WI Naval Gunboats

MrP

Banned
and shells have fairly short range and you do need to expend more of them, depending on FC. Besides, costs would be high as shells for BBs gun could only be used on BBs while you can stick missiles on practically anything that floats (and lots of things that don't)

The issue of range also came up, and I think an 8" gun with a range in excess of a hundred miles was mentioned. I don't think anyone was discussing battleship calibre weaponry; it was more - as The Dean says above - navalising existing artillery or - in the case of an 8" gun - creating a new gun (also sub-battleship in calibre). I can't recall the name of the thread, I'm afraid.
 
AS90 has an effective range 0f 25 miles with conventional ammunition. That can be increased by using the type of round the RN uses in the 4.5in gun probably up to 40 miles or more. With the rate of fire and guided munitions available this is a highly cost effective way of putting fire down on a target. Special forces or Predator drones can identify targets and then the gun can engage from afar.

Also take a look at the link I gave to the spec of HMS Roberts. If it was available today it would be an asset to die for in any navy 2x15in guns firing one ton shells 25 miles accurately, 8x4in QF guns, 16x2lb multi barrelled AA guns and 8x40mm Bofors guns. All on an 8,000 to ship which would be large enough to put an aircraft hanger and helicopter deck on the back.
 
ISTR that last time this came up someone (Fell, Poepoe, Calbear?) gave some projected costs - about $5,000 for a shell and $20,000 for a missile, unless I misremember, which I probably do. Anyway, shell cost was considerably lower. The higher cost problem might well apply to an initial installation, but combat savings would offset that.

The better comparsion would be the cost of a shell versus the cost of a cheap, laser-guidence converted iron bomb that a fighter-bomber can carries a dozen at a mission.
 
IIRC the 8" MCLWG fired a 250lb round at 12 rpm to 55000m, and the 6" guns on the HMS Blake & Tiger fired 130lb at 20 rpm to 26000m. Neither of these in 30+ and 40+ year old spec guns looks quite so bad against Styx/Silkworm missiles. I wouldn't advocate losing missiles in order to put in more guns, but what a handy backup to missiles these powerful weapons would be if deployed widely on major warships.
 
Could someone like the Philipeans or Indonesia buy mothballed WWII ships for internal situations?

With most of the country within range of shore bombardment?

Trouble is in countries like the Philippines or Indonesia, most of the troubled regions aren't on the coastlines. It's similar to the situation in South Vietnam during the war- the government holds the coastline while the guerillas swarm in the highlands.
 
IIRC the 8" MCLWG fired a 250lb round at 12 rpm to 55000m
Given that a modern 155 mm SPH has a range in excess of 60 km (Excalibur, V-LAP), it is very likely that a modern 8" would go to 100 km and beyond, with the proper chamber/barrel design and ammo.
 
What will be their use? The only thing others can't do is big guns pounding ground targets. But that in itself raises several "why do we need it for anyway" points. One, US hasn't conducted opposed amphibious landing since Inchon. Two, with increase in air power capability aircraft can bomb those targets and further inland. Three, for carrying missiles (anti-ship, land attack...) any ship can do that. Four, BBs are very crew-intensive. Five, advent of better fire control (not necessary PGM) means you don't have to blanked area with large numbers of large shells to take out specific targets but can do it with better aimed, more effective smaller ammunition (and if you can't then call in air power to take them out).

So basically they are very good at one niche others can fill easy with lower costs and less risk.

Heavy battleship guns were useful in Lebanon in the 1980's, the Gulf in 1990, Vietnam and Korea. A heavily armored monitor, with computer/GPR assisted aiming and advanced long-range shells could deliver 16 inch death up to 50 miles inland with greater rapidity and nearly the accuracy of laser guided bombs. Dumb shells are also a lot cheaper than cruise missiles and smart bombs, a ship can carry many more of them, and there is no risk of having very expensive pilots killed or captured by 3rd world types and paraded infront of the media and firing squads. The ship itself would be relatively immune to the types of weapons which would be aimed their way. I think these are all advantages which suggest there is still a place for gun monitors.

There is really only one real navy left in the world (and no, sorry it isnt the Royal one), and increasingly it will NOT be involved in deep water patrols facing off against technologically equivalent foes, but rather making rubble bounce in places like Mogadishu. Big guns with dumb shells are good at that.
 
