Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Sharonan artillery

"Hell's Gate" and "Hell Hath No Fury", by David, Linda Evans, and Joelle Presby, take the clash of science and magic to a whole new dimension...join us in a friendly discussion of this engrossing series!
Sharonan artillery
Post by Imaginos1892   » Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:34 pm

Imaginos1892
Captain of the List

Posts: 718
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2012 3:24 pm
Location: San Diego, California, USA

Does anybody else find it interesting that the Sharonan 3.4 inch "37" gun is pretty much a dead ringer for the Krupp 88mm?

Anybody think we're supposed to notice that?
----------------------
Firepower is not a thousand bullets that miss - it's one bullet that hits.
Top
Re: Sharonan artillery
Post by CanoeSage   » Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:59 pm

CanoeSage
Ensign

Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:07 pm

Imaginos1892 wrote:Does anybody else find it interesting that the Sharonan 3.4 inch "37" gun is pretty much a dead ringer for the Krupp 88mm?

Anybody think we're supposed to notice that?
----------------------
Firepower is not a thousand bullets that miss - it's one bullet that hits.


It's easier to borrow bits and pieces of hardware from history than to design them from scratch. Much less chance of your fans picking apart your design as unworkable or showing that your size/mass ratio is way off ;)

I previously brought up that the Ternathian naval & commercial vessels described in HG were clearly based on historical designs. ie RMS Mauretania, HMS Duke of Edinburgh, Hog Islander merchant ships.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7740

I doubt this has much significance to the story.
Top
Re: Sharonan artillery
Post by Henry Brown   » Sat Apr 16, 2016 5:18 pm

Henry Brown
Commodore

Posts: 826
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 1:57 pm
Location: Greenville NC

Imaginos1892 wrote:Does anybody else find it interesting that the Sharonan 3.4 inch "37" gun is pretty much a dead ringer for the Krupp 88mm?

Anybody think we're supposed to notice that?
----------------------
Firepower is not a thousand bullets that miss - it's one bullet that hits.


I wonder what the muzzle velocity is on the Sharonan 3.4 and how it compares to that of the historical 88mm? As I recollect, the 88 had a fairly high MV.
Top
Re: Sharonan artillery
Post by Louis R   » Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:16 am

Louis R
Commodore

Posts: 979
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:25 pm

Assuming the OP was referring to the FlaK36, 840m/s, although the number of course depended on the round being fired.

That's a rather improbable value for the 37 - the Ternathians wouldn't have been building a flak gun, and don't seem to have much more use for anti-armour weapons. I'm going to have to reread the description

Henry Brown wrote:
Imaginos1892 wrote:Does anybody else find it interesting that the Sharonan 3.4 inch "37" gun is pretty much a dead ringer for the Krupp 88mm?

Anybody think we're supposed to notice that?
----------------------
Firepower is not a thousand bullets that miss - it's one bullet that hits.


I wonder what the muzzle velocity is on the Sharonan 3.4 and how it compares to that of the historical 88mm? As I recollect, the 88 had a fairly high MV.
Top
Re: Sharonan artillery
Post by Tenshinai   » Mon Apr 18, 2016 8:35 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2830
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

If it´s artillery, then perhaps comparing with/looking at the British 25lb is a better idea as it is also an 88mm weapon.

The 88 FLAK-18/36 is a LONG barrel gun ( 88L56 (almost 5m barrel)), it is not an artillery piece and is woefully unsuitable in such a role. The British 25 pounder is an artillery piece with a much shorter barrel ( 88L28 (2.47m barrel)), and despite being introduced just before WWII, it is still in active service today, and Pakistan still even produces ammo for it, showing it to have been an extremely successful design.
Top
Re: Sharonan artillery
Post by Louis R   » Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:19 pm

Louis R
Commodore

Posts: 979
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:25 pm

In normal Anglophone military usage _all_ guns are 'artillery' [but not all firearms are guns], although the term isn't commonly used for tank guns. I think what you are trying to say is that the Flak36 isn't a field gun, and in that you are quite correct.

The Ternathian 37 is definitely a field gun, although it's not clear that it is a howitzer like the 25-pdr. If it is a gun, however, Ternathian propellants aren't up to scratch, since the heavy version would come in at ~1800m less range than the 25 even with a longer barrel. From the little information given I'm inclined to think that it is a howitzer, however, and the light model one is probably more similar to the old L/25 [IIRC, can't find a reference] pack howitzer the RCHA used to use for avalanche patrols.

What really has me scratching my head is where the OP got the idea that the 37 is a "dead ringer" for the Krupp 88. AFAICT, the only things that they have in common are the caliber, rate of fire and use of fixed rounds - there's no detailed description that would indicate any other resemblance.

Tenshinai wrote:If it´s artillery, then perhaps comparing with/looking at the British 25lb is a better idea as it is also an 88mm weapon.

The 88 FLAK-18/36 is a LONG barrel gun ( 88L56 (almost 5m barrel)), it is not an artillery piece and is woefully unsuitable in such a role. The British 25 pounder is an artillery piece with a much shorter barrel ( 88L28 (2.47m barrel)), and despite being introduced just before WWII, it is still in active service today, and Pakistan still even produces ammo for it, showing it to have been an extremely successful design.
Top
Re: Sharonan artillery
Post by brnicholas   » Mon Apr 18, 2016 8:21 pm

brnicholas
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:40 pm

You are correct they haven't needed flak guns or anti-armour weapons but have you thought about their range requirements? Distance Viewers are going to make indirect fire a lot more effective, which will make long range guns much more important. Chapter 39 of RTH tells us in passing that predictive distance viewers assigned to the artillery routinely require ranges of fifteen to twenty miles. Which would seem to mean a lot of Ternathian artillery has that range. Would getting that range require the 840 m/s muzzle velocity you mention?

