76 mm naval gun
WLBBLW
How effective is the US 76mm gun? What is its primary purpose? Can it hit a
surface target? How about a shore target? Whats its range? Has it been used in
combat?
Thanks.
-Brian
Falcon 38
In article <199806130035...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, wlb...@aol.com (WLBBLW) wrote:
>How effective is the US 76mm gun?
>What is its primary purpose?
To blow things up.
>Can it hit a surface target?
Err, yeah.
>How about a shore target?
Yep.
>Whats its range?
Umm, you'll have to look at Janes. I'm guessing about 8nm
>Has it been used in combat?
Yep.
>Thanks.
Yer welcome.
Note: The fire control radar helps a lot when you're trying to hit the
target.
Adam Howarter
> How effective is the US 76mm gun?
In what role?
Compared to what?
> What is its primary purpose?
To sink "soft" targets. Fast attack craft and other ships to small to
warrent an expensive missile. It also can be used to shoot down
attacking aircraft and missiles, but as with most "large" guns I
wouldn't put much stock in its effectiveness against the latter.
> Can it hit a
> surface target?
It better be able to, or the US tax payer got taken to the cleaners.
> How about a shore target?
Sure. But the size of its warhead, and its range don't make it practical
for this role.
>Whats its range?
Against what? As with most guns it has a longer range against surface
targets then against airborne ones.
> Has it been used in
> combat?
I think so.
Thomas A. Beckley
>How effective is the US 76mm gun? What is its primary purpose? Can it hit a
>surface target? How about a shore target? Whats its range? Has it been used
in
>combat?
The 76mm gun currently used on the OHP's and some Coast Guard Cutters (and
previously used on the PHM's) is a license built version of the OTO/Malera
76mm gun, which is the de facto world standard for that size weapon. It is
a dual purpose and can engage surface or air targets and according to the
Navy homepage has a range of 10 nautical miles. Considering the number of
vessels armed with this weapon, it's likely to have been used in combat at
some point, most likely in the Persian Gulf during one of the conflicts
there.
Andrew C. Toppan
It's Italian, and it's quite effective.
> What is its primary purpose?
To shoot at things.
> Can it hit a surface target?
Yes. A gun would not be much use otherwise.
> How about a shore target?
I don't think the fire control system allows for this.
> Whats its range?
Commonly quoted around 21,000 yards. Effective range presumably somewhat
less.
> Has it been used in combat?
Yes.
--
Andrew Toppan --- acto...@gwi.net --- "I speak only for myself"
=====>NEW ADDRESS ==> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ <== NEW ADDRESS <======
US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more
Railroad Rosters & Photo Features --- http://membrane.com/~elmer/rail/
Bob Juntunen
The Mk 92 FCS on board the Perry class frigates which contols the MK 75
gun has a shore bomardment mode. I imagine one could also use the MK 24
TDT's to control the gun against shore targets as long as they were in
visual range from the ship.
JacobsenGM
The 76mm gun is regarded by those in the navy who actually DO shore bombardment
as a stop-gap weapon at best. It's crew is not trained to provide Naval Gun
Fire, which would be a serious limitation in combat since you would have this
pesky problem of fratricide...Also the gun system is limited to shooting at
what the ship can actually see...literally. Clouds, rain, or anything else
that limits this precludes engagement of shore targets. Finally, the ship, as
a result, is further limited to "direct fire" engagements. Most ships that are
"Naval Gunfire" capable (ie: those with 5 inch (127mm) guns in the USN) are
trained to shoot in an indirect fire mode, meaning lobbing the shells over
hills or long ranges under the controll of spotters. The 76mm ships usually do
not have any computer software to process an indirect fire mission, which then
limits them to direct fire engagements.
Bob Juntunen
The Mk 92 FCS on the Perry class frigates has the "computer software" to
engage in indirect fire missions.
JacobsenGM
Bob Jontune from bobju...@webtv.net wrote:
>The Mk 92 FCS on the Perry class frigates has the "computer software" to
>engage in indirect fire missions.
>
>
According to whom? All the people I know who work these systems tell me that
they are direct fire only. I know for a fact that the crews are not trained in
the US in indirect fire procedures.
Gordon Jacobsen
JACOB...@AOL.COM
WLBBLW
So who do I listen to? "Yes it does , no it doesnt" Geeeeez!
