Replacing worn guns was a matter of standard naval 'housekeeping'. Changing a battleship one is very expensive and time consimung (assuming that the guns are available which may not be the case). Correct me if I am mistaken, but I assume that changing a WWII tank gun is cheap and easy. Sometimes barrels that reached their full service charge limits if they could not be relined, were shipped off to coast defence where their reduced range could be offset by greater elevations allowed on land mounts or lighter shells than normally used on ship.īattleships and tanks guns are not of the same size and not of the same price. Once the total has been reached, the gun is taken out of service-it is not necessarily worn out, just no longer viable as a ship's weapon. The calculated full service charge numbers are more of a guide. At best, the shot to shot MV is difficult if not impossible to predict when wear becomes this bad at worst, the sudden checking or slowing of the projectile can cause a burst or bulged barrel. This can cause the shell to suddenly slow or even be checked momentarily and this in turn causes unpredictable rises in pressure. This in turn leads to erratic ballistics since a shell might be pushed easily up the bore to start with, but eventually reaches a point where there is less wear, causing more friction.

As a barrel begins to wear, the rate of wear accelerates, particularly in front of the chamber gas begins to cut more and more, resulting in blowby, which in turn causes even more gas cutting.

The most noticeable effect would be the reduction in MV and range to a point where range table data becomes meaningless.

World of warships forums shrunk?