This needs to be extended to attack submarines. After all those torps are gone, even the new small "cheap" ones, there will still be targets. Even before they are gone, there will be targets that won't be worth a torp, even one of those new small "cheap" ones. Just read Flucky damnit! Or just about any other WWII sub book.
Explain it to me like I'm five, because I am NOT a submariner.
Why in G-D's name would you fire off ALL of your ammo? Target rich environment, yada yada, I get it...but when it's 3000 nm back to home, do you want to go winchester or with at least one or two "Barney Fife" rounds?
When I was flying F4s, going winchester on my gun was not what I'd consider a terrific survival strategy. Bombs and missiles? Sure, but that M61 was my last line of defense if Ivan came chasing me, and I wasn't going without a fight.
This will not be the US Navy vs. the IJN, and that was mostly the US Navy shooting at logistics suppliers, rather than warships for all the right reasons
Bad idea. A submarine now is not designed for any kind of surface operation. The best defense is slinking away, and getting somewhere to reload. A deck gun would add noise and weight.
Probably. Load with AHEAD rounds, it's going to have decent missile defense capability. Sure, I still want at least 2 SeaRAM launchers; but a 5" has more shots on tap. 5", SeaRAM/RAM launcher, 32 VLS, and 8/16 NSM is pretty good punch for what's supposed to be a smaller, cheaper vessel.
As a wise Chief (are not most very wise) once said to me, and others-two is one and one is zero. As NYC LE, NYC Housing Police, we, in the day of 6 shot revolvers in the very violent Crack Wars (worst year for NYC homicides was over 2200 bodies-half a carrier ships force) against 9MM pistols, Uzi's and other heavy weaponry compared to US, it was a very wise thing of most of US who carried two revolvers (no speed loaders either, but dump pouches, speed loaders only came into reality when PO Scott Gaddel was shot and killed reloading his revolver against a criminal with a 9MM), the second being usually a five shot revolver. So, rather that reloading against usually semi-automatic pistols, you pulled out number two as your partner reloaded or vice versa. I actually saw a fellow Housing Police Bronx Cop who had two six shot revolvers. One on each hip and tied to his leg like a gunfighter. He has several Combat Crosses for up close and personal gun battles. So, he could do as he pleased and back then, The South Bronx was a vey bad area. Still is, but not as bad these days.
So, as Professor Salamander has fiercely advocated for, a destroyer needs TWO five inch batteries, and so do the allegedly, supposedly new cruisers on the drawing boards, if they ever leave the boards. Why, because, two is one and one is none (gee why do they have forward and aft missile magazines?). See the Mayaguez, the frigate had a CasRep'ed solo main gun and couldn't provide NGFS to the Marines. Nuff said. Learn and live or potentially die and lose the ship due to ignorant Navy leadership. Two is One and One is Zero.
Double enders seem like way to go in an asymmetrical environment. Imagine Tyco's set up except now with a consolidated radar maybe you stick a RAM or other point defense over the hangar, 1 between the bridge and VLS like on Burke. Keep the 2 in the middle. Personally I like PVLS for this same thinking. 4 separate banks of missiles to hit just to get started on pealing back the onion. I'd even build a smaller combatant this same way. Smaller VLS, smaller guns, but same general layout. These would be the manned surface combatants. Then let your utility ships forego some of this to gain the utility. Think EPF and LCS having a baby.
I’m a Marine and was a qualified Naval Gunfire Spotter. Grew up on spotting 5” from 5”/38 and loved the then new 5”/54. Every Marine was hoping the Navy’s Lightweight 8” gun would become standard fare.
Every Marine is terribly disappointed in the absence of any gun on some of the current naval ships.
Can we now talk the Navy into bringing back gun cruisers?
A friend was the gunnery officer on USS Tatnall which was on the gun line off Beirut. Among his stories is the one which the call for fire to NJ was "secondary battery, 10 salvos, fire for effect." No spotting, just fire for effect. I have to assume they had a preregistered target. In this case probably just past the wire. I believe that was 100 rounds of 5"/38 hell delivered in something around 5 minutes. Somebody had a bad day.
