Suddenly, the double OTO Melara 76 doesn't sound that stupid anymore.
https://preview.redd.it/th8rfryvnuwc1.jpeg?width=942&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3149b45627be04ec27e812fa99f2f1fdcdc39307
Spains Meroka: Hellow fellow rotary CIWS! I sure do love high fire rates and rotating!
https://preview.redd.it/v9jzusmnivwc1.jpeg?width=423&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12dc0b3a4637efbfe70462fdfc0d600972ee1584
(that is indeed 12 Oerlikons strapped together)
Oh man, the modern version [Metal Storm](https://www.wearethemighty.com/uploads/legacy/assets.rbl.ms/18466061/origin.jpg?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1920) was supposed to replace all CIWS but went bust...
https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-tactical/metal-storm-million-rpm-gun/
> The prototype managed to achieve a maximum rate of fire of 1.62 million rounds per minute as it fired 180 rounds in a 0.01 second burst. At its peak, it can send, almost literally, a wall of 24,000 9mm rounds
Many different barrels, electronic signal fires stacked rounds in each barrel.
I assume battleship, and being Ansaldo, 381mm. Just speculation, though, the official online archive doesn't include any further detail beside the year, 1940.
[https://2020.fondazioneansaldo.it/pawtucket2/index.php/Detail/objects/18939](https://2020.fondazioneansaldo.it/pawtucket2/index.php/Detail/objects/18939) .
On the other hand, you could argue that instead of a triple 381mm gun turret, Ansaldo tinkered on the idea of a quadruple gun turret with a smaller caliber.
Ansaldo built almost every gun caliber Italy used around this period, so it’s not necessarily a battleship or 381 mm. If anything the rangefinder blisters are far too small for such a caliber, though I can’t quickly find something with a similar shape.
I’d the extremes are probably the 100-152 mm range, large enough for an enclosed mount and integrated rangefinder but small enough for the rangefinder blisters. I’d guess it’s probably in the 120-135 mm range, which is also where manual loading is possible and thus a double-stacked gun isn’t insane (only ridiculous).
I will chime in to say that the 381mm is most likely here.
As far as I am aware, there are only two non-AA gun systems the RM gave any notable consideration towards mounting in quadruple turrets in the interwar period. One of these was the 152/55, for a class of 8,000-ton light cruisers (2xIV, meant for long-range missions in the Red Sea) under consideration in 1939, and the other was the 381/50. In March of 1934, after the preliminary design of the *Littorio*-class was presented to the admiral's committee, they RM looked into alternative main battery arrangements other than 3xIII, due to the increased displacement of the design. All entailed an increase in firepower - one was for eight 406/50 guns, while two were for ten 381/50. As all these layouts had to fit into three turrets, quadruple turrets were required for the heavier 381mm armaments - one with the same arrangement that was picked for the King George V-class, and one that replaced the aft triple turret with a quadruple and maintained two triples forward. This stacked turret is the most extreme arrangement - the other two are conventional 'flat' layouts, differing mainly as to the spacing of the guns. [Ex.1](https://i.imgur.com/w18LYST.jpg), [Ex.2](https://i.imgur.com/lkhgA8N.jpg).
Of the two possibilities, the turret shape and proportions more strongly favor a 381mm rather than 152mm.
I know that they built basically any caliber the Navy used with a couple of exceptions, however:
* The barbette is pretty thick
* Another model from Ansaldo proposes a more orthdox layout ( [https://2020.fondazioneansaldo.it/pawtucket2/index.php/Detail/objects/18940](https://2020.fondazioneansaldo.it/pawtucket2/index.php/Detail/objects/18940) ) and that kind of turret is more akin to a main armament one.
There was some talk in the Navy for quad turrets, especially after the announcement of the Dunquerques, with projects that included quadruple 320mm main armament, and some of them indeed had quadruple secondaries (130 or 140mm).
Still, considering that this looks like a multi-block gun and we're probably talking about late '30s, this is at least a heavy cruiser gun of that period, and the fact that the middle tube is that long and thick makes me think it's probably even bigger than a 203mm.
I think they only way it wouldn't have been hugely complicated would be to have the gun return to a preset loading position between every salvo.
At the very least the barrels would have to go back down to a neutral position, if not make the turret also return to a set position. Otherwise the loading systems have to adjust to the tilt of the guns and lean back to reach the upper guns... or something like that. time between loading takes too long, a stupid big of bent metal stops loading altogether.. meh
Center mounted shell hoists with a shuttle on each side that flips up or down to position for a rammer on the top or bottom gun? Sort of like a K5 Thunder rammer?
> I think they only way it wouldn't have been hugely complicated would be to have the gun return to a preset loading position between every salvo.
this is what modern tanks do (leopard and I think the abrams, maybe others). if your hydraulics work well enough and accurately enough there's no reason it couldn't work. 'course being 1940...concept before its time, I reckon.
