Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Naval Gun Question  
User currently offlineLHMARK From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 47
Posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5980 times:

The gun armament on modern warships


seems anemic compared to the gun armament of old.


I know that a modern ship's primary armament is missile-based, but I have no clue about the capability of modern naval guns. How far do they fire? How accurate are they? How much have guns advanced since the "battery fire" days?


"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
106 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5969 times:

The new gun is a modern variant of the World War II 5/38. It is a Mark 45 127mm/54 caliber gun. In World War II the 5" was a extremely accurate versatile gun. Range was approx 10 miles. And could fire up to 35,000 feet in Anti-aircraft mode. You don't need more than than now since missiles and aircraft will take care threats at greater range.

However, you're right, the Naval gun is really anachronistic. Frigates and Destroyers keep them mostly to put a shot over a ship bow. These work horses need them when they interdict ships at sea, like smugglers or commercial ships than need to be boarded. Missiles, are more powerful weapons but they would be too powerful in certain circumstances. Remember the fight the US Navy had with Pirates off the African coast a few months ago?


User currently offlineLHMARK From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 7255 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5961 times:

I read they just used light machine guns in that engagement. Silly pirates.

Maybe, now that there are fewer capital ships to shoot at, the gun will make a comeback. Missiles cost a lot more than shells.



"Sympathy is something that shouldn't be bestowed on the Yankees. Apparently it angers them." - Bob Feller
User currently offlineKROC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5958 times:

Why do Naval Vessels need guns?

Signed, the Canadian Navy


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7760 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

AFAIK the 5"/54 seen on most American frigates, destroyers, and cruisers has little relation to the earlier 5"/38 (however early versions of the 5"/54 was simply an elongated version of the original 5/38)... which was put on everything from 1500 ton destroyers to the Iowa class battleships. The current 5"/54 Mark 45, and the new 5"/62 Mark 45 (used on Arleigh Burke class destroyers from DDG-82 on up, among others) are significantly different weapons compared to the old 5 inchers... largely in their level of automation and their ability to fire long range rounds.


Here is a little info on some of the guns currently used aboard USN ships.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk45.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-62_mk45.htm
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-62_mk75.htm



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

Quoting LHMARK (Reply 2):
I read they just used light machine guns in that engagement. Silly pirates.

Yes but it is an example of why the naval gun will never be completely obsolete. It fulfills a role when a commander needs firepower but the target doesn't fit the missile profile.

If you run into a target like a commerical ship you need to stop fer example. Small craft with pirates fleeing and out of range of machine gun fire. Missiles can't fulfill that role. They would destroy a commercial vessel completely when all you wanted to do was disable them, and small targets like speedboats I doubt can even be tracked by a missile.

Missiles give the greatest flexibility in war, you can hit warships from a stand-off position, or ground targets far inland. Ships with naval guns operate independently of the fleet sometimes. Running down vessels of interest and the like.

The modern fleet is a destroyer and frigate screen (the workhorses) with a maybe guided missile cruiser and an aircraft carrier. With more and more guided missile destroyers and frigates, cruisers are on the way out. The destroyers and frigates on the fringes of the screen or operating independently need to have a weapon with a knock out punch for close in work. Something missiles can't do very well.


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7760 posts, RR: 16
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5938 times:

Quoting LHMARK (Reply 2):
now that there are fewer capital ships to shoot at, the gun will make a comeback. Missiles cost a lot more than shells.

Yes and no. The missile become the primary weapon on ship for anti-aircraft defense. Only later did you see the development of anti-shipping missiles like the Exocet and Harpoon. With a move towards developing stealth ships it isn't likely you'll see large batteries of guns. Though the new DD-1000 class ships are planned to have 2 155mm guns of rather advanced design.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineStrasserB From Singapore, joined Nov 2005, 1541 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5940 times:

Quoting KROC (Reply 3):
Why do Naval Vessels need guns?

Yes, that's a good question, when you already can control it with your mobile:




Still, even in the most arid desert is an airport somewhere ...
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5937 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 1):
Remember the fight the US Navy had with Pirates off the African coast a few months ago?

That was a debacle. I've seen the video, and it was laughable.

