Missile Gunboats in WW2?

[Tizoc]

This might be a completely retarded idea, but what about putting the Katyusha rocket rails on boats? I wonder if the Soviets ever tried it.

During a clash in August 1943 near Teodosia (Black Sea) 4 Soviet boats used Katyushas against German boats. Reports say 2 boats were sunk and 2 damaged.

 

[Marko]

So forget boats and put Katyusha launchers on a Destroyer chasis, preferably 4-6 launchers on one ship and let rip

 

[Michele]

So forget boats and put Katyusha launchers on a Destroyer chasis, preferably 4-6 launchers on one ship and let rip

You'll have to remove something, however. Either guns or torpedo tubes. if you go for a reasonably sized long-ranged warhead, you get 132mms to 8 kms. A mid-war destroyer - i.e. a hull in your same weight class - equipped with 5" or 4.5" guns and radar FDC will engage you at 13-16 kms.
Even once both ships are within useful range for their weaponry, the guns are way more accurate.

Unguided rockets are area saturation weapons. Don't try to use them against point targets, especially if they are fast-moving, evasive maneuvering targets.

Ships carrying rocket tubes in actual history fired them at enemy-held beaches, in support to landing operations. They were a barrage form of cheap artillery.

The very point of postwar missile-armed gunboats is that their weaponry is missiles - meaning a self-propelled, guided projectile.

 

[Millsy]

i may be missing something

but the torpedo is a fire and forget weapon and makes an MTB capable of doing serious hurt to a much larger ship

The US used rockets in WW2

The UK used all sorts of stuff including a blacker bombard (look it up)

depends what your proposed target is really - is it big and slow, is it big and firing back, is it small and fast or are we talking riverine ?

 

[BlondieBC]

Given the work on the "Aerial Torpedo" in 1918, the As-292 (FZG-43), Ryan target drones, & the pulsejet, was it impossible (or just improbable) for any power to field a PT/MTB or small DD with a variety of crude, short-range guided missile before 1944?

I am not sure how small a ship they will fit on, but you have the precursor technologies. It is a lot easier with an earlier POD where the German work in WW1 on glide bombs is not lost. The best I can tell, the Germans basically started over from scratch. So lets look at the technologies.

1) Wire guidance - Worked in WW1 in tests. So really you just need the Germans to keep the technical drawings and some samples hidden away. While I would never write it because the time involved, it is a conceptually simple POD to have the German Navy transfer technology and personnel to some "Yachting club" to keep safe. Especially on a weapon that the UK seemed to be unaware of. IMO, a group as small as a few dozen key naval officers and technicians could have a POD where the Germans have a bunch of function 1950's weapons ready to go awaiting Hitler's budget approval. Add one of these "Yachting Club" members is a early Hitler associate (first 100), and you have what you need.

2) Radio control. Worked in WW2, just move up funding a little.

3) In Radar, they actually tried to patent technology in the 1930's that was patented pre WW1. Funding/Not lose knowledge.

4) Rockets worked in WW2. Move up funding a little.

5) Electronics- Much harder to move up, but if you are looking for man-guided weapons, you can skip.

6) Warheads to penetrate armor are know technology.


So to me, it looks possible. You are asking for a modification of a 25 year old idea. I have played around with this idea for my TL, and with a German win in WW1, you can easily have in the late 1930's. IMO, it works a lot better on 2 or 4 engine bombers designed for naval operations in areas of light fighter opposition. The obvious choice IOTL would be Japan with Betty and Nells using these weapons to keep ships away from its Island. We can argue if it is enough to stop a dedicated carrier attack, but planes like this would make campaigns like the Solomon Island very hard.

Not to ships. The real benefit is the weapon damage profile (mostly the angle of attack and speed) mean it largely defeats BB armor schemes. Much like the long lance torpedo, you can create a weapon that the Battleships fear. I have more difficulty here with the technical details if you lack electronics or self-guidance. I think it is workable, but harder. First, you need range longer than BB main gun or at least secondary gun range. If you are in very close, just use torpedoes. So ideally I want an over the horizon weapon (to let me live) with a plunging profile attack (to defeat armor). But the simplest weapon is one that is wire/radio guided that flies on last path once control is lost. It is not so much that I think this is exceptionally hard (the V-2 program was harder), but that by the time you have this worked out, you have been using for years airborne weapons to great effect. I really see a funding and time issue. Give more time (5 years or more) and adequate funding, it is a major WW2 weapon (ship launched missiles).

