The Brits discovered in the Falklands that NGFS is nice dressage for the queen. Over 30% of the rounds used were delivered from offshore. It helps that they were islands. You know where there are also a lot of islands? Apparently in the Pacific. Who knew?
Infantry is the Queen; Field Artillery is the King of Battle.
Sad when we're acting like a single Mk45 5"/54 is a big deal; when it's really "better than nothing". My first ship had two Mk 42 Mod 10 5"/54's and they were the best thing about her.
I am so glad you wrote this. Even as a retired soldier I’ve railed against that tiny gun on the Constellation class frigates. There are many problems that can be solved with naval gunfire, especially when your missile load is small to begin with.
Thirteen "like" in that first quote from the clip. (yes, I counted them) Like, ya know, and people wonder what has happened to our military services? Like, it's all crap, like, it can't function.
dear God. a decent usage of the language might be a start.....
Yeah, reading the conversation in the CDR's post was a bit off-putting but when I heard the guy talking in the video I didn't, like, mind at all. If the story compels, I grant the speaker lots of poetic license in the story telling. (But there I go doing a judgement.) The story compelled and wasn't at all cringeworthy in the hearing of it compared to the reading of it. Anyone can get a flashback adrenalin dump that can render speech "excited". This Fullbore Friday was a Fullbore AF this Friday. Huzzah.
I’ve been beating this drum for what seems like forever. The Italians have a 5” 64 on the same hull as the constitution class why not us. With every cruiser we DeCom we lose two 5” inch guns. We can make up for that firepower by putting the Italian gun on our ships. It fires twice as fast as ours, it fires the same extended range gun rounds(ours are actually Italian designed now!) and the Italian can fire continuously until the magazine is empty because it’s a water cooled gun. Adding 76mm guns out there wouldn’t be bad either, the Italians have a 127mm and 76mm on their FREMM class, why not us? The Italian 76mm can fire 120 rounds a minute and has vast array of rounds available including extended range rounds that rival the range of standard 5” rounds. More firepower, UNREP ready now, more guns equals greater deterrence on the cheap. When you aim a VLS launcher at someone, it’s invisible, point a gun at someone and they get the message.
The Mk-75 gun system used on the FFG-7 class was essentially the Italian Oto Melara gun made by a manufacturer suitable for USN procurement channels. Max ROF was always spoken of as 120 RPM, but it was more. The selector that would have been 120 RPM based on the series progression from the lower rates was, in fact, labeled MAX. At 0 degrees elevation it probably was 120 RPM. But as elevation increased the rocker arms had less distance to travel so ROF was limited only to firing and recoil sequence. (And no, I don't know what max actually was, but it was more than a bit higher than 120 RPM.)
USN only had VT and HEPD back in the day. The Italian Vulcano ammo seems like really great stuff. A shame we adopted the not invented here attitude.
The current 76mm is a gun that has gone through continuous improvements over the years. The Vulcano and the Dart guided anti air ammunition are both amazing.
To date no Oto Melara 76/62 gun has ever achieved the cyclic rate of fire of 120-rounds/minute, or even 100-rounds/minute, or even 80-rounds/minute! That highest cyclic rate achieved was 71-rounds/minute before the gun broke…
I will admit, I did not time and count, but I know for sure during post commissioning shakedown the course of fire that used the "local control" (A set of binoculars on a pedestal with a firing key.) Inclined from zero degrees to max elevation at MAX ROF. More than 1 round was fired at max elevation. Gun fired all the way through and thereafter for the next course of fire.
That said, the Mk-75, at least mine, was temperamental. The sensor that told the system "loading tray up and empty" (i.e ready for a round to drop and start firing sequence) was finicky. Gun shoots often started and ended going "bang, bang, click." At least once just "click." That's never good. I have to assume that problem got ironed out in the next 30 some hulls.
I always wondered why we didn't have an equivalent of VTMT to engage speedboats and the like. Mk75 was pretty accurate, and put out a lot of rounds, but a fast, small, maneuvering, target would have been a challenge. (Which no doubt is why they later added MGs all over the place.)
