Tzoli

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
1 February 2011
Messages
2,856
Reaction score
3,307
In Norman Friedman's US Amphibious Ships and Craft: An Illustrated Design History book (2002) mentions some interesting weapon systems:

In February 1983 the commandant of the Marine Corps asked the Defense Science Board to study the fire support issue.
...
The study was finally submitted on 4 April 1985 as the "Naval Surface Fire Support (NSFS) Improvement Study", and it was pointedly different from a study of Naval GUN fire support.
...
The future weapons considered by the study were a bomblet-carrying missile; an 8"/60 gun, lengthened to improve range compared to the earlier 8"/55, firing conventional, rocket assisted and extended-range (ramjet) ammunition; and the army missile system. Due to its long time to flight, the rocket-assisted projectile (RAP) round required a terminal seeker. A faster ramjet (with 70km range using solid fuel), then under navy development, did not contain a seeker. There was also interest in an anti-radar shell for the 8" gun. The gun might be an upgraded version of the earlier Mk 71 or a vertical loader.
...
The 8"/60 was assessed as the least expensive improvement but also the most marginal.
...
Several more exotic weapons were under development, including 5" and 155mm rail guns (electric guns) and a pulsed-power 5"/84 (hybrid solid-propellant gun). They did not figure significantly in the NSFS study, however.

The wikipedia article mentions a 155mm/70 "Combustion Light Gas Gun" but no mention of the 127mm gun. The 5"/84 Pulsed-Powered and 8"/60 conventional guns are also new to me!

Friedman also mentions fire support combat systems for an Iowa, the LPD-4 USS Austin, a Spruance and a Knox class vessel.

Did anybody hear about these weapon systems which seems not past through the earliest development stages? 5"/84 and the 8"/60 is quite interesting!
 
Also I've found mention of a 12"/70 gun considered for the MCLWG (Major Caliber Lightweight Gun) Project which never got beyond the proposal stage and which project produced the 8"/55 Mark 28/32 gun tested on USS Hull.

Another gun mention was from 1968, a 8"/39 for the then under development DX (Which became the Spruance class), abortive versions of the standard army 8" howitzer (2x was envisioned for the DX)
 
Last edited:
The article about the Fire Support Ships in the 1969/70 Jane's Fighting Ships mentions the planned armament of the FSS
Interesting to note that the 1972/73 JFS has almost exactly the same language but says three rather than four MCLWG. And several alternative configurations of that outfit (3 MCLWG, 2 Mk 66 5-in/54) show up as sketches in Friedman's US Amphibious Ships and Craft.
 
Well I meant gun mark not turret mark.
 
Well I meant gun mark not turret mark.

But Mark 71 was a mount designation, not a gun designation. There were two guns for the Mk 71 mount -- Mk 28 (a two-piece barrel) and Mk 32 (the planned production standard monobloc tube). A longer barrel would have just been a new barrel Mark with a different mount Mod.
 
In Norman Friedman's US Amphibious Ships and Craft: An Illustrated Design History book (2002) mentions some interesting weapon systems:



The wikipedia article mentions a 155mm/70 "Combustion Light Gas Gun" but no mention of the 127mm gun. The 5"/84 Pulsed-Powered and 8"/60 conventional guns are also new to me!

Friedman also mentions fire support combat systems for an Iowa, the LPD-4 USS Austin, a Spruance and a Knox class vessel.

Did anybody hear about these weapon systems which seems not past through the earliest development stages? 5"/84 and the 8"/60 is quite interesting!
8"/60 was the basic 8"/55 Mk16 brass cased autoloader from the Des Moines class with a 40" longer barrel, in a single mount turret.

5"/84 sounds like an electro-thermo-chemical gun, but that technology failed to live up to early promises of 50% increased power. More like 5% increase.
 
8"/60 was the basic 8"/55 Mk16 brass cased autoloader from the Des Moines class with a 40" longer barrel, in a single mount turret.
I'm not sure about that. Care to provide more info or source? I doubt they would re-use an 1940's design for a 1980's gun
 
I'm not sure about that. Care to provide more info or source? I doubt they would re-use an 1940's design for a 1980's gun
The 8"/55 Mk71 Major Caliber Lightweight Gun used a spare Des Moines class gun barrel in tests on USS Hull DD-945.


Your own reference says that the 8"/60 was "lengthened to improve range compared to the earlier 8"/55," and the only 8"/55 the US had in use was that Mk71.
 
