[NGTM-1R]

Do you remember where you read that? I love info on obscure conflicts.

It was very obscure; I'm not sure of the original source, but it was mentioned in a book on the first Gulf War called Desert Victory, which was published within a couple of years of the fact. Parts of the Kuwait military fought very well, like their air force (the Iraqis bombed the runways on day one but the A-4KUs operated from the highway next to the base instead for four days, withdrawing to Saudi Arabia only when the base was overrun; and all the aircraft got out) and some of the navy. But the army was pretty much a bust.

[Wanderer]

A naval shell is not the same as a land artillery shell. They tend to be much bigger and heavier, and fired with much larger propellant charges from much longer barrels.

Err? Naval shell is no different from 'land shell' - assuming bore and caliber are identical.

A parallel more recent in time comes from the First Gulf War, in which on the opening day Kuwaiti Navy patrol boats standing close to shore engaged, and killed, Iraqi T-55s and T-72s with their 76mm/62 OTO/Melara Compact guns. 76mm is no longer considered decent ante for a tank gun, you need at least a 105mm to compete and a 120mm to be a serious contender, and on the surface of it the statement that even a T-55 was killed by 76mm fire is ludicrious. But these were naval guns, firing naval shells.

You better try to rethink that... After brief google search...

OTO melara has muzzle velocity of below 1000 mps.. Projectile weight is around 6.5 kg. Neither of which are in any way special or exceedingly high.  So something like 'naval gun firing naval shells' does not explain that at all. More likely explanation is that T-55 is outdated tank with obsolete armor for MBT.

[Mustang19]

He's talking about HE vs AP.

A HE hit of that size could cause spall in an older T-55/72 without modern lining. Also remember that the definition of "destroyed" depends on who you ask. A 76mm HE hit could certainly immobilize a tank or knock out its optics, regardless of how modern it is.

[NGTM-1R]

Err? Naval shell is no different from 'land shell' - assuming bore and caliber are identical.

Nope. Really now, rethink that statement yourself. A naval gun is not under the same restrictions of handling as land artillery, nor are its propellant charges. The shells are often larger, so are the charges. I should know, I have an expended 5"/54 cartridge casing I use for an umbrella holder, relic of my father's service in the USN. What does a 203mm projectile weigh on land? What does it weigh at sea? (Over a thousand pounds, if we're talking about a Mark 8 APC round.) There are significant differences, you just don't choose to see them.

You better try to rethink that... After brief google search...

OTO melara has muzzle velocity of below 1000 mps.. Projectile weight is around 6.5 kg. Neither of which are in any way special or exceedingly high.  So something like 'naval gun firing naval shells' does not explain that at all. More likely explanation is that T-55 is outdated tank with obsolete armor for MBT.

Sure it does. First, realize that a naval gun is designed to be extremely accurate against much more difficult targets than a tank; aircraft and even other ships are much faster and more manuverable. Then realize that the OTO is also capable of this degree of accuracy while firing in a fully automatic mode. T-72s died to this as well. We're not talking about them hitting and killing with one round each, but closer to 10 or 20 in rapid succession.

[Wanderer]

Made another brief google search for your enjoyment..

US 8 inch gun, naval.. projectile weights something just below 120 kg. Land based guns - as well as howitzers - have projectile weights around 100 kg (110 to 90). So no difference there. Of course as barrel lengths were different the muzzle velocities - and used propellant amount - varied greatly but that is not the issue - again if the barrels are roughly equal in size (bore and length) then both the projectile and propellant amounts are roughly the same.

And only things special in naval gun is that it is often stabilized (well always). As for accuracy.. Its exactly the same. Naval guns are not in any mysterious way more accurate than land based ones. And as for the rate of fire... there is just no room to make automated systems like the ships have as in ships the gun mounting extends deep into the ship. As what comes to the accuracy against flying targets... using radar range finding and tracking first shots trajectory helps a lot (ships tend to have radars...) as well as the minor detail that AA guns of that size do not try to hit the target - just detonate close enough and cover the target in shrapnels.

[BengalTiger]

Tank guns are also stabilized....


Back to battleships:


The hole was drilled by a 16 inch shell.