@@TM_2024GO not really, yeah it was bigger and had more armor, but it had a very basic (even for the time) radar set, visual only fire director, horrible aa guns, japan didnt at the period have all of the necessary requirements to keep it completely battle effective, its steel was also not as good as american steel, and its final major problem is that it could never in its lifetime fit through the panama canal meaning if they ever wanted to go to the atlantic (for some reason) they would either have to go past africa or south africa which were both guaranteed to sink the ship due to the high presence of allied ships.
These days, 8 inch (203mm) guns are the biggest of practical use. Post WW2 analysis of the effects of various shore bombardments also found the 8 inch guns to be the most efficient overall, with 6 and 8 inch guns in the sweet spot between volume of fire and impact effects for shore targets. Very few targets required hits by larger guns but the impacts of 16 inch shells was nevertheless impressive. Larger guns of the time did suffer from reduced accuracy however and often made massive craters off target, partly due to firing from extreme ranges away from shore. Smaller guns of less than 6 inches were also used but had to get fairly close to shore to be in effective range, putting them in range of artillery on land to shoot back. They also frequently failed to penetrate fortified bunkers.
I wonder if an LLDR which is " laser locator designator range finder" could bring a big gun like any on this list, inline with an intended target and get the crater to be the target. I'm not talking about " during the war" I'm just talking about as a current tech meets old tech mashup. Danger close for 8 inch guns is1,000 meters. Bigger means double that distance. It would be one HELL of a show for sure.
Furious only ever had the one gun carried in her aft turret, her forward turret was replaced by a flying-off deck whilst she was still under construction.
@@bernardtimmer6723 According to my resources, mainly the Conway naval history books, the decision to convert Furious was taken whilst her forward turret was still under construction and the 18” gun still ashore and the turret was never actually installed.
@@mrjockt Thankyou, I won't argue with Conway, no doubt, you are right. And whatever source I had was wrong. It does explain why the first flightdeck was before the bridge and only after was the aft deck created...
Gun #4 was never mounted on a warship. They were to be installed on the South Dakota-class (1920) battleships and Lexington-class battlecruisers. However, all those ships were cancelled by the Washington Naval Treaty and all ships were scrapped early in their construction. Only Lexington and Saratoga, both of the Lexington-class, survived as aircraft carrier conversions.
I lean towards the 16"/50 Mark 7 since I served on the Big J BB-62 and the Mighty Mo BB-63. Here's a fact for Ya'll the average weight of 1-barrel is 237,125 Lbs
im a war nut, so when she said "10 largest naval guns ever made" before she could even finish the sentence i said that the Yamato was gonna be number 1. cus the Yamato still to this day was and is the BIGGEST battleship ever made, with the LARGEST guns ever used in a a naval conflict. for size, the KMS Bismarck is dwarfed by the IJN Yamato. they are both Battleships, and the Yamato was so large it was classed as a "Super Battleship" only three other ships have that title. and they are again sisters to the IJN Yamato.
1 other ship her sister musashi, they only ever completed 2 of the 3 planned and the 3rd was cancelled and converted to an aircraft carrier named Shinano.
Two of My Uncles went ashore at Normandy. One on Omaha the Other Utah. Both said the sweetest thing they saw were American destroyers that looked like they were coming ashore firing those 5”38’ as fast as possible.
Errors 1) left off the British built 17.72 inch guns mounted on two Italian pre dreadnaught battleships. 2) You left out the 20 inch Dahlgren guns built for the US Navy's monitors during the civil war. 3)depending on how you calculate biggest they're out of order. Was it mere bore diameter? That gives an edge to early and much smaller 16.25 and 17.72 inch late 1800's, and the US Navy's 20 inch guns would be the "biggest". If you calculate by bore diameter x caliber or bore diameter+caliber it's more accurate. If you add bore and caliber the US 16/50 caliber is a total of 66, the Japanese 18.1/45 caliber is a total of 63.1. factoring in caliber along with bore diameter removes the older guns. 4) the term "caliber" in naval artillery is calculated by length of barrel ÷ diameter of bore. So by caliber the highest caliber guns ever mounted on a battleship would be the 1.1/70 or the Japanese 25mm/70 since they are 70 caliber.
@@metaknight115 I was calculating "biggest" by adding bore diameter of 18.1 plus 45 caliber which gives a ranking of "63.1" call it "points". That's a better way to calculate "biggest"
@@chrissmith2114 when referring to rifle and machine gun caliber, you would be correct. (Ie. A .50 cal M2 has a bore diameter of 1/2 inch) However,when dealing with large-bore (basically anything above 1" bore diameter) cannon the term "caliber" refers to the length of the barrel. Example: a "12 inch, 50 caliber cannon" (12"/50) has a barrel 50 feet long. It's 12" diameter (1 foot) x 50 caliber. Welcome to the confusion that is naval artillery 🤣 Edit: Oh, and you are correct, the same bore diameter cannon will commonly use similar weight shells with minor variation based on their design. However, to add further confusion the 16"/45 guns used on the Colorado class ships couldn't fire the 2,700lb "super heavy" AP shells used on the North Carolina and South Dakota class ships even though the later ships also had 16"/45 guns. (It was a matter of the length of the shell and compatibility with the loading system.)
@@erichammond9308 It is also likely that in order to move the heavier shells that it needed higher pressure that the older mark guns were not able to safely handle without breaking or wearing out a lot quicker. But also the loading mechanism was probably not designed to handle the increased weight of the shell or worth the effort of an upgrade for it.
Why is the italian Duillio -class with their 45 cm guns not mentioned? simply forgotten or no space left after showing all 40,6 and 40,6 cm guns or because no british or american ship ?
Biggest is still the Yamato’s, and its’ sister ship Musashi, that had 18” guns. Next in line is the Iowa-class with its’ 16” guns. I was able to board the New Jersey when it came to the Bay Area for a port-of-call. Those guns are flat-out huge.
@@ssss-e2m8s for such a small country, limited industrial capacity, lacking natural resources and just started industrialization in 1868 or just 52 years before WW2, Japan did the impossible of overcoming all of these limitations and circumstances and still built the most powerful ship of them all.
Well, it seems you are focused only on UK, USA ad Japan; mentioning the HMS Victoria class, you open the door to other navy and ships, like the Italian Duilio and Italia classes. The first had 4 x 450/20 guns, the second 4x431/27.
Weren't the Nelsons' guns firing "light weight" shells at higher velocity (for a 16"/45), also, the barrel life issue were worked out during the interwar period, and I would consider them well performing guns, unless you don't think "well performing" includes slamming through the faceplate of Bismarck's Bruno turret (the blast blowing the back off the turret, killing the bridge staff and knocking out Anton turret and nearly setting the forward main magazine off Jutland style), as well as penetrating her conning tower and main belt armor.
@@hansfitting5019 Reminder, I said Nelsons' not Nelson's, I was referring to the class as a whole, which includes Rodney and her performance against Bismarck
You missed the German warship guns, such as the Bismarck and Tirpitz. The Bismarck's and Tirpitz's main battery consisted of eight 38 cm (15 in) SK C/34 guns in four twin turrets, Anton and Bruno in a superfiring pair forward of the superstructure and Caesar and Dora aft.[30] The turrets allowed elevation to 30°, which gave the guns a maximum range of 36,520 m (39,940 yd). The guns fired 800 kg (1,800 lb) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 820 meters per second (2,690 ft/s).[31] The main battery was supplied with between 940 and 960 shells total, for approximately 115-120 shells per gun.
The mk 6 16" gun on the South Dakota class battleships were only 45 caliber they used the same guns as the North Carolina class. The only 16" 50 caliber guns were only ever mounted on the Iowa class battleships.
@@battleship821 those South dakotas were never built and the lexintons were never fitted with them so either way the gun doesn't belong in a video about guns that were mounted on warships
@@toothedacorn4724 I was also surprised to see the proposed guns for the Lexington BATTLE CRUISERS and the Pre-Washington Naval Treaty South Dakota class designs mentioned here, especially with the disclaimer up front that they were only going to do guns that were actually mounted. I guess they didn't do their research very well. I am shocked...
The big whiskey is berthed in Norfolk and if you drive down the street approaching it, you stare right into those 16 inch front guns. She’s a beautiful ship and is now a museum and I’ve been on her multiple times.
I just visited the Iowa at the end of January. It was amazing. Hopefully I get to see the Wisconsin one day, tho N. Carolina or Alabama are next on my list.