 

[BlondieBC]

For a DD or 'vette, that's not an unreasonable radar mast height (& for PTs, working in pairs wouldn't be a bad idea: one as an illuminator), if Bat is your weapon of choice. I prefer Felix because it's purely passive.

That's pretty much my thinking, too: something with about a 500pd warhead, comparable to a torpedo, but smaller & faster, with a longer range & higher hit probability. Something also useful against merchants, for use by subs, too? Or useful against DDs for MTBs & subs?

Working in pairs you can do that with *Seabat. A *Seacat would offer the same option, with only one ship.

I have not looked at the infrared in detail, but if it is like most technologies, it is only a funding issue in the interwar years to move up. So assuming the weapon hits enough (say over 10% of time), we do have a weapon that works on even pretty small ships. As long as you know the direction of the enemy warship, you can lob these weapons from a safe distance and hope they hit. While 10% seems low, it is much higher than achieve in any major surface battle with guns, so it is enough. This weapon mounted on ships like PT boats, E-boats, DD, and CL allows them options against heavier ships.

I am less sure you use against merchants. If my DD finds a merchant ship, why not just use the 5 inch guns? I can carry a lot more 5" rounds than 1000+ pound "Sea Felix". On subs, again why not use guns? How are we spotting the submarine at 10 miles with a DD? Is this a realistic range to try to engage in WW2? They weapon you propose is to kill the heavier warships that guns are too light to kill and torpedoes make you get too close. Or if accurate enough, then since the Sea Felix is more accurate than torpedoes.

 

[BlondieBC]

Do keep in mind that both BAT and Felix are bombs, not missiles. No propulsion system other than gravity.

Just by comparison: The Henschel Hs 293 weighed over a 1000kg and was airdropped and only had a range of 4-8km (depending upon drop altitude). You're launching from sea level. You need a lot more thrust than the few seconds that the Hs293's rocket gave it. Your sea launched missle is likely to weigh in around 1.5 tons. On a PT boat (35-40 tones top weight). you'd be lucky to get two on board.

Two works, if they are accurate enough. With the attack profile and size of warhead, they can be expected to do major damage even to the largest ships. Or you have to use the PT boats in large numbers, and then we get into how much a PT boat + two Sea Felix cost. Can't give you that figure. Then we have to deal with the range of the ship carrying the weapon. After we have this, we can start to look targets. And we should remember that if guide, the targets are not limited to ships. 500 pound warheads would also be useful against things such as bridges near the sea.

 

[Michele]

6) Warheads to penetrate armor are know technology.

Yes, and it requires a good amount of steel casing (and a delayed fuse, but that's not a problem). The problem with that steel is that it... steals... payload.

You have to cram in the warhead some explosive; and enough propellant; and enough steel to punch through armor.

The real-life example would be the Disney bomb. It weighed 2,000 kgs, but only 230 of those were explosive. It had a rocket engine that accelerated it to Mach speed to achieve very deep penetration into concrete sub pens. All fine and well, until you learn that that rocket burned for all of... 3 seconds. And anyway that astounding speed was of course achieved by building upon gravity-caused terminal velocity. If you want a rocket to cross over the horizon, on a ballistic that is not aided but rather opposed by gravity, you need a much heavier proportion of the warhead to be propellant. Reducing the HE charge to less than 10% of the weight is probably not that effective. But reducing the steel casing means you reduce your penetration chances.

 

[PMN1]

How small were they able to get radar sets by the end of WWII, depending on size could we perhaps see a large-ish missile that uses radar to home in on targets in a fire-and-forget mode?

Could use a pigeon.........

 

[AdA]

Remote control catapult launched aircraft. Radio guided, so vulnerable to jamming. To have range use the soviet cold war tactic. Launch it from a cruiser from long range, set it on a fixed course, and have a small fast craft near the target to assume control of the weapon and provide terminal guidance.
A modified radio controled Oka would be ideal.

Or just do it kamikaze style. Launch the Oka from a catapult on a destroyer and relly on a suicide pilot to provide trminl guidance...

 

[BlondieBC]

Yes, and it requires a good amount of steel casing (and a delayed fuse, but that's not a problem). The problem with that steel is that it... steals... payload.

