Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
pzkpfwv1d

Throw weight against powder charge

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WCWVE]
Players
664 posts
10,834 battles

For those interested I thought I would look into the actual effects of cordite or similar smokeless powder compares to gunpowder 

Firstly we have the assumption that a 300 grain bullet requires 80 grains of black powder to fire at approximate muzzle velocity of 600 to 800 fps dependant upon the actual type of gun used

Now, for those interested there are 7000 grains in a pound (454 grams for those metrically minded) 

Second assumption - based on pyrodex smokeless powder where is is listed in a gunpowder article that 60 grains of black powder equates to 43.6 grains of pyrodex (72.67%) but gives out nearly 180% more energy, therefore your projectile of 300 grains will require 58.1 grains of pyrodex and have a muzzle velocity of between 1680 and 2240 fps 

Now for larger projectiles the actual quantity of smokeless powder was less

Example Royal Naval 15" (381mm) rifled gun - throw weight 1920lb to 1938lb (different sources give different weights) at 2575 fps (cartridge weight approximately 394.2 lb) with approximately 100 rounds per gun carried the powder magazines on Royal Naval 15" armed battleships would have carried 315,200lbs of cordite or 140.71 imperial tons

Example - British 6" BL Naval gun circa HMS Belfast - throw weight 112lb - cartridge weight 23lb therefore the cartridge weight to throw weight is 20.53%

Therefore assuming (can not find a reliable source for rounds per gun carried) 200 rounds per barrel (2400 rounds in total) the cordite capacity in the powder magazines would have been 55, 200lb or 24.64 imperial tons just for the main guns 

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
[PMI]
Players
1,964 posts
4,950 battles
26 minutes ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

For those interested I thought I would look into the actual effects of cordite or similar smokeless powder compares to gunpowder 

Firstly we have the assumption that a 300 grain bullet requires 80 grains of black powder to fire at approximate muzzle velocity of 600 to 800 fps dependant upon the actual type of gun used

Now, for those interested there are 7000 grains in a pound (454 grams for those metrically minded) 

Second assumption - based on pyrodex smokeless powder where is is listed in a gunpowder article that 60 grains of black powder equates to 43.6 grains of pyrodex (72.67%) but gives out nearly 180% more energy, therefore your projectile of 300 grains will require 58.1 grains of pyrodex and have a muzzle velocity of between 1680 and 2240 fps 

Now for larger projectiles the actual quantity of smokeless powder was less

Example Royal Naval 15" (381mm) rifled gun - throw weight 1920lb to 1938lb (different sources give different weights) at 2575 fps (cartridge weight approximately 394.2 lb) with approximately 100 rounds per gun carried the powder magazines on Royal Naval 15" armed battleships would have carried 315,200lbs of cordite or 140.71 imperial tons

Example - British 6" BL Naval gun circa HMS Belfast - throw weight 112lb - cartridge weight 23lb therefore the cartridge weight to throw weight is 20.53%

Therefore assuming (can not find a reliable source for rounds per gun carried) 200 rounds per barrel (2400 rounds in total) the cordite capacity in the powder magazines would have been 55, 200lb or 24.64 imperial tons just for the main guns 

 

You do know that google has all this information readily available right?

 

Alternatively, hard copies will provide you with this same information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
3,544 posts
7,443 battles

...and this is in any way, shape or form gameplay relevant.... how, exactly?

Well, except to calculate the size of the blast we deserve if we ever get proper a Detonation animation, I suppose...

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
525 posts
41 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

...and this is in any way, shape or form gameplay relevant.... how, exactly?

Well, except to calculate the size of the blast we deserve if we ever get proper a Detonation animation, I suppose...

Do you like cake??

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
750 posts
2,967 battles
20 minutes ago, HMS_Argosax said:

Do you like cake??

 

Yes. please tell me the cake is not a lie.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
392 posts
5,773 battles

In the age before the internet there were these things called books.

 

UK 16" 520 lbs SC 350

UK 15"  432 lbs SC 280

UK 14" 338 lbs SC 300

UK 8"  66 lbs SC 205

UK 6" 31 lbs SC 150

UK 5.25" 18.05 lbs SC140 or 21 lbs NF/S 2000

UK 4.7" Mark XI 12.81 lbs SC 122 or 15.38 lbs NF/S 198-154

UK 4.7" Mark IX and XII  11.58 SC 109 or 13.13 NF/S 164-048

UK 4.5" Mark 1, III & IV 11.035 lbs SC 122 or NF/S 1500

 

Etc, etc, etc, etc. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Players
8 posts
12 hours ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

For those interested I thought I would look into the actual effects of cordite or similar smokeless powder compares to gunpowder 

Firstly we have the assumption that a 300 grain bullet requires 80 grains of black powder to fire at approximate muzzle velocity of 600 to 800 fps dependant upon the actual type of gun used

Now, for those interested there are 7000 grains in a pound (454 grams for those metrically minded) 