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 4):
AFAIK the 5"/54 seen on most American frigates, destroyers, and cruisers has little relation to the earlier 5"/38 (however early versions of the 5"/54 was simply an elongated version of the original 5/38)... which was put on everything from 1500 ton destroyers to the Iowa class battleships. The current 5"/54 Mark 45, and the new 5"/62 Mark 45 (used on Arleigh Burke class destroyers from DDG-82 on up, among others) are significantly different weapons compared to the old 5 inchers... largely in their level of automation and their ability to fire long range rounds.

Correct. there is very little commonality between the old 5"/38 and modern weapons.

It sure was a blast being in the turret when the 5"/38 fired, however.


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5932 times:

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 4):
The current 5"/54 Mark 45, and the new 5"/62 Mark 45 (used on Arleigh Burke class destroyers from DDG-82 on up, among others) are significantly different weapons compared to the old 5 inchers... largely in their level of automation and their ability to fire long range rounds.

Just to clarify, if I wasn't before, I wasn't saying the WWII 5/38 was the SAME as the new 5/45. But they are in the same line and their versatile mission is the same.

You are right to point out the automation. I know my 5" guns from my work on the BB62 so I couldn't speak to that. But I do know the role the gun plays today is the same as it's ancestor.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5921 times:

The Air Force had the same experience in the 50's and 60's. They built fighters like the F-4 Phantom and others and equiped them only with missiles, thinking that the age of guns in the air was over. WRONG! Which is why all modern fighters once again have guns.

User currently offlineIAH777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 0 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5912 times:

Quoting LHMARK (Thread starter):
Naval Gun

I once fired a grape at my dog using my belly button. He caught it in mid-flight, but spit it out when he tasted my lint cheese.

Signed,
BAB


User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5897 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 1):
Frigates and Destroyers keep them mostly to put a shot over a ship bow.

Well things may have changed. But when I was in, we had a 76mm(3inch) gun onboard. We used it for anti-air mainly. There is an area between the missile kill zone and the CIWS kill zone that we used the gun. We had IR and radar fuses. The gun was radar controlled/aimed and very accurate. We could use it for surface targets, but the shell was sort of small. The nice thing about it, was the fast engagement/fire rate. we had "quick draw" exercises, where the battle group commander would tell us over the radio where the target was. we had to engage the "target" within so much time. Usally we would fire within 20 seconds. Plus with a 80 rnds per minute rate of fire, it puts a lot of shells out quick.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5891 times:

Quoting Sprout5199 (Reply 12):
Plus with a 80 rnds per minute rate of fire, it puts a lot of shells out quick.

BTW, it is intersting to note that while the 3" was super quick, the 5" even with all the new automation was just as fast as the hand loaded 5/38.

The record on the BB62 was 22 rounds a minute.

In WWII 18 to 20 rounds was standard, depending on the angle of the gun. This is with 13 guys in the mount and another 12 in the upper handleing room. Not a bad rate of fire.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5883 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 13):
BTW, it is intersting to note that while the 3" was super quick, the 5" even with all the new automation was just as fast as the hand loaded 5/38.

But the successors to the 5"/38 were more accurate. The GFCS we had with our 5"/38 was a comptele POS.


User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11446 posts, RR: 76
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5882 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 1):
However, you're right, the Naval gun is really anachronistic.

I don't know if that's the right way to put that. There is a definite need for naval rifles, or guns, in modern warfare and it's not being well addressed right now. The new 5" guns are basically 127mm cannon (not howitzers) which carry a relatively small round that can accurately hit targets out to 20 something KM when using assisted rounds. It's useful for ADA as well as for shore fire when you don't need big guns, but the real need for a good 6 or 8 inch class rifle (or a 155mm to 210mm gun) is real. Ask any marine ashore whether they want some vessels in the littoral with artillery capable of reaching 10 to 20 miles inland that can have real effect on an ongoing basis. Air support cannot deliver the same persistent fires on the same target and is significantly more expensive, and the towed artillery brought by Marines is generally not available during the initial phases of any assault. The need is modern, and the guns presently in use are anachronistic but hte ones on the drawing board and in testing aren't.

All that said....I'd like to keep one battlewagon under steam....there's nothing like a broadside from 9 16" guns all landing in one grid square at the same time.......

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 4):
5"/62 Mark 45 (used on Arleigh Burke class destroyers from DDG-82 on up, among others) are significantly different weapons compared to the old 5 inchers... largely in their level of automation and their ability to fire long range rounds.

Their ability to accurately and rapidly fire longer range rounds placing fewer men at risk.

Quoting DesertJets (Reply 6):
Though the new DD-1000 class ships are planned to have 2 155mm guns of rather advanced design.