You have to cram in the warhead some explosive; and enough propellant; and enough steel to punch through armor.

The real-life example would be the Disney bomb. It weighed 2,000 kgs, but only 230 of those were explosive. It had a rocket engine that accelerated it to Mach speed to achieve very deep penetration into concrete sub pens. All fine and well, until you learn that that rocket burned for all of... 3 seconds. And anyway that astounding speed was of course achieved by building upon gravity-caused terminal velocity. If you want a rocket to cross over the horizon, on a ballistic that is not aided but rather opposed by gravity, you need a much heavier proportion of the warhead to be propellant. Reducing the HE charge to less than 10% of the weight is probably not that effective. But reducing the steel casing means you reduce your penetration chances.

Actually no, On many versions of these weapons. The armor of a ship (BB, CA) is built assuming very specific angle of attacks. Variations of more than 2 degree in attack angle will often defeat the armor. So if by some odd chance the warhead mimic the angle of a 15" gun, then yes you lose up to 90%. But these are unlikely angles for rockets. You likely either get a fairly straight angle (level flight) which will largely be above the armor belt. You can use HE bombs or round with limited AP steel. You get a large explosion above the belt (say 400 to 500 pounds). It will tend to mission kill, especially with multiple hits, but you have a low chance of finding the main belt. Or you can do plunging angle where HE will easily penetrate the weather deck armor (1" to 2"). You use an HE round that either explodes on the main interior armor deck (often under 6") or penetrates into the magazine region if enough velocity (over 1000 feet free fall roughly).

Now the issue with propellant is a mixed issue. On the air launched glide/powered weapons, you easily lose over half the weight to non-warhead parts. It will be more for ship version. Someone stated 500 units of warhead takes 1000 units of other stuff. I would not be surprised if much higher. And the farther you want to send it, the bigger this gets. An antiship weapon with 3 miles range is a different beast than 15 miles. But you do get the advantage of possibly the unburnt rocket fuel starting fires. In many ways, this is why I think in most ATL with guided weapons, you see widespread use from airplanes before you see the first ship to ship models coming out of the testing phase. Much easier to start with 10K elevation achieve by an existing bomber than to deal with the issues of getting the warhead high enough.

On the subpens, the effective armor is much greater than a ship. Even the heaviest battleship. While BB can have 16" and above on side armor roughly at water line, we see 1" to 2" at weather deck with say 3" to 6" at water line for a plunging shot. 1" of hardened steel is easy to defeat. Even if the say 5" holds, you still have a 500 to 1000 pound of high explosives blowing up inside the ship where the ship tend to hold in the force. With potential for catastrophic followup explosions. I have looked at these items in detail. It does work against WW2 era protections and it is not that hard to accelerate development. It was more the lack of perceived need in the interwar years that lead to it not being developed. One leader deciding he wants such weapons would be enough for them to show up, and they would cause HUGE issues for the enemy fleet. A simple example would be Dunkirk and the BEF. If the Luftwaffe had smaller glide weapons with 50% hit rate that fit on Stuka and heavier planes, the RN would have face a disaster. Or if Japanese had glide weapons with 50% hit rates on Betty and Nell assuming the survived fighters, WW2 is much different. The USA would see a steady attrition of carriers, and the war takes a much different pace. But like many lost opportunities (German torps, USA torps, lack of merchant doctrine for Jap Subs, etc), it was just a lost opportunity.

 

[phx1138]

German work in WW1 on glide bombs is not lost

Not sure it's necessary to keep this, but not a bad idea, either.

Wire guidance

Never been a fan. I've never understood its value beyond quite short ranges, & it means command (so you've immobilized the control ship) & tracking (by flare or something). Neither are good for survival IMO.

Radio control. Worked in WW2, just move up funding a little.

Better, but same issues, plus susceptible to jamming.

In Radar, they actually tried to patent technology in the 1930's that was patented pre WW1. Funding/Not lose knowledge.

Allowing semi-active homing, this is one of the two really good choices IMO. Better than active, because you can detect a signal up to 5x farther out than you can get a solid echo. Also, you can target the enemy's own radar emissions (*HARM).

Rockets worked in WW2. Move up funding a little.

Good, but, as noted, not essential: a simple motorcycle or gas lawnmower engine works nicely.

