Would making sabot rounds for >8" guns have made sense at any point in history?
>>64891719yeah
>>64891719For what purpose? If it is for AT work the biggest thing we know of in a modern context that was used that way was Koksans plinking T-72s and they obliterated them with capped HESH, sabots not needed.
>>64891719Which gun >8" was used for direct fire?
>>64891719no
Yes, the Navy messed around with the idea of sub-caliber rounds, although they were for extending the range of HE shells to allow for longer range bombardment>In the late 1960s the "Gunfighter" program at Indian Head Naval Ordnance Station developed Long Range Bombardment Ammunition (LRBA) projectiles. These were Arrow Shells with a body diameter of 4.125" (10.4 cm) and a fin diameter of 5.0" (12.7 cm) which were sized to be fired from 8" (20.3 cm) guns by using a sabot and obturator system. Tests with these in 1968 showed maximum ranges of 72,000 yards (66,000 m). The burster in these shells was PBX-w-106, a castable explosive. Sabot weighed 17.6 lbs. (8.0 kg) and was discarded as the projectile left the muzzle. After a test firing off Okinawa of three inert-loaded shells, USS St. Paul (CA-73) in 1970 conducted a two day bombardment mission against Viet Cong positions at ranges up to 70,000 yards (64,000 m). At the time, St. Paul was the only 8" gunned cruiser still in active service. >The HE-ER Mark 148 was a 13.65 in (34.7 cm) diameter, extended-range (ER), sub-caliber cargo projectile with sabot. This projectile was to be ET-fuzed with a payload of about 300 M46 grenade sub-munitions. Experiments with this projectile were conducted during the 1980s, but development was cancelled in FY91 when the battleships were decommissioned. Projected range was to be in excess of 70,000 yards (64,000 m) at a muzzle velocity of 3,600 fps (1,097 mps). One of the dummy prototypes is currently on display at the USS Iowa (BB-61) museum.
>>64891783its an absolute travesty we didn't keep around the hull with it's 8inch gun modification
>>64891783That's cool as hell
>>64891719yes, but now you can tape drone with shaped charge that does job better
Were there no attempts to achieve high muzzle velocity with a smoothbore?If it was intended for shore bombardment, the lower accuracy would have been acceptable.
>>64891719I don't understand the question. Sub caliber rounds offer increased penetration over full bore.
>>64891728based yeahposter
>>64892283not hating, but you may have genuine autism
>>64891719The USNy wanted ramjet rounds for range extended bombardment and had experimental ones.
>>64891741Soviet shit
>>64891741Ship guns
>>64891783I was reading this doc just a month ago.
>>64891719Sorta? If you're a cruiser that had the bad luck of encountering a battleship then you could plausibly shoot back with Sabots but sabots from rifled barrels end up losing accuracy. Something about an incorrect twist rate. The end result is A. you could penetrate the armor but B. are going to have a hard time hitting it and C. aren't doing a lot of damage even when you do hit.
>>64892283When you get into long-range engagements with large-calibre naval guns, this can change. Larger, heavier shells are better at retaining momentum over large distances and would actually have superior penetration especially for long-range plunging fire, on top of considerably superior post-penetration effects.