One point of order, caliber for naval artillery is not the internal diameter of the barrel but the length. For example the Iowa class have 16" 50 Caliber barrels, which are 50 times as long as their internal diameter (ie the barrel length is 50x16"). The older 16" guns used by US Battleships are 45 caliber. this is the one case where there is such a thing as a 50 caliber gun, rather than a .50 caliber gun. Note Yamato had 46 caliber barrels, but due to the larger diameter barrel, they're still about 2' longer than the 16"/50 Mk7 gun on the Iowa class
Calibre DOES still refer to the internal bore of the barrel on naval guns. Barrel lengths for larger weapons across all the armed services are usually given in multiples of the gun's calibre. For example the infamous 88mm gun of the Tiger 1 is the Kwk 36 88mm/L56, meaning the barrel minus its breech block, was 56x88mm = 4928mm or 4.928 meters long.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 The caliber of the Iowa guns are 16"/50 Caliber. The diameter and the length are both part of the caliber of the gun. It is extremely important to make sure that rounds do not get sent to the wrong ship. The caliber 16"/45 of the South Dakota shells would be a problem if sent to the Iowa instead.
@@akihitokoizumi2474 The Barrel length is also of primary importance for the performance of the gun. Want your shell to travel faster and further? Then increase the propellant charge. Forget to lengthen the barrel at the same time? Then watch as all that lovely added explosive energy simply makes a larger bang out of the end of the barrel with resultant extra volumes of blast & smoke. For the extra energy to be imparted to the shell the barrel length needs to be increased to lengthen the amount of time that the channelled energy is focussed onto the base of the shell. The greater length of the rifling inside the extended barrel also improves the gyroscopic spin on the shell and therefore increases the relative accuracy of the shell.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Umm... why are you telling me this? The caliber of the gun being 16inch diameter + 50 calibers long = the size or caliber of the gun and also 16inch multiplied by 50 = the length of the gun tube. Why do you think I do not know why going from the 16"/45 to the 16"/50 made a huge improvement to range and penetration? They use both diameter and length of the gun because that defines the guns characteristics.
I had the opportunity to visit Pointe Du Hoc and witness, firsthand, the ungodly damage battleship bombardments can dish out. One of the German artillery bunkers (approx. 2m thick reinforced concrete) took a direct hit from the Texas' 14" guns through the front opening which detonated the ammunition stored in the rear. The resulting crater was about fifteen feet/five meters deep with half of the bunker's concrete at the bottom. The other half was approximately 150 feet/50 meters across a field. There were hundreds of smaller craters scattered throughout the rest of the field from various bombs and naval artillery shells. It's amazing how the Germans survived enough to put up a fight against the Rangers.
Inaccurate. Which is just what I expected. It was to be assumed that the producer would only look at the most "popular" or well known guns. Instead of claiming this was about the biggest naval guns "ever" mounted on a ship, they should have titled it "Biggest naval guns of specifically those countries that everyone assumes had big navies", or else done more research. So, what about the 17.7" mounted on the Italian battleships Duilio and Dandolo? Or the 17" mounted on Italia and Lepanto? Those were bigger than 8 out of the 10 on this list.
Can anyone verify if that photo of the Yamato class firing it's 46cm'ers is a real photo? I thought that I've seen every photo take of the Yamato's and this hasn't appeared in any publication that I've ever seen.
Unfortunately a lot of Japanese documents were destroyed at the end of the war to prevent them getting into allied hands, special care was given to files and pictured involving the yamatos
@@HunterSteel29 What’s even more impressive is a blurry photo of Yamato firing her main guns in anger against American escort carriers (most likely directly at the USS White Plains, a ship she would hit from 20 miles) during the battle off Samar
I am trying to figure out how the US 16"/50 Mk2 gun, a gun that was never deployed, ranks higher than the US 16"/50 Mk6 deployed on the Iowa class??? I think someone didn't do their research...
Funny story concerning the 18.1" gun mounted on HMS Lord Clive. It was scheduled to bombard Turkish forces confronting the allied landing at Gallipoli. The first time the gun was fired, the over pressure created by the blast, blew out every pane of glass ( including portholes) on the ship. As well as drinking glasses and bottles in the mess and galley area It also shattered the glasses the captain was wearing. The ship stayed on station though, and managed to heave about 14 more of the monstrous shells in the enemies general direction.
#2 was actually mount on HMS Furious. One gun was mounted in the aft part of the ship, and only removed when that area had a second flight deck added. This flight deck was unsatisfactory because of turbulence caused by the superstructure.
The caliber of artillery is determined by barrel length, not bore size. Most people are confused by this. Bore size is measured in inches or MM. Two 16-inch guns can have different calibers depending on barrel length.
What about the Armstrong 100 ton guns. It was a 450mm rifled muzzle loading gun. There was the Elswick 432mm/26 guns. These were breach loads sold to Italy. There were also the BL 16.25" naval guns.
A fairly simplistic and somewhat incorrect account of large-caliber naval guns. The discussion of the 16 inch guns of the Nelson and Rodney makes no sense whatsoever, while the information on the 16"/45 caliber guns of the North Carolina and South Dakota classes is largely wrong except for the muzzle velocity of 2300 feet per second when firing a 2700 pound armor-piercing shell. The high-capacity shell weighed 1900 pounds with a muzzle velocity of either 2635 feet per second or 2525 feet per second, depending on the desire to reduce barrel wear. The 16"/50 caliber gun on the Iowa-class used the same projectiles. The 16"/50 caliber Mark 2 guns were never mounted on any U.S. Navy ship and were turned over to the U.S. Army for use as coast artillery guns. The German 38 centimeter gun mounted on the Bismarck and Tirpitz fired a light-weight 38 centimeter 1764 pound armor-piercing round at 2690 feet per second. By comparison, the British WW2 15 inch armor-piercing round weighed 1938 pounds, while the WW1 armor-piercing round weighed 1920 pounds. The British gun was also extremely accurate with its lower velocity heavy-weight round. The British gun was listed as a 42 caliber piece. It might be noted that the 14 inch guns carried on the British King George the Fifth battleships fired a 1590 pound heavy-weight armor-piercing projectile, and was a very powerful gun. The USS Massachusetts scored a hit on the French battleship Jean Bart during the North African invasion which penetrated a total of 8.82 inches of deck, including a 15 centimeter (5.9 inch) armor deck before bursting in an empty 6 inch magazine. The USS Washington and USS South Dakota engaged the Japanese battleship Kirishima during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in November of 1942 and wrecked her with at least nine 16 inch shells hits. Two of the British 16.25 inch guns still exist in the wreck of the HMS Victoria off of Tripoli, Lebanon, sunk in one of the most notorious collisions in naval history in 1893. The U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Intelligence kept a running total of the number of 16,25 inch guns that burst during practice firing. Quite simply, a very poor gun, and the British wisely did not make any more. You did miss the 450 centimeter (17.7 inch) guns of the Italian Dandolo-class battleships and the 434 centimeter (17 inch) guns of the Italia-class ships. As those guns were designed and built by the English, the English measurements are the most accurate. For those interested in a very good study of World War 2 naval armament, I would highly recommend Naval Weapons of World War Two by John Campbell. For World War One, I would recommend Naval Weapons of World War One by Norman Friedman. Edit Note: The British 16.25 inch gun was also mounted on the HMS Benbow, one of the Admiral Class of pre-dreadnoughts. The ship carried one gun forward and one gun aft in what were called open barbette mount. You can see images of the ship on Wikipedia.
Yeah the most damaging hit on an axis battleship during the war I think, sealed Bismarck's fate right at the start. Could hardly miss though as these guns were very accurate, and sniping Tigers later in the war really drove the point home regarding accuracy. So the RN's 16" seem pretty decent. The 15"42's of Warspite, though old, were also extremely accurate, hitting an Italian battleship at 26,000 yards, a record long range hit, which she shared with Scharnhorst. Speaking of Scharnhorst, the RN's 14" gun was also pretty decent, from around 11,000 yards during an arctic storm the Duke of York, using radar fire control, hit and disabled the front turret starting fires which meant both forward magazines had to be flooded, reducing Scharnhorst's lethality considerably. She went down hard though and put up a hell of a fight. She had almost got away but one of DofY's last salvos did severe damage in a boiler room and her speed dropped. After that, she had no chance. Seems the Royal Navy knew what they were doing! I do like The Scharnhorst though, it was a pain in the arse and almost made it to 1944.
