Help support TMP


"Naval Guns Still Matter" Topic


13 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2008-present) Message Board



539 hits since 25 Jan 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian25 Jan 2018 9:30 p.m. PST

The naval gun is a compact, easily supported, proven weapon. Just as war on land will always require rifles and boots on the ground, war in the littorals will always require heavily armed ships in the area of conflict inflicting violence on the enemy on land and at sea. The most cost-effective and reliable way to arm ships is the gun…

link

Personal logo herkybird Supporting Member of TMP26 Jan 2018 2:50 a.m. PST

During WW2, my late uncle was a stoker on HMS Norfolk, an 8" gun cruiser, he told me this story of an incident off Malaysia in 1947.

His cruiser had been sent by Far East Command to help a village on the coast which was being harassed by insurgents from the surrounding hills. The insurgents had an old Japanese field gun, which they were firing sporadically.

When Norfolk arrived, The insurgents were using their gun, so Norfolk's Captain ordered one of the 4" secondary guns to engage them. A single shell was fired and the insurgents were silenced.
A boat crew they sent later reported that they had found the ex-Japanese gun abandoned, all the insurgents had fled!

John Armatys26 Jan 2018 3:18 a.m. PST

And it is possible to use a gun fire a warning shot across the bows… As far as I know you can't do tis with a missile.

Caedite Eos Inactive Member26 Jan 2018 3:56 a.m. PST

What a ridiculous statement. Of course you can fire a missile across the boss. It's just damn expensive.

soledad26 Jan 2018 4:07 a.m. PST

To build a warship without a gun is like building a fighter jet without a cannon, no one would ever consider that…

Of course a warship need a gun.

Razor7826 Jan 2018 5:00 a.m. PST

The first F4s were designed and built without a gun due to the theory that with the advance in missile technology one wasn't needed. Their first entry into combat proved that wrong and gun pods were designed and added as a stop gap measure until the F4E came out with an integrated nose gun.

TGerritsen Supporting Member of TMP26 Jan 2018 9:19 a.m. PST

Fighters needing a gun is a bit exaggerated. By far the most air to air kills in Vietnam were scored by missiles, not guns. It was training that was the deficiency, not the lack of the gun. Since Vietnam almost every air to air victory has been with a missile.

The notion that lack of guns was the problem is a widely held but demonstrably false notion from the data.

That said, pk rates for missiles in Vietnam were abysmal, but they overcame this with training and ripple fire techniques. Since Vietnam, PK rates of missiles have grown remarkably, but training combined with missile pk rates is the key.

It's good to have a gun as a back up, but in an increasingly bvr world, if you find yourself needing a gun in air to air combat, you're doing it wrong.

Sorry to derail the topic. I also agree a ship needs a gun, if only for cost effectiveness. With hyper velocity rounds coming and mag rail guns soon to be fielded, missiles in direct sea combat might become obsolete. Why fire a million dollar weapon to blow up a $10,000 USD speed boat?

troopwo Supporting Member of TMP26 Jan 2018 9:47 a.m. PST

No one fires a warning missle or a warning torpedo.

Personal logo Striker Supporting Member of TMP26 Jan 2018 1:22 p.m. PST

Wrong troopwo, I fire them all the time, they're my die rolls. I'll claim 1000 warning torpedoes before 1 bad roll.

jdginaz26 Jan 2018 1:52 p.m. PST

"Fighters needing a gun is a bit exaggerated. By far the most air to air kills in Vietnam were scored by missiles, not guns."

Well yeah, of course there were more kills by missiles as they were the only choice for much/most of the war. There were also far more misses by missiles that hits.

As Col. Olds said, in a close in fight between a MIG-17 and a F4 the only plane in danger of being shot down is the F4.

If the F4 had had a gun from the start there would be much less difference in the number of kills between guns & missiles.

troopwo Supporting Member of TMP26 Jan 2018 5:20 p.m. PST

Obsolete weapns systems are never really obsolete.

Just a few years ago I overheard one sailor talking to a corvette veteran. He said they had to sink a ship due to it being a hazard to navigation. Missles and torpedoes were way too expensive so they turned to their brand new 57mm main gun and went through depleting most of the magazine before making enough tiny holes to see the hulk start to slowly settle.

He turned to the old veteran and said, "Might have been easier with your old four inch gun hey?"

The old fellow just snarled and said, "No. Just come close and drop a depth charge near the hull. At a shallow setting it would have opened up the hull instantly."

The young sailor was in a bit of a state of shock.

TGerritsen Supporting Member of TMP27 Jan 2018 12:11 a.m. PST

Jdginaz- missile hit rates went up after gun equipped f4s arrived in Vietnam- not down as your logic would seem to indicate. Why? The Air Force actually started teaching air combat maneuvers again after a long period of decline. That was the key.

Old myths die hard.

Caedite Eos Inactive Member27 Jan 2018 3:59 a.m. PST

The Air Force actually started teaching air combat maneuvers

This gives me a hard-on.

picture

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.