PDA

View Full Version : big big gun little boat ^_^



nakamura_kenji
10-05-2005, 02:05 AM
found this other website maybe nterest here

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/735035ix.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/735010um.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/734993oe.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/734976tr.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/734959gq.jpg

compare size recoiless gun that type-60 have 2x105mm recoiless >_<

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/jgsdf2504_lg.jpg

Waldo.Pepper
10-05-2005, 02:09 AM
WOW!

Recoiless obviously. Tell us all you know!

ploughman
10-05-2005, 02:20 AM
The quest to fit the largest possible gun on any given platform continues.

Is it Russian? I don't know why but I'm getting Russian vibrations. Maybe it's the hats.

stathem
10-05-2005, 02:26 AM
If we're guessing, I'm going to say those pics are old, mebbe WW1

I reckon RN. Shore bombardment. The RN have a history of a class of light boat with big howitzers for shore bombardment - see Copenhagen AD1807 (sorry about that, Danish chaps)

EDIT - thats not to say the above boat was then, obv.

nakamura_kenji
10-05-2005, 02:33 AM
not sure russian most likly think probab pre ww2 but interest anyway

Waldo.Pepper
10-05-2005, 03:55 AM
I was hoping you'd tell us what web site you found them on. (like a link maybe). How about it?

ploughman
10-05-2005, 04:05 AM
Interesting. While the recoilless gun's are a pre-WWI innovation most sources imply they weren't up to much until WWII. The largest calibre I can find is a 120mm Soviet design but this creature looks more like a 10 incher or more. And it looks WWI old. Interesting.

nakamura_kenji
10-05-2005, 04:10 AM
waldo was just forum site someone was wonder what was, not real info just picture i post

MEGILE
10-05-2005, 04:17 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Waldo.Pepper
10-05-2005, 04:24 AM
The Luftwaffe tried putting a 365mm recoiless gun on a plane. Here as some details.

G 104 (Gerat, device 104) was the biggest gun ever fitted to an aircraft. It was in effect a plain tube, open at both ends, with a calibre of 365mm (14.37in). Without the streamlined weaather-proof nose cap the length was about 10m (32.8ft). Roughly amidships was a reinforced breech section, wherein was installed a large armour-piercing shell and, behind it, a heavy
metal shellcase housing two booster charges and two main propellant charges. The gun was to be housed inside the Junkers Ju 288G, and swung out on parallel arms beneath the aircraft for firing. With the aircraft diving at its target (such as a fort or ship) the gun was fired electrically, the shell's muzzle velocity being 470m (1,036ft) per second and the case depar-
ting to the rear, cancelling recoil, at 476m (1,050ft) per second. Large muzzle brakes at each end deflected gas blast sideways away from the fuselage. The barrel had right-hand
rifling, both shell and case being pre-engraved.

nakamura_kenji
10-05-2005, 04:33 AM
0_0 that would interesting recoiless weapon are not all recoiless as sound just less convential cannon of same size. ever seen video northen alliance soldier try fire russian sp-9 from shoulder(normal mount on uaz or tripod) you know what mean.

Friendly_flyer
10-05-2005, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
0_0 that would interesting recoiless weapon are not all recoiless

I second that! I used to fire a carl Gustav 84mm RFK recoiless cannon in the Army. It was quite an experience.

darkhorizon11
10-05-2005, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
The Luftwaffe tried putting a 365mm recoiless gun on a plane. Here as some details.

G 104 (Gerat, device 104) was the biggest gun ever fitted to an aircraft. It was in effect a plain tube, open at both ends, with a calibre of 365mm (14.37in). Without the streamlined weaather-proof nose cap the length was about 10m (32.8ft). Roughly amidships was a reinforced breech section, wherein was installed a large armour-piercing shell and, behind it, a heavy
metal shellcase housing two booster charges and two main propellant charges. The gun was to be housed inside the Junkers Ju 288G, and swung out on parallel arms beneath the aircraft for firing. With the aircraft diving at its target (such as a fort or ship) the gun was fired electrically, the shell's muzzle velocity being 470m (1,036ft) per second and the case depar-
ting to the rear, cancelling recoil, at 476m (1,050ft) per second. Large muzzle brakes at each end deflected gas blast sideways away from the fuselage. The barrel had right-hand
rifling, both shell and case being pre-engraved.

Was it ever used against some poor unsuspecting Russian until until on some obscure front in April 1945? Or was it just a pipe dream?

SlickStick
10-05-2005, 12:32 PM
LOL, that cannon best be recoil-less or that boat is going to capsize at the first shot. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Udidtoo
10-05-2005, 01:38 PM
I'd like to see the cargo hold on that ship.