'Calibre' when used to describe Naval guns and all other large bore guns is in reference to the barrel length, so for each calibre is one bores length so a 16" 50 calibre gun means the barrel is 50x 16" so 800" long or 50 calibre.
@@brucelytle1144 it annoying isn't it, she does explain what calibre means about mid way but fails to address the fact they've been using the term wrong in the rest of the video and promptly continue to call the bore diameter as calibre.
@@nerdyali4154 What? A 5" 38 Caliber rifle is a lot different than a 5" 54 Caliber! They are the same bore size, yet the barrel of a 38 CALIBER barrel is (let me do the math, stand by.. ) 190", while the 54 CALIBER barrel is 270" long! That said, I have no direct knowledge right now about the powder load or projectile weights for either, I can tell you from experience that you don't wanna drop a 5"/38 powder case or projectile on your foot, unless you have steel toed boots! My (semi educated) brain says that a 54 caliber gun will fire a higher velocity projectile than a 38 caliber gun. Bore is one thing, the other is velocity out of the barrel. It's that E=MC^2 thingy coming in to play...
Fact is that the largest shots ever fired from a naval gun in anger were from the British 18 inch guns which fired the heaviest projectiles ever fired from a warship in action.
The Yamato Gun Turret was so heavy, for comparison: A Fletcher Class Destroyer had a weight of around 2500 Tons, while the Gun Turret has a weight of 2700 Tons
Actually there were a 20 inch (about 500MM )naval British gun that was on the design paper after ww1 and they were going to build, but they stop the program
And Yamato could have very well best that record by hitting the escort carrier White Plains from a distance of 33,000 yards (although this is somewhat unconfirmed, as sources vary on whether it was a hit or a damaging near miss)
"A couple meters" There wasn't a range finder or radar set in the world at that time that was accurate enough to tell that, until you can get someone to go back in time and measure the distance this isn't a hill worth dying on
@@GaryJones69420 still doesnt change that its Scharnhorsts Record when she hit Glorious in June '40 amd Warspite only tied with her a month later. The Allies just like to deny Scharnhorst being the actual Record Holder, simply bc she's a Kriegsmarine Ship, in the end hitting a moving target while moving yourself is basically impossible and both did it anyways
I believe the German 15 inch, 55 caliber guns mounted on both Bismarck and Tirpitz were larger and more powerful than the British 15 inch guns in this video. However, the 15 inch dual mount British gun and turret were very efficient, with a high rate of fire, served for the longest period, and as noted, scored the longest distance hit on another battleship.
Its not just about caliber. American 16" guns had higher elevation than many and high velocity, plus ecellent fire control. An Iowas shells were more than equal in hitting power to Yamato and Musashis 18" guns.
Anyone who is into guns is familiar with foot-pounds of energy. It’s a measurement of how powerful a handgun or rifle is. Most handguns have around 300-600 ft-lbs of energy. Most rifles have 1500-3000ft-lbs of energy. The muzzle energy on number nine, the 16” gun (just a random one I calculated) is 207,761,247 ft-lbs of energy (282,000,000 joules). That is INSANE. THEN, there’s the explosive charge. Just wild amounts of power. That cannon is about 600,000 times more powerful than a 9mm handgun.
In naval guns the "caliber" relates to the length of the barrel in reference to the bore, ie a 15inch bore in a 50 "caliber" the barrel length is 15 inches x 50.
#4 the 16"/50 Mk. 2 was NEVER mounted on a ship. The ships it was intended for were either never built or were converted to Aircraft carriers during the building process because of the Washington Naval treaty.
Since you included the 110-ton 16¼ inch gun of the Sans Pareil class, you should have included the 17 inch (431 mm) BL and 17.7 inch (450 mm) of the Italian battleships of the Duilio and Dandolo classes of the 1880s. They also were never fire in action, nonetheless their existence gave the Royal Navy the incentive to develop a larger piece - which became the unsuccessful 110 ton gun. Regards, Brian
The North Carolina and South Dakota class fired 2,700lb "super heavy" armor piercing 16" shells from their 16"/45 naval rifles. The older 16" guns of the Colorado class couldn't use the super heavy shells because their loading equipment couldn't accommodate their size and weight. The video is incorrect. The Iowa class also used the 2,700lb super heavy AP shells, but the Iowas had 16"/50 guns which accelerated them a bit faster.
Yup, it never received its main arament I think Because the ships were still very early in its construction phase I don't think the barbetts was installed yet for lexington or Saratoga by the time the conversion order came in after the Washington naval treaty.
None of the ships armed with 16 inch guns before the North Carolina class used the super heavy ap shells. The hoists for the shells couldn't handle them.
the US 16/50 for the battlecruisers and the early Sodak class never went to sea .....The navy kept swapping guns (one beord team had a 18/47 that they sleeved down to 16/56 that they REALLY wanted to mount and a second team had the comparatively more sensible 16/50 that would have probably been much more reliable) and still hadnt made a decision when the Washington Treaty ended the old South Dakota class and forced the battlecruisers to become the carriers Lexington and Saratoga.
Just addendum here the 16/45 mk6 and the 16/50 mk7 could fire the mk8 "super" heavy AP shell that weighed at 2,700lbs. 5:40 the 16/50 mk2 was never mounted on a warship.
As do most people. Unfortunately, because of those who do not share the same preference, we must always be prepared to defend ourselves, or suffer the consequence of being victims.
@@johnkoenig326 Pacifism is a privilege of the protected. They can exercise their pacifism because they are sheltered by those who would defend them. “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.” - Benjamin Franklin, 1759. “If you look like a rabbit, and act like a rabbit, you will be treated like a rabbit - prey for all predators.” - Stony Loft “The pen is mightier than the sword, only if the sword is kept sharp, and the man that writes with the pen is willing and able to fight with the sword!” - Don Cross “Tis true that the pen is mightier than the sword, but far more have died for want of a sword than will die for lack of a pen.” - Curtis Mohr “Tis better to be armed and never need to be than to be unarmed and need to be armed.” - Jeff Cooper
It was no exaggeration to say that the design of a battleship was determined by the size of its main gun. And the size of the main gun was determined in order to shoot through the main armor of battleships that would be operated by countries considered to be virtual enemies. In this video, you will see a lot of 16-inch main guns, but this is due to the restrictions set by the treaty. At the time, it was necessary to set a design limit in order to limit the number of battleships owned, and the 16-inch size corresponded to that limit, which is why the treaty limited the number of battleships equipped with this size of main gun per country. For a while, this 16-inch main gun was the world standard and the pinnacle, so the seven battleships equipped with this gun were called the "Big Seven. The main guns of the Yamato class battleships were designed in anticipation of the withdrawal from the treaty and were developed to penetrate the main armor of the main battleships of the US Navy from a long distance. The Yamato class battleships are also equipped with main armor that cannot be penetrated by a direct hit from its own main guns at close range, in anticipation of future threats. On the other hand, the Iowa class battleships countered by using heavy shells with high accuracy. As a result, to this day, the debate over how a direct battle between the Yamato class battleships and the Iowa class battleships would end is complicated. There are childish arguments that the Iowa class battleships can easily compete with the Yamato class battleships, using an example of a test in which the U.S. penetrated the armor plates of the Yamato class battleships (although this is meaningless because the test was conducted at close range, which is impossible in an actual battle), and there are also arguments that the Iowa class battleships cannot win the battle unless both sides get so close that they are disabled, which means that the battle is not clearly settled. The other argument is that the battle will end without both sides sinking, since there will be no clear resolution unless both sides get close enough to disable the battle. In any case, both the Yamato and Iowa class battleships will go down in history as the last great battleships to leave their mark. The technology to manufacture the main guns of battleships has already been lost.
The Mark 7 16” 50 Caliber, Lightweight naval rifles mounted on the IOWA class are probably the finest artillery ever devised. Ballistically equivalent to the 18” on the YAMATOs.
Make no mistake, the mk 7, 16/50cal was superior to the 18/45 aboard Yamato. Especially when firing a 2700lb AP shell, which was only 500lb less than the Yamato's. Even the Mk-6 16/45 was better than the Yamato's guns. Both the Mk-7 and Mk-6 had higher rates of fire, were far more accurate than the Yamato's guns, and could fire the 2700lb super heavy AP shells accurately out to ranges that exceeded the 17 mile effective range of Yamato's guns (but that's more of a fire control advantage since the theoretical range of Yamato's guns was limited by obsolete optical fire control systems, and at anything beyond 17 miles the Yamato would require a spotter plane to correct the fall of shot. Needless to say that the US would have quickly shot down a slow moving spotter plane)
Nope, Yamato's guns were better in every way. They could penetrate up to 20-inches of steel, as where Iowa could only penetrate up to 18-inches of steel. Iowa's shells were equipped with 40.9 pound bursting charges, while Yamato's shells were equipped with 74.6 pound bursting charges. Iowa had a shell dispersion of 600-800 yards at 23.6 miles, compared to Yamato's shell dispersion of 440-550 yards at 26.1 miles, etc. Iowa only at longer ranges had a marginal advantage in rate of fire (a uniform 30 seconds for Iowa, and between 28 to 35 seconds for Yamato, depending on the range).
