Naval Artillery

>>31863634
>missiles can be shot down = missiles will all be shot down
Kill yourself, my man

>>31863634

>missiles can be shot down by the enemy, whereas gun cannot

>citation needed

Missiles outperform guns, thats just the way it is. 5 inch guns are completely sufficient for the tasks current destroyers need them for.

>>31863634
Technology exists to shoot down incoming mortar fire, this exact technology can be used to shoot down incoming cannon fire. The age of the battleship is over, the only thing the cannon is good for anymore is busting up pirate rafts and other barely-a-threat engagements.

Because they found out that a 5-in gun did the same job better than an 8-in.

THE NAVIES OF THE WORLD KNOW BETTER THAN YOU DO ABOUT NAVAL ARTILLERY

>>31863674
Volume of fire. Lets see them shoot down 2+ shells a second.

>>31863634
Because we have a pretty good grip on how guns work, but missiles can stand to be improved in many ways.
If we started arming our ships with a bunch of guns congress would be like "why do you need all this missile research when your guns are so capable?" and so we undergun our ships because its not like we are actually at war for real with anybody right now anyway.

>>31863714
>If we started arming our ships with a bunch of guns congress would be like "why do you need all this missile research when your guns are so capable?" and so we undergun our ships because its not like we are actually at war for real with anybody right now anyway.

My god these people need to tell themselves shit like this to get their stupid ideas to work

>>31863721
>implying politics NEVER comes into consideration when then military has to justify spending on stuff

Its like how the f-35 is actually just a big distraction to get china to try and copy it when our real plan is just drone swarms and missiles if theres ever a war.

>>31863691

>Because they found out that a 5-in gun did the same job better than an 8-in.

There is no way that a 5-in shell is going to have the same penetration as an 8-in shell.

>>31863760
M8, you just tried to tell me that the only reason we don't cover ships in guns is because they're so powerful that we can't let congress in on the secret.

You can fuck right off.

>>31863634
>Why don't American destroyers have 8-inch guns?

Because it sucks up VLS space and whatever else is around it.

>>31863762
I mean, close enough that it doesn't matter and it's not exactly relevant since they're not fighting anything armoured enough to withstand any kind of shelling in the first place.

Add to that the fact that the 5in is smaller, easier to fit, allows more space for other weapons, is faster traversing, faster firing and more accurate and the 8-in can't compare.

Gosh it's almost like the navy tested this.

OP check out the Zumwalts guns.

You'll be happy.

I'm a huge shill about armoring ships and giving them good guns, and LRLAP ammunition satisfied me on the gun front.

>>31863817

Then explain why the Zumwalt has 6-in guns if 5-in guns are supposedly the end-all-be-all of naval artillery in 2016?

>>31863844
Because they're purpose built for long-range bombardment you tit, not to be a multipurpose deck gun

>>31863762

Penetration =/= "doing the job better"

5-in guns are probably cheaper, which is the single most powerful argument anyway. As any real targets will be fought by missiles anyway, 8-in guns are just too much for the task. Hence 5-in guns do the same job - shooting something which isn't worth a missile - better.

>>31863714
Have you seen those systems? 2 a second is not a problem at all, especially if they're working in tandem.

File: rtn_191605.jpg (189KB, 1920x521px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1920x521px

>>31863840

The Zumwalt is the nearly perfect ship. But there are only three........ :(

>>31863762
Penetration is not the primary function or quality of artillery.

Unrelated: does and 8" have better penetration, accuracy and destructive power than a Paveway or any other bunker buster?

File: CNS_Kunming_(DDG-172).jpg (283KB, 723x390px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 723x390px

>>31863850

Imagine you're fighting a chinese destroyer and you've both ran out of missiles. You both have 5-in guns, so it is even. Either side could win. 50/50. But if you have a 8-in gun and the other side doesn't, then the odds shift in your favor dramatically.

OP if all 5 inch destroyer guns had longer barrels they'd have great range.

Ticonderoga's have a longer barrel on their 5 inch guns and their range is impressive even with conventional ammunition.

>>31863885

Not necessarily.

Modern warships lack armor so shell size is of little factor compared to volume of fire.

>>31863777
No, im saying the reason we undergun our ships is because we want to be able to justify more missile development because we have a good grasp on guns but missiles can still be improved on. Missiles are incredibly useful because they are much more versatile than guns, but they will always have two drawbacks; cost and logistics. Its just fine for singular incidents but when you need overwhelm the point defense of everything you fight you will quickly find yourself running out of missiles. Missiles will remain great long range bombardment weapons as well as part of the overall point defense strategy, and in the future missiles that launch a bunch of smaller missiles near the target to overwhelm point defense could be the standard for all anti ship missiles, but even then there is the cost and logistics aspect, missiles are bigger than shells, and you need a majority of your missiles to be a part of your point defense. This means your actual offensive capabilities are limited.