I disagree. Never heard that a spare 8"/55 RF Mark 16 barrel (if any survived by that time which seems unlikely knowing that the USS Newport News's gun did not replaced) and wiki does not states a source for that info.

Navweaps site does not mention neither that the prototype gun was an older RF Mark 16 barrel:


There are plenty of missing gun marks between the Des Moines's RF Mark 16, the prototype Mark 28 and the production variant Mark 32. Marks 17-27 and 29-31 and this /60 calibre gun would be a post Mark 32 so even more missing numbers.

Info and history on the USN's gun development program from the cold war period seems quite sketchy with limited number of online sources and books to look for.
 
The 8"/55 Mk71 Major Caliber Lightweight Gun used a spare Des Moines class gun barrel in tests on USS Hull DD-945.


Your own reference says that the 8"/60 was "lengthened to improve range compared to the earlier 8"/55," and the only 8"/55 the US had in use was that Mk71.

This report has some of the history of the evolution of the Mk 71 here. Notably, it was originally built as a 175mm gun but rebored to 8-inch when the Army abandoned 175mm. It was definitely not a Mk 16 barrel, but they did compare wear to that of a Mk 16 (see pg 32; which is 44 in the PDF).

INTRODUCTION

The Major Caliber Lightweight Gun Mount (MCLGM) is a result of Navy and Marine Corps efforts beginning in 1960 to provide the fleet with the first major caliber gun mount to be designed since the end of World War II. This mount would provide firepower necessary to support troops ashore at ranges well beyond that of 5"0 guns and would provide greatly increased firepower for the fleet, particularly for smaller ships. A 175mm/60 caliber mount was specified by Reference 1 because of the potential advantages of achieving commonality in ammunition with the Army 175mm gun. Northern Ordnance Division of FMC Corporation at Minneapolis (NOD/fmc) was awarded the contract to design and develop the mount. A prototype was fabricated and subjected to testing at NOD/fmc, including a 50,000 cycle life and reliability test, on the loading system. The mount was disassembled and delivered to the Naval Weapons Laboratory, Dahlgren. Virginia in August 1970 where it was reassemble checked, proof-fired and evaluated to verify that contract requirements were met.

The Army, however, developed only one type of projectile for an anticipated family of ammunition; terminated plans for future ammunition development; planned the phaseout o! the 175mm gun; and commenced development of an "up-gunned" 8-inch howitzer. Accordingly, the original SOR, Reference 1, was revised and superseded by Reference 2 in October 1969. The MCLGM was directed to be an 8-inch gun in production using the basic design established in the development of the 175mm prototype To meet these new requirements, a program was authorized in February 1971 to convert the prototype MCLGM from its 175mm/60 configuration to an 8"/:55 Thus, the Naval Weapons Laboratory, by Reference 3, was assigned the responsibility to effect this conversion and to evaluate the 8"/55 MCLGM MARK 71 MOD 0.

The oscillating assembly was returned to NOD/fmc in March 1971 for modification of the recoil and counterrecoil system to handle the increased loads when firing 8".0 MARK 25 projectiles. Since the cartridge case remained the same for both the 175mm and 8*0 applications, only minor modifications were required to the ammunition handling system to accommodate the heavier projectile. These were accomplished on the mount without removing it from its permanent emplacement. Two 175mm liners were converted to an 8".0 by Watervhct Arsenal. A four caliber extension was added to one liner so that it might be used in the mount, the second liner was converted to an 8"/51 caliber test gun for interior ballistic development programs. Two new 8*/55 caliber liners were also machined from new forgings. The converted oscillating assembly was returned to NWL in August 1971 and the mount was reassembled. The 8".0 MCLGM prototype mount was proofed with the EX 28 MOD 0 liner (with the extension) on 3 September 1971.

 
Wow! Thanks! I think this provides the the missing marks between the Prototype and the production gun!
Mark 28 - the prototype 8"/55 gun converted from the first 175mm/60 gun
Mark 29 - a 175mm/60 gun relined to 8" but 4 calibre extension so 8"/59 gun?
Mark 30 - a 175mm/60 gun relined to 8"/51 test gun
Mark 31 - the two new 8"/55 guns manufactured from new forgings
Mark 32 - The final 8"/55 production variant
 
I disagree. Never heard that a spare 8"/55 RF Mark 16 barrel (if any survived by that time which seems unlikely knowing that the USS Newport News's gun did not replaced
They did have spare 8"55 barrels, literally multiple cruisers worth of them since the standard at tge tine was was 3 set of barrels per cruiser. With the Desmounes class get 4 sets due to the thought that their high rate of fife would burn out the barrels faster then they could be rebore, so they made spares.