@@metaknight115 That would be wrong. The Mark 7s had nearly the ballistic performance and at considerably lesser weight. Shot to shot dispersion is ambiguous at best. Real accuracy is determined by fire control, radar and optics. The Iowa’s Mark 1 fire control computer with the DR-810 fire control radar in each turret, made the Iowa’s guns the most accurate in the world. You also have to account for plunging penetration as well as side penetration. There’s tons of data on the web.
It said the 16/45 was used on the north carolina class and the subsequent south dakota class. Then they said the 16/50 was used on the Iowa class. Later that say the 16/50 was used on the south dakota class and lexington class battle cruisers (the Lexington was converted to a CV before guns were mounted). So much is wrong here.
The term 'caliber' - when applied to large guns - is the length of the barrel divided by the diameter of the bore. When applied to small arms - it only describes the diameter of the bore when using decimal inches. There is no such thing as a 9mm caliber round.
Ansaldo 15/50, German Sk34, French 15 /45 guns. All heavier than British 15 BL42. Yamato Guns was the heaviest and greater guns in all related aspects, ever mounted and saw some war action. The American 16/50 (the model at 850m/s) gun was never mounted in any ship as far as I know... sadly reports.
Any gun design is going to have to balance shell weight/penetration at battle range/velocity at battle range/barrel life. Differences in muzzle velocity decay at battle ranges. Relining barrels takes your ship out of service for weeks. You can't have it all, even if you're American - you have to compromise somewhere.
You are talking about the 16" mark 7 of the Iowa class in the past tense. This is not correct. All four battleships are still preserved as museum ships and have still their guns. And these are the most recent used ones of this list, because the Iowas were reactivated in the late 80s and only decomissioned in the 90s.
We all know that the 45 cal 18.1 inch gun of the Yamato is better than the 50 cal 16 inch gun of the Iowa, but how would the 50 cal 16 inch gun fair against the 40 cal 18 inch gun of the Furious?
The 18in/40 was a shore bombardment weapon and built in 1917 its a pretty unfair comparison, the 16inch can about 20.5 inches of cemented armour at 15000yards, while 18 inch can do just 18 inches, that said the bursting charge of the two rounds are vastly different a mere 40.9 lbs for the 16 inch and 119 lbs for the 18 inch.
@@toothedacorn4724 Interesting. Furious's guns fired larger, heavier shells with more kinetic energy, but Iowa's guns were faster, more modern, and had a much higher rate of fire. However, I do find it hard to believe that Iowa's guns could penetrate 20.5 inches of steel, though. If they could, then I could only imagine the damage that Yamato's guns could do.
@@metaknight115 armour isn't quiet as simple as raw penetration, ships are normally at an angle and 15000 yards is something of a shorter range, unfortunately the best source I have only has that range for the 18 inch due to its short service life
As an American, you just know when you click on this video that the US was either going to own the biggest gun or have sunk the biggest gun.
Or both
Yamato is still better than us ships
@@TM_2024GO
At what being a anchor
@@TM_2024GO not really, yeah it was bigger and had more armor, but it had a very basic (even for the time) radar set, visual only fire director, horrible aa guns, japan didnt at the period have all of the necessary requirements to keep it completely battle effective, its steel was also not as good as american steel, and its final major problem is that it could never in its lifetime fit through the panama canal meaning if they ever wanted to go to the atlantic (for some reason) they would either have to go past africa or south africa which were both guaranteed to sink the ship due to the high presence of allied ships.
@@rider4440 All true.
American battleships were simply faster and had better technology overall
These days, 8 inch (203mm) guns are the biggest of practical use. Post WW2 analysis of the effects of various shore bombardments also found the 8 inch guns to be the most efficient overall, with 6 and 8 inch guns in the sweet spot between volume of fire and impact effects for shore targets. Very few targets required hits by larger guns but the impacts of 16 inch shells was nevertheless impressive. Larger guns of the time did suffer from reduced accuracy however and often made massive craters off target, partly due to firing from extreme ranges away from shore. Smaller guns of less than 6 inches were also used but had to get fairly close to shore to be in effective range, putting them in range of artillery on land to shoot back. They also frequently failed to penetrate fortified bunkers.
I wonder if an LLDR which is " laser locator designator range finder" could bring a big gun like any on this list, inline with an intended target and get the crater to be the target. I'm not talking about " during the war" I'm just talking about as a current tech meets old tech mashup. Danger close for 8 inch guns is1,000 meters. Bigger means double that distance. It would be one HELL of a show for sure.
Heavy cruisers could make a comeback and basically take the old battleship roles.
Are these types of weapons not obsolete? Especially with the accuracy of today’s weapons.
@@jellyfish1333 nope because shells are cheaper than missiles. they have their niche uses.
if that was the case why didn't kept the heavy cruiser class around. modern destroyers are close to heavy cruiser tonnage.
the 18 inch british gun was also on HMS Furious before it got turned into a aircraft carrier, it had 2 of the guns
Furious only ever had the one gun carried in her aft turret, her forward turret was replaced by a flying-off deck whilst she was still under construction.
They mentioned furious, though they used the word battlecruiser to describe her so you may have missed it
@@mrjockt as far as I know the forward turret was placed during construction but removed soon after to use the space as a temporary flightdeck.
@@bernardtimmer6723 According to my resources, mainly the Conway naval history books, the decision to convert Furious was taken whilst her forward turret was still under construction and the 18” gun still ashore and the turret was never actually installed.
@@mrjockt Thankyou, I won't argue with Conway, no doubt, you are right. And whatever source I had was wrong. It does explain why the first flightdeck was before the bridge and only after was the aft deck created...
Gun #4 was never mounted on a warship. They were to be installed on the South Dakota-class (1920) battleships and Lexington-class battlecruisers. However, all those ships were cancelled by the Washington Naval Treaty and all ships were scrapped early in their construction. Only Lexington and Saratoga, both of the Lexington-class, survived as aircraft carrier conversions.
And while those ships did go to sea with 8" cruiser guns, they were removed in favor of the 5"/38 dual purpose gun in Saratoga in 1942.
I lean towards the 16"/50 Mark 7 since I served on the Big J BB-62 and the Mighty Mo BB-63. Here's a fact for Ya'll the average weight of 1-barrel is 237,125 Lbs
Thank you for your service. I have been on both if these ships and they are unbelievable. The size of these vessels are staggering.
@@nicholasmazzarella2720
And I miss them every day. Thank you.
That’s amazing. Have you visited the ship since it was decommissioned?
@@metaknight115
Sadly no. I watch videos of Ryan and Libby from the Big J BB62 museum to see her.
I also served on the Big J. ‘83-‘87. G4 Div.
im a war nut, so when she said "10 largest naval guns ever made" before she could even finish the sentence i said that the Yamato was gonna be number 1. cus the Yamato still to this day was and is the BIGGEST battleship ever made, with the LARGEST guns ever used in a a naval conflict. for size, the KMS Bismarck is dwarfed by the IJN Yamato. they are both Battleships, and the Yamato was so large it was classed as a "Super Battleship" only three other ships have that title. and they are again sisters to the IJN Yamato.
1 other ship her sister musashi, they only ever completed 2 of the 3 planned and the 3rd was cancelled and converted to an aircraft carrier named Shinano.
Thy are both shitty submarines
...Technically tied with a British monitor :P
Two of My Uncles went ashore at Normandy. One on Omaha the Other Utah. Both said the sweetest thing they saw were American destroyers that looked like they were coming ashore firing those 5”38’ as fast as possible.
Errors 1) left off the British built 17.72 inch guns mounted on two Italian pre dreadnaught battleships.
2) You left out the 20 inch Dahlgren guns built for the US Navy's monitors during the civil war.
