Iran has made the most technologically advanced warship canon!

Maybe the 23000 ft is the max ceiling altitude for air targets..

yeah..I know ..I was wondering about the math myself..

19 km verses 23,000 feet.

Mentally I was contrasting this with the WW2 German 88mm cannon. As I recall it was originally begun as a anti aircraft gun. Does anyone know what the max ceiling is of the 88mm cannon which the Germans used??

I know the 88 turned out to be a hellacious tank buster...and other uses. Not sure of the horizontal range of the 88mm either.

Anyway the numbers of the OP didnt seem to add up to me either. But that can be a bit confusing for some converting from km..to feet...and back again.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
yeah..I know ..I was wondering about the math myself..

19 km verses 23,000 feet.

Dont understand the math myself.

Mentally I was contrasting this with the WW2 German 88mm cannon. As I recall it was originally begun as a anti aircraft gun. Does anyone know what the max ceiling is of the 88mm cannon which the Germans used??

FlaK 37/41 up to 15 Km altitude.

I know the 88 turned out to be a hellacious tank buster...and other uses. Not sure of the horizontal range of the 88mm either.

The massive muzzle velocity ensure relative ease of aim and 150mm penetration at 2 km coupled with 15-25 tries a minute ensured that tanks of the time did not stand much of a chance and especially so considering the trouble of trying to spot such a relative low profile ( well in it's PAk forms anyways) target. The Brits had a equally effective 90 mm antiaircraft weapon but since it was meant to shoot at aircraft they decided that it would not be fair to the Germans if they used it that way. Well some such nonsense anyways.

Anyway the numbers of the OP didnt seem to add up to me either. But that can be a bit confusing for some converting from km..to feet...and back again.

Thanks,
Orangetom

I'm pretty sure you can reach 19 km with a 75 mm shell if your firing in bombardment type scenario but as with all such high velocity weapons ( barrels simply do not last) you better have a worthwhile ( ideally expensive) target!

Stellar

In a single meter there are about 3 feet. How does 19km become 23,000 feet?

Something's a miss here...

Yeah, just did a quick online conversion, 23,000 feet is just over 7 kilometers.

So... How can something have a range respectively of 19km or 23,000 feet? Did I read something wrong?

I'm just being mislead how it was worded... Did they mean 23,000 feet to 19km as a range, or 23,000 feet equals 19km?

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 18-9-2006 by ShatteredSkies]

Originally posted by The time lord
I still don't think it can match Isreal even if they have these shells, i say Isreal as they recently aquired some nuclear subs.

Israel has acquired diesel-electric subs with a capability to fire nuclear weapons, not nuclear subs.

Originally posted by The_Time_is_now
Wow, Yawn, i would be impressed, if it was WW2, seriousy, the days of Cannons on ships, as a main weapon, are long gone, whats the use when you can use a missle, torpedo, or airplane to bring down the ship more effectively? ...

You are wrong in saying that the days of naval cannons are gone. Yes, the days of the big battleships are gone, because their task has been fully replaced. The cannons however see widespread use, particularly on the smaller cruisers and frigates. The OTO Melara 76mm cannon mentioned earlier is a huge export success because of its versatility.

And I wouldnt think of cannons as being used against another warship, that is certainly not their intention... there are enough other applications. The control of the seaways around Africa come to mind, coalition naval forces have been shot at from smaller boats for example. A shot "over the bow" might be much more convincing to give up. Try doing that with a $500.000 missile.

This can go even further. The next German Frigate will most probably have a 155mm artillery system installed, which basically is an adapted turret of the Pzh2000 howitzer. Shown here are early tests with an army howitzer turret strapped onto a ship:



This gun is mainly intended for support of land units (range up to 60km with V-LAP ammunition), but can also be used against point (read: sea) targets with guided projectiles. And all that much much cheaper than with missiles.

So... We got alien technology on our side with our 1337 time stopping machine and the girl from the RING...

I am assuming this is some kind of rocket-assist guided projectile like the ERGM.

Iran developing such a thing is not outside the realm of possibility, although I'd expect to see a lot of testing and development before it's really usable in combat.

Another menacing message was received from Iran on Sunday: Commander of the Iranian Navy Admiral Sajjad Kouchaki said that military industry experts in his country succeeded in constructing “the most advanced sea cannon in the world,” according to Iran’s Fars news agency.



He further claimed that Iran was the third nation in the world that succeeded in developing such a weapon, after the United States and Italy. The Fajr missile can hit underwater targets up to 19 km away and air targets up to 23,000 feet away.

This should help with the distantance debate

Originally posted by MMP
I hate to do this because you catch your fair share of heat but...