Heavy battleship guns were useful in Lebanon in the 1980's, the Gulf in 1990, Vietnam and Korea. A heavily armored monitor, with computer/GPR assisted aiming and advanced long-range shells could deliver 16 inch death up to 50 miles inland with greater rapidity and nearly the accuracy of laser guided bombs. Dumb shells are also a lot cheaper than cruise missiles and smart bombs, a ship can carry many more of them, and there is no risk of having very expensive pilots killed or captured by 3rd world types and paraded infront of the media and firing squads. The ship itself would be relatively immune to the types of weapons which would be aimed their way. I think these are all advantages which suggest there is still a place for gun monitors.

that required air superiority. And once you have that you can have planes dropping bombs all over the place

There is really only one real navy left in the world (and no, sorry it isnt the Royal one), and increasingly it will NOT be involved in deep water patrols facing off against technologically equivalent foes, but rather making rubble bounce in places like Mogadishu. Big guns with dumb shells are good at that.

somebody inform PLAN that USN will not challenge them in deep waters and if they stay away from Mogadishu nobody will bother them.

But seriously, do you think having such large ships that can do only one job which might not be required that often is a good idea?
 
that required air superiority. And once you have that you can have planes dropping bombs all over the place



somebody inform PLAN that USN will not challenge them in deep waters and if they stay away from Mogadishu nobody will bother them.

But seriously, do you think having such large ships that can do only one job which might not be required that often is a good idea?


The USN will always have air superiority in these situations, but planes do malfunction and even Serbs and Somalis can get lucky with SAMs, destroying millions of dollars of airplane and crew. Big shells seem less risky.

It is indeed good to see that China seems interested in developing an effective deep water navy. I'm glad somebody is. I hope India and Russia get interested too. Makes things more interesting for the big dog when there are other capable big dogs out there. The fact is, however, that the US lead is so vast that it would take all three of these nations 50 years to seriously threaten US command of the seas, assuming they even wanted to do that. In the interim at least some of the zillions the US spends in keeping, what, 10 carrier battle groups and dozens of ballistic missile subs at sea, could be put toward 4-5 littorial warfare gunboats to blast to smithereens some of the people who really want to kill Americans.
 
The USN will always have air superiority in these situations, but planes do malfunction and even Serbs and Somalis can get lucky with SAMs, destroying millions of dollars of airplane and crew. Big shells seem less risky.

And what do you do when targets you wish to hit are not close to the shore but say, outside Kandahar?

It is indeed good to see that China seems interested in developing an effective deep water navy. I'm glad somebody is. I hope India and Russia get interested too. Makes things more interesting for the big dog when there are other capable big dogs out there. The fact is, however, that the US lead is so vast that it would take all three of these nations 50 years to seriously threaten US command of the seas, assuming they even wanted to do that. In the interim at least some of the zillions the US spends in keeping, what, 10 carrier battle groups and dozens of ballistic missile subs at sea, could be put toward 4-5 littorial warfare gunboats to blast to smithereens some of the people who really want to kill Americans.

Indeed, they should be built so USN can fill a niche with ship that do the job really well rather then other ships that can do it good enough and have ships that can do one job and pretty much suck at everything else. Smart policy indeed
 
And what do you do when targets you wish to hit are not close to the shore but say, outside Kandahar?



Indeed, they should be built so USN can fill a niche with ship that do the job really well rather then other ships that can do it good enough and have ships that can do one job and pretty much suck at everything else. Smart policy indeed

Answer # 1. Kandahar is good for aircraft carriers and cruise missiles, of course. And the Army and Airforce for that matter. Even if we cut our carrier force in half we'll have plenty of those.

Answer # 2. Can't tell if you are agreeing with me or arguing. Surely you must be talking about ballistic missile submarines. Talk about ships that can do one job and pretty much suck at everything else. Plus that one job they do well entailed them never firing their multizillion dollar main battery. There also aren't many openings anymore for that job now that the USSR hung up its shingle. Lot of money tied up in long hard things filled with seamen if you ask me. Keep a few around just in case Iran gets pesky and needs some good old fashioned "deterrence". Oh, and for good will exchange naval visits to China and India.
 
Top