I am for the 127/64 adoption, but the reason we don't have a 127 on our FFG is because we chose to have 32 VLS forward. It was a pretty clear trade when looking at the design.
When I go into combat I sure as hell want more than 32 rounds in my magazine to play with. Especially if I have to travel hundreds of miles to reload. Sure, ballistic rounds are not as capable (but are they capable *enough*?), but like the man said, "Quantity has a quality all its own".
Or how about doing both? What, not enough displacement for both? Like the other man said, "We're going to need a bigger boat".
Just saying when you really look at the design of the ships that these are the options inherent in the design, but I’ll argue for argument’s sake. We know we accidentally ended the 2200 ton turkish destroyer minelayer with 2 sea sparrow. 64 additional essm and mk 110 with over 1000 rounds seems solid for sea control purposes, just not NGFS.
The Italian 5”/62 guns uses M8/M10 gun propellant which is equivalent to US-produced NaCo (Navy Cool), which the US Navy no longer uses! The Mk.45 Mod.4 5”/62 gun uses EX99 gun propellant and can’t be adapted to use either NaCo or M8/M10 gun propellants! Also the Mk.45 Mod.4 gun won’t shoot any ammunition produced for the Mk.45 Mod.0/1/2/3 gun…
In what context! If your referring to the propellant, the propellant for the Italian 127/64 is the same as that of the Italian 127/62! Which isn’t compatible with the Mk.45 Mod.4 5”/62 gun…
Neither Japan or South Korea have a propellant preference or constraints and use the propellant requirements of the Naval Gun from whatever source they get their naval guns from! It’s just interesting since WW2 for the Japanese and the Korean War for the South Koreans, neither countries ever tried producing and indigenous naval gun of their own design! And relying solely on those produced by other Western countries…
Oooooh, Friday morning surface warfare porn! I love it. Outgoing rounds from fore and aft guns was the most awesome thing I ever experienced whether from the HCO perch or in lower weapons berthing of a Spru-can. Counting rounds and feeling the old girl shake and shimmy has a feeling you’ll never forget!
Had to love a gun shoot. I remember the day on the range at Kaho'olawe as a midshipman. John Waynes and Illum over the heavy ground fog for the Marine mortar team.
I suppose there's more to life, but that's up there near the top.
Much to my frustration, the 155mm guns in DDG 1000 did not have a surface engagement mode. When I repeatedly asked about that, I was, in effect, told to go sit down and do my job.
When I joined my current company, it was to be their SUW analyst for the DD-21 program. Imagine my surprise as a former BB junior officer when that little tidbit was disclosed.
When I heard it couldn’t fire a standard 155 projectile and that could only fire Scrooge McDuck rounds, I was, well…in disbelief that anyone would be either that stupid or that compromised.
I have come to the conclusion that very few naval officers actually know what a real live Navy is supposed to do. Too many video games, perhaps. I am surprised we don't have a US version of the Soviet Ekranoplan, because it's just so friggin' cool!
What is it the Marines say about guns in a fight? Bring all you've got, and all the ammunition you have, and invite all your friends with guns?
Missiles are great, but how "multipurpose" are they? And an artillery round, even one of the superduper modern rounds, is a lot cheaper than a missile. And resupplying cannon rounds is easier than missiles, isn't it? Certainly easier to reload a cannon than a launch cell.
Wasn't there a proposal for an 8-inch main gun not so long ago? 57mm is for gunboats, not a full-size warship.
While the ballistics are somewhat better, the 'biggest gun' is approximately the same as that on an M1 tank (5" (127mm) / 120mm).
We build multi-billion $ ships, to fire multi-million $ missiles, that cannot be reloaded at sea, that we have insufficient reloads for anyway. Where can we reload them? Right now, maybe Guam, Pearl, San Diego?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can a pallet of 5" ammo from a fleet collier not be slung over to a DDG while undergoing UNREP? And then the ammo stricken below to the magazines?