Electronics- Much harder to move up, but if you are looking for man-guided weapons, you can skip.

Not sure that's essential, either: given a radar or IR sensor, how hard is it to mate that to a strength meter to steer a rudder & elevator to keep a strong signal centered? Am I underestimating the problems?

The real benefit is the weapon damage profile (mostly the angle of attack and speed) mean it largely defeats BB armor schemes. Much like the long lance torpedo, you can create a weapon that the Battleships fear.

I'm not seeing why BBs would be the #1 target or objective...

I have more difficulty here with the technical details if you lack electronics or self-guidance. I think it is workable, but harder. First, you need range longer than BB main gun or at least secondary gun range. If you are in very close, just use torpedoes.

Mostly, I agree: except, this offers a weapon to a platform where torpedoes are rather heavy... So you get a bigger punch on a smaller ship. And it offers a way to knock out convoy escorts, which would be really good for subs.

It also has knock-ons: if you can perfect IR homing, you can use it to attack powerplants or steel plants, both of which are much hotter than their surroundings, even at night or under cloud.

It occurs to me there's a way to encourage it: cost. These would appear to be cheaper than torpedoes, & could be built much faster (less complicated, lower precision required, less strategic material).

Or have somebody interwar look at the R/C target drones say, "Y'know, if you just strap a bomb to this thing..."

I have not looked at the infrared in detail, but if it is like most technologies, it is only a funding issue in the interwar years to move up.

I'd agree, I don't think there's any tech that couldn't be accelerated.

lob these weapons from a safe distance and hope they hit.

That essentially puts them in a class with torpedoes, so you really don't need guidance at all... Not to say a *V-1 launched from a DD wouldn't be a good thing, but not quite what I had in mind.

I am less sure you use against merchants. If my DD finds a merchant ship, why not just use the 5 inch guns? I can carry a lot more 5" rounds than 1000+ pound "Sea Felix". On subs, again why not use guns? How are we spotting the submarine at 10 miles with a DD? Is this a realistic range to try to engage in WW2? They weapon you propose is to kill the heavier warships that guns are too light to kill and torpedoes make you get too close. Or if accurate enough, then since the Sea Felix is more accurate than torpedoes.

I wasn't suggesting the *Sea Felix necessarily be used against the merchants themselves, but against the escorts: shoot the DDs or 'vettes with these, then go after merchants with guns &/or torpedoes. Or save these for self-defense when the escorts come after you. It is possible the DDs have your sub on radar at 10mi...

The real-life example would be the Disney bomb. It weighed 2,000 kgs, but only 230 of those were explosive. It had a rocket engine that accelerated it to Mach speed to achieve very deep penetration into concrete sub pens. All fine and well, until you learn that that rocket burned for all of... 3 seconds. And anyway that astounding speed was of course achieved by building upon gravity-caused terminal velocity. If you want a rocket to cross over the horizon, on a ballistic that is not aided but rather opposed by gravity, you need a much heavier proportion of the warhead to be propellant. Reducing the HE charge to less than 10% of the weight is probably not that effective. But reducing the steel casing means you reduce your penetration chances.

This is the best argument against using *Sea Felix against BBs at all... I also agree, it depends on where you hit the ship in question: belt armor is intended to protect against shell hits in a narrow range, so a missile hitting in a different place can still do devastating damage. And PTs against BBs is a bit suicidal to begin with.

 

[ModernKiwi]

Wire guidance in all but the smoothest of seas is going to be highly impractical. Not to mention the issue that the person doing the guiding is going to have be up a high pole mast (and so much more subject to any pitching and yawing of the launch platform than at sea level) to get a reasonable horizon. Rule that out. This also definately rules it out for submarines which are even closer to sea level than PT boats or the like.

Your only real options are radar guided or infrared which pretty much leaves late war US/UK/Germany as the only ones that could develop it. Of these, the UK and US don't need it anymore. All their enemies ships are at the bottom of the sea. And you really couldn't use/deply more than one of these (at all) from a u-boat and only when surfaced - which equals suicide in an environment where escort carriers are protecting all convoys.

 

[BlondieBC]

I'm not seeing why BBs would be the #1 target or objective...

Mostly, I agree: except, this offers a weapon to a platform where torpedoes are rather heavy... So you get a bigger punch on a smaller ship. And it offers a way to knock out convoy escorts, which would be really good for subs.