>>31863885
>Imagine you're fighting a chinese destroyer and you've both ran out of missiles

What's more accurate is that both or one of them will withdraw and call support from other assets.

>>31863862
It's more of a prototype platform where they will test concepts. The next class will have the same bells and whiles but in a smaller form, lest costly and more numerous. (I hope)

File: bring bag to gunfight.jpg (55KB, 1024x698px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1024x698px

>>31863885
>ships are just ducks sitting on a lake. w.a.i.t.i.n.g.
I'll give you the Musashi or Bismarck.
I'll take pic or a rotary.

>>31863929

The next class is literally just more Burkes.

>>31863634
Point 1- artillery rounds can be shot down by current CIWS. Its actually easier to engage something with a high trajectory arc than a sea skimmer trying to hide in wave clutter.

Point 2- a VLS can salvo faster than a gun can fire since it isn't slowed by the mechanical operation of an autoloader.

But I forget this is a bait thread, so here is your (you)

>>31863885
If you both run out of missiles, something dramatically fucked up has happened. War isn't a series of "1v1 me, faggot" duels. You wouldn't charge in guns blazing, you'd have called for backup when shit got real, or if it was a fight you didn't need to be in, you'd book it the fuck out of there while the horribly under powered Chinese destroyer is utterly incapable of matching speed.

In real war, you take every advantage you can. Everyone cheats. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

>>31863885

This is not how procurement works. Nobody is arming their ships based on the hypothetical 1 on 1 scenario, By the way, how do you imagine a 1 on 1 destroyer fight to happen, where both ships run out of ALL the missiles? A Burke has between 90 and 96 cells.

Also, what >>31863904 said.

>>31863923

And what basis do you have for this thinking? As in, evidence that's supports it.

>>31863949

If one side follows the rules the other side usually does. When one side breaks treaty the other does as well.

This applies to uniformed combatants of course.

>>31863923
>No, im saying the reason we undergun our ships is because we want to be able to justify more missile development

Or to cut the retardation out of what you're saying, it's because missiles are better than guns.

>>31863966

>A Burke has between 90 and 96 cells.

China's next destroyer-class is planned to have 128 cells per ship.

>>31863943

The Zumwalt has a lot of potential though.

We can't keep the oceans secure forever with ships that were built during the cold war. Gotta plan for the future.

>>31863904
I don't think he means about armor, but an 8in should out range the 5in.

>>31863991
That's not a rebuttal; not to mention that those cells won't be filled entirely with AShMs.

>>31863860
As i said, we have guns down pretty well.
Its political. I would expect to see 4 to 6 guns otherwise. That would provide the proper volume of fire.

If you look at the missile loadouts of current ships you see that they are not really seriously equipped for anti ship activities. Most missiles are going to be anti air and part of the overall point defense. This is as it should be, missiles are great at that. They will also carry some long range missiles for striking ground targets. The anti ship complement is really not good enough for a major naval engagement. You can see this by just looking at the ships own arsenal. They have more than enough missiles capable of shooting down their own anti ship missiles should they decide to fire on themselves. But this is all just fine, thats how it is. The missiles are doing their job. We would add some extra guns is all.

guns on ships are completely useless unless they are also ARMORED

File: 1450301741958.gif (27KB, 158x132px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 158x132px

>>31864025
>Its political. I would expect to see 4 to 6 guns otherwise.

You're a fucking moron bending reality to fit your idiotic fantasy

>>31864025

>If you look at the missile loadouts of current ships you see that they are not really seriously equipped for anti ship activities.

How the fuck do you know what the destroyers are loaded with? They could have nukes onboard and you'd never know.

File: ORLY.jpg (64KB, 800x748px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 800x748px

>>31863634
>Ah, but that's where you're wrong, kiddo. Missiles can be shot down by the enemy, whereas the gun cannot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heLuUd0VK2s

>>31864025
Oh shit it's almost like missiles and aircraft are the main threat to warships, like since WWII or something....woah

>>31863986
They are both useful, but we are really good at guns. Its more cost effective to focus on improving missiles right now.

You need missiles because they are far better than guns at intercepting incoming threats, they are far superior defensive weapons than guns are. They are also very versatile offensive weapon, they are just too expensive to use as a primary offensive weapon against everything in a full out war.