What Newport News needed was an ENTIRETY NEW TURRET.

Cause that gun explosive completely and utterly FUCKED that turret. It was basically the Iowa Turret 2 explosion but worse. Since all tge powder cases in the hoists for the gun went up as well. It basically destroyed the center gun entire support structure. Think the breech, the rams for both elevation and loading, all the wiring, the shell and powder hoists, then entire deal was FUBARED.
 
Wow! Thanks! I think this provides the the missing marks between the Prototype and the production gun!
Mark 28 - the prototype 8"/55 gun converted from the first 175mm/60 gun
Mark 29 - a 175mm/60 gun relined to 8" but 4 calibre extension so 8"/59 gun?
Mark 30 - a 175mm/60 gun relined to 8"/51 test gun
Mark 31 - the two new 8"/55 guns manufactured from new forgings
Mark 32 - The final 8"/55 production variant

I don't think this tracks.

The first gun was a 175mm/60, which seems from the report to have used a totally new tube. There were (at least) two liners for this gun. When they rebored them to 203mm, one was left the original length, which amounted to an 8"/51. This had no EX number because it was strictly a test rig, not a working gun. The other was extended by 4 calibers, becoming an 8"/55, which I think is EX 28 MOD 0. Then there were two new 8"/55 tubes bored from scratch, which I believe were EX 28 Mod 1. The article refers to swapping EX 28 Mod 0 and EX 28 Mod 1 out for regunning tests. But then there's also an EX 30 gun, which appears out of nowhere and is never described. That was also swapping into the mount in place of the EX 28 at one point. This is not the 8"/51 test rig, because it's implied that the 51-caliber gun could not be mounted in the turret.

I think quite possibly they were only using even numbers for guns at this point.
 
Also I've found mention of a 12"/70 gun considered for the MCLWG (Major Caliber Lightweight Gun) Project which never got beyond the proposal stage
I wonder, what was the supposed platform for her? Some kind of specialized fire support vessel? Or they hoped to fit it on surface combatants?
 
I wonder, what was the supposed platform for her? Some kind of specialized fire support vessel? Or they hoped to fit it on surface combatants?
Dedicated Fire Support Ship Designs both with single and twin mounts, though Friedman only mentions a twin armed 1969 design.
 
I think only text, but will check.
But I'm sure I've never seen a sketch of the gun or mounting. For my drawing I've used the typical conical turret shape of the time like the 8" Mark 71 for it.
 
Last edited:
Page 412 of US Amphibious Ships and Craft:
There was still some interest in larger guns. The major caliber lightweight gun project was considering a 12-in/70, which never got beyond the proposal stage, so NAVSEA’s preliminary designers sketched a 480-ft, 9,000-ton ship armed with a twin 12-in gun forward, a 5-in/54 in the bow, and a 175-mm gun aft of the superstructure, as well as Sea Sparrow. It concluded that preliminary feasibility had not been established. Much the same was said of an alternative scheme employing a triple 16-in turret in place of 12-in.
 
Most likely yes. It is described that turret to be unarmoured while the drawing shows a typical WW2 turret so we can assume they removed the armour plates of the turret of an Iowa and replaced by simple steel plates. It is unlikely but not impossible that they just used the turret as a placeholder for a new 16" triple turret design using existing 16" Mark 7 cannons.
 
Most likely yes. It is described that turret to be unarmoured while the drawing shows a typical WW2 turret so we can assume they removed the armour plates of the turret of an Iowa and replaced by simple steel plates. It is unlikely but not impossible that they just used the turret as a placeholder for a new 16" triple turret design using existing 16" Mark 7 cannons.
I'm personally leaning more towards "an Iowa turret with the armor plates removed."

It's already there and built, you don't have to do anything to it other than take all the old armor off and slap some ~1" mild steel on it. Maybe a bit thicker on the front to survive the muzzle blast.

Still surprised about the 3 different gun calibers, however. I would have expected 2x MCLWG instead of 1x MCLWG and 1x 5"/54.
 