It also has knock-ons: if you can perfect IR homing, you can use it to attack powerplants or steel plants, both of which are much hotter than their surroundings, even at night or under cloud.

It occurs to me there's a way to encourage it: cost. These would appear to be cheaper than torpedoes, & could be built much faster (less complicated, lower precision required, less strategic material).

Or have somebody interwar look at the R/C target drones say, "Y'know, if you just strap a bomb to this thing..."

I'd agree, I don't think there's any tech that couldn't be accelerated.

That essentially puts them in a class with torpedoes, so you really don't need guidance at all... Not to say a *V-1 launched from a DD wouldn't be a good thing, but not quite what I had in mind.

I wasn't suggesting the *Sea Felix necessarily be used against the merchants themselves, but against the escorts: shoot the DDs or 'vettes with these, then go after merchants with guns &/or torpedoes. Or save these for self-defense when the escorts come after you. It is possible the DDs have your sub on radar at 10mi...


This is the best argument against using *Sea Felix against BBs at all... I also agree, it depends on where you hit the ship in question: belt armor is intended to protect against shell hits in a narrow range, so a missile hitting in a different place can still do devastating damage. And PTs against BBs is a bit suicidal to begin with.

I think the weapons would be for attacking big ships. For smaller ships, a 5" gun works fine. It is a also a heavy weapon (say 2 tons per shot), so any small ship wold carry a limited number. It looks like a niche weapon to me, at least at first.

I am just not sure on cost or weight of weapon system per shot on ship. If it is cheap enough, then yes, it will be used widely. I was seeing it more as a weapon that chances the behavior of enemy admirals. If say any ship bigger than a E-boat can carry a weapon that can cripple any ship at long range, it will potentially have a big impact on the enemy behavior, even if a small % actually carry it. When I play around with what I would do with these weapons, here is the usage. I know I see more of a V-1 type weapon, but there are similar usage from early to later.

1) Coastal defense. Big naval guns are heavy and expensive. Slow to build. These weapons look very cheap by comparison and tend to defer enemy action near the coastline. I think of things like the Atlantic wall or defending Sicily.

2) As I get used to them and believe they work, I am looking for high profile, high profile attack targets. While I might not be able to make it work, something like a barrage attack on Gibraltar or Scapa Flow has appeal. Maybe on gimmick or one time usage format such as a disguised ship.

3) It looks like to me you will need to build new ships from hull up to get good effect. So the usage you list seem to be later events. And with this much into guided weapons, we must have a large number of air to sea. WW2 looks nothing like OTL.


Now on the torpedo, I did not see it as the same class but as a weapon with more range. If you can get an over the horizon weapon that will then self guide onto the target if close enough, you can make the enemy ships have a very tough life. You probably need a spotter plan, but this is well proven technology. If you can spot the enemy fleet at stay 35 miles and attack, you don't really have to worry about building armor ships. And I think even this type of weapon is possible. Even a 10% hit rate would be devastating. I am not so sure if the missile is not longer range than a torpedo that it would be deployed.




BTW, can you list you design specs so I can understand the weapon more. Speed, range, warhead size, total weight, flight pattern, typical engagement range?

 

[BlondieBC]

Wire guidance in all but the smoothest of seas is going to be highly impractical. Not to mention the issue that the person doing the guiding is going to have be up a high pole mast (and so much more subject to any pitching and yawing of the launch platform than at sea level) to get a reasonable horizon. Rule that out. This also definately rules it out for submarines which are even closer to sea level than PT boats or the like.

Your only real options are radar guided or infrared which pretty much leaves late war US/UK/Germany as the only ones that could develop it. Of these, the UK and US don't need it anymore. All their enemies ships are at the bottom of the sea. And you really couldn't use/deply more than one of these (at all) from a u-boat and only when surfaced - which equals suicide in an environment where escort carriers are protecting all convoys.

Wire guidance is a state of the art WW1 technology. It would probably be only a backup to jamming in a WW2 environment from sea level.. And maybe you are right by WW2, it would be effectively useless. It is probably wire guidance to get it heading towards the target, then having some other system handling the final approach. It is just so, so likely the wire breaks.

I do agree U-boats would be very, very hard to build consider how long it took to get a SSG working right in OTL. You would have to build a dedicate new hull from the keel up. And it definitely takes self guidance. I am not saying it is impossible, just seems very expensive and hard. And likely other things are found first (better torps, better naval landbase aviation, better mines, etc.)