Katana
funny..I dont remeber there being that capability in our ship's USCG WHEC
Hamilton class or the Famous class either, we would have to pick a good
taget and then use an offset...thats certainly not software......
Bob Juntunen wrote in message
<26874-35...@newsd-113.bryant.webtv.net>...
tbaskco
JacobsenGM <jacob...@aol.com> wrote in article
<199807030510...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> Bob Jontune from bobju...@webtv.net wrote:
>
> >The Mk 92 FCS on the Perry class frigates has the "computer software" to
> >engage in indirect fire missions.
> >
> >
> According to whom? All the people I know who work these systems tell me
that
> they are direct fire only. I know for a fact that the crews are not
trained in
> the US in indirect fire procedures.
>
As I understood it the 76mm gun was a high velocity gun that fired in
basically a flat tragectory.
I was an HT, what do I know?
Bob Juntunen
On the two Perry class frigates I served on, when we did Naval Gun Fire
Support training a spotter on shore relayed the target cooridnates to
CIC. This info was entered into the computer via the Tote page on WCC 1.
After firing a couple of spotting rounds, the spotter sent corrections.
These corrections were also entered into the computer via the Tote page.
Whether this would be considered direct fire or indirect fire, I am not
sure as it has been almost 10 years since I left the Navy.
JacobsenGM
Katana of <fen...@ptialaska.net> wrote:
>Bob Juntunen wrote in message
><26874-35...@newsd-113.bryant.webtv.net>...
>The Mk 92 FCS on the Perry class frigates has the "computer software" to
>engage in indirect fire missions.
>
>
There is a definite misunderstanding that exists on the indirect fire capacity
of the 76mm gun. The common belief in the fires community is that this gun
system has not the capability to conduct indirect fire support. I have never
worked on this type of ship, but do remember conversations with fire support
instructors who confirmed this..but it has been a while. Anyhow, the Naval
fires community who are attached to the US Marine Corps clearly believe that
this is not capable of indirect fires, as does the majority opinion of the US
Naval leadership from my experience.
Further, the Perry class of ships do not normally receive either formal
school training for the conduct of indirect fire support, nor are they required
to go to Shore Bombardment ranges to practice with marines. They have very
little experience onboard, even if they were tasked, to be able to do this
style of combat.
I, however, believe that this is a gun system that has an overlooked
ability. In WWII the 3 inch guns, even down to the 40mm Bofors, were used
against beach targets.
Although it is not "doctrinal" and not supported by the training system, I
believe that a 3 inch gun system, one that can take objects under fire if it
can see it with its optical system, can be used in a shore bombardment role in
special circumstances:
Independent operations: We could use the 76 mm gun deep along enemy
coasts to monitor any enemy roads that it can see. In this role, anything
moving along a road is a valid target...this would not do much to tanks, but
anything else would be a deterrent.
Close Support. This would be tricky, but doable. Some method of fire
control would have to be understood by the ship, since they do not receive the
formal schooling. But once that was overcome, a 76mm gun could conceivably be
used as a limited capacity shore fire platform. Something is better than
nothing.
Any comments on either side of this argument from the crowd?
Gordon "Jake" Jacobsen
Naval Fires: The first rounds are on us!
JACOB...@AOL.COM
(These are my own opinions, not "official" USN or USMC responses)
Bob Juntunen
After reading the replys to my post and trying to remember back, I may
have pulled a boner by my statement that the Mk 92 FCS has the "computer
software" to engage in indirect fire missions. The gentleman's
statement about locking on to a vaild target and then entering an offset
to engage a shore target via the tote is probably true. Would this be
considered an indirect fire capability?
WLBBLW
>method of fire
>control would have to be understood by the ship, since they do not receive
>the
>formal schooling. But once that was overcome, a 76mm gun could conceivably
>be
>used as a limited capacity shore fire platform. Something is better than
>nothing.
>
Sounds like a risky, not very well planned compramise to me............
hair...@my-dejanews.com
In article <01bda6f4$bebb0300$53603acf@tibble>,
"tbaskco" <tba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> JacobsenGM <jacob...@aol.com> wrote in article
> <199807030510...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
> > Bob Jontune from bobju...@webtv.net wrote:
> >
> > >engage in indirect fire missions.