True, but someone needs to finish getting the things ready.

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):
It sure was a blast being in the turret when the 5"/38 fired, however.

Showing a little age there, Coastie.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5875 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
But the successors to the 5"/38 were more accurate.

I always heard the 5/38 was a very accurate gun.

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15):
I don't know if that's the right way to put that. There is a definite need for naval rifles, or guns, in modern warfare and it's not being well addressed right now.

Hold on, I think by taking just that part you misunderstand me. I think we are both coming to the same conclusion from different directions.

The need for a naval gun is anachronistic, but it DOES fill a vital role. However, the reason we see guns no bigger than 5 or 6 Inches is that there will never be a naval gun to gun engagement ever again. WWII didn't even have one of those. Warship to Warship engagements will be fought with missiles and air power, with the combatants standing off.

But there is a role for the naval gun, which is why the navies of the world are loath to completely get rid of them.


User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5857 times:

Was the 5"/38 the one that had the "nice bark" and did the smoke ring when fired?

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 16):
WWII didn't even have one of those

I believe there was few. HMS Hood was sunk by gunfire.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineJuls From Germany, joined Sep 2006, 3 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5856 times:

The new F125 stabilization frigates/destroyers of the German navy will have an 155 mm howitzer. The turret comes from the Pzh2000 howitzer and is almost unmodified. Range will be > 80,000 meter.

Test of the fire control system.
http://www.dutchfleet.net//files/panzerhaubitze_2000_op_fregat_hessen_518.jpg

Test of the mounting.


Integration test on a F124 frigate.


User currently offlineVzlet From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 833 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5850 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 16):
there will never be a naval gun to gun engagement ever again. WWII didn't even have one of those.

It would seem you're overlooking the numerous British/German engagements (Bismarck vs. Hood, for example), and action near Guadalcanal:

Washington fires upon Japanese battleship Kirishima during the battle on November 14-15, 1942. The low elevation of the gun barrels is due to the relatively close range of the two adversaries.

Vincent O'Hara's The German Fleet at War, 1939-1945 details "sixty-nine surface engagements involving the Kriegsmarine from September 1939 through March 1945, each one fought 'between purpose-built surface warships displacing at least five hundred tons full load where torpedoes and/or gunfire were exchanged'." (I don't know how many of those engagements involved only torpedoes.)



"That's so stupid! If they're so secret, why are they out where everyone can see them?" - my kid
User currently offlineUALPHLCS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5841 times:

Quoting Vzlet (Reply 19):
It would seem you're overlooking the numerous British/German engagements (Bismarck vs. Hood, for example), and action near Guadalcanal:

Yeah I guess I ought to have said "didn't have MANY of those." However, my point holds about naval engagements today! Do you really think you will see a ship to ship gun fight in the 21st Century?

That pic in your post where did you get it? I wonder if the Washington was a South Dakota Class battleship because her turrets sure look like an Iowa class. Not that I'm disputing the caption because I know no Iowa's were in the Pacific that early. On the other hand the Navy had a habit of deliberately misidentifying the Iowa's when they where first launched to fool spies. So the date of the pic and the Identification could be off.

On the other hand South Dakota's did look similar to Iowa's eventhough they where smaller.


User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7760 posts, RR: 16
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5841 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15):
All that said....I'd like to keep one battlewagon under steam....there's nothing like a broadside from 9 16" guns all landing in one grid square at the same time.......

While for nostalgia's sake it might be nice to keep a battleship or two operational, it is an awfully expensive platform to maintain for one mission. Sure a refit Iowa was a pretty capable ship, but beyond the big guns, a VLS equipped Ticonderoga had more capability in C&C and a larger missile payload.

Though I do understand the need to continue to have larger naval guns onboard. Obviously the DD-1000, whenever they enter service, will have the new 155mm gun. Though what strikes me as odd, the ships that will be operating in the littoral waters such as the new LCS ships, and the new San Antonio Class LPDs, don't have a large caliber cannon. IIRC the LCS only carries a 57mm gun, and the San Antonios do not carry anything bigger than 30mm close-in gun.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineSprout5199 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1851 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5837 times:

Quoting Juls (Reply 18):
The new F125 stabilization frigates/destroyers of the German navy will have an 155 mm howitzer. The turret comes from the Pzh2000 howitzer and is almost unmodified. Range will be > 80,000 meter.