3)depending on how you calculate biggest they're out of order. Was it mere bore diameter? That gives an edge to early and much smaller 16.25 and 17.72 inch late 1800's, and the US Navy's 20 inch guns would be the "biggest". If you calculate by bore diameter x caliber or bore diameter+caliber it's more accurate. If you add bore and caliber the US 16/50 caliber is a total of 66, the Japanese 18.1/45 caliber is a total of 63.1. factoring in caliber along with bore diameter removes the older guns.
4) the term "caliber" in naval artillery is calculated by length of barrel ÷ diameter of bore. So by caliber the highest caliber guns ever mounted on a battleship would be the 1.1/70 or the Japanese 25mm/70 since they are 70 caliber.
I think that the 18.1/45 is a little over 69 feet long, not 63
@@metaknight115 I was calculating "biggest" by adding bore diameter of 18.1 plus 45 caliber which gives a ranking of "63.1" call it "points". That's a better way to calculate "biggest"
Adding the barrel length does not mean the shell was a larger diameter or heavier.... Calibre is the internal diameter of the barrel.
@@chrissmith2114 when referring to rifle and machine gun caliber, you would be correct. (Ie. A .50 cal M2 has a bore diameter of 1/2 inch) However,when dealing with large-bore (basically anything above 1" bore diameter) cannon the term "caliber" refers to the length of the barrel. Example: a "12 inch, 50 caliber cannon" (12"/50) has a barrel 50 feet long. It's 12" diameter (1 foot) x 50 caliber. Welcome to the confusion that is naval artillery 🤣
Edit: Oh, and you are correct, the same bore diameter cannon will commonly use similar weight shells with minor variation based on their design. However, to add further confusion the 16"/45 guns used on the Colorado class ships couldn't fire the 2,700lb "super heavy" AP shells used on the North Carolina and South Dakota class ships even though the later ships also had 16"/45 guns. (It was a matter of the length of the shell and compatibility with the loading system.)
@@erichammond9308 It is also likely that in order to move the heavier shells that it needed higher pressure that the older mark guns were not able to safely handle without breaking or wearing out a lot quicker. But also the loading mechanism was probably not designed to handle the increased weight of the shell or worth the effort of an upgrade for it.
''this list will not include guns that didn't entered service'' then proceed to list guns from the South Dakota 1920 design...
They were later used as shore batteries in WWII
They missed the 17.7" guns of the early italian Duillio
The 16"/45 Mk 6 guns had a maximum elevation of 45', and a maximum shell weight of 2700lbs.
Why is the italian Duillio -class with their 45 cm guns not mentioned? simply forgotten or no space left after showing all 40,6 and 40,6 cm guns or because no british or american ship ?
I was wondering the same myself. Maybe because they were muzzle loaders?
Biggest is still the Yamato’s, and its’ sister ship Musashi, that had 18” guns. Next in line is the Iowa-class with its’ 16” guns.
I was able to board the New Jersey when it came to the Bay Area for a port-of-call.
Those guns are flat-out huge.
USS Puritan with 508mm gun?
Japan was better than the United States at building ships, and its sailors were braver too, it just gave them more technology.
Nope, next in line is the 18" guns mounted on HMS Furious, General Wolfe, and Lord Clive.
@@ssss-e2m8s for such a small country, limited industrial capacity, lacking natural resources and just started industrialization in 1868 or just 52 years before WW2, Japan did the impossible of overcoming all of these limitations and circumstances and still built the most powerful ship of them all.
The British mounted and used 18" guns on a couple of monitors during WWI.
Well, it seems you are focused only on UK, USA ad Japan; mentioning the HMS Victoria class, you open the door to other navy and ships, like the Italian Duilio and Italia classes. The first had 4 x 450/20 guns, the second 4x431/27.
Weren't the Nelsons' guns firing "light weight" shells at higher velocity (for a 16"/45), also, the barrel life issue were worked out during the interwar period, and I would consider them well performing guns, unless you don't think "well performing" includes slamming through the faceplate of Bismarck's Bruno turret (the blast blowing the back off the turret, killing the bridge staff and knocking out Anton turret and nearly setting the forward main magazine off Jutland style), as well as penetrating her conning tower and main belt armor.
What was the range on thar shot?
Standards are obviously very, very high here.....
Except the Nelson never fired at the Bismarck.
@@hansfitting5019 Reminder, I said Nelsons' not Nelson's, I was referring to the class as a whole, which includes Rodney and her performance against Bismarck
Yes, "light weight" shells at a high muzzle velocity. The makers of this video could have learned that on Wikipedia.
You missed the German warship guns, such as the Bismarck and Tirpitz. The Bismarck's and Tirpitz's main battery consisted of eight 38 cm (15 in) SK C/34 guns in four twin turrets, Anton and Bruno in a superfiring pair forward of the superstructure and Caesar and Dora aft.[30] The turrets allowed elevation to 30°, which gave the guns a maximum range of 36,520 m (39,940 yd). The guns fired 800 kg (1,800 lb) projectiles at a muzzle velocity of 820 meters per second (2,690 ft/s).[31] The main battery was supplied with between 940 and 960 shells total, for approximately 115-120 shells per gun.
The mk 6 16" gun on the South Dakota class battleships were only 45 caliber they used the same guns as the North Carolina class. The only 16" 50 caliber guns were only ever mounted on the Iowa class battleships.
Wrong South Dakota Class
@@battleship821 those South dakotas were never built and the lexintons were never fitted with them so either way the gun doesn't belong in a video about guns that were mounted on warships
@@toothedacorn4724 it was on the colorados
@@williammacdonald3173 colorados only had the 16 inch 45 not the 16 inch 50 mk2
@@toothedacorn4724 I was also surprised to see the proposed guns for the Lexington BATTLE CRUISERS and the Pre-Washington Naval Treaty South Dakota class designs mentioned here, especially with the disclaimer up front that they were only going to do guns that were actually mounted. I guess they didn't do their research very well. I am shocked...
How dare you don't mention her name! She was Warspite, the one that spites war, and she scored that very hit that made history!
As a Yank, I love that ship!
@@barrybolton1396As a Yank, I rank her with CV-6 Enterprise in accomplishments...
And my sadness that I can't walk the deck of either.
The big whiskey is berthed in Norfolk and if you drive down the street approaching it, you stare right into those 16 inch front guns. She’s a beautiful ship and is now a museum and I’ve been on her multiple times.
I just visited the Iowa at the end of January. It was amazing. Hopefully I get to see the Wisconsin one day, tho N. Carolina or Alabama are next on my list.
Imagine the pressure inside the breech & barrel. A 2000+ pound shell being shot 25 miles or more, wild stuff.
One point of order, caliber for naval artillery is not the internal diameter of the barrel but the length. For example the Iowa class have 16" 50 Caliber barrels, which are 50 times as long as their internal diameter (ie the barrel length is 50x16"). The older 16" guns used by US Battleships are 45 caliber.
this is the one case where there is such a thing as a 50 caliber gun, rather than a .50 caliber gun.
Note Yamato had 46 caliber barrels, but due to the larger diameter barrel, they're still about 2' longer than the 16"/50 Mk7 gun on the Iowa class
Calibre DOES still refer to the internal bore of the barrel on naval guns. Barrel lengths for larger weapons across all the armed services are usually given in multiples of the gun's calibre. For example the infamous 88mm gun of the Tiger 1 is the Kwk 36 88mm/L56, meaning the barrel minus its breech block, was 56x88mm = 4928mm or 4.928 meters long.
Correct.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 The caliber of the Iowa guns are 16"/50 Caliber. The diameter and the length are both part of the caliber of the gun. It is extremely important to make sure that rounds do not get sent to the wrong ship. The caliber 16"/45 of the South Dakota shells would be a problem if sent to the Iowa instead.
@@akihitokoizumi2474 The Barrel length is also of primary importance for the performance of the gun. Want your shell to travel faster and further? Then increase the propellant charge.
Forget to lengthen the barrel at the same time? Then watch as all that lovely added explosive energy simply makes a larger bang out of the end of the barrel with resultant extra volumes of blast & smoke.
For the extra energy to be imparted to the shell the barrel length needs to be increased to lengthen the amount of time that the channelled energy is focussed onto the base of the shell. The greater length of the rifling inside the extended barrel also improves the gyroscopic spin on the shell and therefore increases the relative accuracy of the shell.
@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 Umm... why are you telling me this? The caliber of the gun being 16inch diameter + 50 calibers long = the size or caliber of the gun and also 16inch multiplied by 50 = the length of the gun tube. Why do you think I do not know why going from the 16"/45 to the 16"/50 made a huge improvement to range and penetration?
