounts in tandem (laying 2 mounts on the same target) so NJ could have mounted 2 guns on each side of the ship with a single MK86 in place of one of your current 5" directors. While not ideal this would have been something I would not have said "No" to mounting.
Ok now for a uno reverse card. Could 5/54 use a 5/38 shell
NO!
Didn't the U.S. navy also use 3 inch AA guns as well after WW II. I know that some Aircraft Carriers had them in duel mounts after the war.
The post-war 3 inch AA guns were newer mounts than early in the war 3 inch guns. These were autoloaded and were radar controlled. The smallest radar proximity fuses made during the war were for 5 inch projectiles and were shrunk in size to fit the 3 inch projectiles either near the end of the war or right after. Overall the 3 inch autoloader had a higher firing rate than the 5 inch guns, and more punch than the 40mm guns. I know that cruisers were getting them post war. The USS Salem museum ship is equipped with them.
My favorite battleship activity is smoking in the powder room (i don’t actually smoke)
Why was there never a switch to 155mm to streamline ammunition productions?
Imagine, the Army & Navy both using the same of anything???? That make wayWayWAY too much sense!