I live near Raleigh. I’ll never forget the first time I toured the USS North Carolina (BB-55) in Wilmington. It was awe inspiring. My 6 yo son nearly wet his pants rotating and elevating an AA gun. Those were men back then.
57mm is worse than it looks. ROF and tech look fantastic, but once the racks on each side of gun are empty, to reload them, the gun goes into the vertical position. If it’s time to shoot, having the gun leave battery for low ammo makes it far less useful.
I’ll be honest, I prefer 5” over 8” for two very good reasons: First, 5” rounds are small enough we can praise the Lord and pass the ammunition all day long. At 70 pounds, it’s possible to get less fit sailors (we all know of them) to manhandle, while 250 pound HE rounds and 300 pound AP rounds just doesn’t work when going through watertight doors, or up scuttles. Second, it’s an inherently DP capable design. And right now, we’re seeing that AA artillery is a very useful asset when the enemy has lots of low and slow attritionable air assets.
If we ever build a proper cruiser again (not a slightly stretched destroyer), it should have at least two 8" guns mounted - one in the front, one in the rear and able to fire over the flight deck.
But yeah, the 5" is a sweet spot for naval gunfire. Big enough to get the job done, small enough that you can carry a lot of ammo.
If we were to re-introduce SP guns to ships, I'd want a 155 mm 45-55 caliber weapon firing semi-fixed rounds, capable of using the full range of NATO standard munitions for land attack. The current 5"/62 has a better range than many larger calibers, including the old 8'/55.
I expect this nonsense now from our military leaders as the default. Despite the focus on lessons learned at the tactical and operational levels, our learned betters just can’t seem to accept them and fall into the hubris trap that unfettered money and power brings out in our political class. And, yes, our leaders from O-6 up to include a significant amount of E-9s are in the political class. It won’t change until we lose ships or troops on shore and pay for it with blood and treasure because our ships don’t have a main gun.
The only reason there are still cannons on fighters is because our historic air-to-air kill rates fell precipitously in Vietnam with the initial fielding of the F-4. As now, our betters designed the F-4 without a cannon because missiles were the future of air warfare and would kill the enemy at distance, removing the need to close and defeat the enemy at close range. Some are just unwilling to learn or admit there errors.
Keep up the hard work and advocation Sal! As a retired AF aviator, I greatly appreciate the knowledge I learn regarding the Navy from your writings.
I still remember an episode of "Top Gun and Beyond" from the '80s or '90s on the History Channel that included a segment with Duke Cunningham (alas, Babylon!) discussing the cannon/no-cannon issue.
In the segment Cunningham described defending against a gun-armed MiG-17 while telling his RIO, "Don't worry -- I have it on good authority that this is not happening!"
Having flown F4s with strap on guns (F4C's, D's) and with built in guns (F4E's), the built in gun is orders of magnitude better in terms of accuracy. And since there's no boxcar full of linked 20mm following fighters around in the sky, accuracy is at least somewhat important.
The basic problem is that when the gun gets strapped on, it is not returned to precisely the same spot on the airframe. The airframe also flexes a bit in flight, And when you shoot the gun, it vibrates, and the recoil moves the gun no matter how carefully the weps guns loaded it. Even a small (a few thousandths of an inch) movement makes a big difference at a few hundred yards. Especially since with the gun moving, it's like whipping a garden hose nozzle around. The aiming point is really a circle.
And when the gun isn't pointing where you think it is, you don't hit what you're aiming for.
On an F4E with the gun literally installed into the airframe, bolted, only rarely removed, and then returned to very nearly the same location (then boresighted) the accuracy is much higher.
Now explain that to the mental midgets who decided to use a gun pod instead of an internal gun on the F-35B & C. Do these people ever research the lessons learned? Each generation of know-it-alls has to reinvent the wheel.
I served in the US Army for 30 years (1987-2017), including the Gulf War (Operations Desert Shield / Desert Storm). Know what Soldiers and Marines really like? The 16" guns on the Navy's Iowa-class battleships. Back in 1991, the Iraqi Army learned the hard way that when the USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) show up offshore and they're not on your side, you're going to have a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad day.
