do big guns have a modern role?

[eatthis]

the updated iowa thread got me thinking (again) is there a role for monster guns today?
anti ship nope missiles take care of that (unless people start putting actual armour on ships again???)
close support for land troops? maybe but would range be an issue?
shore bombardment possibly?

[scooter]

close support for land troops? maybe but would range be an issue?
shore bombardment possibly?

That was one of the things the US Marines missed the most when the Iowas were retired for the last time.  16" rifles made for great shore bombardment and super-heavy mobile artillery.  Plus the armor on the battlewagon pretty much makes it impervious to tube- and probably rocket-based counterbattery fires and most of the smaller "popular" anti-ship missiles.

[eatthis]

wasnt there a story about a marine calling in a strike expecting a 5-6" shell from a cruiser only to be mightily surprised by an almighty woosh and then the hill that the enemy were on was simply removed from existence?

[scooter]

wasnt there a story about a marine calling in a strike expecting a 5-6" shell from a cruiser only to be mightily surprised by an almighty woosh and then the hill that the enemy were on was simply removed from existence?

Yes there was.  I think it might have been either from the main battery of the New Jersey off Lebanon during the Reagan Administration or during Desert Storm.  A buddy of mine was in Lebanon, was receiving fire from OPFOR artillery, and described the 16" round passing overhead as if it were tearing the very air, followed by the, to quote Marvin the Martian, "earth-shattering kaboom".

[andrewj]

Also, the beauty of big guns is they are impervious to countermeasures, once they are fired , theres no stopping them.

Andrew

[eatthis]

the best countermeasure to  16" shell is BE SOMEWHERE ELSE 

[pyro-manic]

Big guns can no longer be seen as an efficient, cost-effective weapon, IMO.

[PR19_Kit]

Big guns can no longer be seen as an efficient, cost-effective weapon, IMO.

But if you've already got them......

[eatthis]

Big guns can no longer be seen as an efficient, cost-effective weapon, IMO.

are missiles and all their systems cheaper than shells and all theirs?

[Gondor]

Shells are not prone to ECM which is a point in their favour. Range is always going to be a point against them though as missiles can travel a very long way.

Gondor

[pyro-manic]

Big guns can no longer be seen as an efficient, cost-effective weapon, IMO.

But if you've already got them......

But when they (and the platform they are mounted on) require 2000+ crew, dedicated escort ships, and are irreplaceable and irrepairable because they were built 70 years ago and the required tooling and technology hasn't existed for half a century, and they are no use for anything else other than loud bangs close to shore, it's hard to justify the vast cost.

Missiles are an inherently better system. Yes, individual missiles are much more expensive than a dumb shell, but they can be fired from flexible ships which are useful across a wide range of roles. You could, if desired, fit a VLS full of Tomahawks on a 3000 tonne frigate, which provides a huge amount of firepower at ranges magnitudes greater than a battery of 16" guns which need a 50,000 tonne hull to support them. That same frigate could also be equipped with anti-air, anti-submarine or anti-ship missiles, and will only ever need a crew of about 100.

The time will soon come when dumb shells are no longer immune to interception. There are already many systems which can shoot them down, or will soon have the capability to do so. Look at Israel's Iron Dome, MTHEL, HELLADS, Skyguard etc.


I love battleships. They're just cool. But their time has passed.

[rickshaw]

Big guns can no longer be seen as an efficient, cost-effective weapon, IMO.

are missiles and all their systems cheaper than shells and all theirs?

Considerably.  While romantics may hanker for the days of the big gun, those days are well and truly over.  The industry required to make them and their shells is nearly all gone.   The demand wasn't there after WWII and so it was allowed to wither away.  Indeed, one of the main reasons why the US battleships were finally retired was because they were running out of shells and tubes for the guns.   Once the last stocks were used up, starting up production again was deemed too expensive.  Then there are the manpower costs!  Manning big guns requires massive manpower, even in the highly advanced Iowas.   The US Navy found them simply prohibitively expensive to man, in the end.

Missiles OTOH have none of those problems.   They are invariably, once R&D costs have been realised, cheaper to produce, require considerably fewer men to field and fire and are because they are guided, inherently more accurate.  What would take a broadside to achieve, several conventional warheaded cruise missiles could do much more accurately and cheaply.

[deathjester]

I like big guns, attached to ships with plenty of armour.  I also like tomahawks, small fast programmable precision weapons.  But, each one costs a MILLION dollars (and that was 1991 prices!)

[eatthis]

I like big guns, attached to ships with plenty of armour.  I also like tomahawks, small fast programmable precision weapons.  But, each one costs a MILLION dollars (and that was 1991 prices!)

1 million each on ships made out of tin foil

whats the destructive power of a tomohawk relative to a big shell? obviously the shell will have alot more kinetic energy but i dont know about explosive

[PR19_Kit]

whats the destructive power of a tomohawk relative to a big shell? obviously the shell will have alot more kinetic energy but i dont know about explosive

Then Tomahawk carries a 1000 lb HE warhead and the 16" Mk 7 shell weighs about 2700 lbs in total, so it looks like the explosive power's about the same. Of course the missile would be more accurate but the shell arrives at 2000 ft/sec or so.

Both would kill either of us pretty effectively of course.....