> > >
> > >
> that
> > they are direct fire only. I know for a fact that the crews are not
> trained in
> > the US in indirect fire procedures.
> >
> As I understood it the 76mm gun was a high velocity gun that fired in
> basically a flat tragectory.
>
> I was an HT, what do I know?
>
What is "HT"? How power are the 76mm shells? Have you seen their effect when
engaged in shore bombardment or against naval targets?
I imagine, due to their high rate of fire, multi-hits from a number of 76mm
shells on a small naval target, say a 1500 to 2000 ton vessel, could be more
devastating then a single hit from a 5-inch shell. What do you think?
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
JacobsenGM
hair...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>What is "HT"?
Hull Technician: the rating in the US Navy that is responsible for repairing
the hull (welding, damage control, etc.)
>How power are the 76mm shells?
>
The 76mm (3 in) shell is a 14 pound simple high explosive (depending on the
shell type, of course). The 5 in shell (127mm) is 70 pounds and has more
variety in shell types. The heavier weight of shell combined with targeting
systems for shore fire support make it a much better system.
>Have you seen their effect when
>engaged in shore bombardment or against naval targets?
>
>
Not personally, but several ships to my knowledge have attempted shore fire
bombardment to see what it could do. To my knowledge, the 76mm gun has not
been used in combat in a shore bombardment role...yet.
>I imagine, due to their high rate of fire, multi-hits from a number of 76mm
>shells on a small naval target, say a 1500 to 2000 ton vessel, could be more
>devastating then a single hit from a 5-inch shell. What do you think?
>
The crew of the USS Vincennes would probably agree with you...
Capt Scuttlebutt
>> How about a shore target?
>I don't think the fire control system allows for this.
The only Royal Navy vessels armed with this were the PEACOCK class
Hong Kong Patrol Craft. two were sold to the Irish Navy and the
remaining three (PEACOCK,PLOVER & STARLING) recently passed into the
ownership of the Philippine Navy.
The fire control system on these was a BAe Sea Archer Electro Optical
system mounted atop the bridge.
Like a pair of rangefinder binoculars, to which the gun mounting was
slaved. You look at far object, mounting trains round with you.
It would track airliners coming in to land at Kai Tak,but whether you
would hit anything was another matter. Sometimes, to liven up a high
seas firing, the mounting would train on an exact reciprocal to the
fire control system. You would be looking at a lot of dark blue
Pacific; the gun,meanwhile would be pointing at distant downtown
Stanley or whatever. Lotsa visits from Oto Melara.
In 1987, when I had a brief spell with HKPC, I was told that there was
no H.E shell for them,just solid rounds.
We figured the only reason they were ordered for the HK patrol vessels
was because,like a lot of things Italian, they looked sexy but didn't
necessarily pack much of a punch. Always surprised me that the German
(BREMEN ?) class frigates had them up forward - the VSEL Mk8 4.5 inch
had a better range,heavier round and not much different rate of
fire(20 rds per minute).
Happy Fourth, colonists.
Roger
--
Don't wait for your boat to come in - row out to meet it!
Thomas Schoene
<k44q1.528$Xt1.2...@newsr2.u-net.net>...
> acto...@gwi.net (Andrew C. Toppan) wrote:
>
> >I don't think the fire control system allows for this.
>
> The only Royal Navy vessels armed with this were the PEACOCK class
> Hong Kong Patrol Craft.
>
> In 1987, when I had a brief spell with HKPC, I was told that there
was
> no H.E shell for them,just solid rounds.
I'm suspicious of this, since the only solid rounds for the OTO
Compact 3-inch are training rounds. Of course, solid 76mm rounds at
900+ m/s would be enough to demolish most small vessels in short
order.
>
> We figured the only reason they were ordered for the HK patrol
vessels
> was because,like a lot of things Italian, they looked sexy but
didn't
> necessarily pack much of a punch. Always surprised me that the
German
> (BREMEN ?) class frigates had them up forward - the VSEL Mk8 4.5
inch
> had a better range,heavier round and not much different rate of
> fire(20 rds per minute).
ROF for the Compact 3-inch mount is more like 80 rounds per minute;
later versions hit 120 rpm. Now that's a huge difference, enough
that the Italian Navy uses the 76mm as their inner-layer air defense
weapon instead of traditional 20-30mm cannon-based CIWS.