I just read that a few days ago, the Russians refloated the Kirov-class battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov, and her sister ship Pyotr Veliky is scheduled to begin overhaul next. The Kirov-class were the reason the Iowa-class battleships were reactivated in the 1980s. We Soldiers would not object if that happened again.
Decades ago when we used Vieques for gunnery practice, we did some NGFS for the Iowa. Launch the helo, determine the target, pass the coordinates and move to the side. We also had 2 Spru-cans participating, and obviously a lot closer. The BB would call the shot and you could SEE that bigger-than-a-VW shell go thru the air and a huge earth moving ka-boom. The Spru-cans would shoot a "broadside" and while it was "effective" they certainly were not awe-inspiring. Had the BB saves us some casings, I had one which I had until the pack-up moving home after 4 years in Japan and it "mysteriously" disappeared. The official Naval reply was "they don't pack/ship ordnance". So how the hell did it get to Japan?
My favorite Iowa-class story involves the USS Wisconsin in the Korean War. On March 15th, 1952, while conducting shore bombardments off the coast of Songjin, North Korea, the Wisconsin got a bit too close to shore and was struck by a 155mm shell from a North Korean artillery battery, which caused minor damage to a gun mount and injured three sailors. In retaliation, the Wisconsin unleashed a broadside from all nine of her 16-inch guns, not only destroying the North Korean battery, but also obliterating the entire hilltop.
A nearby ship, the USS Duncan, then signaled the Wisconsin with the message,
Since at least WWII, the American way of war thankfully included using the BIGGEST damned artillery we could range onto a target with the most effective shells, and beat upon the enemy for awhile before sending boots their way.
No reason to change now... Except the manless clods in the DoD value new and flashy over raw power and cold iron.
Can't argue that. Give me at least one weapon that can't be jammed, spoofed, etc. -- one where the only way to take it off line is to hit it really hard with something big.
1. Note that those Frenchified Metric using Limey's still talk in miles when the powder begins to burn
2. MG fire at 6 miles? An M2 can put area fire out to 4.5 miles, At 6 miles, doubtful other than random pings. though weighing 1.5 oz each, they'd more than sting
Though Brit Army, in Africa, not RN, these two thoughts come to mind:
1. Colour Sergeant Bourne: It's a miracle.
Lieutenant John Chard: If it's a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle.
Colour Sergeant Bourne: And a bayonet, sir, with some guts behind.
2. Pvt. Cole: Why is it us? Why us?
Colour Sergeant Bourne: Because we're here, lad. Nobody else. Just us.
"2. MG fire at 6 miles? An M2 can put area fire out to 4.5 miles, At 6 miles, doubtful other than random pings. though weighing 1.5 oz each, they'd more than sting"
Coulda been a Soviet 23mm. Autocannon, not machine gun. Or a 14.5mm.
Doesn't this basic gun truth transfer over to the USMC and their dubious decision to take all the tanks out of service.
I was around in 1990 when they rethought their poor decision to stay with the M60 rather than spending money on the speed and protection of the M1A1, till Desert Storm, then some Marine Tanker's Mom, created a firestorm in the WaPo and Congressional offices about her son not having what the Army had. Upshot, the Army had to GIVE the USMC tanks
lessons unlearned at the cost of lost people, experience and dollars. The most basic lesson lost WRT tanks in peacetime is that they serve as bullet magnets for the grunts. Well protected, they draw fire, which otherwise would kill grunts
The demise of tanks has been predicted since 1918 with the development of API mg ammo, 1970 with the Sagger ATM, etc. Test: Have the IDF sold off their tanks?
No, there is the perpetual race between offense and defense. Trophy, the Israeli solution has a donut of vulnerability directly above the tank. However, Javelin is not a straight down top attack weapon. It would be better to describe it as avoiding the front slope. At all ranges it comes in at about 45 degrees, so shrinking the donut helps alot.
We now have effective, combat proven ways of defending armor against ATGMs. The Army and USMC sure seem to be dragging their heels getting those APSs deployed. Gotta test everything lotsa times with long periods of thinking about it and then waiting on Congress (the opposite of Progress) to hold hearings and debate and think about it lots before funding the things.
