57mm PAC

[AllThingsGaming142]

Oh did you know that the shells used can also explode in mid-air and release its shrapnel and destroy anything soft within its detonation range?, and leave the boat completely intact! AMAZING!

[AllThingsGaming142]

As I said to someone else's video, this is truly a shotgun for a naval carrier! :D Great job!

[Anonymouzor]

pom pom pom pom pom 

[coolking533]

america fuck yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sailor19945]

@coolking533 You're the reason the world hates America.

Why follow the stereotype that strictly?

[neneto74]

Great audio!!!!

nothing sweeter than a loud gun shooting.

[SuperAaaaa123456]

sounds like Drum beat!!!

[F4Wildcat]

Naval guns and systems are evolving rapidly that missiles are infact becoming obsolete, not cannons

[19grand]

you cant beat Navy fire-power

[EchoNine1]

@Rabel2136

kinda like an IOWA-class battleship?

yeah, I miss those too...

[Meevinman]

Sounds like a bass drum.

[karthikbans]

I wonder is anybody inside that turret or its automatic.

[ImRatherTall]

......and one for luck lol

[gummywormz]

@Rabel2136  missles are expensive. few of these rounds do the job just fine

[Loxleiev]

looks like death star defense system O.o

[bestamerica]

'

shoot to where hit target,,,

this gun is only one cannon gun still not enough,,,

use twin cannon guns are the best shooting than one gun

[jonesy97]

Where are the expended shells falling to? Are they expended internally? I don't see any on the deck. Just curious.

[SayokoHatsuya]

@jonesy97 Downwards. Look beneath the barrel.

[GunsOfThePhoenix]

The US Cost Guard is already replacing out the 76mm with the 57mm on some of the newer cutters. 

[Woozi1]

I miss the old battleships :(

[Rayelth]

I still miss the days of 16 inche cannons!

[nav2491i]

@Rayelth 18s!!!

[hectiky]

Badass bongo drum.

[ReconOne123456789]

drum beat!

[RTSmaster787]

WW1 and WW2 full of large heavy duty cannons on battleship, modern day smaller guns that still pack the same punch on cruisers and destroyers. Looks like the saying "Big things come in smaller packages" is true

[yioming]

@Rabel2136 Either way, you see one of ANY OF THE ABOVE including the PAC firing at you, you better start praying.

[Dutchdragonblade]

LOL, awesome rapid fire from 0:21-0:24 but then @ 0:26 - they must be like: ''whoops I missed a bit there'' XD

[slayersthashit]

@Rabel2136 submarines kinda make those obsolete eh?

[busef1]

@Rabel2136 I was an FC for 8 years on various weapon systems in the U.S. Navy. Where is your knowledge based? You sound like an old salt that stopped reading. Lots of people are caught up in the romanticism of old days....

[bcaodp]

@Rabel2136 Battleships became redundant before the close of WW2. We don’t build large battleships anymore because their armour will not defeat shaped charge warheads. Modern surface relies on layered defence rather than armour. The modern destroyer carries enough firepower to disable a ww2 era battleship. (Remember that the Yamato , supposedly the most powerful battleship ever built, was turned away by a spread of torpedos from a destroyer in the Battle of Leyte Gulf)

[cliffcox66]

@Rabel2136 Baseless comment. Big guns are gone. They are inaccurate. Shelling another ship is done best by one missile. Shore shelling  is best done by precision bombing via aircraft. This gun is precise and has its' intended purpose which it has evolved to out of necessity.

[PirateMcSandwich]

the guy at 0:15 that says "big gun ready" almost sounds like a recording

[jgray110]

Nothing a 1000 mm laser cannon can't handle

[Bullchicken1980]

@Rabel2136 have you seen what 57mm smart rounds can do? these are used for destroying incoming missiles, so come your "real fight" nothing will be able to hit the ship this cannon is mounted on, or any ships this destroyer is escorting

[samolet900]

You do realize this is not a main-line gun, right? This is used on small ships and as secondary armaments. There are certainly larger calibers such as the Mk 45 Mod 4 (127mm) and the near-future AGS (155mm). VLS missile batteries are usually found on cruisers, destroyers, etc. The 57mm is more of a patrol boat gun.

