AHC: Heavy Guns Retained on Post-World War II Warships

Bunkers are a prime example. There's a reason why light cruisers water the gold standard in fire support for amphibious landings - the 6 inch shell is a very useful size. You can also do interesting things in a 155mm shell that aren't quite practical in 127mm, like terminal guidance, dispenser rounds, or tactical nuclear weapons.

Big guns were the standard for hard target destruction, but by the 70s other options were available such as anti-tank guided missiles and laser/EO guided bombs. This pushes NGFS back to the role of regular artillery support, engaging targets in the open or providing suppressive fire. In any case the need to engage hard targets is not a prerequisite for every amphibious assault, the landing can take place in an area where there are no really hard targets and the troops can move to the objective.
 
In any case the need to engage hard targets is not a prerequisite for every amphibious assault, the landing can take place in an area where there are no really hard targets and the troops can move to the objective.

Come to think of it, when was the last time anyone made an amphib assault into real prepared defense? Inchon?
 

Delta Force

Banned
There might be some potential for heavy guns for air defense. According to Norman Friedman, a Mk 42 5"/54 with a Mk 68 fire control system has a 17% chance of destroying an incoming Styx or Shaddock missile. The 5" has a longer range than the Phalanx point defense gun, so something like that could extend the outer defense perimeter. There's probably a gap between the minimum missile defense envelope and the effective range of the Phalanx that a heavier gun could cover.
 
There might be some potential for heavy guns for air defense. According to Norman Friedman, a Mk 42 5"/54 with a Mk 68 fire control system has a 17% chance of destroying an incoming Styx or Shaddock missile. The 5" has a longer range than the Phalanx point defense gun, so something like that could extend the outer defense perimeter. There's probably a gap between the minimum missile defense envelope and the effective range of the Phalanx that a heavier gun could cover.

There might be a short period after the introduction of ASMs where heavy guns might seem like an attractive part of the missile-defence system, but I imagine it would have a definite expiry date. Most of the later Soviet ASMs came in very fast, and even against the earlier missiles you didn't have all that long to intercept them. Rate of fire would be a major consideration for any weapon being considered for integration into the defence scheme. I can see the guns carried by most warships being included - throwing a few extra 3" or 5" shells up certainly won't do any harm, and you have the gun anyway - but the number and weight of the mountings required to provide an effective defence seems prohibitive.
But it does give rise to the glorious, tantalising possibility of a CLAAG design equipped with both missiles and multiple gun turrets, intended to provide close in defence for a carrier or something. I'd love to see something like that made in the 50s or 60s. I wonder what it would look like?
 
Keep in mind that a single 4.5" gun on a T21 frigate was considered the equivalent of an entire battery of Army 105mm howitzers in the Falklands. After a bit of a false start the RN started really pouring it on for the Army, giving them overwhelming firepower in their battalion level battles. Generally bigger guns are the preserve of Divisional and Corps level battles, and these are few and far between in the missile age.
 
Top