What you may not know in his infinite wisdom the former Commandant in 2019 reduced tubed artillery from 21 artillery batteries to 7 batteries, all in the name of “divest to invest” in a short ranged (100 NM), subsonic obsolete Naval Strike Missile, ostensibly to sink PLAN ships. Now SIX years later the Marine Corps has only SEVEN tubed artillery batteries, and 14 NMESIS missile batteries but ZERO NSMs. How’s that for fire support?
If you want to hear more about the the Corps’s idiotic decision, I recommend you go to Compass Points on Substack.
One of the greatest shortcomings of the DDG 1000 design was that the fire control algorithms for those very-expensive-to-shoot main guns never included an option for surface warfare. Neither did anyone conceive of modern VT rounds that could be used for anti-air or fast attack craft work. In the great plan of the day, those guns were thought of only in terms of long distance shore bombardment. I tried to get that changed in the concept and preliminary design stages, but no one ever listened. Or if they did, didn’t take effective action. As an aside, when we were early in the concept design phase, I told the CAD operator/designer to number the two AGS as mounts 61 and 62. He was puzzled and asked why. It was simple. 155mm is pretty close to 6”, and in USN practice, calling them 61 and 62 was only natural. Mount 1 and Mount 2 would have been far too generic.
Do you know the cost of current 5” anti-air rounds? I submit that a 155mm equivalent wouldn’t *have* to be $1M, but probably would these days…..just because.
My understanding (From the media) is that the cost of the rounds for the DDG-1000 railgun was in excess of $100k. If that's wrong, let me know. But considering the different design required for AA rounds, the DoD procurement zombies will not blink at $1-mil shells, as long as they get a job after retirement.
That's closer to my understanding as well. Everyone was looking at the price per hull, but no one was looking at the price per round. Once again, an acquisition program in which no one in actual power had any skin in the cost game.
Naval ships need to be built around the gun(s) - like A-10s were.
And the smallest sized gun should have a bore that starts with a 5, and goes up from there. Or for the euroweenies, 127mm. Autofiring. Self-loading. Manual sights and firing ability, just in case. Ideally at least 270-degree firing arc, if not more.
Anything less/smaller? Paint an orange stripe on it - the Coast Guard needs guns too.
This needs to be extended to attack submarines. After all those torps are gone, even the new small "cheap" ones, there will still be targets. Even before they are gone, there will be targets that won't be worth a torp, even one of those new small "cheap" ones. Just read Flucky damnit! Or just about any other WWII sub book.
Explain it to me like I'm five, because I am NOT a submariner.
Why in G-D's name would you fire off ALL of your ammo? Target rich environment, yada yada, I get it...but when it's 3000 nm back to home, do you want to go winchester or with at least one or two "Barney Fife" rounds?
When I was flying F4s, going winchester on my gun was not what I'd consider a terrific survival strategy. Bombs and missiles? Sure, but that M61 was my last line of defense if Ivan came chasing me, and I wasn't going without a fight.
This will not be the US Navy vs. the IJN, and that was mostly the US Navy shooting at logistics suppliers, rather than warships for all the right reasons
Bad idea. A submarine now is not designed for any kind of surface operation. The best defense is slinking away, and getting somewhere to reload. A deck gun would add noise and weight.
I'm not at all suggesting a deck gun. I'm suggesting keeping one or two torpedos in reserve for the fight back home.
That makes sense! However, every sub skipper wants to lash a broom to the periscope and have an empty torpedo room at the end of a war patrol.
So when we replace the Constellation error, make sure we have a 5" on our frigate?
Is it worth the price of 16 VLS? (I'd prefer a ship with both. The Japanese can pull it off, not sure why the Italians couldn't.
Probably. Load with AHEAD rounds, it's going to have decent missile defense capability. Sure, I still want at least 2 SeaRAM launchers; but a 5" has more shots on tap. 5", SeaRAM/RAM launcher, 32 VLS, and 8/16 NSM is pretty good punch for what's supposed to be a smaller, cheaper vessel.
Why not? The FREMM already has one. If the Italians can do it...
