Naval guns, big or small

[dy031101]

The problem, as I see it, for big gunned carriers, is that if the enemy is close enough to shoot at, it is way too close to a high value asset like an aircraft carrier. The lesson of the war was that  carrier's aircraft could project power beyond the range of surface combatants, keeping them from harm's way. And every ton used for armament, and presumably armor, cut into aviation support/endurance/speed.
Of course, having been all rational and spoil-sporty, these are so cool. More, more.

The only reason why some Axis carriers had big guns is that they didn't have enough screening vessels in surface combat scenarioes.

Nevertheless, if they feel they had to put one on their carriers, I think casemate mounts are better than turrets.

[sagallacci]

Casements for sure, and certainly not guns of any real size anywhere near the flight deck. Those early US carriers with turrets on the island had to stop flight ops to use them, not only for shooting clearance, but to protect airframes from blast damage.

[DarrenP]

Couple of naval gun ideas.

Why aren't the Amphib ships fitted with Guns? They are inshore to land troops so could also provide some NGS as well. The 155mm future naval gun is ment to be based on the AS90 so could fire HE, Smoke Or illum.

With the old style Battle wagons I wonder what the effect of an APDS round would be?

[Weaver]

Couple of naval gun ideas.

Why aren't the Amphib ships fitted with Guns? They are inshore to land troops so could also provide some NGS as well. The 155mm future naval gun is ment to be based on the AS90 so could fire HE, Smoke Or illum.

With the old style Battle wagons I wonder what the effect of an APDS round would be?

The older USN LPHAs carried 3 x 5" Mk.45 guns for just that purpose. Nowadays, they're supposed to stand off-shore much further using hovercraft to keep the same journey times. In general, a frigate will have a lower draft and more maneuverability and speed than an amphib. ship, so it's a better NGS provider: it can defend itself/get out of trouble if retaliation comes it's way, and if it can't, it's a less critical asset to lose.

[pyro-manic]

An APDS hit wouldn't affect a battleship much. Heavy shells (and modern anti-ship missiles for that matter) do their damage by bouncing big splinters around inside the ship, destroying equipment and killing crew. A kinetic penetrator round would get through the armour, but would then be rather unlikely to cause any serious damage unless it's course takes it directly through a critical bit of machinery or a magazine etc. For the same reason, a HEAT round wouldn't really be effective.

[Just call me Ray]

The older USN LPHAs carried 3 x 5" Mk.45 guns for just that purpose. Nowadays, they're supposed to stand off-shore much further using hovercraft to keep the same journey times. In general, a frigate will have a lower draft and more maneuverability and speed than an amphib. ship, so it's a better NGS provider: it can defend itself/get out of trouble if retaliation comes it's way, and if it can't, it's a less critical asset to lose.

I wonder if we can have an unmanned NGS support ship, perhaps? That would be far more politically acceptable to lose than even a small frigate with ~100-200 crew.

[RLBH]

An APDS hit wouldn't affect a battleship much. Heavy shells (and modern anti-ship missiles for that matter) do their damage by bouncing big splinters around inside the ship, destroying equipment and killing crew. A kinetic penetrator round would get through the armour, but would then be rather unlikely to cause any serious damage unless it's course takes it directly through a critical bit of machinery or a magazine etc. For the same reason, a HEAT round wouldn't really be effective.

Actually, fires are a large part of how modern AShMs do their damage, although the splinters certainly help them spread. Some of the big Russian missiles are supposed to have a lot of fuel not for long range, but so that there's lots of stuff to burn when you hit.

There's something to be said for HESH against heavy armour, but it's probably futile against modern tin cans.

[tinlail]

Couple of naval gun ideas.

Why aren't the Amphib ships fitted with Guns? They are inshore to land troops so could also provide some NGS as well. The 155mm future naval gun is ment to be based on the AS90 so could fire HE, Smoke Or illum.

With the old style Battle wagons I wonder what the effect of an APDS round would be?

The older USN LPHAs carried 3 x 5" Mk.45 guns for just that purpose. Nowadays, they're supposed to stand off-shore much further using hovercraft to keep the same journey times. In general, a frigate will have a lower draft and more maneuverability and speed than an amphib. ship, so it's a better NGS provider: it can defend itself/get out of trouble if retaliation comes it's way, and if it can't, it's a less critical asset to lose.

I've wondered if a battleship/amphib hybrid might make more sense, than a battleship/carrier hybrid. I not sure that a LCM floating around the aft end of a battleship firing 16inch guns would fair any better than a aircraft however.