 

[ModernKiwi]

The wireguided missiles of WW2 (and even more modern stuff like Milan and Seacat for that matter) required the operator to track through a sight the flare on the end of the missile. Easy to do when you're in a bunker safe from supressing MG fire and guiding an ATGM towards a tank. Harder from a lumbering bomber that is at least on a straight and level course. And hardest of all from a platform that is rocking back and forth in a fairly random manner and where "hills" can block your line of sight with no warning.

Having said all this, the idea of using them for coastal defence certainly has promise. Your launch platform is certainly going to need good protection from naval gunfire, but if you can acheive that you can either wreck havoc among landing craft or damage/drive further out to sea the supporting ships making them much less effective.

 

[King Augeas]

Actually no, On many versions of these weapons. The armor of a ship (BB, CA) is built assuming very specific angle of attacks. Variations of more than 2 degree in attack angle will often defeat the armor.

Two degrees? What? Must be a typo here.

...it is only a funding issue in the interwar years to move up.

This talk of "Oh if only there was the funding" seems so naive. It is strictly true, but it fundamentally misses the point. For a technology to get funding for further development, there must be the strategical, political and administrative environments that not only allows that decision to be made, but also results in the right technologies being chosen for development, not ones that won't bear fruit in time, such as the resources wasted on the V2 or flying wing programs, for example.

 

[phx1138]

I think the weapons would be for attacking big ships. For smaller ships, a 5" gun works fine. It is a also a heavy weapon (say 2 tons per shot), so any small ship wold carry a limited number. It looks like a niche weapon to me, at least at first.

That's great, if you've got a ship big enough for a 5" to begin with. MGBs or PTs don't have the hull size or strength for it, but could readily carry six *Sea Felix (assuming launch weight around 3000pd each, & no TT); they might carry 4-6 & still upgrade to a 57mm gun, which was impossible OTL on the 78-80ft boats. Even 3" on a hull that small is impractical in the '30s & '40s (& even now AFAIK).

I am just not sure on cost or weight of weapon system per shot on ship. If it is cheap enough, then yes, it will be used widely. I was seeing it more as a weapon that chances the behavior of enemy admirals.

I'm seeing something more closely resembling a torpedo: cheaper than that (& torpedoes were running around US$10,000 a pop, IIRC), range over horizon but not extreme, & able to fit aboard craft as small as PTs or small subs (Type VIIs or S-boats).

If say any ship bigger than a E-boat can carry a weapon that can cripple any ship at long range, it will potentially have a big impact on the enemy behavior, even if a small % actually carry it.

That's my thinking, too. The tactical impact could be really large.

Coastal defense. Big naval guns are heavy and expensive. Slow to build. These weapons look very cheap by comparison and tend to defer enemy action near the coastline. I think of things like the Atlantic wall or defending Sicily.

Absolutely. This may be the most useful option (& one I'm embarrassed to admit I'd forgotten). This could make the "Second Happy Time" a non-starter. Use against LCs, IDK: wire-guided ones, maybe, but IMO guns make more sense there, for cost reasons. Used against *LSTs, yes.

As I get used to them and believe they work, I am looking for high profile, high profile attack targets. While I might not be able to make it work, something like a barrage attack on Gibraltar or Scapa Flow has appeal. Maybe on gimmick or one time usage format such as a disguised ship.

I'm seeing this much less likely, simply because the guidance is liable to be buggered by land return or heat ashore. Shots for SAR-homing weapon against near-shore bridges & such, yes. (Golden Gate? Brooklyn Bridge?), or viaducts & such (& there were a few of those in Japan, so crippling Japanese communication as early as 1941 might be possible)

It looks like to me you will need to build new ships from hull up to get good effect. So the usage you list seem to be later events. And with this much into guided weapons, we must have a large number of air to sea. WW2 looks nothing like OTL.

I'm not seeing that. I anticipate substituting a turntable & catapult for a TT mount on a 'vette, DD, or cruiser, or for a seaplane on a BB; for a PT/MGB-size ship, a new catapult design might be needed, replacing the TT or drop collars.

Now on the torpedo, I did not see it as the same class but as a weapon with more range. If you can get an over the horizon weapon that will then self guide onto the target if close enough, you can make the enemy ships have a very tough life.

