Shipbucket

Hello everybody. If it is ok I had a few military ship related questions to ask.
1. What is overall and truly better APAR and Smart-L, Aegis and its directors, or S1850M and Sampson ( from the research I have done they all have their own advantages and disadvantages and not one is truly the best)
2. What are better the Oto melara 127/54 and 127/64 or Mark 45/54 and Mark 45/62 ( including costs logistics etc.)
3. Was their a true dual mounted dual purpose destroyer gun available before world war 2 not including the British 4.7in. and mount used on the American Gearing and Allen Summner classes
any answer would be much appreciated

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

1. your research is correct.
2. about cost I cannot really say, but the difference is mainly in role and weight. the mk 45 is unsuitable for AA/CIWS work, but is a lot lighter.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

ahh my bad then
and area defense is more useful correct?
and when comparing the oto melara to the mk.45 so it depends on how much weight u can spend on your main gun

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

We don't know. The true capabilities of the systems are classified so it's impossible to say. However, I feel it's safe to say that they all have their advantages and disadvantages is a fair summation. The OTO offers superior rate of fire and range via the Vulcano round, the Mark 45 gives you a larger supply base, depending on how good terms you are with the USN. While it wasn't actually used on any destroyers as far as I know, the US 5"/25 qualifies. Alternatively there's the British 4"Twin HA/LA Mount - Mark XIX

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

hmmm yes ik of both the 5"/25 however i read was more AA gun than dual purpose but i guess u could make a dual purpose mount with it and while the 4in. is excellant i feel its a little week for a destroyer i should have specified that
thankyou very much everyone for these insights any others would be much appreciated

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

It could depress to at least -10 degrees and fire armour piercing and HE. That makes it a dual purpose gun per definition.
AFAIK, as far as the Western navies goes that's it for prewar DP guns, aside from the 5"/38 and the various 4.7" guns. I think the Japanese had some as well, but I'm not sure.

_________________
“Close” only counts with horseshoes, hand grenades, and tactical nuclear weapons.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error

Worklist

Source Materiel is always welcome.

Indeed the Japanese had the twin 5" mounting on their Fubuki class destroyers (Special Type). That mounting had 70 degrees elevation, so it could be called Dual Purpose. Later classes of the IJN destroyers had a simpler mounting, offering only 50 degrees elevation.
The Americans did not consider the 5"/25 a Dual Purpose gun as the muzzle velocity of the gun was considered too low for penetrating any sort of light Armour, hence the move to the 5"/38, which was a middle way between the surface only 5"/51 and the AA only 5"/25.
The Royal Navy was in fact unable to produce a true Dual Purpose mounting for destroyers until near the end of WW2, as the 4.7"/45 twin mounting, like these on the Tribal class and J and K and N classes had only 40 degrees elevation, and the twin 4.7"/50 mounting (in fact more like a turret, albeit unarmored) had 50 degrees of elevation. These are not fit for AA work, only for long range barrage fire against enemy planes like torpedo bombers (which usually wee coming in low) or level bombers, that when are far are seem to be low. Also remember that the Royal Navy had great faith in torpedo bombers against shipping, and until the Spanish Civil War didn't consider dive bombing as a threat to warships.

_________________
Thank you Kim for the crest

"Never fear to try on something new. Remember that the Titanic was built by professionals, and the Ark by an amateur"

''current APAR/SMART-L is roughly on par with the AEGIS systems from 10 years ago''

needed to be quoted, sorry!

I don't have any sources for that, but that's what I've been given to understand. The comment earlier in the thread that the actual capabilities are highly classified is true.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