[TuAFFalcon]

Omg Nemo! You bastards!

[TheBrotherOfSisters]

Here take one more

[F4Wildcat]

@Rabel2136 True but these cannons is what protect those battleships. The 57MM bofors you see their is the best in the world doing it

[rysnyper50002]

lol 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9...damnit..10­

[TheKevinV08]

LOL... 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,...10 shots...

[aaron654lo]

@venom777xxx  they love WW2

[freebeerfordworkers]

In WW2 the Germans found 57mm was the minimum caliber necessary for one hit to destroy a 4 engined heavy bomber.

[MarsFKA]

Their fighter aircraft managed pretty well with 20 mm and 30 mm cannon. Besides, any aircraft capable of carrying a 57 mm cannon probably couldn't catch the bombers, anyway.

[freebeerfordworkers]

Several 20mm & 30mm fitted in fighters fired at as little as 300 meters or less would score multiple hits. Likewise small caliber multiple AA mounts on tracks or wheels were essential for use against fast low flying fighter bombers .

57mm was the optimum anti-aircraft caliber for ground mounted use against high flying heavy bombers. Much slower firing than the smaller calibers they had to make a single hit count. This is not my opinion but a quotation from an artillery study.

[Tummieman]

57mm is a small caliber but it is not suposed to be used against other ships. Thats why they invented the guided missile systems

[smlloyd]

BTW, its small calibre also means that it can fire at a high rate

[smlloyd]

Wrong again. The Bofors 57mm Mk2 gun on Canadian frigates is dual-purpose: computer controlled and accurate and agile enough to destroy sea-skimming missiles and aircraft. It is limited in use for shore bombardment b/c of its relatively small calibre.

[smlloyd]

Wrong. Not weak at all...an excellent system for aircraft or missiles or smaller craft. The crew of the HMS Sheffield or HMS Coventry would have loved to have had this gun when they were being attacked by exocets

[Sailor19945]

@smlloyd Remember HMS Glamorgan, and no, we didn't care for this gun.

[mikehoable]

if it's down to anti air that ship might as well call abandon ship at the range a 76 would be effective on a target moving over 32 knots

[davemonsterband]

It's HMCS Winnipeg, I'm the guy doing the pre action calibration, etc. talking.

[mitchell600]

57mm, thats weak dude.

[whitedragon1204]

it sounds so week

[ribenababy2008]

sounded like it was shooting potatoes

[xenophobephoto]

Pirate gun. Great answer to an annoying problem.

[antutu2011]

@xenophobephoto yea its so annoying that the somalis do not just relax and starve but dare to rob ships that carry our iphones from the underpaid workers in bangladesh through their somali waters which they cant fish in anymore cause we took all the fish and ate it in beautiful restaurants

[dpapaioannow]

that's a great gun..it's good for everything

[rubberduckytank]

looks like a mount on the Canadian Halifax class frigate

[Nick3889]

pretty sure it is

[mattmatt115]

You sir are correct!

[NaPalm625]

oh by the way, imagine if they had these back in the days of world war two, the airforce of any nation will be useless

[chrthiel]

They had guns like that back then. What they didn't have was digital fire control computers and fancy 3d radars.

[NaPalm625]

bam bam bam bam bam...........bam

[chrthiel]

Traditional large calibre guns are useless as ship-to-ship weapons since just about every anti ship missiles can out range them and because modern CIWS systems are capable of shooting down the shells in mid-flight.

[Scioneer]

Is this a variant of the 3 inch Melara used on the US Perry-Class?

[mattmatt115]

nope, completely different manufacturer and gun.

This Bofors 57mm is actually a very nice thing to have, it can engage surface, land, and air targets with high accuracy and a whole inventory of different types of ammunition for different purposes. Fragmentation rounds are cool, they can knock a missile from the air just by exploding close to it same thing with a dingy or something like that.

nasty shit man

[mattmatt115]

I think hes suggesting that you are old and outdated.

Which maybe true but i dont have the time to check youtube to see your declared age.

Maybe you were in WW2 or something?

Honestly though why would you even consider using a huge slow lumbering target like a battleship with 16" guns when you can have a FFG, small, agile, cheap, easy to maintain, with missile systems and small guns with hightech munitions such as fragmentation rounds designed to take out small fast moving targets

[onlypeaceindeath]

Battleships can be really fast and agile for its size. But they are still big which is no good for them.

[Zyamaman]

It's not that battleships aren't useful, it's that they horrendously cost-inefficient.

It costs a fucking fortune just to keep one afloat, and considering that a tiny missile ship (which costs just a miniscule fracture of the battleship's pricetag, BTW) is all it takes to take the huge-ass battleship out of the fighting, it's just not worth it.

Gone are the days when naval battles were decided by who has the bigger guns!

Today, your weaponry is secondary to the quality of your radar array.

[onlypeaceindeath]

A nuclear reactor is cost effective for larger ships and a battleship can be equippted with larger and more powerful radar arrays and bristle with anti-missil, anti-air or and anti-ship weaponry. But I agree that the pricetag might not be the most considirable. It's better to have a navy that's consisting of smaller vessels in a adequate amount.

[Zyamaman]

Yes, that's exactly the problem - a battleship CAN be equipped with the most advanced equipment available for that time, but it costs about half a billion dollars to refit an Iowa class...

You can build a couple of NEW ships for that money!

And frankly, there isn't a role left for a battleship that can be accomplished by other, specialized ships, and under far lower costs...

[SayokoHatsuya]

@mattmatt115 ... ahahah what 'huge slow lumbering target like a battleship'

>Iowa class tops out at 35 kt

'FFG small, agile, etc'

>FFG7 class tops out at 29 kt

HAHA YEAH OKAY. VERY GOOD JOKING YOU MAKE OF THERE.

Really. Now I think Burkes are the sex and all, but if you keep talking shit about battleships I will continue to be very unamused.

[mattmatt115]

How do you propose Iowa after WW2 take out say 10 fast attack boats filled with TNT to explode upon impact? Aim the 203mm's? Hmmm i dont think that happens effectively....

Iowa is outdated, FAR too manpower intensive, too big, its old, the machinery set is way outdated, very poor self-defence against missiles, highly unstealthy, easy to hit with well, anything... what else?

They are gone and they aren't comming back.

[SayokoHatsuya]

@mattmatt115 Six 127mm/38cal twin-mounted per side. Also the Iowas have never had 8" armament ever, shut up you know nothing. Harpoons are a cool story too. That and the boats would never get near since Iowas are escorted heavily.

I'll admit they're manpower intensive, but there's no such thing as "too big"; outdated is not necessarily bad, neither is old; new machinery and electronics is the reason why it can't fire all nine guns at the same time anymore, continued > >

[SayokoHatsuya]

@mattmatt115 Part 2: it has four Phalanx CIWS you shitfuck what are you talking about, fuck stealth, 'easy to hit' is relative considering said CIWS and both the missile defense and 'easy to hit' points are absolutely irrelevant because:

1. An Iowa is always escorted heavily. May as well argue against carriers.

2. Armor. It'll take a licking even from modern missilery and keep on ticking. Shush.

Continued in Part 3.

[mattmatt115]

@SayokoHatsuya "Part 2: it has four Phalanx CIWS you shitfuck"

Right, well since you've gone red-eyed and completely rediculous, this conversation is over.

[SayokoHatsuya]

@mattmatt115 ... and now you're answering my three-part comment all out of order.