Testify SIR
As a wise Chief (are not most very wise) once said to me, and others-two is one and one is zero. As NYC LE, NYC Housing Police, we, in the day of 6 shot revolvers in the very violent Crack Wars (worst year for NYC homicides was over 2200 bodies-half a carrier ships force) against 9MM pistols, Uzi's and other heavy weaponry compared to US, it was a very wise thing of most of US who carried two revolvers (no speed loaders either, but dump pouches, speed loaders only came into reality when PO Scott Gaddel was shot and killed reloading his revolver against a criminal with a 9MM), the second being usually a five shot revolver. So, rather that reloading against usually semi-automatic pistols, you pulled out number two as your partner reloaded or vice versa. I actually saw a fellow Housing Police Bronx Cop who had two six shot revolvers. One on each hip and tied to his leg like a gunfighter. He has several Combat Crosses for up close and personal gun battles. So, he could do as he pleased and back then, The South Bronx was a vey bad area. Still is, but not as bad these days.
So, as Professor Salamander has fiercely advocated for, a destroyer needs TWO five inch batteries, and so do the allegedly, supposedly new cruisers on the drawing boards, if they ever leave the boards. Why, because, two is one and one is none (gee why do they have forward and aft missile magazines?). See the Mayaguez, the frigate had a CasRep'ed solo main gun and couldn't provide NGFS to the Marines. Nuff said. Learn and live or potentially die and lose the ship due to ignorant Navy leadership. Two is One and One is Zero.
Double enders seem like way to go in an asymmetrical environment. Imagine Tyco's set up except now with a consolidated radar maybe you stick a RAM or other point defense over the hangar, 1 between the bridge and VLS like on Burke. Keep the 2 in the middle. Personally I like PVLS for this same thinking. 4 separate banks of missiles to hit just to get started on pealing back the onion. I'd even build a smaller combatant this same way. Smaller VLS, smaller guns, but same general layout. These would be the manned surface combatants. Then let your utility ships forego some of this to gain the utility. Think EPF and LCS having a baby.
I’m a Marine and was a qualified Naval Gunfire Spotter. Grew up on spotting 5” from 5”/38 and loved the then new 5”/54. Every Marine was hoping the Navy’s Lightweight 8” gun would become standard fare.
Every Marine is terribly disappointed in the absence of any gun on some of the current naval ships.
Can we now talk the Navy into bringing back gun cruisers?
I cannot imagine what the Hezbollah fighters thought when the USS New Jersey opened fired with their 16” main battery in 1983.
Ryan on the Battleship New Jersey Youtube channel had a video a week ago titled "
Why Does the Navy Love 5in Guns So Much?" It is worth the ten minute run time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cCsilnig9w&ab_channel=BattleshipNewJersey
just visit Pointe Du Hoc in Normandy. 80 years later the 14in shell holes from the USS Texas , BB-35 still cover the surface
https://www.reddit.com/r/wwiipics/comments/8w0mcj/pointe_du_hoc_omaha_beach_today_you_can_still_see/#lightbox
The 5" did their part too.
A friend was the gunnery officer on USS Tatnall which was on the gun line off Beirut. Among his stories is the one which the call for fire to NJ was "secondary battery, 10 salvos, fire for effect." No spotting, just fire for effect. I have to assume they had a preregistered target. In this case probably just past the wire. I believe that was 100 rounds of 5"/38 hell delivered in something around 5 minutes. Somebody had a bad day.
I live near Raleigh. I’ll never forget the first time I toured the USS North Carolina (BB-55) in Wilmington. It was awe inspiring. My 6 yo son nearly wet his pants rotating and elevating an AA gun. Those were men back then.
Yes, surface gunfire is important!
Here’s my 2¢ about modern guns.
57mm is worse than it looks. ROF and tech look fantastic, but once the racks on each side of gun are empty, to reload them, the gun goes into the vertical position. If it’s time to shoot, having the gun leave battery for low ammo makes it far less useful.
I’ll be honest, I prefer 5” over 8” for two very good reasons: First, 5” rounds are small enough we can praise the Lord and pass the ammunition all day long. At 70 pounds, it’s possible to get less fit sailors (we all know of them) to manhandle, while 250 pound HE rounds and 300 pound AP rounds just doesn’t work when going through watertight doors, or up scuttles. Second, it’s an inherently DP capable design. And right now, we’re seeing that AA artillery is a very useful asset when the enemy has lots of low and slow attritionable air assets.