Nicholas

Louis R wrote:Assuming the OP was referring to the FlaK36, 840m/s, although the number of course depended on the round being fired.

That's a rather improbable value for the 37 - the Ternathians wouldn't have been building a flak gun, and don't seem to have much more use for anti-armour weapons. I'm going to have to reread the description

Top
Re: Sharonan artillery
Post by John Prigent   » Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:25 pm

John Prigent
Captain of the List

Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 8:05 am
Location: Sussex, England

Ahem. The 25 pdr was a gun-howitzer, designed to fill both roles, not a pure howitzer with no real direct fire capability.
Cheers
John

Louis R wrote:In normal Anglophone military usage _all_ guns are 'artillery' [but not all firearms are guns], although the term isn't commonly used for tank guns. I think what you are trying to say is that the Flak36 isn't a field gun, and in that you are quite correct.

The Ternathian 37 is definitely a field gun, although it's not clear that it is a howitzer like the 25-pdr. If it is a gun, however, Ternathian propellants aren't up to scratch, since the heavy version would come in at ~1800m less range than the 25 even with a longer barrel. From the little information given I'm inclined to think that it is a howitzer, however, and the light model one is probably more similar to the old L/25 [IIRC, can't find a reference] pack howitzer the RCHA used to use for avalanche patrols.

What really has me scratching my head is where the OP got the idea that the 37 is a "dead ringer" for the Krupp 88. AFAICT, the only things that they have in common are the caliber, rate of fire and use of fixed rounds - there's no detailed description that would indicate any other resemblance.

Tenshinai wrote:If it´s artillery, then perhaps comparing with/looking at the British 25lb is a better idea as it is also an 88mm weapon.

The 88 FLAK-18/36 is a LONG barrel gun ( 88L56 (almost 5m barrel)), it is not an artillery piece and is woefully unsuitable in such a role. The British 25 pounder is an artillery piece with a much shorter barrel ( 88L28 (2.47m barrel)), and despite being introduced just before WWII, it is still in active service today, and Pakistan still even produces ammo for it, showing it to have been an extremely successful design.
Top
Re: Sharonan artillery
Post by Louis R   » Wed Apr 20, 2016 12:17 am

Louis R
Commodore

Posts: 979
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:25 pm

It requires rather more than that, in fact. 88mm rounds would probably need about 1100m/s to come close - in practice, you don't get close to that range in calibers below 155mm, and even then it takes rocket assist to make it to 20 miles.

In any case, we know the 37 isn't an unusually long-range gun: in the attack on Ft Ghartoun the Ternathians had to use their 4.3" howitzers alone because the 37s didn't have the reach to hit the fort from the available emplacement positions.

brnicholas wrote:You are correct they haven't needed flak guns or anti-armour weapons but have you thought about their range requirements? Distance Viewers are going to make indirect fire a lot more effective, which will make long range guns much more important. Chapter 39 of RTH tells us in passing that predictive distance viewers assigned to the artillery routinely require ranges of fifteen to twenty miles. Which would seem to mean a lot of Ternathian artillery has that range. Would getting that range require the 840 m/s muzzle velocity you mention?

Nicholas

Louis R wrote:Assuming the OP was referring to the FlaK36, 840m/s, although the number of course depended on the round being fired.

That's a rather improbable value for the 37 - the Ternathians wouldn't have been building a flak gun, and don't seem to have much more use for anti-armour weapons. I'm going to have to reread the description

Top
Re: Sharonan artillery
Post by Tenshinai   » Sat Apr 23, 2016 8:44 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2830
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Louis R wrote:In normal Anglophone military usage _all_ guns are 'artillery'


When you´re talking generalisations, yes. When you´re separating subtypes of artillery, not automatically no.

Specific names for subtypes have varied a lot between nations and times, and yes that includes within various English-speaking nations, so your jumping up at and saying that is pretty much useless.

Do note that i wrote "artillery piece", not "artillery". The former is a gun for a specific purpose, the latter is the generalised term.

Louis R wrote: I think what you are trying to say is that the Flak36 isn't a field gun, and in that you are quite correct.


Actually, the Flak36 is quite effective in the role of a field gun. It is not effective in the role of an artillery piece however. It had exchangeable sights to switch between the role of field gun and anti-air.

As "field gun" can include guns made/useful for direct fire and direct fire support, which the 88L56 does perfectly fine at.

The 88 Flak 18 or 36 is not an artillery piece, or artillery gun. It COULD be use even as that but was not good for the role.
It was not designed as a field gun, but it works in that role, as history clearly shows.

Louis R wrote:What really has me scratching my head is where the OP got the idea that the 37 is a "dead ringer" for the Krupp 88. AFAICT, the only things that they have in common are the caliber, rate of fire and use of fixed rounds - there's no detailed description that would indicate any other resemblance.


For anyone who has no real knowledge, those things in common are more than enough to call them twins. Regardless reality. Heck, having the same caliber is enough for many.

I even tried to check in case there was some obscure 88, but i´m not finding anything but the Flak family.
Top

Return to Multiverse