Interesting.... I have some old, big military brass kicking around, like a WW2 40mm Mk 1 inert shell with a bullet seated. Along with an empty 1943 105 mm Howitzer shell that was turned into what I'm guessing was an ashtray. Had a couple handles mounted on each side. Found it in the trash many years ago when I drove a garbage truck. Still had cigarette butts in it when I rescued it. Don't have any pix of them here on the computer but if I have time I'll remedy that tomorrow. Is that bigger one a 40mm like I mentioned? Looks somewhat like mine except mine has two crimp grooves on the neck to hold the bullet. They could vanish when it gets fired and then look like yours, possibly? I'm also clueless on that axis one.
You got it, 25x163 mm. Good job.Im going with Jap 25mm for the little one.
I don’t want to break my lee press trying neck one down.So not a .22 Super Mag???
Seeing the two cartridges next to each other graphically illustrates why the Japanese Navy was at a serious mid-range AA disadvantage during the war, as they had no guns analagous to the 40mm so they just had to slap more and more 25mm on their decks. This, plus the lack of proximity -fused shells for their 4 and 5" guns made them extra vulnerable to high altitude attacks such as from the SBD.
Conversely, they were able to put up a veritable wall of close range 25mm AA, which (combined with fighter top cover) made low and slow torpedo attacks against them so dangerous.
The new rapid-fire 57mm is pretty much the standard deck gun going forward, replacing both the 5" and 76mm. It's effective against small craft, aircraft, and subsonic cruise missiles at close/medium ranges.Isn't that the troof? By 1945 even the USN found the 20 mm Oerlikon inadequate against Kamikaze attacks. It was either 40 mm Bofors or 5"/38DP (both with proximity fuse) to keep them at baay. Post war the USN developed the 3" automatic gun in response to kamikaze threats. We should revive either the 40 mm or 3" for anti-piracy measures.
why the Japanese Navy was at a serious mid-range AA disadvantage during the war, as they had no guns analagous to the 40mm so they just had to slap more and more 25mm on their decks. This, plus the lack of proximity -fused shells
Post war the USN developed the 3" automatic gun in response to kamikaze threats.
USN mostly used the Orlikon 20x105 as a morale weapon (gives the cooks and clerks something to do during Air Attack). The IN was similar for their 25mm. Engagement range was only about 1500-2000 yards, or the last 20-25 seconds of aircraft attack (assuming they closed to that close to the ship)The 25mm Phalanx
Quite right, Capn'.......typo, lol.CIWS Phalanx uses the long-proven 20mm Vulcan cannon. There are some installations of 25mm Chain Guns as anti-boat installations, but marine mountings of the chain guns have been problematic.
Many somethings would have to go wrong for any two major surface combatants to engage in a gunfight now. I dont think the Navy considers it a serious possibility any more. Since the debacle of the Zumwalt AGS, and the rise of increasingly effective drones, theyve pretty much given up on shore support guns as well.The jury is also still out on the OTO-Melara 57mm autocannon as a "success." It really does not have the range for Naval engagements (and the automation of the un-manned "turret" has not been a great success).
I'll grant the notion, in theory.The 57 may not be perfect, but it can perform well enough against current realistic threats to replace the 5", 76mm, and (to some extent) Phalanx in a single mounting.
Well, thats the theory anyway..
good god! I feel use common folks and reloader are just a bunch of cavemans. I mean, Why can’t we have a 20mm canon!Heres a few belted 20mm Phalanx casings next to a .30-06.
They came from the frigate Samuel B. Roberts on her last deployment before decommissioning.
View attachment 1078947
You can! All it takes is $$$$$$-good god! I feel use common folks and reloader are just a bunch of cavemans. I mean, Why can’t we have a 20mm canon!