The Compact is basically an air-defense weapon, while the Mk8 is
mostly an antisurface weapon. Also, the Mk8 weighs something like
three times as much as the OTOCompact (26 vs 8 tons) so you shouldn't
discount the need to save top weight as a factor in the decision.
--
--------------------------------------------------
TomSc...@worldnet.att.net
*Insert pithy quote here*
Alexander McClearn at TUNS
> We figured the only reason they were ordered for the HK patrol vessels
> was because,like a lot of things Italian, they looked sexy but didn't
> necessarily pack much of a punch. Always surprised me that the German
> (BREMEN ?) class frigates had them up forward - the VSEL Mk8 4.5 inch
> had a better range,heavier round and not much different rate of
> fire(20 rds per minute).
Whoa, we talking about the OTO Melara 76mm here? Even the old Compact 76mm
from OTO fires up to 80 rds/min, and the Super Rapide fires up to 120.
Yes, both will fire 20 rds/min, but are capable of much more. They are
superior AA guns than the Vickers 4.5", I would imagine. Heck, even the
OTO 5" we had on the old Tribals could fire 45 rds/min...
Sandy McClearn [/] mccl...@geocities.com ____.____ %
Civil Engineering -) [\] | ...__ | _ c[@@]O=+/
TUNS __O_|_| \_ | [### \ |-$_______8__ " `
[*|*| \___ -_|-[ __\ | |____|_/ ]
|\........-@.....[........|.|.].[....|.|H|..|........]............_____|
\CDN Navy, Yesterday & Today: http://www.uss-salem.org/navhist/canada |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My Homepage: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9411/
Capt Scuttlebutt
>On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, Capt Scuttlebutt wrote:
What transpires (as he feared) to be a lot of ole cobblers,written in
woeful ignorance.
>Whoa, we talking about the OTO Melara 76mm here? Even the old Compact 76mm
>from OTO fires up to 80 rds/min, and the Super Rapide fires up to 120.
>Yes, both will fire 20 rds/min, but are capable of much more. They are
>superior AA guns than the Vickers 4.5", I would imagine. Heck, even the
>OTO 5" we had on the old Tribals could fire 45 rds/min...
There y'go see....the Hong Kong Patrol Craft replaced 'Ton' class
minesweepers armed with two 40 mm Bofors.....didn't even occur to me
that the Hong Kong Govt wanted a super sexy 76MM for Anti Air
role...presumably against wayward CAAC 737's .
the HKPC role was predominantly in support of HK Maritime Police
launches....the PEACOCK class were equipped with VoitSchneider Water
jet 'Loiter Drives' to float quietly around picking up illegal
immigrants from China and smugglers: the idea was to ping on a fast
contact,close, detain and arrest - not shoot the crap out of them.
If the Oto Melara was bought for it's AA capability, why did we have
an engineer visit to look at the possibility of mounting (IIRC)
containerized Sea Wolf down aft on the boat deck ?
Whole scenario was complicated by the fact that HMG only paid for 25%
of the boats - the rest was up to HK Govt.
maybe the thing worked better in US and German service than it did
with the RN - there was no real depth of knowledge on the beast and
the only spares train for it was held in Hong Kong.
'Course, if OTO Melara did it on a disappearing mount, I'm sure we
could persuade the Canuck's to buy it for the Upholder class deck gun
(:-}}
What say, Sandy?
B F Lake
I am puzzled again. Not being a gunner, maybe someone who is can
straighten this out? I thought direct meant you could see the target.
Indirect fire means? it is over the hill, so you need a spotter. To do
this you aim at something you CAN see, and plot where that is, and plot
where the target is according to your spotter using the grid, and figure
out the aim off for the gun needed to hit the target while the director is
aiming at the chosen object? So what's the software requirement problem?
Anybody with a director, a gun, and chart and ordnance survey map can do
this?
The 76mm round may not be a big deal for NGFS, more like a long range
mortar, but the army guys do use mortars for some things. The flat
trajectory "problem" is "solved?" by just aiming the gun really high so the
round can get over the hill and at a short range?
What's the real story?
Barry
JacobsenGM
> Not being a gunner, maybe someone who is can
>straighten this out? I thought direct meant you could see the target.
>Indirect fire means?
>
Direct fire means that the ship is engaging a target using its own sensors and
under local control.