Damned shame we can't reload those VLS cells the same way
And you could reload the Mk-13 and similar Standard launchers. Never did it underway, I'm sure it would have been a bit of a deal in anything but calm seas, and probably a no go with water over the bow. But doable given time and patience.
I was the XO of the AE. We used dollys, from which the receiving ship could download the missiles into the magazine. ASROC used the infamous loader crane into the launcher, or a forklift into the magazine. Just a bit harder than pierside, but pretty manageable. VERTREP was another story, as the birds tended to weathercock while airborne.
Makes sense sending the birds over on dollies. That would speed the process once aboard: Inspect, mate to rail, run it up, engage contactor pad, interrogate, strike it down.
Maybe 10 minutes if you had it together unless sea state makes it harder. Though if you are alongside transferring via high line, sea state should be no significant problem. Only thing I see as an issue is if you needed a lot of birds replenished. You could be alongside for a long time. No real sweat to the handling crew, I guess. Wouldn't want to be the OOD though.
When pier side a dolly was dropped on deck then they dropped the coffins on deck. Had to pull the cover, inspect, mate to dolly and then proceed as above. IIRC took about 15 minutes each that way. A fairly long day to do due a full loadout or return.
They are talking about 120mm rounds for GMLRS boxes. Those could probably get moved between ships easily. Load them in RAM launchers. Not a great option, but ways that have better stuff that is also logistically friendly.
5” semi fixed rounds have the virtue of being the largest rounds we can easily pass by hand. Anything larger, and the weight means hand passing is exhausting.
And Lightweight is in comparison to the prior Mk 24 60 ton mounts at around 23 tons for a Mk 45.
The USN hasn't had a chance to do NGFS much for a very long time. But when they get the chance it is often epic.
When I was a young j.g., I was stuck in a PCU for looong time. In the meantime my friends were deploying off the coast of Beirut in support of the Marines ashore. The wikipedia article understates their mission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tattnall_(DDG-19)#1980s). They had several memorable fire missions, including ambushing a truck mounted Katyusha that set up in the wadi to launch on the Marine positions on a regular basis. First round burst over the spotting party up on the bank, the remaining left the Katyusha a flaming wreck. Then there was the one shot one kill of "sniper in a building." I got the impression that they had fire missions almost daily when on the gun line. And certainly, the amount of activity was not reported at home.
And while it wasn't the Tattnall, doing the shooting, the most impressive call for fire was to the BB on station: "Secondary battery, 10 salvos, fire for effect." No spotting rounds. Targets were probably preregistered and no doubt they had a radio beacon or two ashore to help them determine position (as they did pre-GPS).
Well, in this case, no spotting involved. The call for fire gave coordinates, or possibly a preplanned target number/code, and then gave the mission details and went straight to fire for effect.
It wasn't said, but everyone assumed that the target was just beyond the wire because the natives were restless.
Fun times for the grunts in the fighting positions. I'm sure this got the same kind of excitement that A-10s did 20 some years later.
While missiles are nice, the naval gun brings a quality all it's own in regards to depth of magazine and difficulty in interception while in flight. 5" brings more to the party.
To build a warship without a "large" caliber gun is the apogee of stupidity.
Recall "Top Gun" and the backstory behind the program -- we had F-4s with no guns only missiles heading into VN and found that in many dogfights, missiles weren't adequate. So we did two things -- strapped 20mm gun pods on older versions of F-4 (and produced newer versions with an internal gun), and started the Top Gun program.
Agreed on the needs for guns. Archaic sighting systems are tough to spoof. Projectiles in flight can't be jammed (but they can be defeated by modern counter-projectile systems -- which many of our adversaries don't have).