[elmayerle]

I believe there were studies of converting a couple of the Iowa-class into combination  battleship/amphib ships (see Polmar's book on US battleships).  Actually, I could see a BB cross with a LPD or LPH (perhaps with a detachment of Harriers for escort of the helicopters?).

[tinlail]

I believe there were studies of converting a couple of the Iowa-class into combination  battleship/amphib ships (see Polmar's book on US battleships).  Actually, I could see a BB cross with a LPD or LPH (perhaps with a detachment of Harriers for escort of the helicopters?).

My thought was not to base any air power on the battleship. I had the notion of a north Carolina follow on class for WWII with the back end devoted to lowering boats and landing marines. This would be a ship of no subtly just sail up kick them in the teeth and land marines. A modernized version might get a utility pad and well deck.

[DarrenP]

APDS like Depleted uranium cause huge ammount of energy exchange usually causing a fire.
Would be interesting seeing what damage a Sabot round would do. Espically if you were starting with a cruiser 6in gun .

[Weaver]

I would think that a large advantage of APDS would be increased range. Imagine how far an 8" gun could lob a 6" shell..... It would also give you flexibility: APDS for max. range, full-bore for max. damage.

[Weaver]

The older USN LPHAs carried 3 x 5" Mk.45 guns for just that purpose. Nowadays, they're supposed to stand off-shore much further using hovercraft to keep the same journey times. In general, a frigate will have a lower draft and more maneuverability and speed than an amphib. ship, so it's a better NGS provider: it can defend itself/get out of trouble if retaliation comes it's way, and if it can't, it's a less critical asset to lose.

I wonder if we can have an unmanned NGS support ship, perhaps? That would be far more politically acceptable to lose than even a small frigate with ~100-200 crew.

Or you could go small and fast, shoot'n'scoot. For instance, the AMOS rapid-fire automatic mortar turret can be mounted on the excellent Swedish CB90 combat boat:

[pyro-manic]

Darren: Depleted uranium rounds cause fire because uranium is pyrophoric. Tungsten APDS rounds (used by Germany) do not have this effect. A ship is less susceptible to this kind of attack because of subdivision.

[Sauragnmon]

Most of the "guns are old" debate with regards to naval guns, I find amusing.  If there were lessons from modern Ground artillery applied to the naval gun, they would have quite the substantial range.  A few points here:

1: Extended Range Full Bore Munitions and Barrels - Barrels and Rounds designed to seal properly without the use of driving bands, which allow, in addition to the carriage of more yield in the round (because they're larger by a small margin) higher yield propellants - Propellant charges are limited by driving bands, because too strong would simply blow the band off without firing the shell.

2:  Base Bleed and Rocket Assisted Munitions - these beauties both give two benefits, namely in that they generate pressure inside the vacuum that forms behind a round's base, which causes drag and destabilizes the round, resulting in increased accuracy and range when used.  Rocket Assist Munitions also go further because the rocket charge accelerates the round in its climb stage of flight, meaning it goes further and higher on its trajectory, before it starts falling towards the poor sap on the receiving end.

3: Electro-Thermal Chemical Ignition - A solution once divised for tank guns, then later expanded on in experiments, ETC ignition causes the propellant charge to ignite, and burn faster, and cleaner.  Most standard gun rounds have unexpended propellant that burns up after the round has cleared the muzzle, which is wastage in the long stretch of the cause of accelerating the round down range.  ETC ignition burns the propellant hotter and faster, meaning a more complete burn of the propellant, increasing muzzle energy of the round, meaning more power on the round, thus it accelerates faster, achieving at the least, better time on target, and at most, further range because, like the rocket assist munition, it's got more initial speed on the round itself before it decellerates at the apex of its climb and starts coming back down for the ground.


And the funny thing is, all of these methods, would probably be a whole lot more efficient, stacked together, than a modern railgun.  As it stands, they haven't really solved the problem of power generation, though I would somewhat imagine, they haven't quite come to the thought of increasing the charge rate by using parallel sources of power.  To spool up the capacitor bank on a railgun takes far too long at current for them to be practical.  Then again, I think they lost a few thoughts in somehow thinking less and stronger reactors is better on a CVN.  Big E still outperforms even the Nimitzes and probably the Fords, for getting steam up and getting up to speed.  Eight reactors vs Two... guess there's something to be said for parallel power.