If we ever build a proper cruiser again (not a slightly stretched destroyer), it should have at least two 8" guns mounted - one in the front, one in the rear and able to fire over the flight deck.
But yeah, the 5" is a sweet spot for naval gunfire. Big enough to get the job done, small enough that you can carry a lot of ammo.
If we were to re-introduce SP guns to ships, I'd want a 155 mm 45-55 caliber weapon firing semi-fixed rounds, capable of using the full range of NATO standard munitions for land attack. The current 5"/62 has a better range than many larger calibers, including the old 8'/55.
Who wants a powder bag on a ship?
Not since 1991! And semi-fixed means it’s better for an automated handling system.
fwiw, our Army 8in weighed in at 200lb
And 57mm for those of us who instinctually understand freedom units is:
A MIGHTY 2.244 inches!
Our enemies are quaking in their sandals!
"It's a 6-pounder, you ignorant colonial!"
Hmmm. 6-pounder, or 70-pounder? When you need NGS, which would you prefer?
We prefer the English diameter measurement instead.
Charles Stewart could not be reached for comment.
But I wager Old Ironsides would approve of this post.
"Nullum telum in navi bellica maioris momenti est quam eius tormentorum copia principalis."
Cum armamentum principale infra quinque uncias sit, parvi momenti est.
" "There is no more important weapon on a warship than its main gun battery."
Translate that into Latin and we'll put it in to Autotune for 'ya and make it a Gregorian Chant. Heck, we'll put it on t-shirts and sell them."
I want one!! :-)
translated into grunt speak,for the Marines here:
What do you have if your now gone tank has a main gun malfunction?
A 65 ton transistor radio
We have similar comments in Naval Aviation
😁
I expect this nonsense now from our military leaders as the default. Despite the focus on lessons learned at the tactical and operational levels, our learned betters just can’t seem to accept them and fall into the hubris trap that unfettered money and power brings out in our political class. And, yes, our leaders from O-6 up to include a significant amount of E-9s are in the political class. It won’t change until we lose ships or troops on shore and pay for it with blood and treasure because our ships don’t have a main gun.
The only reason there are still cannons on fighters is because our historic air-to-air kill rates fell precipitously in Vietnam with the initial fielding of the F-4. As now, our betters designed the F-4 without a cannon because missiles were the future of air warfare and would kill the enemy at distance, removing the need to close and defeat the enemy at close range. Some are just unwilling to learn or admit there errors.
Keep up the hard work and advocation Sal! As a retired AF aviator, I greatly appreciate the knowledge I learn regarding the Navy from your writings.
I still remember an episode of "Top Gun and Beyond" from the '80s or '90s on the History Channel that included a segment with Duke Cunningham (alas, Babylon!) discussing the cannon/no-cannon issue.
In the segment Cunningham described defending against a gun-armed MiG-17 while telling his RIO, "Don't worry -- I have it on good authority that this is not happening!"
Having flown F4s with strap on guns (F4C's, D's) and with built in guns (F4E's), the built in gun is orders of magnitude better in terms of accuracy. And since there's no boxcar full of linked 20mm following fighters around in the sky, accuracy is at least somewhat important.
The basic problem is that when the gun gets strapped on, it is not returned to precisely the same spot on the airframe. The airframe also flexes a bit in flight, And when you shoot the gun, it vibrates, and the recoil moves the gun no matter how carefully the weps guns loaded it. Even a small (a few thousandths of an inch) movement makes a big difference at a few hundred yards. Especially since with the gun moving, it's like whipping a garden hose nozzle around. The aiming point is really a circle.
And when the gun isn't pointing where you think it is, you don't hit what you're aiming for.
On an F4E with the gun literally installed into the airframe, bolted, only rarely removed, and then returned to very nearly the same location (then boresighted) the accuracy is much higher.
Good explanation -- thank you. I had wondered about that.
Now explain that to the mental midgets who decided to use a gun pod instead of an internal gun on the F-35B & C. Do these people ever research the lessons learned? Each generation of know-it-alls has to reinvent the wheel.