>>31864052
>they are just too expensive to use as a primary offensive weapon against everything in a full out war.

Based on your own ignorance and assumption.

>>31864037
You wouldn't use a nuke to intercept an incoming threat, probably.

>>31864049
With out proper defenses against them yeah, they are a huge threat.
And so you properly defend yourself against them and suddenly you are left with virtually no real offensive capability unless you are able to be rearmed regularly, which you will not be able to when fighting an equivalent enemy.

>>31864052
>We should make our ships less capable because the US would run out of money in WWIII

Do you listen to yourself

>>31864071
You think warships fight like Macross where they launch all their missiles at once? No wonder everything you say is so detached from reality.

>>31864072
>less capable
>slightly fewer but much better because we have been pumping all our money into them missiles
>guns you can fire all day and overwhelm any enemy ships point defense
>less capable

>>31863634
Railguns, bro.

>>31864098
And meanwhile the less idiotic foreign naval ship has put a missile into you from two hundred miles away.

>>31864008

That makes little difference when your warship looks like a jet ski to the enemies radar.

I think our artillery research should be some on existing 5 in and 155mm platforms until it shows enough promise to make the old fashioned big bores reasonable to create again.

>>31864093
No, because most of their missiles are not anti ship missiles, they cant be because they need their other missiles, thats the problem. Which guns solve

>>31863634

Missiles are cheaper, more accurate, and pack more of a punch. Unless the USN starts encountering Tiger Is, the 75 is good enough for the job.

>>31864148
Because they're likely to face far more missiles and aircraft than they are enemy ships.

It's not fucking hard to figure out why. They are smarter than you think you are.

>>31864147

The point of the original post before the thread got derailed was simply that the Burkes is large enough to accept an 8-inch/55 caliber gun easily, so what's the actual downside? Putting in the larger gun doesn't lower missile capacity for the warship at all. Again, the Forrest Sherman-class is less than 1/3 the side of a Burke, so if you can put an 8-in gun on a Sherman, you could easily put a more modern version of that gun on the Burke-class.

>>31864129
>a missile
Which gets intercepted before it become a real threat because you are not a 3rd world machine gun skiff

>>31864169
>Because they're likely to face far more missiles and aircraft than they are enemy ships.

As i said, missiles are great defensive weapons.

You have to be able to fire at least 3 missiles at a modern destroyer to have a reasonable shot at sinking it, and thats if its by itself

>>31864170
A single Forrest Sherman boat had a prototype 8"/55 caliber gun on it. Said prototype was removed and it's program cancelled as it could only get a 5000m advantage over the 5"/54 caliber Mark 42 gun it replaced at the cost of a 20% weight increase per gun mount and 1/4th the firing rate.

>>31863978
What? That reply is so out of context. How the hell does that have anything to do with anon's statement?

>>31864220
>Missiles can be intercepted =/= Missiles will be intercepted

>>31864327

True, but what about scramjet munitions?

>>31864357
Correct. If you fire enough missiles some will get through. But thats the problem, you need enough missiles. A single missile isnt doing shit against an entire battlegroups layered missile defenses

>>31864327

The current 5-in guns do 16-20 rounds per minute. The 8-inch/55 caliber could do 12 rounds per minute. That tells us that a modernized version of the 8/55 could probably get around the same RPM as a modern 127mm deck gun.

>>31863634
listerine, is that you

>>31864342

I meant that treaties, UN rules, etc tend to be followed. Breaking treaty with no good cause usually ends poorly for the side that did it.

All civilization is, are rules on paper. Breaking meaningless or ignorant rules is usually of little consequence but being a genocidal loose cannon can have severe repercussions.

See Japan to this day not having a standing army/navy. See the American and allied bases all over the world in areas where human rights abuses have happened too long. Etc.

>>31864371
Any kind of assisted projectile would also benefit the smaller gun. There really isn't anyway around the fact that a larger shell means less for a given area to store them or a heavier shell means a slower rate of fire or stronger and more powerful loading components to compensate enough to match firing rate.

>>31864404
But japan has one of the strongest navies in the world right now.

>>31864413

>Any kind of assisted projectile would also benefit the smaller gun

True, but the larger gun will benefit even more.

>>31864389
>The current 5-in guns do 16-20 rounds per minute
35-40

>>31864385
>But thats the problem, you need enough missiles
>A single missile isnt doing shit against an entire battlegroups layered missile defenses

It's almost like they've thought of that by giving a ship more than one missile.

>>31864389

The historical problems are barrel life and capacity.

