8"/55 Rapid Fire Gun & Turret | US Navy instructional film
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 มิ.ย. 2024
- The 8"/55 calibre gun (eight-inch-fifty-five-calibre) was the main armament weapon of US Navy heavy cruisers during World War II.
These were fitted in a variety of mounts with several different types of loading mechanisms during their 28-year career. The final (depicted in this training video) was a self-loading Mark 16 triple mount weighing about 20 tons, first fitted on the USS Des Moines.
Separate projectile and powder casings were loaded separately. The 35kg smokeless powder pack propelled a 152kg projectile at some 760 meters per second over a range of about 27km. The useful barrel life was about 780 rounds per gun.
![บุกร้านไอศกรีม VJ วุ้นเส้น !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g549nEhKZdc/mqdefault.jpg)
Wow … what an excellent restoration Thanks for Bringing this one to us ..!
How cool, my Uncle served as a Pharm Mate on the USS SALEM.
This is just what I have been looking for. Thank you so much for posting it.
It would have really been interesting if the Navy had these ships in 1942/43 for the Solomons Islands campaign.
Yes it would. Even better if they had Hornets for the Navy and Marines to fly against the Zero's and Betty's... But that's not how progress works.
Thank you for posting this film.
Lovely work.
I had no idea.
Only the cruisers Des Moines, Salem and Newport News used the Mark 16 self loading guns as shown in the video. All other US 8 inch gun cruisers used earlier model, non self loading guns
Wasn't it the Newport News that had the accident where one of the guns blew up?
@@downunderrob That is correct. In 1972 while conducting shore bombardment off the coast of Vietnam, one of the 8-inch guns on the Newport News suffered a premature detonation of one of its projectiles while still in the barrel. If memory serves me correct the culprit was a faulty fuse.
Probably worth noting that the USS St. Paul also suffered a turret explosion while conducting shore bombardment off the coast of Korea. The St. Paul was a traditional bag propellant gun though, not the semi-fixed auto loading guns like on the Des Moines class.
Was a crew member of Newport News. 12 shipmates lost in that explosion.
@@rickstone6633 dam...thats awful man...
The three Des Moines class cruisers that were completed. A number of others were canceled at the end of the war. Only Salem is still around, she is a museum ship in Quincy, MA at the location of the shipyard where she was built.
I still think there is a place for these ships with there rapid fire guns . Having said that , I love the IOWA class of ship .
8" rapid fire guns , then doubling up to the grand old 16" guns , what a sight they would be . I am glad that there are video's about these ships still around . cheers from Australia ..
Is there by any chance a documentary on the 5"/38?
If I stumble across one in the various archives ... yes.
The 8 inch 55 caliber guns of the Des Moines could be loaded at any angle with a 335 lb. projectile a velocity of 2500 feet per second and a range of 17 miles. The Northampton Class heavy cruisers with 8 inch 55 caliber guns had to be lowered to the load angle and elevated after every salvo but, a 260 lb. projectile a velocity of 2800 feet per second and a range of 18 miles. USS Louisville CA 28 fired (37) salvos (333) projectiles Armour Piercing in 15 minutes at the greatest ship to ship naval battle Oct. 1945.
Thanks for sharing.
Very instructional. Thanks.
we never looked at "Ignition" systems. in these larger guns. most dads family was Pacific, Grampa was a Seabee.
Great video, it's too bad the USN didn't stick with these guns for some of the bigger "cruisers" of the Cold War.
I believe some US amhib shups in the 80's had a single 8" for shore bombardment.
amazing how simple and how easy it is to understand how these work amazing for something from this time
Should have saved the Des Moines !!!
Hi, do you have access to the same video but for the automatic 6`/47 gun on the Worcester cruisers?
I've not yet found one. Though I'll keep an eye out for it.
Take a drink every time he says stucture..
No thanks. Alcohol poisoning is not my friend.
Sweet
A single turret of like this inside of gun range would convert any modern warship into a submarine with the longest endurance in human history. Nothing is armored like it was when this was in use.
The weight is better spent on missiles. They reach a lot farther, and hit a lot harder for a lot less weight. Guns are still useful for cheaper, prolonged, bombardments. As long as you keep the price per round down (looking at you Zumwalt class.) Any ships big enough to mount one of these at present would be a glass cannon.
@@Einwetok the line I was trying to draw, was on how in a very short time warships went from massively armored to minimally armored. Missiles and sensors are the way for sure, it just seems rapid to me how quickly the armor disappeared in favor of good radar.
@@SuperDriver379 There's no doubt an armored ship from that period would stand up better to an Exocet, for example. Lot's of smaller navies use similar missiles now. The Soviets , as soon as they could copy or equal our missile tech, pushed designs that were floating missile barrages. Their ant-ship mission was to volley all their ship killers at once to swamp our carrier group's defenses.
If the Cold War went hot, any of the missiles in that volley could be nuclear. All the armor in the world won't save you if a blast gets close enough. The ship might still be floating, but it's irradiated, the electronics are cooked, and the crew will be dying or dead. We had nuclear torpedoes, air to air nukes, air to surface, surface to air, take your pick. Our boomers had a different launch authority too, more localized. That's the philosophy that pushed designs from that era.
“Almost completely automatic…”
…requires the equivalent of a marine rifle platoon to operate.
Commissioned 1949. She saw no significant battles.
Those ships should have been kept for the Marines. 90 rounds per minute landing on the beach and thats just one ship.
The ship and crew is just too expensive for that, and artillery shells pack a lot less explosive than cruise missiles, rockets, and bombs. Marines would be ill-served by these when aircraft and missiles and rockets provide literally a lot more bang for the buck. These are fantastic machines, but obsolete.
Right On Go Army!
How is the primer installed?
Probably 'electrically primed'.
Battleships would fire a salvo and watch the splash to know what corrections were needed to the firing solution. These guns fire so fast that they would not have been able to do that. This ship would have been able to fire 120 shells per minute. So what did they do for fire control with these guns if salvo and correct after splash were not an option?
They did have an early form of radar directed gun control and I'm sure they wouldn't rapid untill they had thier target bracketed.
Besides at that time an actual ship to ship gun battles had become less likely and big guns were put to good use in shore bombardment.
90 rounds per min.
I'd you not listen to the part about the gun directors... Its radar guidance for the guns
@@nigelsmith7366 When firing 10 salvos a minute. A salvo every 6 seconds. There will be continuous water splashes and spray. But, because there are so many salvos flying through the air at the same time you won't be able to know which splashes are from which salvo. So you won't be able to know what corrections need to be made for the next salvo.
They're not going to fire max rate, and they wouldn't be able to sustain it for long. They'd shoot the liners out of the barrels pretty quickly.
This video was great, but it should have shown a traditional 8" turret in operation.