They use both diameter and length of the gun because that defines the guns characteristics.
HMS Incomparable was due to have 20 inch guns mounted and was planned to make a top speed of 35 knots but never made it into production
EXCELLENT video, THANKS very much. Greetings from Mexico City.
I had the opportunity to visit Pointe Du Hoc and witness, firsthand, the ungodly damage battleship bombardments can dish out.
One of the German artillery bunkers (approx. 2m thick reinforced concrete) took a direct hit from the Texas' 14" guns through the front opening which detonated the ammunition stored in the rear. The resulting crater was about fifteen feet/five meters deep with half of the bunker's concrete at the bottom. The other half was approximately 150 feet/50 meters across a field.
There were hundreds of smaller craters scattered throughout the rest of the field from various bombs and naval artillery shells. It's amazing how the Germans survived enough to put up a fight against the Rangers.
Wow! Cool, man!
Request: “Top 10 Modern naval gun used in warship 2022”
The German 15 inch naval gun was L51.66 caliber which was bigger than the British 15 inch gun sitting at number 10.
Not quite - German 15 inch were actually 380mm vs the true 15 inch (381mm) of the UK gun.
Stop confusing shell diameter with barrel length....
The IJN had a plan to create "Super Yamato Class BBs" called the "A-150" class. Those were planned to have 6x51cm/45 Naval Gun.
Inaccurate. Which is just what I expected. It was to be assumed that the producer would only look at the most "popular" or well known guns.
Instead of claiming this was about the biggest naval guns "ever" mounted on a ship, they should have titled it "Biggest naval guns of specifically those countries that everyone assumes had big navies", or else done more research.
So, what about the 17.7" mounted on the Italian battleships Duilio and Dandolo? Or the 17" mounted on Italia and Lepanto? Those were bigger than 8 out of the 10 on this list.
Can anyone verify if that photo of the Yamato class firing it's 46cm'ers is a real photo?
I thought that I've seen every photo take of the Yamato's and this hasn't appeared in any publication that I've ever seen.
Unfortunately a lot of Japanese documents were destroyed at the end of the war to prevent them getting into allied hands, special care was given to files and pictured involving the yamatos
It is. I have seen it in most videos and articles talking about Yamato.
There's another rare photo of Musashi firing her forward guns during gunnery trials. Hard to find but impressive.
@@HunterSteel29 What’s even more impressive is a blurry photo of Yamato firing her main guns in anger against American escort carriers (most likely directly at the USS White Plains, a ship she would hit from 20 miles) during the battle off Samar
@@metaknight115 and then later ran from the Destroyers and Destroyer Escorts that didn't even outweigh it's turret.
I am trying to figure out how the US 16"/50 Mk2 gun, a gun that was never deployed, ranks higher than the US 16"/50 Mk6 deployed on the Iowa class??? I think someone didn't do their research...
I agree, the ships these guns were designed for were never built so they were never deployed shipboard
The Mk6 was the 16"/45. The Iowa Class used the Mk7 16"/50.
Funny story concerning the 18.1" gun mounted on HMS Lord Clive. It was scheduled to bombard Turkish forces confronting the allied landing at Gallipoli. The first time the gun was fired, the over pressure created by the blast, blew out every pane of glass ( including portholes) on the ship. As well as drinking glasses and bottles in the mess and galley area It also shattered the glasses the captain was wearing. The ship stayed on station though, and managed to heave about 14 more of the monstrous shells in the enemies general direction.
#2 was actually mount on HMS Furious. One gun was mounted in the aft part of the ship, and only removed when that area had a second flight deck added. This flight deck was unsatisfactory because of turbulence caused by the superstructure.
The caliber of artillery is determined by barrel length, not bore size. Most people are confused by this. Bore size is measured in inches or MM. Two 16-inch guns can have different calibers depending on barrel length.
What about the Armstrong 100 ton guns. It was a 450mm rifled muzzle loading gun.
There was the Elswick 432mm/26 guns. These were breach loads sold to Italy.
There were also the BL 16.25" naval guns.
Don't forget that the Yamato fires her 460mm at a rate of every 27-24 sec
Wow, that's amazing
Actually their theoretical maximum was 1 round every 45 seconds (1.5 rds per minute).
The by far biggest naval gun was the Typ 94 40-cm-cannon with a caliber of 460 mm is the Japanese Yamoto battleship class.
A fairly simplistic and somewhat incorrect account of large-caliber naval guns. The discussion of the 16 inch guns of the Nelson and Rodney makes no sense whatsoever, while the information on the 16"/45 caliber guns of the North Carolina and South Dakota classes is largely wrong except for the muzzle velocity of 2300 feet per second when firing a 2700 pound armor-piercing shell. The high-capacity shell weighed 1900 pounds with a muzzle velocity of either 2635 feet per second or 2525 feet per second, depending on the desire to reduce barrel wear. The 16"/50 caliber gun on the Iowa-class used the same projectiles. The 16"/50 caliber Mark 2 guns were never mounted on any U.S. Navy ship and were turned over to the U.S. Army for use as coast artillery guns.
The German 38 centimeter gun mounted on the Bismarck and Tirpitz fired a light-weight 38 centimeter 1764 pound armor-piercing round at 2690 feet per second. By comparison, the British WW2 15 inch armor-piercing round weighed 1938 pounds, while the WW1 armor-piercing round weighed 1920 pounds. The British gun was also extremely accurate with its lower velocity heavy-weight round. The British gun was listed as a 42 caliber piece. It might be noted that the 14 inch guns carried on the British King George the Fifth battleships fired a 1590 pound heavy-weight armor-piercing projectile, and was a very powerful gun.
The USS Massachusetts scored a hit on the French battleship Jean Bart during the North African invasion which penetrated a total of 8.82 inches of deck, including a 15 centimeter (5.9 inch) armor deck before bursting in an empty 6 inch magazine. The USS Washington and USS South Dakota engaged the Japanese battleship Kirishima during the Naval Battle of Guadalcanal in November of 1942 and wrecked her with at least nine 16 inch shells hits.
Two of the British 16.25 inch guns still exist in the wreck of the HMS Victoria off of Tripoli, Lebanon, sunk in one of the most notorious collisions in naval history in 1893. The U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Intelligence kept a running total of the number of 16,25 inch guns that burst during practice firing. Quite simply, a very poor gun, and the British wisely did not make any more.
You did miss the 450 centimeter (17.7 inch) guns of the Italian Dandolo-class battleships and the 434 centimeter (17 inch) guns of the Italia-class ships. As those guns were designed and built by the English, the English measurements are the most accurate.
For those interested in a very good study of World War 2 naval armament, I would highly recommend Naval Weapons of World War Two by John Campbell. For World War One, I would recommend Naval Weapons of World War One by Norman Friedman.
Edit Note: The British 16.25 inch gun was also mounted on the HMS Benbow, one of the Admiral Class of pre-dreadnoughts. The ship carried one gun forward and one gun aft in what were called open barbette mount. You can see images of the ship on Wikipedia.
BL 16 INCH MARK 1: This gun wasn't seen as particularly successful.
HMS Rodney: Pulverises Bismarck with BL 16 INCH MARK 1
Yeah the most damaging hit on an axis battleship during the war I think, sealed Bismarck's fate right at the start. Could hardly miss though as these guns were very accurate, and sniping Tigers later in the war really drove the point home regarding accuracy. So the RN's 16" seem pretty decent. The 15"42's of Warspite, though old, were also extremely accurate, hitting an Italian battleship at 26,000 yards, a record long range hit, which she shared with Scharnhorst. Speaking of Scharnhorst, the RN's 14" gun was also pretty decent, from around 11,000 yards during an arctic storm the Duke of York, using radar fire control, hit and disabled the front turret starting fires which meant both forward magazines had to be flooded, reducing Scharnhorst's lethality considerably. She went down hard though and put up a hell of a fight. She had almost got away but one of DofY's last salvos did severe damage in a boiler room and her speed dropped. After that, she had no chance. Seems the Royal Navy knew what they were doing! I do like The Scharnhorst though, it was a pain in the arse and almost made it to 1944.
'Calibre' when used to describe Naval guns and all other large bore guns is in reference to the barrel length, so for each calibre is one bores length so a 16" 50 calibre gun means the barrel is 50x 16" so 800" long or 50 calibre.
That is what I came here to say.
Sheesh! You would think folk want to make an informative video, and get the basics wrong!