'5 days rations of fresh water and beans. 105 rounds of ammo. 20 hearing aids'

hobnail
10-05-2005, 08:53 PM
Looks Russian..

In the inter-war years Russian design bureaus had a brief period of infatuation with mounting recoilless rifles on aircraft including some pretty futuristic bat-shaped designs with reloadable weapons.

Here's (http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/bi/i4with76mmcannons.jpg) an early Sukhoi/Tupolev design with two 76mm cannon under the wings.

A good page on aerial RR hosted by Emmanuel Gustin here (http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/volume1/schirokorad.html)

Waldo.Pepper
10-05-2005, 09:19 PM
There is a star on the rear of the ship in one of the pics. (First one actually). Russian is a good bet.

I hope this gets solved.

This kind of thing really bugs me.

fordfan25
10-05-2005, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by nakamura_kenji:
found this other website maybe nterest here

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/735035ix.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/735010um.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/734993oe.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/734976tr.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/734959gq.jpg

compare size recoiless gun that type-60 have 2x105mm recoiless >_<

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v492/nakamura_kenji/jgsdf2504_lg.jpg

o please. iv got bigger on my john boat. makes paddling up stream a %$#$% but the game wordan stoped messn with me lol.

gx-warspite
10-05-2005, 09:21 PM
Looks like a monitor.

Porsimo
10-06-2005, 02:31 AM
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=62055&sid=2bbe92b0118cda01f7f53b1f6fdfe5fc

So, looks like it's a 305mm recoilless gun on a Russian ship "Engels" in 1930...

ploughman
10-06-2005, 02:34 AM
Thanks, good find. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Waldo.Pepper
10-06-2005, 02:54 AM
Excelent!!!

Now maybe I can sleep.

Kazimierz.
10-08-2005, 04:39 AM
As a nerdy paper card modeller as well as a nerdy il2 player, I asked some of my more nerdish paper friends about this ship, you can be assured it is a Russian destroyer "Karl Marks" armed with the experimental recoilless gun designed by Leonid Vasilevich Kurchevsky. There was an article about those experimental guns in "Citadel" (2/1996).
thanks to 'Ziga' for getting this information for me

Kazimierz.
10-09-2005, 09:44 AM
Heres more from my friend in the paper business
I'm going to ramble a bit, one of my "shift" keys is sticky and it's really too early in the morning so please bear with me.

the recoilless rifle is not that silly of an idea. It allows a relatively small vehicle/craft or man to deliver a devastating amount of firepower within certain compromises. The major compromise is that the RR has a low velocity and thus short range.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the shell goes left the gun - or something - must go right. With a recolilless rifle the trick is making the "something" going right NOT be the gun. The simplest method would be to shoot a secont equally sized projectile the opposite direction. At first glance that souunds suicidal, but the trick is to make it "Equal" not identical. A 10kg shell going one way can be balanced by 10kg of confetti going the other. This is actually how the initial launch charge on a Milan ATGW is handled. The rocket engine starts AFTER it has been kicked out of the tube. You still don't want to stand rigt behind the launcher, but the confetti disperses into harmless fluff fairly quickly.

The other way is more elegant. The actions must be the same, but the mass and velocity needn't be. E=mv^2 which means you can play alot with m and v to get the same result. If you use a portion of the expanding gasses from the propellant charge and direct them through a properly shapped nozzle you get a rocket thrust equal to the 'recoil' of the projectile. I draw you attention to the large cone at the rear of the tube in the picture posted.

Trading range for destructive power isn't that bad in some cases. A man carrying one can sneak much closer to a tank than another tank can. A small vessel can be built much light and faster, and fairly small aircraft can deliver a single shot kill to the largest of bombers. The germans in WWII made the same compromise with the MK108 30mm cannon. Short range, arcing trajectory but devastating effect.

Once you added an explosive charge to you projectile the low velocity isn't as much an issue. In fact in the anti-armour role with a shaped charge warhead a fast projectile can reduce effectiveness and only complicates fusing. In and anti-aircraft role with fragmentation warheads the forward velocity is inconsequential

Kurchevsky's work was to make a RR self-loading. Most self-loading weapon use recoill energy to aid the process and that's obviously not an option here. I'd love to see a schematic of his work. I know how I'd go about it, and it would be complex and troublesome to say the least. no wonder that many of them (including the ones on the <start plug> ANT-23 - model to be released soon <end plug&gthttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif had a tendency to explode.

The RS82 rocket projectile developed concurrently with Kurchevsky's work was a better and simpler answer to the problem and RR devlopment was dropped.

If Kurchevsky was executed (and I don't know that he was) then it shouldn't be a surprise. After all in 1937-8 Stalin was imprisoning or executing practically everyone smarter that a bumpkin anyway.