Second assumption - based on pyrodex smokeless powder where is is listed in a gunpowder article that 60 grains of black powder equates to 43.6 grains of pyrodex (72.67%) but gives out nearly 180% more energy, therefore your projectile of 300 grains will require 58.1 grains of pyrodex and have a muzzle velocity of between 1680 and 2240 fps 

Now for larger projectiles the actual quantity of smokeless powder was less

Example Royal Naval 15" (381mm) rifled gun - throw weight 1920lb to 1938lb (different sources give different weights) at 2575 fps (cartridge weight approximately 394.2 lb) with approximately 100 rounds per gun carried the powder magazines on Royal Naval 15" armed battleships would have carried 315,200lbs of cordite or 140.71 imperial tons

Example - British 6" BL Naval gun circa HMS Belfast - throw weight 112lb - cartridge weight 23lb therefore the cartridge weight to throw weight is 20.53%

Therefore assuming (can not find a reliable source for rounds per gun carried) 200 rounds per barrel (2400 rounds in total) the cordite capacity in the powder magazines would have been 55, 200lb or 24.64 imperial tons just for the main guns 

Few notes. I believe some of your numbers are (grossly) wrong. For example, 300 grain bullet with 80 grains of black powder sounds more or less right (maybe on a hot side). But muzzle velocity will be waayyy more than 600 to 800 fps. More likely 1600-1800 fps. American 45-70 Government used 405 grain or 500 grain bullet with 70 grains of black powder, with muzzle velocity of 1400 fps (with 405 grain bullet). Similar story with .577/450 Martini-Henry, 480 grain bullet, 85 grains of PB and 1350 fps.

 

For RN 15"/42 Mk I gun, there was early 1920 lb APC (Great War era) and later 1938 lb APC (World War II -era).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WCWVE]
Players
664 posts
10,834 battles
22 minutes ago, Notmi said:

But muzzle velocity will be waayyy more than 600 to 800 fps. More likely 1600-1800 fps. American 45-70 Government used 405 grain or 500 grain bullet with 70 grains of black powder, with muzzle velocity of 1400 fps (with 405 grain bullet). 

The muzzle velocity is quoted verbatim from source for a smooth-bore musket not a rifled musket 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
675 posts
7,178 battles
8 hours ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

The muzzle velocity is quoted verbatim from source for a smooth-bore musket not a rifled musket 

If its rifled, its not a musket. Besides that still to much for anything  not of modern design. Id like to know what youre qouting because it doesnt make much sense unless its a modern design. You try putting anything with that much energy and pressure into an older design and its going to burst...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
[PMI]
Players
1,964 posts
4,950 battles
11 hours ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

The muzzle velocity is quoted verbatim from source for a smooth-bore musket not a rifled musket 

:Smile_teethhappy:

 

2 hours ago, DJ_Die said:

If its rifled, its not a musket. 

 

We have a winner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POP]
Players
8 posts

About rifling, muskets, muzzleloading, breechloading etc. Apparently some of the first generations of rifled long guns were still called 'muskets', even if they were not muzzleloaders. 

But back to the originals. I still believe OP's numbers are off. Especially when we compare smokeless powder -numbers to black powder -numbers. Just swapping powder to more energetic will not get that much more muzzle velocity from the same gun and projectile. Because doubling the muzzle velocity for the same projectile will quadruple the muzzle energy (E_kin = 0,5*mass*velocity^2). Now OP suggest that smokeless powder increases muzzle velocity from the range of 600-800 fps to 1680-2240 fps, that is 2,8x more muzzle velocity and almost 8x more muzzle energy.

Unless OP is just comparing some muzzleloading musket with black powder to more modern rifled gun with smokeless powder. Which makes me wonder even more the point of this thread. I believe I have missed it altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WCWVE]
Players
664 posts
10,834 battles
13 hours ago, DJ_Die said:

If its rifled, its not a musket. 

The Baker rifle was a rifled musket used during the Napoleonic wars and based on the early rifled muskets used by the American militia during the American war of independence, to get the bullet to seat properly a leather patch was used, basically they are a musket that has had rifling applied in the barrel and they were muzzle loading 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
675 posts
7,178 battles
1 hour ago, pzkpfwv1d said:

The Baker rifle was a rifled musket used during the Napoleonic wars and based on the early rifled muskets used by the American militia during the American war of independence, to get the bullet to seat properly a leather patch was used, basically they are a musket that has had rifling applied in the barrel and they were muzzle loading 

So they were not muskets anymore, they were RIFLED muskets and pretty much just a stop-gap solution... The modern use of the word musket is for smooth-bore muzzleloader. What you did is pretty much like saying a machine gun and a submachine gun are the same thing.... Theyre not. Besides i still dont get the point of your thread, is there supposed to be some?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
1,872 posts
On 02/10/2018 at 1:35 AM, That_Other_Nid said:

In the age before the internet there were these things called books.

(...)

And before that even stone inscriptions - thus you knew never to mess with smart people, since all this knowledge was reserved only for weight lifters...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×