I was always proud of my dad's WWII service. Assigned to Landing Craft Support (Large) number 123, he did landing support operations leading up to Okinawa and then picket duty at Okinawa. The "Mighty Midgets" had .50 cal, 20mm amidships, twin 40mm fore and aft, a 3" gun forward, and a rocket launcher rack on the forward deck behind the lower gun mount. Reputed to be the most heavily armed ship per ton of WWII. He was an electricians mate, serving in a comms role, but whenever in action, his XO dragged him out of the radio shack to help load the twin 40s. The boat had skegs over the props, flat bottom, and a rear anchor with a big winch so they could beach the ship, conduct fire support missions with the main gun or rockets, and then back off the beach.
My Dad’s ship was a picket destroyer off Okinawa (USS Ralph Talbot DD-390). The splashed a kamikaze coming in low on the deck on the port side at nearly point blank range with a 5 inch shell. Blew the pilot out of the plane and he was cut in half, his parachute deployed and he drifted over the ship.
Currently, the powers that be seem to view all of our super-fancy ships as being too valuable to bring near shore. How close do our ships get to Yemen? Couldn't naval guns destroy Yemen's ports, coastal facilities and anything else within range?
Ace of Spades pushed this, too.
🥰
As they say in the US Army artillery is queen of the battlefield!
The Brits discovered in the Falklands that NGFS is nice dressage for the queen. Over 30% of the rounds used were delivered from offshore. It helps that they were islands. You know where there are also a lot of islands? Apparently in the Pacific. Who knew?
https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/public/2023-05/40-633-12015544-103-001-2022.pdf
"Fire support for British forces was provided primarily by light 105 mm artillery and 4.5 inch naval guns.
- UK forces expended some 17,500 artillery rounds, most in the final 6 days. Supplies totaled 90,000 rounds
- About 7,900 Naval gun fire rounds were expended for fire support. Sixty-three separate bombardments were conducted."
Infantry is the Queen; Field Artillery is the King of Battle.
Sad when we're acting like a single Mk45 5"/54 is a big deal; when it's really "better than nothing". My first ship had two Mk 42 Mod 10 5"/54's and they were the best thing about her.
The infantry is the Queen of Battle, artillery is the King. And we all know what the King does to the Queen…
I am so glad you wrote this. Even as a retired soldier I’ve railed against that tiny gun on the Constellation class frigates. There are many problems that can be solved with naval gunfire, especially when your missile load is small to begin with.
Thirteen "like" in that first quote from the clip. (yes, I counted them) Like, ya know, and people wonder what has happened to our military services? Like, it's all crap, like, it can't function.
dear God. a decent usage of the language might be a start.....
Yeah, reading the conversation in the CDR's post was a bit off-putting but when I heard the guy talking in the video I didn't, like, mind at all. If the story compels, I grant the speaker lots of poetic license in the story telling. (But there I go doing a judgement.) The story compelled and wasn't at all cringeworthy in the hearing of it compared to the reading of it. Anyone can get a flashback adrenalin dump that can render speech "excited". This Fullbore Friday was a Fullbore AF this Friday. Huzzah.
I’ve been beating this drum for what seems like forever. The Italians have a 5” 64 on the same hull as the constitution class why not us. With every cruiser we DeCom we lose two 5” inch guns. We can make up for that firepower by putting the Italian gun on our ships. It fires twice as fast as ours, it fires the same extended range gun rounds(ours are actually Italian designed now!) and the Italian can fire continuously until the magazine is empty because it’s a water cooled gun. Adding 76mm guns out there wouldn’t be bad either, the Italians have a 127mm and 76mm on their FREMM class, why not us? The Italian 76mm can fire 120 rounds a minute and has vast array of rounds available including extended range rounds that rival the range of standard 5” rounds. More firepower, UNREP ready now, more guns equals greater deterrence on the cheap. When you aim a VLS launcher at someone, it’s invisible, point a gun at someone and they get the message.
The Mk-75 gun system used on the FFG-7 class was essentially the Italian Oto Melara gun made by a manufacturer suitable for USN procurement channels. Max ROF was always spoken of as 120 RPM, but it was more. The selector that would have been 120 RPM based on the series progression from the lower rates was, in fact, labeled MAX. At 0 degrees elevation it probably was 120 RPM. But as elevation increased the rocker arms had less distance to travel so ROF was limited only to firing and recoil sequence. (And no, I don't know what max actually was, but it was more than a bit higher than 120 RPM.)