At least they could have painted it grey.

Dan in Jupiter


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5837 times:

Quoting DL021 (Reply 15):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):
It sure was a blast being in the turret when the 5"/38 fired, however.

Showing a little age there, Coastie.

LOL, that was on a 327' Secretary class cutter in 1974 to be exact. The USCGC Ingham on a cadet cruise.

My last ship, the Storis, had a 3"/50 main battery - pre WWII vintage. No GFCS whatsoever. The ammo we'd shoot often misfired, it was so old.

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 16):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 14):
But the successors to the 5"/38 were more accurate.

I always heard the 5/38 was a very accurate gun.

Maybe with a GFCS that was worth a shit it was accurate. What we had in the CG was crap. we couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5832 times:

Quoting UALPHLCS (Reply 20):
I wonder if the Washington was a South Dakota Class battleship because her turrets sure look like an Iowa class.

NC class


25 Post contains images DesertJets : Both the North Carolina and South Dakota classes carried the triple 16"/45 Mark 6 gun. Which look an awful lot like the 16"/50s on the Iowa. USS Wash
26 Miamiair : Only four of those... Wisconsin, New Jersey, Iowa, Missouri
27 UALPHLCS : I wasn't saying the Washington was an Iowa Class. I was suggesting the Photo was an unidentified Iowa (Probably the Iowa since it was late 1942) and
28 GDB : As it focussed more and more on Cold War roles, the Royal Navy started dropping medium caliber guns. The Leander Class frigates, originally with twin
29 Post contains links and images Vzlet : I don't think they'll be common, but because there will be ships are running around with gun armament, it's certainly possible, especially in a litto
30 UALPHLCS : OK LOL In fact after looking very closly at the bridge an conning tower I think the pic is captioned correctly. I took a look at some pics at navsourc
31 Sprout5199 : And the times where it will be ship vs patrol craft. I know in 1987 the US was putting 25mm chain guns on FFG's and DD's due to the small boat threat
32 DL021 : Warship to warship engagements are not the main reason for naval gunfire. Shore bombardment and interdiction of smaller and commercial vessels are ex
33 Banco : I'm not sure even that's true. I suspect it may be because you are concentrating on the USN (and at war's end RN) vs Japan side of the naval war. The
34 Post contains images Greasespot : Hey my sister is in the Navy here,,,They have guns.I have seen them up close.....Now ammunition for the guns is another story GS
35 LHMARK : Didn't the Canadian navy once have an aircraft carrier? The HMS Reasonable, or something like that...
36 Post contains links and images N1120A : Oh really? So is that thing on the front just for show? The F4E had an internal canon, as did the F4G Wild Weasel II.
37 DL021 : The 57mm Bofors gun that the Canadians use is useful for AAA and against small vessels, but not much else. It's got little shore bombardment applicat
38 UALPHLCS : Granted, it would be fun to see the big guns doing their job again, but that is highly unlikely. As you mentioned the effective range of the big guns
39 Pyrex : Do they use the Italian OTO Melara cannons as well? A really tragic mistake to make... If I were an enemy combatant I would be more terrified of that
40 Post contains links and images DL021 : Ut was the last piston engine fighter/attack craft in the US inventory serving with the Air Force and Navy until the seventies and with other nations
41 Halls120 : When I was growing up, my back yard was NAS Los Alamitos. I saw just about every military aircraft in the inventory from 1963-1971 taxi past our back
42 DesertJets : But in the area around the Korean peninsula having air cover would be relatively easy. So what would start out as gun fight between two ships would c
43 Pyrex : I had no idea the A-1 Skyraider was called the Spad. It was in fact an impressive aircraft, proof that it isn't always the highest technology in the
44 UALPHLCS : The problem is that that concentration of fire is only able to attack a narrow strip of land. Smaller guns and air power can do the same job without
45 DL021 : The navy cannot provide adequate shore bombardment as we speak. The problem with using aviation for artillery is that the airplanes run out of gas an
46 Post contains links and images Miamiair : Yup, that's a General Purpose Toilet Bomb.
47 UALPHLCS : I have to side with the Navy on this one. When is the last time there was a substantial breach landing opposed by hardened emplacements. If someone o