If they didn't think of it, it doesn't exist.
I served in the US Army for 30 years (1987-2017), including the Gulf War (Operations Desert Shield / Desert Storm). Know what Soldiers and Marines really like? The 16" guns on the Navy's Iowa-class battleships. Back in 1991, the Iraqi Army learned the hard way that when the USS Missouri (BB-63) and USS Wisconsin (BB-64) show up offshore and they're not on your side, you're going to have a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad day.
I just read that a few days ago, the Russians refloated the Kirov-class battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov, and her sister ship Pyotr Veliky is scheduled to begin overhaul next. The Kirov-class were the reason the Iowa-class battleships were reactivated in the 1980s. We Soldiers would not object if that happened again.
Decades ago when we used Vieques for gunnery practice, we did some NGFS for the Iowa. Launch the helo, determine the target, pass the coordinates and move to the side. We also had 2 Spru-cans participating, and obviously a lot closer. The BB would call the shot and you could SEE that bigger-than-a-VW shell go thru the air and a huge earth moving ka-boom. The Spru-cans would shoot a "broadside" and while it was "effective" they certainly were not awe-inspiring. Had the BB saves us some casings, I had one which I had until the pack-up moving home after 4 years in Japan and it "mysteriously" disappeared. The official Naval reply was "they don't pack/ship ordnance". So how the hell did it get to Japan?
My favorite Iowa-class story involves the USS Wisconsin in the Korean War. On March 15th, 1952, while conducting shore bombardments off the coast of Songjin, North Korea, the Wisconsin got a bit too close to shore and was struck by a 155mm shell from a North Korean artillery battery, which caused minor damage to a gun mount and injured three sailors. In retaliation, the Wisconsin unleashed a broadside from all nine of her 16-inch guns, not only destroying the North Korean battery, but also obliterating the entire hilltop.
A nearby ship, the USS Duncan, then signaled the Wisconsin with the message,
"Temper, Temper."
I worked with a former enlisted sailor who was onboard. He was happy with the outcome.
Since at least WWII, the American way of war thankfully included using the BIGGEST damned artillery we could range onto a target with the most effective shells, and beat upon the enemy for awhile before sending boots their way.
No reason to change now... Except the manless clods in the DoD value new and flashy over raw power and cold iron.
Can't argue that. Give me at least one weapon that can't be jammed, spoofed, etc. -- one where the only way to take it off line is to hit it really hard with something big.
a couple of random Army thoughts:
1. Note that those Frenchified Metric using Limey's still talk in miles when the powder begins to burn
2. MG fire at 6 miles? An M2 can put area fire out to 4.5 miles, At 6 miles, doubtful other than random pings. though weighing 1.5 oz each, they'd more than sting
Though Brit Army, in Africa, not RN, these two thoughts come to mind:
1. Colour Sergeant Bourne: It's a miracle.
Lieutenant John Chard: If it's a miracle, Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle.
Colour Sergeant Bourne: And a bayonet, sir, with some guts behind.
2. Pvt. Cole: Why is it us? Why us?
Colour Sergeant Bourne: Because we're here, lad. Nobody else. Just us.
Zulu, one of my favorite movies.
"2. MG fire at 6 miles? An M2 can put area fire out to 4.5 miles, At 6 miles, doubtful other than random pings. though weighing 1.5 oz each, they'd more than sting"
Coulda been a Soviet 23mm. Autocannon, not machine gun. Or a 14.5mm.
fwiw: wiki says the effective range of the 23mm is up to 1.5 miles and of the 14.5 it says
"The distance at which the bullet retains lethal force is 8 km (5.0 mi).[5] The maximum flight range of the bullet is 9 km (5.6 mi)."
OK. Just throwing that out there. What about 57mm? Libya had those.
to this grunt, 57mm fire is light arty, not mg fire. I would think that to a Navy guy, 57mm would be easier to ID than MG
Badgers believe that not only should your ship have five inches, but there should be 20 of them!
Doesn't this basic gun truth transfer over to the USMC and their dubious decision to take all the tanks out of service.