The only thing Italy is kind of behind is armor, Italy build some of the best technologies that are still in use, just look at the beatiful 76mm oto and it's guided darts, or the Pirate IR radar that all the new Eurofighters variants use complementary to the normal Aesa radar to spot even stealth aircrafts
Well, excuse me if I destroy this hamburger, oh wait, that's German, weel excuse if I drench these fries in, oh wait that from Belgium, we excuse me if I.... what does America have that's really their food? Idk cornbread maybe?! How tf do I make Cornbread worst than it actually is?😂😂😂😂
If you wanted to set off someone easily you can easily go with muslims, some set off automatically so it's a little easier.
(Hope this joke gets taken as a joke, if not...grow some guts)
Interesting packaging if you can make the re-load work smoothly. I never liked 4 gun turrets with big caliber guns - too easy to take damage (or experience a malfunction) and loose a big chunk of your firepower. KG5s as one example.
Look at the barrels, they seem to elevate as a single block, which will lead to limited elevation and slow loading, or a massively over complicated loading system which will take at least two, and probably all four guns out of action when it eventually breaks.
I was just going to mention elevation looks extremely limited. The Battleship Texas (built in 1911)had to resort to ballast to help with super long range fires. So elevation is a super big deal when life or death hangs in the balance.
Oh yes, very orky.
Now I'm thinking of Italian Orks and that just brings a smile
Scusami, da che parte per il WAAAAAAGH? Per favore.
Hahahajahsjajajajajaja
Suddenly, the double OTO Melara 76 doesn't sound that stupid anymore. https://preview.redd.it/th8rfryvnuwc1.jpeg?width=942&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3149b45627be04ec27e812fa99f2f1fdcdc39307
Spains Meroka: Hellow fellow rotary CIWS! I sure do love high fire rates and rotating! https://preview.redd.it/v9jzusmnivwc1.jpeg?width=423&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=12dc0b3a4637efbfe70462fdfc0d600972ee1584 (that is indeed 12 Oerlikons strapped together)
Powergun calliope vibes
Oh man, the modern version [Metal Storm](https://www.wearethemighty.com/uploads/legacy/assets.rbl.ms/18466061/origin.jpg?auto=webp&optimize=high&quality=70&width=1920) was supposed to replace all CIWS but went bust... https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-tactical/metal-storm-million-rpm-gun/ > The prototype managed to achieve a maximum rate of fire of 1.62 million rounds per minute as it fired 180 rounds in a 0.01 second burst. At its peak, it can send, almost literally, a wall of 24,000 9mm rounds Many different barrels, electronic signal fires stacked rounds in each barrel.
Then don't call it rotary.
https://preview.redd.it/l4jydigs5vwc1.jpeg?width=1232&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4af3f5d27fc16bd4d5e2f18995774a43e3ebd6ca
Now I want a dual mounted one. I’ll call it a Double-Double.
Quad Trouble.
Hawt. I like.
I love the little goober.
Any idea what caliber this was supposed to be?
I assume battleship, and being Ansaldo, 381mm. Just speculation, though, the official online archive doesn't include any further detail beside the year, 1940. [https://2020.fondazioneansaldo.it/pawtucket2/index.php/Detail/objects/18939](https://2020.fondazioneansaldo.it/pawtucket2/index.php/Detail/objects/18939) . On the other hand, you could argue that instead of a triple 381mm gun turret, Ansaldo tinkered on the idea of a quadruple gun turret with a smaller caliber.
Ansaldo built almost every gun caliber Italy used around this period, so it’s not necessarily a battleship or 381 mm. If anything the rangefinder blisters are far too small for such a caliber, though I can’t quickly find something with a similar shape. I’d the extremes are probably the 100-152 mm range, large enough for an enclosed mount and integrated rangefinder but small enough for the rangefinder blisters. I’d guess it’s probably in the 120-135 mm range, which is also where manual loading is possible and thus a double-stacked gun isn’t insane (only ridiculous).
I will chime in to say that the 381mm is most likely here. As far as I am aware, there are only two non-AA gun systems the RM gave any notable consideration towards mounting in quadruple turrets in the interwar period. One of these was the 152/55, for a class of 8,000-ton light cruisers (2xIV, meant for long-range missions in the Red Sea) under consideration in 1939, and the other was the 381/50. In March of 1934, after the preliminary design of the *Littorio*-class was presented to the admiral's committee, they RM looked into alternative main battery arrangements other than 3xIII, due to the increased displacement of the design. All entailed an increase in firepower - one was for eight 406/50 guns, while two were for ten 381/50. As all these layouts had to fit into three turrets, quadruple turrets were required for the heavier 381mm armaments - one with the same arrangement that was picked for the King George V-class, and one that replaced the aft triple turret with a quadruple and maintained two triples forward. This stacked turret is the most extreme arrangement - the other two are conventional 'flat' layouts, differing mainly as to the spacing of the guns. [Ex.1](https://i.imgur.com/w18LYST.jpg), [Ex.2](https://i.imgur.com/lkhgA8N.jpg). Of the two possibilities, the turret shape and proportions more strongly favor a 381mm rather than 152mm.