@@brucelytle1144 it annoying isn't it, she does explain what calibre means about mid way but fails to address the fact they've been using the term wrong in the rest of the video and promptly continue to call the bore diameter as calibre.
Calibre still means bore diameter in that context. Saying a stick is 60cm long doesn't change the definition of a centimetre.
@@nerdyali4154 no it does when you're talking about large bore guns, this is because the gun is always referred and even named by bore diameter.
@@nerdyali4154 What? A 5" 38 Caliber rifle is a lot different than a 5" 54 Caliber!
They are the same bore size, yet the barrel of a 38 CALIBER barrel is (let me do the math, stand by.. ) 190", while the 54 CALIBER barrel is 270" long!
That said, I have no direct knowledge right now about the powder load or projectile weights for either, I can tell you from experience that you don't wanna drop a 5"/38 powder case or projectile on your foot, unless you have steel toed boots!
My (semi educated) brain says that a 54 caliber gun will fire a higher velocity projectile than a 38 caliber gun.
Bore is one thing, the other is velocity out of the barrel.
It's that E=MC^2 thingy coming in to play...
“Youll never sink this concrete ship”
Meanwhile this 460mm artillery gun pointed directly at the ships hull.
For #8 is there a '1' missing? Shouldn't the weight of the shells be 1900-2240 lb, not 900-2240 lb?
This is great…but perhaps a single example of each type used versus an enemy and the result.
Fact is that the largest shots ever fired from a naval gun in anger were from the British 18 inch guns which fired the heaviest projectiles ever fired from a warship in action.
Yamato fired hers @ Taffy 3
@@jamesbugbee9026 yes but the Yamato shells were lighter than the British 18inch shells.
US had an 18 inch / 48 caliber naval gun. It remains on the gun line at NSWC Dahlgren, VA
The Yamato Gun Turret was so heavy, for comparison: A Fletcher Class Destroyer had a weight of around 2500 Tons, while the Gun Turret has a weight of 2700 Tons
Actually there were a 20 inch (about 500MM )naval British gun that was on the design paper after ww1 and they were going to build, but they stop the program
Fisher was also looking at 21 and 22-inch guns before he died.
Its like my dad said " we are going fishing on sunday "
But we didn' t go. 🥴
Y'all missed HMS Inflexible, 1 evil ironclad monster scaring its own crew w/ 16.25" rifled muzzle-loaders, used 2 thump on Alexandria in 1882
That's some guns!
Pound for pound MK1 15 inch probably one of the best.
The Americans considered it the most accurate battleship main armament of WWII.
The 18.1 inch gun was definitely the most powerful ever made
Something about that voice hooked me, no idea exactly what.
Was it the fact that it was robotic ?
How does the 406 mm Mark 2 gun rank above the 410 mm 3rd year gun?
and again, people forgot that Warspites Record is shared with Scharnhorst who actually has the record bc hers was couple meters longer than Warspites
And Yamato could have very well best that record by hitting the escort carrier White Plains from a distance of 33,000 yards (although this is somewhat unconfirmed, as sources vary on whether it was a hit or a damaging near miss)
"A couple meters"
There wasn't a range finder or radar set in the world at that time that was accurate enough to tell that, until you can get someone to go back in time and measure the distance this isn't a hill worth dying on
you cant actually confirm whether its longer or shorter so its gonna stay as warspite
@@GaryJones69420 still doesnt change that its Scharnhorsts Record when she hit Glorious in June '40 amd Warspite only tied with her a month later.
The Allies just like to deny Scharnhorst being the actual Record Holder, simply bc she's a Kriegsmarine Ship, in the end hitting a moving target while moving yourself is basically impossible and both did it anyways
@@kuroinamida4630 unfortunately for you, no one except the werhaboos will see it that way.
Good One.
I believe the German 15 inch, 55 caliber guns mounted on both Bismarck and Tirpitz were larger and more powerful than the British 15 inch guns in this video. However, the 15 inch dual mount British gun and turret were very efficient, with a high rate of fire, served for the longest period, and as noted, scored the longest distance hit on another battleship.
Its not just about caliber. American 16" guns had higher elevation than many and high velocity, plus ecellent fire control. An Iowas shells were more than equal in hitting power to Yamato and Musashis 18" guns.
Anyone who is into guns is familiar with foot-pounds of energy. It’s a measurement of how powerful a handgun or rifle is. Most handguns have around 300-600 ft-lbs of energy. Most rifles have 1500-3000ft-lbs of energy. The muzzle energy on number nine, the 16” gun (just a random one I calculated) is 207,761,247 ft-lbs of energy (282,000,000 joules). That is INSANE. THEN, there’s the explosive charge. Just wild amounts of power.
That cannon is about 600,000 times more powerful than a 9mm handgun.
British 15-in naval cannon is represented but the German, French and Italian counterparts are not.
I think with a wider battleship 22" guns are indeed possible dominating the coast for at least 12 miles.
Please identify the large cylindrical shell in the lineup for Musashi, to the tight of antiaircraft shell.
In naval guns the "caliber" relates to the length of the barrel in reference to the bore, ie a 15inch bore in a 50 "caliber" the barrel length is 15 inches x 50.
アメさんがモンタナ級を建造してくれていればなぁ･･･アイオワ級が走攻守のバランスのとれた最良の戦艦ですね。ガキの頃戦艦ミズーリのプラモ作って惚れ込んで、旗艦にしたなぁ。兄貴の旗艦は戦艦大和でした。
You forgot the 18” gun on HMS Furious.
Useless gun, but certainly large
#4 the 16"/50 Mk. 2 was NEVER mounted on a ship. The ships it was intended for were either never built or were converted to Aircraft carriers during the building process because of the Washington Naval treaty.
The British 16'' guns on the Nelson class were high velocity not low!!!
Since you included the 110-ton 16¼ inch gun of the Sans Pareil class, you should have included the 17 inch (431 mm) BL and 17.7 inch (450 mm) of the Italian battleships of the Duilio and Dandolo classes of the 1880s. They also were never fire in action, nonetheless their existence gave the Royal Navy the incentive to develop a larger piece - which became the unsuccessful 110 ton gun. Regards, Brian
The North Carolina and South Dakota class fired 2,700lb "super heavy" armor piercing 16" shells from their 16"/45 naval rifles. The older 16" guns of the Colorado class couldn't use the super heavy shells because their loading equipment couldn't accommodate their size and weight. The video is incorrect. The Iowa class also used the 2,700lb super heavy AP shells, but the Iowas had 16"/50 guns which accelerated them a bit faster.
I dont think that the Lexington class ever got Its guns mounted before their conversion into carriers
Yup, it never received its main arament I think Because the ships were still very early in its construction phase I don't think the barbetts was installed yet for lexington or Saratoga by the time the conversion order came in after the Washington naval treaty.
@@Tundraviper41 Correct. Think it got some 8" guns though weirdly at first, by the island.
@@jimb9063 yes, there are many pictures of them with 8 inch guns
Italy’s forgotten 17in gunned Pre-dreadnought
......caliber of a naval gun is not its bore width. Its the ratio or length of the barrel to the bore....
:20 bruh why did you use the Turret 2 disaster on the iowa
Info on Guns for North Carolina & South Dakota class incorrect.
The other 16 inch guns (Colorado, North Carolina, South Dakota) also fired the 2700 lb AP shell
None of the ships armed with 16 inch guns before the North Carolina class used the super heavy ap shells. The hoists for the shells couldn't handle them.
You're missing the 17.7" guns of the 1st Duillio
Nelson had 16inch guns.3 in each turret.just looked it up.
Place 1: Shell Weight: 2998 - 1460 LB ???? Wrong around or wrong number ....?
the US 16/50 for the battlecruisers and the early Sodak class never went to sea .....The navy kept swapping guns (one beord team had a 18/47 that they sleeved down to 16/56 that they REALLY wanted to mount and a second team had the comparatively more sensible 16/50 that would have probably been much more reliable) and still hadnt made a decision when the Washington Treaty ended the old South Dakota class and forced the battlecruisers to become the carriers Lexington and Saratoga.
Just addendum here the 16/45 mk6 and the 16/50 mk7 could fire the mk8 "super" heavy AP shell that weighed at 2,700lbs.
5:40 the 16/50 mk2 was never mounted on a warship.
I believe that they were used as shore batteries
Khẩu pháo mà càng lớn, con tàu chiến phải càng to để chống lại lực giật của khẩu pháo.