Still surprised about the 3 different gun calibers, however. I would have expected 2x MCLWG instead of 1x MCLWG and 1x 5"/54.
Seems that they thought about different guns performing different roles. The heavy 16-inch mount was for the long-range bombardment, while the 175-mm one was for quick reaction support (and was suppposed to use Army shells, to simplify logistic) and 127-mm one was mainly to protect the ship.
 
There were multiple FSS proposals, 1-2 even suggested using 3 triple 8"/55 turrets (Des Moines or Baltimore) all forward likely all superfiring (described that the ship would face towards the shore to minimalize the area of the ship).

Page 412:
In a later scheme, the IFS would be complemented by an offshore fire support (OFS) ship armed with three triple 8-in turrets and with eight 5-in guns. A variation on this theme showed three forward-firing turrets and two twin 3-in/50 on a 9,500-ton, 450-ft hull. The ship would face the beach, presenting the smallest possible profile, and she would be armored against threats up to 60 degrees off the beam. She would have a helicopter platform, and would use air cushion vehicles, which were then called ground effect machines (GEMs), for ammunition resupply.
 
Seems that they thought about different guns performing different roles. The heavy 16-inch mount was for the long-range bombardment, while the 175-mm one was for quick reaction support (and was suppposed to use Army shells, to simplify logistic) and 127-mm one was mainly to protect the ship.
Yet they were also talking about arming at least some of the Spruance-class with MCLWG, which suggests that the gun was intended to be able to fire in self defense of the ship.
 
Also seems both original 16"/50 Gun was considered for these and a new "Lightweight" /50 gun as well!
Page 410:
In the short time they worked, the designers developed a sketch showing one triple 16-in/50 (without armor) and four 5-in/$4 single lightweight guns (an alternative had two 5-in/54 and one 175-mm). In support of CNA studies, they also looked at single and lightweight single 16-in/50 guns, without barbettes (ships could mount one or two such weapons), A ship mounting one single 16-in/50, one 175-mm lightweight gun, and two single 5-in/54 lightweight guns would displace 9,000 tons (480 ft x 72 ft x 16 ft 11 in); two-shaft diesels could drive it at 20 kts.
 
Also seems both original 16"/50 Gun was considered for these and a new "Lightweight" /50 gun as well!
Wonder how "lightweight" the 16-inch gun could be... The barrel of Mk-71 8-inch gun weighted 9 tons; about 55% of old Mk-16 barrel weight. Extrapolating it to 16-inch/50 gun, could we get a 60-ton barrel for "lightweight" weapon, if the Mk-7 barrel weighted 120 tons?
 
Wonder how "lightweight" the 16-inch gun could be... The barrel of Mk-71 8-inch gun weighted 9 tons; about 55% of old Mk-16 barrel weight. Extrapolating it to 16-inch/50 gun, could we get a 60-ton barrel for "lightweight" weapon, if the Mk-7 barrel weighted 120 tons?
I get something closer to 64 tonnes, with a single mount likely weighing around 300 tonnes.

With some scientific guesswork, the 12"/70 gun would probably weigh 38-40 tonnes, and come in at about 500 tonnes for a two-gun mount. That's pretty close to the weight of a three-gun 8"/55 Mark 17 mount.
 
Yet they were also talking about arming at least some of the Spruance-class with MCLWG, which suggests that the gun was intended to be able to fire in self defense of the ship.

The upgraded Spruances would have had a MCLWG forward but a 5-inch gun aft, for various reasons.

The role of the 5-inch mount was general purpose, but it would have included both illumination for NGFS and some degree of ship self-defense (both AAW and ASuW)
 
With some scientific guesswork, the 12"/70 gun would probably weigh 38-40 tonnes, and come in at about 500 tonnes for a two-gun mount. That's pretty close to the weight of a three-gun 8"/55 Mark 17 mount.
A bit too heavy for destroyer, but a strike cruiser probably would be able to handle single-barrel 12-inch/70.
 
The upgraded Spruances would have had a MCLWG forward but a 5-inch gun aft, for various reasons.

The role of the 5-inch mount was general purpose, but it would have included both illumination for NGFS and some degree of ship self-defense (both AAW and ASuW)
Ah, I had missed that it was only a single gun (or forgotten that Sprucans and Ticos had 2x guns).

Objection withdrawn!
 
There were multiple FSS proposals, 1-2 even suggested using 3 triple 8"/55 turrets (Des Moines or Baltimore) all forward likely all superfiring (described that the ship would face towards the shore to minimalize the area of the ship).