Agreed--until he figures out CM...

You probably need a spotter plan, but this is well proven technology.

That does depend on what the homing method is. If you take SAR, maybe; if you take IR, no.

If you can spot the enemy fleet at stay 35 miles and attack, you don't really have to worry about building armor ships.

Until you get nukes, I think armor is still useful; it just changes the nature of the distribution. (Absent making giant shaped-charge warheads standard, which might happen: jets able to penetrate meters of armor?)

I am not so sure if the missile is not longer range than a torpedo that it would be deployed.

That's true. That comes back to cost & complexity. Torpedo production also factors in: the U.S., at full output in WW2, was only building 2.5 sub torpedoes a day...

BTW, can you list you design specs so I can understand the weapon more. Speed, range, warhead size, total weight, flight pattern, typical engagement range?

This is really very dependent on design choices. I had in mind something with a range around 20-30mi, speed maybe 200 knots, warhead maybe 500pd, total weight at launch maybe 1500pd, diameter about 21", span under 10', flying very close to the sea surface (probably dead level at constant speed, but altitude under 20'), with engagement ranges anywhere from a couple of miles out to max range (I was seeing more max-range shots from PTs, close shots in self-defense from subs & such). I hadn't thought about use against BBs much... I'd expect those to be damaging/crippling shots, rather than killing ones.

I do agree U-boats would be very, very hard to build consider how long it took to get a SSG working right in OTL. You would have to build a dedicate new hull from the keel up. And it definitely takes self guidance. I am not saying it is impossible, just seems very expensive and hard. And likely other things are found first (better torps, better naval landbase aviation, better mines, etc.)

That, I'm not seeing. I agree, dedicated SSGs are harder--if you demand udw launch & in-hull storage. Even then, IMO, it's a weapon-design issue. Launch udw, but shallow, canister-mount weapons on deck or faired into the conning tower (not unlike what the Sovs did with their first-generation SSBMs, or the external torpedo tubes RN & USN used) would work.

Use an in-hull tube-launch system, coupled to a folding-wing weapon in a "can", launched to the surface by gas, & you've solved a lot of the issues I saw with the Regulus, which seemed to revolve around the JATO bottles...& the jet engine.

That said, I agree, other things than udw-launch missiles will get higher priority, & should.

there must be the strategical, political and administrative environments that not only allows that decision to be made, but also results in the right technologies being chosen for development

And decisions leading to missiles being chosen over guns or torpedoes to begin with. Which is the biggest hurdle to overcome...

 

[LeX]

Unguided rockets are area saturation weapons. Don't try to use them against point targets, especially if they are fast-moving, evasive maneuvering targets.

Ships carrying rocket tubes in actual history fired them at enemy-held beaches, in support to landing operations. They were a barrage form of cheap artillery.

The very point of postwar missile-armed gunboats is that their weaponry is missiles - meaning a self-propelled, guided projectile.

Yeah, I thought as much.

 

[BlondieBC]

Two degrees? What? Must be a typo here.



This talk of "Oh if only there was the funding" seems so naive. It is strictly true, but it fundamentally misses the point. For a technology to get funding for further development, there must be the strategical, political and administrative environments that not only allows that decision to be made, but also results in the right technologies being chosen for development, not ones that won't bear fruit in time, such as the resources wasted on the V2 or flying wing programs, for example.

Two degrees is not a typo. The ships armors generally was designed to stop a very specific threat (your current assessment of main enemy current gun or next gun). The armor is hugely heavy, so you don't protect against shot coming from outside expect range. The armor rapidly tapperred. And there are reason that even if weight was less of an issue, you limit armor. Going from 1" to 2" steel in the weather deck makes a BB more vulnerable to AP fire from other BB by changing the angle of the shell to closer to 90 degrees. And all this feeds into the concept of invulnerability zones in WW2 for BB.

Calling people naive does not further discussion.

Navies make decision to fund or not fund technologies all the time. Often promising ideas are not funding. The interwar years saw very tough naval budget (almost nothing for Germany). It was merely a choice.

And you V2 proves my point. These technologies were proven technology compared to the V-2. The were almost ready in the air launched form at the end of WW1. It would have made more sense to fund first the air launched, then the land launched with possibly the Sea launched version than the V-2.