![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Eternal Patrol
![]() |
![]()
That's a funny thing; designations from different navies are so, well, different.
In the Royal Navy a 'Common' shell was also called 'Semi-Armor Piercing' (SAP) and was expected to penetrate armor equivalent to 1/3 the shell's diameter. A book I saw once on Fletcher class destroyers made the same claim for US 'HC'. One of the funnier things about the British designations was the brief use of 'SAPCBC', or 'Semi-Armor Piercing Capped British Common'. Another reference I've seen to 'HC' was that it was designed for shore bombardment, and was meant to penetrate xx amout of concrete. Sorry, but I don't remember the actual amount.
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Samurai Navy
![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 597
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Well, I brought up the "common" vs. "HC" issue in the RFB thread apparently without properly searching, as what I had found is all right here.
![]() Anyways, I found some more information that might illuminate the topic further. (although this is from an article on modern naval gunnery, it seems many terms have persisted): Quote:
If one did want to have both types of projectile for the 4"/50, it seems you could use the "AA" slot for the second type, as the 4" was not a DP gun. Edit: and here is an older source that gives some context: http://books.google.com/books?id=zjF...ZsKICHfc&hl=en
__________________
-AKD Last edited by akdavis; 05-20-08 at 01:10 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Ocean Warrior
![]() Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,909
Downloads: 77
Uploads: 11
|
![]()
Ah, nice. I did wonder what the difference between HE and HC was, as they both have more explosive. Especially as the Razorback report mentions them both. Seems it's just a matter of calibre of projectile. Thanks for clearing that one up.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Samurai Navy
![]() Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 597
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Here is another pretty definitive source, a USN 1957 manual:
Quote:
__________________
-AKD |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 | |
Eternal Patrol
![]() |
![]() Quote:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_16-50_mk7.htm Another interesting note is that US subs carried common, and maybe 'special common', and not much else, except possibly some starshells. Why? Because there was no 5" AP round made. http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Ocean Warrior
![]() Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,909
Downloads: 77
Uploads: 11
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Eternal Patrol
![]() |
![]()
Not that I've heard of. Maximum range is as far as they shoot, and the penetration tables will give expected penetrations at given ranges by an armor-piercing shell.
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|