USN only had VT and HEPD back in the day. The Italian Vulcano ammo seems like really great stuff. A shame we adopted the not invented here attitude.
The current 76mm is a gun that has gone through continuous improvements over the years. The Vulcano and the Dart guided anti air ammunition are both amazing.
To date no Oto Melara 76/62 gun has ever achieved the cyclic rate of fire of 120-rounds/minute, or even 100-rounds/minute, or even 80-rounds/minute! That highest cyclic rate achieved was 71-rounds/minute before the gun broke…
Oto gun or Mk-75?
I will admit, I did not time and count, but I know for sure during post commissioning shakedown the course of fire that used the "local control" (A set of binoculars on a pedestal with a firing key.) Inclined from zero degrees to max elevation at MAX ROF. More than 1 round was fired at max elevation. Gun fired all the way through and thereafter for the next course of fire.
That said, the Mk-75, at least mine, was temperamental. The sensor that told the system "loading tray up and empty" (i.e ready for a round to drop and start firing sequence) was finicky. Gun shoots often started and ended going "bang, bang, click." At least once just "click." That's never good. I have to assume that problem got ironed out in the next 30 some hulls.
"CLICK" the loudest sound in a gun fight... Sorry couldn't resist.
It is especially loud when the CO is standing behind you looking over your shoulder.
The follow on "Super Rapid" fixed the problems with the 76mm "Compact" and bumped the rate of fire to 120 rpm.
We didn't have VT. We had HE-IR, HE-PD and BL & P in my FFG days.
Might be remembering it wrong...HE-IR would effectively work like HEPD. (Much water under the keel since then...and the vast majority not USN.)
And of course, BL&P. Shot more of that than anything else. Come to think of it, not sure if I did shoot anything else.
HE-IR was for anti-air. IR = infrared. HE - PD was for anti-surface.
Yeah, that I remember. Now.
I always wondered why we didn't have an equivalent of VTMT to engage speedboats and the like. Mk75 was pretty accurate, and put out a lot of rounds, but a fast, small, maneuvering, target would have been a challenge. (Which no doubt is why they later added MGs all over the place.)
I am for the 127/64 adoption, but the reason we don't have a 127 on our FFG is because we chose to have 32 VLS forward. It was a pretty clear trade when looking at the design.
When I go into combat I sure as hell want more than 32 rounds in my magazine to play with. Especially if I have to travel hundreds of miles to reload. Sure, ballistic rounds are not as capable (but are they capable *enough*?), but like the man said, "Quantity has a quality all its own".
Or how about doing both? What, not enough displacement for both? Like the other man said, "We're going to need a bigger boat".
Just saying when you really look at the design of the ships that these are the options inherent in the design, but I’ll argue for argument’s sake. We know we accidentally ended the 2200 ton turkish destroyer minelayer with 2 sea sparrow. 64 additional essm and mk 110 with over 1000 rounds seems solid for sea control purposes, just not NGFS.
The Italian 5”/62 guns uses M8/M10 gun propellant which is equivalent to US-produced NaCo (Navy Cool), which the US Navy no longer uses! The Mk.45 Mod.4 5”/62 gun uses EX99 gun propellant and can’t be adapted to use either NaCo or M8/M10 gun propellants! Also the Mk.45 Mod.4 gun won’t shoot any ammunition produced for the Mk.45 Mod.0/1/2/3 gun…
What about the Italian 127/64?
In what context! If your referring to the propellant, the propellant for the Italian 127/64 is the same as that of the Italian 127/62! Which isn’t compatible with the Mk.45 Mod.4 5”/62 gun…
This seems like one of the great western navies tragedies. Japan and Korea have both.