> it is over the hill, so you need a spotter. To do
>this you aim at something you CAN see, and plot where that is, and plot
>where the target is according to your spotter using the grid, and figure
>out the aim off for the gun needed to hit the target while the director is
>aiming at the chosen object?
>
To use a 76mm gun in a indirect fire mode means that the ship, at least
initially, does not have direct line of sight with the target. Somebody on the
ground calls the ship and tells them of a target, and then we get into a grey
area. The 76mm gun was not designed to engage targets indirectly. While it
can train and elevate to shoot over hills, it does not have the software to
make the calculations of where the rounds are going to impact, nor are the
crews of the ships normally trained in this method of fire control.
Having said this, it can be done, with enough preparation and training
prior to the event. Although not in any doctrine that I know of, a 76mm
mounted ship can use some home brewed techniques to get the gun aimed and
pointed in the right direction.
I have seen 2 variations on this theme: One ship used a spotter to simply
help orient the TV camera onto the shore target, allowing them to take it under
fire when it was seen. This is still direct fire, but it started out with a
spotter on the beach detecting the target and requesting a fire mission.
Another 76mm ship that had an experienced NGF officer worked out a plan to be
able to translate indirect fire NGF missions into a workable indirect fire
system by offsetting the gun's aim point from a known point. This system
seemed rather complex and would have probably required a lot of training, and
the USN dismissed it as non standard tactics, but apparently they got it to
work in theory.
>So what's the software requirement problem?
>
The software needs to be able to calculate corrections to the gun from a
direction other than that of the ship. In plain English, it needs to be able
to figure out the true train and elevation corrections given that the inputs
are coming in significantly skewed due to the spotters different perspective
relative to the target. Doing this by hand is slow.
The software also needs to be able to translate inputs from a spotter (ie:
left/right, add/drop, up/down) into train and elevation corrections to the gun
barrel.
>Anybody with a director, a gun, and chart and ordnance survey map can do
>this?
>
Yes, but if you have good fire control system support for indirect fires, it
goes much faster and will be much more accurate. This is key when you are
attempting to aid friendly troops.
>The 76mm round may not be a big deal for NGFS, more like a long range
>mortar, but the army guys do use mortars for some things.
>
It is not normally used because the 5in gun, at least in the US Navy, is the
designated system for fire support. As a result the 76mm equipped ships are
never trained in shore fire support (normally), and their systems are not built
to accept the spotters corrections. As a result, the ships are not well suited
for working in close proximity to friendly troops. But they do have the range
nearly that of the 5in gun and can be used in certain situations, assuming you
could convince the Navy that your request for a 76mm ship was genuine and you
had a decent plan for their employment.
>The flat
>trajectory "problem" is "solved?" by just aiming the gun really high so the
>round can get over the hill and at a short range?
>
You can certainly solve the flat trajectory problem in this manner, but then
you turn it into a super-mortar. You will tend to get much more inaccurate
shots since you expose the round to a great deal of flight time through many
levels of atmosphere. This means that all the winds at the various layers of
altitude will have a chance to blow the round off course. Unless the ship has
an accurate picture of the winds at all of these various altitudes (which they
normally do not), the round will have a rather large "CEP", circular error
probable.
This is an interesting question, since many in the Navy naturally assume that
the 76mm guns can't provide fire support. Often it takes one outside the
system to break the paradigm. Hope this helps.
Arved Sandstrom
: Posted on 7th-lost in cyberspace? Sorry if a repeat:
: I am puzzled again. Not being a gunner, maybe someone who is can
: straighten this out? I thought direct meant you could see the target.
: this you aim at something you CAN see, and plot where that is, and plot
: where the target is according to your spotter using the grid, and figure
: out the aim off for the gun needed to hit the target while the director is
: Anybody with a director, a gun, and chart and ordnance survey map can do
: this?
: The 76mm round may not be a big deal for NGFS, more like a long range
: mortar, but the army guys do use mortars for some things. The flat
: trajectory "problem" is "solved?" by just aiming the gun really high so the
: round can get over the hill and at a short range?
: Barry
--
Alexander McClearn at TUNS
...nothing that I can see, but never mind. Where the hell have you been,
Arved? Geeez, you can't just go AWOL from USTAFISH like that whenever you
feel like it.... :-)