4:06 (top left) the in service is wrong. It says 1943 yet the New Jersey was commissioned in 1942
It commissioned on 23 may 1943
@@russdority6295 December 7 1942, 1 year after Pearl Harbor look it up bud
@@Vladimir-Putin- launched 12-7-42, commissioned 5-23-43
I want peace, no war 💣💥
As do most people. Unfortunately, because of those who do not share the same preference, we must always be prepared to defend ourselves, or suffer the consequence of being victims.
Then why are you here?
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism, while the wolf remains of a different opinion. "
- William Inge
@@johnkoenig326 The wolf cares not, how many the sheep be. Plato
@@johnkoenig326 Pacifism is a privilege of the protected. They can exercise their pacifism because they are sheltered by those who would defend them.
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.”
- Benjamin Franklin, 1759.
“If you look like a rabbit, and act like a rabbit, you will be treated like a rabbit - prey for all predators.”
- Stony Loft
“The pen is mightier than the sword, only if the sword is kept sharp, and the man that writes with the pen is willing and able to fight with the sword!”
- Don Cross
“Tis true that the pen is mightier than the sword, but far more have died for want of a sword than will die for lack of a pen.”
- Curtis Mohr
“Tis better to be armed and never need to be than to be unarmed and need to be armed.”
- Jeff Cooper
It was no exaggeration to say that the design of a battleship was determined by the size of its main gun.
And the size of the main gun was determined in order to shoot through the main armor of battleships that would be operated by countries considered to be virtual enemies.
In this video, you will see a lot of 16-inch main guns, but this is due to the restrictions set by the treaty.
At the time, it was necessary to set a design limit in order to limit the number of battleships owned, and the 16-inch size corresponded to that limit, which is why the treaty limited the number of battleships equipped with this size of main gun per country.
For a while, this 16-inch main gun was the world standard and the pinnacle, so the seven battleships equipped with this gun were called the "Big Seven.
The main guns of the Yamato class battleships were designed in anticipation of the withdrawal from the treaty and were developed to penetrate the main armor of the main battleships of the US Navy from a long distance.
The Yamato class battleships are also equipped with main armor that cannot be penetrated by a direct hit from its own main guns at close range, in anticipation of future threats.
On the other hand, the Iowa class battleships countered by using heavy shells with high accuracy.
As a result, to this day, the debate over how a direct battle between the Yamato class battleships and the Iowa class battleships would end is complicated.
There are childish arguments that the Iowa class battleships can easily compete with the Yamato class battleships, using an example of a test in which the U.S. penetrated the armor plates of the Yamato class battleships (although this is meaningless because the test was conducted at close range, which is impossible in an actual battle), and there are also arguments that the Iowa class battleships cannot win the battle unless both sides get so close that they are disabled, which means that the battle is not clearly settled. The other argument is that the battle will end without both sides sinking, since there will be no clear resolution unless both sides get close enough to disable the battle.
In any case, both the Yamato and Iowa class battleships will go down in history as the last great battleships to leave their mark.
The technology to manufacture the main guns of battleships has already been lost.
Just messing with be numbers...
16" British gun fires 2000lb projectile
It goes 22.5 miles
With a hang time of 45 seconds! Nuts!
The Mark 7 16” 50 Caliber, Lightweight naval rifles mounted on the IOWA class are probably the finest artillery ever devised. Ballistically equivalent to the 18” on the YAMATOs.
Make no mistake, the mk 7, 16/50cal was superior to the 18/45 aboard Yamato. Especially when firing a 2700lb AP shell, which was only 500lb less than the Yamato's. Even the Mk-6 16/45 was better than the Yamato's guns. Both the Mk-7 and Mk-6 had higher rates of fire, were far more accurate than the Yamato's guns, and could fire the 2700lb super heavy AP shells accurately out to ranges that exceeded the 17 mile effective range of Yamato's guns (but that's more of a fire control advantage since the theoretical range of Yamato's guns was limited by obsolete optical fire control systems, and at anything beyond 17 miles the Yamato would require a spotter plane to correct the fall of shot. Needless to say that the US would have quickly shot down a slow moving spotter plane)
Nope, Yamato's guns were better in every way. They could penetrate up to 20-inches of steel, as where Iowa could only penetrate up to 18-inches of steel. Iowa's shells were equipped with 40.9 pound bursting charges, while Yamato's shells were equipped with 74.6 pound bursting charges. Iowa had a shell dispersion of 600-800 yards at 23.6 miles, compared to Yamato's shell dispersion of 440-550 yards at 26.1 miles, etc.
Iowa only at longer ranges had a marginal advantage in rate of fire (a uniform 30 seconds for Iowa, and between 28 to 35 seconds for Yamato, depending on the range).
@@metaknight115 That would be wrong. The Mark 7s had nearly the ballistic performance and at considerably lesser weight. Shot to shot dispersion is ambiguous at best. Real accuracy is determined by fire control, radar and optics. The Iowa’s Mark 1 fire control computer with the DR-810 fire control radar in each turret, made the Iowa’s guns the most accurate in the world. You also have to account for plunging penetration as well as side penetration. There’s tons of data on the web.
Sad the US 18 inch wasn’t mentioned
Man, you don’t just carry these ‘bullets’ in your pocket.
Where's the Italian? France? and Germany? Russian/Soviet Union? They do have massive battleship with big guns as well.
Missing some 17.7 inch armstrong guns
I would prefer the British 15-inch Mk1 in the Mk II mounting with the 30° elevation.
It said the 16/45 was used on the north carolina class and the subsequent south dakota class. Then they said the 16/50 was used on the Iowa class. Later that say the 16/50 was used on the south dakota class and lexington class battle cruisers (the Lexington was converted to a CV before guns were mounted). So much is wrong here.
Bismark guns?
Missing 17 inch guns used by Italia class
Should have stated #1 range in meters for comparison to others.
The term 'caliber' - when applied to large guns - is the length of the barrel divided by the diameter of the bore. When applied to small arms - it only describes the diameter of the bore when using decimal inches. There is no such thing as a 9mm caliber round.
Ansaldo 15/50, German Sk34, French 15 /45 guns. All heavier than British 15 BL42. Yamato Guns was the heaviest and greater guns in all related aspects, ever mounted and saw some war action. The American 16/50 (the model at 850m/s) gun was never mounted in any ship as far as I know... sadly reports.
Before Naval Guns: Bigger than Yamato and Iowa navy guns in ww2.
After Naval Guns: Gunship, Torpedoes and Missiles.
Где-то пушка б-37 грустит ведь его забыли добавить в список
Low muzzle velocity extends gun life
But may reduce vessel life due to being out ranged ! Lol
Any gun design is going to have to balance shell weight/penetration at battle range/velocity at battle range/barrel life. Differences in muzzle velocity decay at battle ranges. Relining barrels takes your ship out of service for weeks. You can't have it all, even if you're American - you have to compromise somewhere.
You are talking about the 16" mark 7 of the Iowa class in the past tense. This is not correct. All four battleships are still preserved as museum ships and have still their guns. And these are the most recent used ones of this list, because the Iowas were reactivated in the late 80s and only decomissioned in the 90s.
Makes me think of kindergarden, long time ago.
" I have the bigger one ! " No, I have the even bigger one. " 😵💫
We all know that the 45 cal 18.1 inch gun of the Yamato is better than the 50 cal 16 inch gun of the Iowa, but how would the 50 cal 16 inch gun fair against the 40 cal 18 inch gun of the Furious?
The 18in/40 was a shore bombardment weapon and built in 1917 its a pretty unfair comparison, the 16inch can about 20.5 inches of cemented armour at 15000yards, while 18 inch can do just 18 inches, that said the bursting charge of the two rounds are vastly different a mere 40.9 lbs for the 16 inch and 119 lbs for the 18 inch.
@@toothedacorn4724 Interesting. Furious's guns fired larger, heavier shells with more kinetic energy, but Iowa's guns were faster, more modern, and had a much higher rate of fire. However, I do find it hard to believe that Iowa's guns could penetrate 20.5 inches of steel, though. If they could, then I could only imagine the damage that Yamato's guns could do.
@@metaknight115 armour isn't quiet as simple as raw penetration, ships are normally at an angle and 15000 yards is something of a shorter range, unfortunately the best source I have only has that range for the 18 inch due to its short service life
@@metaknight115 The Yamato's guns at that range did marginally better around 21 to 22 inches of penetration.
@@HunterSteel29 Sounds right. Yamato had guns two inches bigger, and could penetrate two more inches of armor
👍👍👍