Page 412: In a later scheme, the IFS would be complemented by an offshore fire support (OFS) ship armed with three triple 8-in turrets and with eight 5-in guns. A variation on this theme showed three forward-firing turrets and two twin 3-in/50 on a 9,500-ton, 450-ft hull. The ship would face the beach, presenting the smallest possible profile, and she would be armored against threats up to 60 degrees off the beam. She would have a helicopter platform, and would use air cushion vehicles, which were then called ground effect machines (GEMs), for ammunition resupply.
Hm, so was this program related to the Inshore Fire Support Ship/USS Carronade? One-off commissioned in 1955 as a replacement for the rocket launcher LSM(R) conversions used in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, always wondered why that concept was never pursued any further (Warsaw Pact anti-ship missiles, I guess). 1500 tons displacement, with a 5"/38 single mount and eight Mk 105 double-barreled rocket launchers firing 5" spin-stabilized bombardment rockets at the ridiculous rate of thirty per minute per launcher. Or was this thread's FSS another entry in the neverending argument about naval gunfire support not related to the rocket-slingers?
 
Hm, so was this program related to the Inshore Fire Support Ship/USS Carronade? One-off commissioned in 1955 as a replacement for the rocket launcher LSM(R) conversions used in WWII, Korea and Vietnam, always wondered why that concept was never pursued any further (Warsaw Pact anti-ship missiles, I guess).

The first Soviet anti-ship missile was deployed nearly half a decade after Carronade entered service. I think the real question is why did Carronade exist when Mark 42 was right there. Besides having double the range, the Mark 42 had far more useful natures of ammunition, it could also fit on a destroyer.

Anyway they were supposed to be replaced by the near identical 48 rounds/minute Mark 65 or Mark 66 but both of them died.

Seems that they thought about different guns performing different roles. The heavy 16-inch mount was for the long-range bombardment, while the 175-mm one was for quick reaction support (and was suppposed to use Army shells, to simplify logistic) and 127-mm one was mainly to protect the ship.

I think the 5" would be for the illumination and smoke rounds. MCLWG and 16-in. were high capacity and nuclear only. They'd probably have got a Phalanx mount somewhere and maybe a BPDMS installation if they'd been built for self-defense.
 
The first Soviet anti-ship missile was deployed nearly half a decade after Carronade entered service. I think the real question is why did Carronade exist when Mark 42 was right there. Besides having double the range, the Mark 42 had far more useful natures of ammunition, it could also fit on a destroyer.

Anyway they were supposed to be replaced by the near identical 48 rounds/minute Mark 65 or Mark 66 but both of them died.
Feed system for the Mark 65/66 sounds like something of a nightmare:
Ammunition supply was complex, with eight ammunition drums holding 12 rounds each feeding a central carrier ring which held an additional 16 rounds. The drums needed to be manually loaded, but a single crewman could fire all of the ready rounds without assistance.
The advantage of the Carronade on paper is saturation bombardment and weight, I think. 40RPM for the 5" Mark 42, 48RPM for the Mark 65 (and I'll assume 96 for the Mark 66 since it's a double mount Mk 65). Carronade had eight launchers firing at 30 rounds per minute each. Payload-wise the rockets came in a few variations based on range and packed anywhere between 12lbs TNT to 1.7lbs Explosive D with ranges of 2500 to 10,000 yards and HC, Common and GP warheads. But the advantage is you can fit a lot more rocket launchers on a shallow-draft 1500 ton hull than 5" guns of whatever kind, and the Carronade/LSM(R)s were intended to support amphibious landings at closer range.

On the idea of big guns on small ships, there's also the outdated but entertaining example of the converted Lord Clive-class monitors used for shore bombardment by the Royal Navy in WWI. Their basic armament was a two-gun 12"/35 Mark VIII turret recycled from the Majestic-class battleships. Nine total were built, but the really fun ones are HMS Lord Clive and HMS General Wolfe (a third conversion was underway but cancelled at the end of the war). They each got a single BL 18"/40 Mark I off the HMS Furious in a semi-fixed deck mount with an open-backed gun shield. Ugly as sin but surprisingly effective, Wolfe took the longest combat shot in Royal Navy history bombarding a rail bridge at Snaaskerke, Belgium from 36,000 yards.

GeneralWolfeStarboardQuarter.JPG
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom