@ Bloodsky
The ship in question was either the USS Texas. They flooded one side to
create a 2 deg list to fire farther inland. But those ships had a max gun elevation of 15
deg.

In real life 45?most certainly is not the best angle for max range. First of all air
density isn't constant during the path of flight. A ballistic projectile in this case
easily reaches heights of 15+ km at it's peak. Furthermore firing beyond the horizon means
you're actually firing around the earth curvature. To calculate max range angle you'd have
to calculate a very complex differential equation.

I'd guess the real best range angle is around 40?maybe. Might even be lower. But it
doesn't really matter. During WW2 no nation had the technical capabilities to see if they
hit the target. Quite frankly land artillery is more precise at max range, because land
artillery usually includes recon ops, that help correcting targetting offsets.

k i wish to end it

At 45˚ the vertical component of velocity is the same as the horizontal component.
This means that the time of flight ( which is decided by the vertical velocity ) is
coupled with the best possible horizontal velocity so as to achieve the maximum
range.
You can perhaps convince someone without using maths ( which is by far the best
and easiest way ) by using an extreme value argument. At 0˚ elevation ( firing the
projectile horizontally from ground level) the range will be zero because the
projectile will fall a tiny distance to hit hit the ground immediately it is fired. At 90˚
elevation ( firing the projectile straight up ) the range will once again be zero as the
projectile falls back to starting position. It is reasonable to presume that the
maximum range will therefore be equidistance between these two extremes.
ex 45

but this is only true with no air resistance

but in navy field for all guns its 55
or at leaast all guns that can shoot that high

Well to an extent, several of the Naval rifles that were built for battleships that were
instead installed as coastal defense artillery increased their effective range in
elevations that exceeded 45* or better. Some well beyond their capable ranges installed on
warships.

iirc it varies for each gun

there's a small caliber gun(i forgot which, there are so many) i use on my CV that
has 48 degrees as furthest angle.

and i believe there's another small caliber gun in the US ships has 55 as furthest
angle.

In, say, a very windy environment, the shells would go the furthest at 90degrees.

All this physics talk is making me go herp a derp!

-"Didnt they used to flood one side of the iowa's ballast to make it tilt a bit more to get
that extra degrees = range...? Or am i confusing it with another ship?"-


The turret and gun house designs for the Mark-6 16"/45s on the NoCar/SoDak classes and the
turret and gun house designs for the Mark-7 on the Iowa's allowed the guns to elevate from
-5* to +45*.

in real life the max angle is always 45 degreas at least when theres no fricion add
extra factors and it might change but im sure it stay between 50-40 but fail nf
physics makes it 55

Many factors play into extreme ranges via gun elevations.

Weight and design of projectiles.
The barrel length.
The rifling inside the bore (example Iowa's Mk-7 gun rifling is 1-25 ratio on a 50 caliber
barrel length, meaning the projectile spins twice before leaving the muzzle).
The type and amount of propellant.
Muzzle velocity.
The surrounding barometric pressure.
Pitch and roll of a ships hull.
Etc...etc.

Didnt they used to flood one side of the iowa's ballast to make it tilt a bit more to get
that extra degrees = range...? Or am i confusing it with another ship?