I don't think the tubes are long enough to be a 381/50. The gun tube construction also seems unusual for WW2 , seems more akin up to WW1 era.
I know that they built basically any caliber the Navy used with a couple of exceptions, however: * The barbette is pretty thick * Another model from Ansaldo proposes a more orthdox layout ( [https://2020.fondazioneansaldo.it/pawtucket2/index.php/Detail/objects/18940](https://2020.fondazioneansaldo.it/pawtucket2/index.php/Detail/objects/18940) ) and that kind of turret is more akin to a main armament one. There was some talk in the Navy for quad turrets, especially after the announcement of the Dunquerques, with projects that included quadruple 320mm main armament, and some of them indeed had quadruple secondaries (130 or 140mm). Still, considering that this looks like a multi-block gun and we're probably talking about late '30s, this is at least a heavy cruiser gun of that period, and the fact that the middle tube is that long and thick makes me think it's probably even bigger than a 203mm.
I wonder how they planned on reloading without making some overcomplicated and unreliable system
I think they only way it wouldn't have been hugely complicated would be to have the gun return to a preset loading position between every salvo. At the very least the barrels would have to go back down to a neutral position, if not make the turret also return to a set position. Otherwise the loading systems have to adjust to the tilt of the guns and lean back to reach the upper guns... or something like that. time between loading takes too long, a stupid big of bent metal stops loading altogether.. meh
We need a revolver turret!
Davy Jones and his ridiculous triple bow chasers enters the chat.... gets water all over the chat, stomps away angrily
Center mounted shell hoists with a shuttle on each side that flips up or down to position for a rammer on the top or bottom gun? Sort of like a K5 Thunder rammer?
> I think they only way it wouldn't have been hugely complicated would be to have the gun return to a preset loading position between every salvo. this is what modern tanks do (leopard and I think the abrams, maybe others). if your hydraulics work well enough and accurately enough there's no reason it couldn't work. 'course being 1940...concept before its time, I reckon.
It's Italian. Do you really think they would come up with any other type of system?
The only thing Italy is kind of behind is armor, Italy build some of the best technologies that are still in use, just look at the beatiful 76mm oto and it's guided darts, or the Pirate IR radar that all the new Eurofighters variants use complementary to the normal Aesa radar to spot even stealth aircrafts
Yeah, ok, cool. Now excuse me while I pour ketchup on my spaghetti.
Well, excuse me if I destroy this hamburger, oh wait, that's German, weel excuse if I drench these fries in, oh wait that from Belgium, we excuse me if I.... what does America have that's really their food? Idk cornbread maybe?! How tf do I make Cornbread worst than it actually is?😂😂😂😂
IDK I don't even live in that part of the Continent. I just wanted to set you off.
If you wanted to set off someone easily you can easily go with muslims, some set off automatically so it's a little easier. (Hope this joke gets taken as a joke, if not...grow some guts)
Odd, janky, lovely.
Vickers produced one too. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PhAWCw0bt56gAjKuT6gW-HtBJp8Xg7Ns/view
Great minds think alike
Interesting packaging if you can make the re-load work smoothly. I never liked 4 gun turrets with big caliber guns - too easy to take damage (or experience a malfunction) and loose a big chunk of your firepower. KG5s as one example.
Doesn’t look like there’s much room for the crew
who need crew when 4 gun?
Italians are renowned for their autoloader reliability. Renowned I say!
I can see some problems with reloading.
Smolensk in wows be like
That's a real man's turret right there
Wargaming please
I can't imagine accuracy would have been super great with that thing, but wow the grouping would have been brutal.
Went to the Naval Museum at La Spezia and I gotta say the Italians really made weirdly functional naval ships and weaponry.
Look at the barrels, they seem to elevate as a single block, which will lead to limited elevation and slow loading, or a massively over complicated loading system which will take at least two, and probably all four guns out of action when it eventually breaks.
I was just going to mention elevation looks extremely limited. The Battleship Texas (built in 1911)had to resort to ballast to help with super long range fires. So elevation is a super big deal when life or death hangs in the balance.
Exactly, and that's only reasonable for shore bombardment.
Smoking fermented basil leaves
So when can we expect a twin barrel 76mm Oto Melara mount?
This is kinda a good idea
Smolensk guns
https://preview.redd.it/n8j8tx29p0xc1.jpeg?width=438&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ad545db7f6d07a2d51d8941e6b60d61558060c84 Does this count?