[mattmatt115]

@SayokoHatsuya And? Sorry. I've no time for childish rage and name calling. You can be immature and call your dad names if you like, but im really not interested. I was interested in a conversation, was even agreeing with you on the shore bombardment role, and you just had to resort to childish name calling. Sad.

Im off to the bar anyway, so good night

[SayokoHatsuya]

@mattmatt115 'childish rage'? Casual namecalling, and you should really start reading my comments in order.

[SayokoHatsuya]

@mattmatt115 Pt. 3: They may be mostly outdated in the ship-to-ship combat role (god knows if any modern vessel got within range of the Mk7s they'd get their shit holed to hell and back though) but they will ALWAYS be an incredibly efficient platform for the naval gunfire support role.

Always. They're fucking majestic things, those Iowas.

[mattmatt115]

@SayokoHatsuya Very true =) They are very majestic and no single ship in the water today can compare to an Iowa for shore bombardment with heavy guns.... Other than that, its not very usefull and too expensive to operate when compared to say a CG/DDG with 300 +/- men on it

[SayokoHatsuya]

@mattmatt115 All I really ask is that you don't talk shit about Iowas, because I will continue to be very, very 'upset'.

This is a bad euphemism for 'seething ripshit pissed and searching for a rake to fuck someone with', but I digress.

I agree that Iowas should be left decommissioned, but full modernization and/or reactivation should always be an option for them in the case of wartime or the need for lots of 406-millimetre boomies on whatever given target.

[gmoney845]

You're probably saying that because you've used the same gun so many times defending yourself....look up the purpose of a CPF and you'll find thta its not useless against FAC FIAC attacks.

[gmoney845]

Regarding kyle9524's comment: Considering that even smaller caliber like 50cal will still make a hole of any modern warships no navy really needs bigger caliber. These days its more about the type of rounds used. 1 HCER rounds will take out any tanks or aircraft.

[deryoky]

@gmoney845 i dont know about a 50 cal making a hole but i get your point

[kyle9524]

Its very sad when the ships are now reduced to carrying guns that are smaller then what tanks carry. It was a magnificent sight to see 15", 8", and 16" guns on a ship.

[Zyamaman]

That gun is just a secondary weapon, it's not meant to be used in an actual naval combat - scaring some pirates away and blowing stuff out of the sky, that's it's job.

As an anti-ship weapon, modern vessels carry those huge-ass missiles on them that can rip smaller ship in half.

And considering that those missiles can outrange the biggest naval guns by orders of magnitude, there's no real reason to carry those guns anymore...

[trueblue151]

my dad served on this ship in the first gulf war

[Nick3889]

Man gun of the Halifax Class Frigate NICE!!! Man i love being Canadian

[260191894]

me too!

[Texan09]

watch this, then watch an iowa class battleship's 16" guns

[locolopelocolope]

There is no point of comparison there. They are different guns for different purposes.

[260191894]

true, don't want to take one 16inch round to destroy an incoming small boat full of explosives

[tenorismo]

The only problem is that with this gun they could take out the bridge of an Iowa class before the crew can load the 16" guns , but lets not forget the 5" guns that would blow that destroyer out of the water

[myrslok517]

RE:tkktkt It reduce the flames.

[tkktkt]

Why do some of the big guns have the cones at the end of their barrels? How do they affect performance?

[fivestr]

it stabilizes the flow of expanding gas exiting the barrel so as not to cause the round alter course when exiting the weapon. Plus its a nice place to put a large amount of grease to cause a fire ball during a night shoot.

[tkktkt]

thanks!

[navysailor007]

It can also be used to increase the barel movment backwards. This momnet is used to reload and trow out the used cartridge.

[AllisterCaine]

what your are saying ist incorrect according to my knowledge.

what you mean is a muzzle brake.

navalsailor is right, this is used to use the recoil more efficient.

[ohredhk]

It is not a muzzle brake. It is a flash suppresser. The post at the top should be the correct anwser.