Neither Japan or South Korea have a propellant preference or constraints and use the propellant requirements of the Naval Gun from whatever source they get their naval guns from! It’s just interesting since WW2 for the Japanese and the Korean War for the South Koreans, neither countries ever tried producing and indigenous naval gun of their own design! And relying solely on those produced by other Western countries…
It figures that an Eye-talian ship would carry a “New York Reload.”
Oooooh, Friday morning surface warfare porn! I love it. Outgoing rounds from fore and aft guns was the most awesome thing I ever experienced whether from the HCO perch or in lower weapons berthing of a Spru-can. Counting rounds and feeling the old girl shake and shimmy has a feeling you’ll never forget!
Had to love a gun shoot. I remember the day on the range at Kaho'olawe as a midshipman. John Waynes and Illum over the heavy ground fog for the Marine mortar team.
I suppose there's more to life, but that's up there near the top.
Much to my frustration, the 155mm guns in DDG 1000 did not have a surface engagement mode. When I repeatedly asked about that, I was, in effect, told to go sit down and do my job.
When I joined my current company, it was to be their SUW analyst for the DD-21 program. Imagine my surprise as a former BB junior officer when that little tidbit was disclosed.
When I heard it couldn’t fire a standard 155 projectile and that could only fire Scrooge McDuck rounds, I was, well…in disbelief that anyone would be either that stupid or that compromised.
I have come to the conclusion that very few naval officers actually know what a real live Navy is supposed to do. Too many video games, perhaps. I am surprised we don't have a US version of the Soviet Ekranoplan, because it's just so friggin' cool!
The opinion of Badgers of what a Main Battery Gun looks like, is well known.
3x3x16"/50
That's the one!
What is it the Marines say about guns in a fight? Bring all you've got, and all the ammunition you have, and invite all your friends with guns?
Missiles are great, but how "multipurpose" are they? And an artillery round, even one of the superduper modern rounds, is a lot cheaper than a missile. And resupplying cannon rounds is easier than missiles, isn't it? Certainly easier to reload a cannon than a launch cell.
Wasn't there a proposal for an 8-inch main gun not so long ago? 57mm is for gunboats, not a full-size warship.
See the hypertext link in the Substack for the 8” info (…little more, a little further).
While the ballistics are somewhat better, the 'biggest gun' is approximately the same as that on an M1 tank (5" (127mm) / 120mm).
We build multi-billion $ ships, to fire multi-million $ missiles, that cannot be reloaded at sea, that we have insufficient reloads for anyway. Where can we reload them? Right now, maybe Guam, Pearl, San Diego?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but can a pallet of 5" ammo from a fleet collier not be slung over to a DDG while undergoing UNREP? And then the ammo stricken below to the magazines?
Damned shame we can't reload those VLS cells the same way
We could reload the ASROC, and did.
And you could reload the Mk-13 and similar Standard launchers. Never did it underway, I'm sure it would have been a bit of a deal in anything but calm seas, and probably a no go with water over the bow. But doable given time and patience.
We did do it underway.
So reloading underway: Way harder than pierside or just a bit harder?
And did you have to stay alongside the AE while you brought every one over?
I was the XO of the AE. We used dollys, from which the receiving ship could download the missiles into the magazine. ASROC used the infamous loader crane into the launcher, or a forklift into the magazine. Just a bit harder than pierside, but pretty manageable. VERTREP was another story, as the birds tended to weathercock while airborne.
Makes sense sending the birds over on dollies. That would speed the process once aboard: Inspect, mate to rail, run it up, engage contactor pad, interrogate, strike it down.
Maybe 10 minutes if you had it together unless sea state makes it harder. Though if you are alongside transferring via high line, sea state should be no significant problem. Only thing I see as an issue is if you needed a lot of birds replenished. You could be alongside for a long time. No real sweat to the handling crew, I guess. Wouldn't want to be the OOD though.
When pier side a dolly was dropped on deck then they dropped the coffins on deck. Had to pull the cover, inspect, mate to dolly and then proceed as above. IIRC took about 15 minutes each that way. A fairly long day to do due a full loadout or return.