I was around in 1990 when they rethought their poor decision to stay with the M60 rather than spending money on the speed and protection of the M1A1, till Desert Storm, then some Marine Tanker's Mom, created a firestorm in the WaPo and Congressional offices about her son not having what the Army had. Upshot, the Army had to GIVE the USMC tanks
The Commandant taketh away, the Commandant giveth.
Lets hope that decision is reviewed and corrected.
lessons unlearned at the cost of lost people, experience and dollars. The most basic lesson lost WRT tanks in peacetime is that they serve as bullet magnets for the grunts. Well protected, they draw fire, which otherwise would kill grunts
Well, that may be the problem. These days a lot of our enemy has access to things like Javelins (or maybe actual Javs) that can ruin a tankers day.
Still, getting rid of the tanks seems like a bad idea.
The demise of tanks has been predicted since 1918 with the development of API mg ammo, 1970 with the Sagger ATM, etc. Test: Have the IDF sold off their tanks?
No, there is the perpetual race between offense and defense. Trophy, the Israeli solution has a donut of vulnerability directly above the tank. However, Javelin is not a straight down top attack weapon. It would be better to describe it as avoiding the front slope. At all ranges it comes in at about 45 degrees, so shrinking the donut helps alot.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/1-27_Top_attack_flight_path..PNG
perhaps the real issue is cost benefit rather than absolute protection.
We now have effective, combat proven ways of defending armor against ATGMs. The Army and USMC sure seem to be dragging their heels getting those APSs deployed. Gotta test everything lotsa times with long periods of thinking about it and then waiting on Congress (the opposite of Progress) to hold hearings and debate and think about it lots before funding the things.
How about drones?
A lot more effort has been put into anti-drone systems than APS. Lotsa stuff out there now.
What you may not know in his infinite wisdom the former Commandant in 2019 reduced tubed artillery from 21 artillery batteries to 7 batteries, all in the name of “divest to invest” in a short ranged (100 NM), subsonic obsolete Naval Strike Missile, ostensibly to sink PLAN ships. Now SIX years later the Marine Corps has only SEVEN tubed artillery batteries, and 14 NMESIS missile batteries but ZERO NSMs. How’s that for fire support?
If you want to hear more about the the Corps’s idiotic decision, I recommend you go to Compass Points on Substack.
One of the greatest shortcomings of the DDG 1000 design was that the fire control algorithms for those very-expensive-to-shoot main guns never included an option for surface warfare. Neither did anyone conceive of modern VT rounds that could be used for anti-air or fast attack craft work. In the great plan of the day, those guns were thought of only in terms of long distance shore bombardment. I tried to get that changed in the concept and preliminary design stages, but no one ever listened. Or if they did, didn’t take effective action. As an aside, when we were early in the concept design phase, I told the CAD operator/designer to number the two AGS as mounts 61 and 62. He was puzzled and asked why. It was simple. 155mm is pretty close to 6”, and in USN practice, calling them 61 and 62 was only natural. Mount 1 and Mount 2 would have been far too generic.
That would have made each round $1-mil, not $100k!
Do you know the cost of current 5” anti-air rounds? I submit that a 155mm equivalent wouldn’t *have* to be $1M, but probably would these days…..just because.
My understanding (From the media) is that the cost of the rounds for the DDG-1000 railgun was in excess of $100k. If that's wrong, let me know. But considering the different design required for AA rounds, the DoD procurement zombies will not blink at $1-mil shells, as long as they get a job after retirement.
That sounds like a deal these days. I am pretty sure is was 900k when it got nixed.
And they called the C5 Galaxy a FRED
That's closer to my understanding as well. Everyone was looking at the price per hull, but no one was looking at the price per round. Once again, an acquisition program in which no one in actual power had any skin in the cost game.
Naval ships need to be built around the gun(s) - like A-10s were.
And the smallest sized gun should have a bore that starts with a 5, and goes up from there. Or for the euroweenies, 127mm. Autofiring. Self-loading. Manual sights and firing ability, just in case. Ideally at least 270-degree firing arc, if not more.
Anything less/smaller? Paint an orange stripe on it - the Coast Guard needs guns too.