48 DL021 : I'm speaking as one who has felt the dear need on more than one occasion for arty support and did not get it because it was either non-existent or too
49 Pyrex : What is the purpose of it? To scare the sh*t out of the enemy? Seriously, is that photo real?
50 Post contains links Miamiair : It is a real photo. http://www.midwaysailor.com/midwayva25bomb/index.html
51 UALPHLCS : I agree. But here's the thing. If an opposing force where to build enplacements that are too strong for current Naval support it would be a fixed emp
52 L-188 : Another great military move by Billy Clinton. Those guys where even allowed to have ammo cans on their weapons, let alone charged.
53 UALPHLCS : Actually, it was Bush SR. who ordered the troops to Somalia. Not the best thing he ever did IMO. Quick someone get B777-700 and Falcon84 and the rest
54 DL021 : Well, to be fair and accurate....the mission that President Bush sent troops into was to protect the aid delivery agencies and personnel, President C
55 UALPHLCS : Ok that's fair.
56 DL021 : Getting back to naval riflery..........the Navy tried out an 8" gun from Dahlgren on a frigate several years back which was too powerful for the vesse
57 UALPHLCS : So what kind of vessal is the Navy thinking about to arm with an 8"? I would have thought only cruiser, but the Navy seems to be phasing those out.
58 DL021 : Well, the Navy does not want to use 8" guns. It would need to refine it's lightweight gun technology to make it work on a modern vessel, but it would
59 DesertJets : The funny thing about all that is the entire process of developing a new ship is screwed up. On one level congress is upset at the Navy for not havin
60 UALPHLCS : Exactly. On of the interesting things and I wish I could find a picture of it, was the hybrid idea from the 1980s refit. The BB62 Museum has this mod
61 Sprout5199 : And how would they be vulnerable? a small boat filled with HE? missiles? bombs? look at what they were designed to go against. about the only thing t
62 GDB : In 1991, a Silkworm was fired at a USN Battleship, but was shot down by a Sea Dart SAM from an escorting RN Type 42 Destroyer. Might it have done real
63 Par13del : If I can join in, there was a thread in Mil. Av. where this was disscussed with the US Navy's new littorals, and shore bombardment was brought up. The
64 Sprout5199 : Never heard of that, but I was sitting in Mayport watching it on CNN like everyone else. Dan in Jupiter
65 DesertJets : There are not too many cases where a naval ship has been hit and/or severely damaged/sunk from anti-shipping missiles. The HMS Sheffield during the Fa
66 UALPHLCS : Bringing back BB's because they are relativly invulnerable to modern weapons is simply not feasible. Yes for the most part the armored box would shie
67 Post contains links GDB : Sprout5199, some details of the incident, Wiki reckons the Silkworm was targetting chaff (which worked against 2 or 3 of the Exocets in the Falklands)
68 LHMARK : The BBs were converted to fuel standard during their initial modernization.
69 Sprout5199 : I doubt this. A. I would want a helo for long range targeting if nothing else. B. The Perry's aren't that strong. The 76mm shook the hell out of the
70 Post contains links Sprout5199 : " target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dar...ssile Man that looks like a baby Talos Missile. http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-8.ht
71 GDB : Yes, a good system in it's day, a mistake cancelling the Mk.2 GWS.31 in 1981, with the new tracking radars and missile control improvements, but as th
72 Par13del : GDB regarding the Phalanx System, you raise an interesting point, in how effective it is or could be. It has been tested and we have all seen the resu
73 Halls120 : I believe the 8 in gun you refer to was first mounted for test purposes on a Forrest Sherman class DD, and it was indeed regarded as "too much" for t
74 Post contains links and images L-188 : I believe they where intended for the Ticonderoga class cruisers. Yup USS Hull... You can never have too much gun. One thing that I think gets lost i
75 Sprout5199 : The system was in standby due to the rules of engagement at the time. She was by herself standing radar picket/intel gatherer. After the attack, the
76 L-188 : Then you do it the same way they did it before they had electronics, you spot the shell hit and then correct.
77 Sprout5199 : That would work if you have any way to manually move the mount. But I really doubt anyone today could spot and correct. Might have to get some oldtim
78 L-188 : That sounds more like a training problem then a problem with the gun. And actually highlights one of my recent critisims of the military, there seems