With harpoons too !
They are talking about 120mm rounds for GMLRS boxes. Those could probably get moved between ships easily. Load them in RAM launchers. Not a great option, but ways that have better stuff that is also logistically friendly.
5” semi fixed rounds have the virtue of being the largest rounds we can easily pass by hand. Anything larger, and the weight means hand passing is exhausting.
And Lightweight is in comparison to the prior Mk 24 60 ton mounts at around 23 tons for a Mk 45.
The USN hasn't had a chance to do NGFS much for a very long time. But when they get the chance it is often epic.
When I was a young j.g., I was stuck in a PCU for looong time. In the meantime my friends were deploying off the coast of Beirut in support of the Marines ashore. The wikipedia article understates their mission (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Tattnall_(DDG-19)#1980s). They had several memorable fire missions, including ambushing a truck mounted Katyusha that set up in the wadi to launch on the Marine positions on a regular basis. First round burst over the spotting party up on the bank, the remaining left the Katyusha a flaming wreck. Then there was the one shot one kill of "sniper in a building." I got the impression that they had fire missions almost daily when on the gun line. And certainly, the amount of activity was not reported at home.
And while it wasn't the Tattnall, doing the shooting, the most impressive call for fire was to the BB on station: "Secondary battery, 10 salvos, fire for effect." No spotting rounds. Targets were probably preregistered and no doubt they had a radio beacon or two ashore to help them determine position (as they did pre-GPS).
It was a simpler time. I miss it.
To save people the trouble of math, that's 60 rounds of 5-inch on a single target delivered in about 36-40 seconds. Fun times (for the spotter).
Well, in this case, no spotting involved. The call for fire gave coordinates, or possibly a preplanned target number/code, and then gave the mission details and went straight to fire for effect.
It wasn't said, but everyone assumed that the target was just beyond the wire because the natives were restless.
Fun times for the grunts in the fighting positions. I'm sure this got the same kind of excitement that A-10s did 20 some years later.
Ahh, Beirut with all them damn guns and ammo… heady times
Only quiet day was after BB-62 shot into the Bekkaa Valley...
While missiles are nice, the naval gun brings a quality all it's own in regards to depth of magazine and difficulty in interception while in flight. 5" brings more to the party.
To build a warship without a "large" caliber gun is the apogee of stupidity.
Recall "Top Gun" and the backstory behind the program -- we had F-4s with no guns only missiles heading into VN and found that in many dogfights, missiles weren't adequate. So we did two things -- strapped 20mm gun pods on older versions of F-4 (and produced newer versions with an internal gun), and started the Top Gun program.
Agreed on the needs for guns. Archaic sighting systems are tough to spoof. Projectiles in flight can't be jammed (but they can be defeated by modern counter-projectile systems -- which many of our adversaries don't have).
I was always proud of my dad's WWII service. Assigned to Landing Craft Support (Large) number 123, he did landing support operations leading up to Okinawa and then picket duty at Okinawa. The "Mighty Midgets" had .50 cal, 20mm amidships, twin 40mm fore and aft, a 3" gun forward, and a rocket launcher rack on the forward deck behind the lower gun mount. Reputed to be the most heavily armed ship per ton of WWII. He was an electricians mate, serving in a comms role, but whenever in action, his XO dragged him out of the radio shack to help load the twin 40s. The boat had skegs over the props, flat bottom, and a rear anchor with a big winch so they could beach the ship, conduct fire support missions with the main gun or rockets, and then back off the beach.
My Dad’s ship was a picket destroyer off Okinawa (USS Ralph Talbot DD-390). The splashed a kamikaze coming in low on the deck on the port side at nearly point blank range with a 5 inch shell. Blew the pilot out of the plane and he was cut in half, his parachute deployed and he drifted over the ship.
Currently, the powers that be seem to view all of our super-fancy ships as being too valuable to bring near shore. How close do our ships get to Yemen? Couldn't naval guns destroy Yemen's ports, coastal facilities and anything else within range?