First you say that Iran cures AIDS (and it turned out they could only treat it) and now they have a big gun...great post.

Mehran, I know you're proud of Iran and you want to show people that you feel Iran is a decent country but threads like this just aren't doing anything for your cause. The stuff you're posting is simply not impressive. You even admit your country is 3rd in the world to have this technology.

So now Iran can treat AIDS and has a 76mm shell...I guess I'll be the first to welcome you to NOT THE YEAR 1970. You keep this kind of stuff up and you may catch up to the year 2006 like rest of the world!

Mehran is the un-official (or maybe official who knows) internet spokesman for the Iranian government.

Any propaganda is good propaganda in Iran's eyes.

They got a cannon.. on a PT boat to combat large US warships. Like say an Aircraft Carrier. The PT boat has to be around 23k feet within range to use it's cannon, by that time the Carriers fleet will have sunken their little dingy.

The 19km and 23,000 feet probaly translate into this

Otobreda 76 mm
Range: 18,400 m (HE round at 45º)
Effective range: 8,000 m (HE round)

hehehe when i saw the title of this thread i thought 'mehran' and wow look.

Hmm, last time it was "revolutionary 2000lbs bomb" now it's "revolutionary 76mm shell", what will be next? Revolutionary RPG maybe.

Originally posted by chinawhite
The 19km and 23,000 feet probaly translate into this

Otobreda 76 mm
Range: 18,400 m (HE round at 45º)
Effective range: 8,000 m (HE round)

Looks about right to me. Anything of that calibre is not going to deliver enough explosive power to make up for the inherent lack of accuracy in a long range shot with something so light weight.

en.wikipedia.org... If you can manage 73 km with a 155 mm ( with all the trappings and near ideal circumstances) i see no reason to doubt the claim and, as CW indicated above, there are similar systems in action today.

Whatever the case may be i don't think whatever boat the Iranians can deploy this on will be able to carry enough shells to put a US carrier ( or anything else) out of commision given it can get close enough ( somehow) to try.....

Stellar

Originally posted by MMP

Mehran, I know you're proud of Iran and you want to show people that you feel Iran is a decent country but threads like this just aren't doing anything for your cause. The stuff you're posting is simply not impressive. You even admit your country is 3rd in the world to have this technology.

You keep this kind of stuff up and you may catch up to the year 2006 like rest of the world!

But by the time iran catches up to 2006, of course, the rest of the technologically developed world will be in the year 2036. I'm sorry, but all these posts by "my country is great" wannabe's is pretty tedious and childish sounding. Feed your people, give them freedoms, don't threaten your neighbors and you won't need a new "sea shell" or any of the other offensive weaponry you seem hell-bent to acquire.

And (quoting Larry the Cable Guy), "Lord I apologize ...", but that post about holding the "sea shell" up to your ear to listen to the sounds was absolutely priceless.

Uh-huh.

Yeah, what real point is there to get so excited over this?

I mean it's just a big gun, and it really has no use, considering if
Iran ever go's to war with any of the major (and subsequently
nuclear) powers, these ships will be gone before they could ever
make it out of territorial waters.

No use in having a gun, if your enemy is on the side of the planet.

Wow!!! I'm impressed.Iran finally has something Canada doesn't!!! Yep pretty soon Canada will be begging for mercy!!!We don't have anything quite as advanced on our ships.You got us there.But we do have the shkval rocket torpedo which we stole from the russians.I guess a 76 mm gun won't matter much when the ship that it's on has had it's side blown apart by a 300km/hr torpedo. Oh by the way Mehran,if Canada has this technology,don't think that it hasn't bothered to share it with it's NATO allies-you know,the ones who are going to kick your butt back to the stone ages soon!!!

Arnomann, problem with this is that whatever Canada has, the US already has 10 times better.

Sorry Couldn't resist.

Shattered OUT...

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Arnomann, problem with this is that whatever Canada has, the US already has 10 times better.

Sorry Couldn't resist.

Shattered OUT...

Except unniversal healthcare.... Sorry, I couldn't resist.

If universal healthcare was a priority, it'd be 10 times better in America than Canada. But it isn't. That's just how they roll.

Iran will be launching its own satellites using this giant gun according to me. Im a reliable source. Trust me.

Originally posted by zephyrs

Except unniversal healthcare.... Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Well, it's hardly "universally" accepted that Canada's people love their health care system. Many seem to be "voting with their feet" if they can to U.S. facilities when they need something taken care of. At any rate, poll after poll here in the U.S. makes it clear that a majority is not in favor of doing the same thing to our citizens.

Off topic, but couldn't resist either.