79 Sprout5199 : I hear ya. Sometimes its nice to actually work/use something that has no electronics at all, and I'm an Electronics Tech. Dan in Jupiter
80 Banco : Everyone learned from the Falklands naval war. It's the only modern naval conflict since the Second World War. Everyone was watching it closely to se
81 L-188 : Not bad for a PH survior.
82 Banco : Indeed. Putting the tragedy of it to one side for a moment, there was a certain irony in the fact that it was the British who were to sink her.
83 L-188 : And with Torpedo's of the same era as the ship it's sunk
84 Sprout5199 : Not Russian but Soviet.(a little nit-pik from a Cold War Veteran) True. We learned the damage control lessons well. And everyone learned from the Sta
85 Post contains images Banco : Do you mind? I've only just got used to not calling the Russians Soviets, and then you come along and remind I'm calling the Soviets Russian. Not nec
86 Sprout5199 : I thought there was more of a debate due to the fact she was outside of the exclusion zone. Guess I need to read up a bit. Dan in Jupiter
87 DL021 : Well, it's also worth keeping in mind that an unprotected gun platform is useless if faced with modern submarines intent on killing the gunship. The
88 Sprout5199 : But a BB is armored to an extent from torps. How one would fair against a modern torp, I don't know. You also have to take in to account who the enem
89 MD11Engineer : Britain's supply lines were already stretched to the limit and the British military were relying on civilian cargo ships like the Atlantic Conveyor (
90 Post contains images Sprout5199 : I have seen some women with cargo hips, but I didn't realize they were that important. Dan in Jupiter
91 Post contains images MD11Engineer : Damn, you got me! Jan
92 Sprout5199 : Gotta laugh when you can. Dan in Jupiter
93 DL021 : A modern torpedo (of the same class as a Mk48 ADCAP) would explode underneath a battleship and cut it in two. There really is no vessel ever made tha
94 L-188 : Refering back to the light Cruiser Admiral Belgrano, the skipper of the British sub that sank her went with a WWII MK8 torpedo. It had a larger warhe
95 Banco : But notably, not from the Argentine navy, including the CO of the Belgrano herself.
96 UALPHLCS : 1300 yards if memory serves. Which in naval terms is spitting distance. This is ironic considering the Belgrano was a retired American WWII cruiser s
97 DL021 : It was a fault in the torpedoes in use at the time, which they rectified with their Spearfish (I believe) torpedoes with larger warheads and more rel
98 WSOY : There's a certain Baltic state who has inherited a selection of early 20th C. naval guns from the good old Russian Tsars for its coastal defense. Once
99 GDB : The Belgrano was the Southern Flank of Argentine Adm Lombardo's plan to end any British retaking of the Islands by knocking the RN's major units then
100 DL021 : The Argentines bit off much more than they could chew, and badly underestimated the resolve of Margaret Thatcher.... they also underestimated the inge
101 Sprout5199 : Did anyone see "Battlefields" last night on the Miltary channel? I caught part of it. It was about the Falklands War. I didn't relize how many ship at
102 GDB : Yes, and back in 1982, we waited several days to see them! Though photos were sent by satellite link. In San Carlos Water-chosen as the enemy were not
103 Banco : In one case, a ship that ultimately wasn't sacrificed, but clearly could have been was the Type 21 frigate HMS Alacrity. The concern to the taskforce
104 Sprout5199 : Considering they were almost starved in two wars, can you blame them. Seems sort of ass-backwards to me, but then again I served in an AEGIS equipped
105 GDB : Sprout1599, very true, the 'Invincibles' and their group of escorts were mainly designated as the ASW core of 'Task Group 2', allocated to SACLANT, ba
106 Halls120 : Don't know about the RN ASW capability one way or another, but if it is as good as their surface search capability, it's pretty good. Right now, the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A Question For Our American Police Members posted Tue Dec 12 2006 15:41:38 by 53Sqdn
Random Question: Lemons... posted Tue Dec 12 2006 00:34:45 by QXatFAT
PC Computer Question posted Mon Dec 11 2006 19:18:38 by UA777222
Question About Filling Up... posted Mon Dec 11 2006 03:05:44 by Sleekjet
A Question On Telescopes posted Mon Dec 11 2006 01:59:16 by B741
Question For Trains Experts. posted Sun Dec 10 2006 03:31:35 by Acheron
Christmas Travel Question: UK-US posted Sat Dec 9 2006 11:42:22 by SmithAir747
English Language Question posted Wed Dec 6 2006 12:45:48 by TurkishWings
Question For The Unemployed, Retired Or Wealthy posted Wed Dec 6 2006 09:38:07 by B737-112
Windows File Rename Question posted Tue Dec 5 2006 03:14:11 by Diamond