With LRLAP able to reach out a hundred miles, 5 and 6 in guns are fine ATM.

>>31864396

No. This is Listerine. I've gotten more sane because I have been able to afford actual beer every now and then. I'll quote all my posts so far and let you be the judge.

>>31864404
>>31864371
>>31864147
>>31863995
>>31863978
>>31863904
>>31863895
>>31863840

These are my posts.

This is what I'm like when I'm not shit faced on mouthwash because I'm such a poorfag.

>>31864404

dude have you actually checked Glorious Nippon's standing navy? There's some HEAVY shit there. They probablyhave the second best ASW Navy behind the Murrikans

>>31864389
The Mark 42 had a 28 round per minute downgraded firing rate. It was capable of hitting 40 rounds per minute originally.

>>31864416

Yes, because its modern. And defense forces =/= navy.

Kinda like how in American terms, "police action" =/= war.

For decades Japan wasn't allowed any significant military forces and Japanese citizens have in the past been subject to Nip guilt over their massacres and atrocities, like how Americans were subject to white guilt over slavery.

>>31863634
Because they don't need them. Because the days of having ships bristling with heavy naval guns has been gone since the invention of the aircraft carrier.

>>31864510

Not entirely true. Ships still need cannons like the army needs artillery.

Having planes do everything would be expensive as fuck.

>>31864510

You're attacking a strawman. Putting an 8"/55 caliber gun on the Burke-class does not reduce missile capacity at all. The destroyers would still have all their current capabilities. The only change would be that they would be better able to fight after expending their supply of missiles.

>>31864548

8 inch shells are historically only used on mid-heavy cruisers. They have never been used on service destroyers.

OP, did you forget about the submarine force? Pretty much any modern destroyer is close enough to equal ground that its usually a fair fight.

File: hurr.jpg (51KB, 454x534px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 454x534px

>>31864385

>A single missile isnt going to do shit.

hurr durr

enjoy your horrific burns suffered in your shit aluminum hulled destroyer.

File: 1412605702461.jpg (371KB, 1000x677px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 1000x677px

>>31863885
>you're fighting a chinese destroyer and you've both ran out of missiles. You both have 5-in guns so both destroyers cruise straight at each other for 24 hours to get within range.
FTFY

>>31864619

1 lone missile is not going to penetrate anti-missile defenses.

>>31864593

Modern destroyers are much, much larger than WW2 destroyers.

>>31864548
>Putting an 8"/55 caliber gun on the Burke-class does not reduce missile capacity at all.
I have to agree with this - the gun just sits on the deck taking up zero space, and all its ammo just appears out of thin air too.

>>31864633

>Both destroyers cruise at each other for 24 hours.

So theyre literally shooting missiles at each other from opposite sides of the Atlantic?

>>31864641
>1 lone missile is not going to penetrate anti-missile defenses.

It will if its skimming the ocean at mach one.

It wont register on radar until its too late.

>>31864662

You can't ocean skim at supersonic speeds. There is too much air resistance at low altitudes for supersonic flight.

>>31864674
that isn't true
you can do a supersonic terminal dash

>>31864674
>There is too much air resistance at low altitudes for supersonic flight.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWGLAAYdbbc

Stop talking out your ass.

>>31864646
I'm not exactly sure what all entails the gun mount on an Arleigh Burke, but they managed it on a Forrest Sherman. Granted it had less than 40% of the ammo capacity of the 5" gun it replaced.

>>31864686
>>31864709

Okay, you can do a short supersonic dash a low-altitude for the last few hundred feet to the target. You still have to do the majority of the trip at high altitude.

>>31864641

True, but older destroyers carried depth charges and used big bullets for everything else.

Now they use missiles for almost everything, and missiles are much, much larger.

The Zumwalt is the closest thing to a modern battleship there is.

>>31864446
Oh? But i thought if ships fired more than one missile it would be some silly macros thing anonymous :^)

And thus my entire point. Yeah ships have multiple missiles, but you are going to run out pretty fast if you are using them as your plan to ward off an invasion force escorted by 30 destroyers, some aircraft carriers, and a hand full of cruise missile attack subs.

Like i said, theres no real war on, so we are just fine undergunning our ships to justify missile advancements. I have never once stated missiles were bad, only that the logistics to support them as the primary anti ship weapon would not hold up in a large scale conflict

>>31864740
>Okay, you can do a short supersonic dash a low-altitude for the last few hundred feet to the target.

No, youre wrong.

Also, you keep moving the goalpost.

>>31864657
No need to advertise you don't know anything, we already knew that when you made the OP.

>>31863634
>Missiles can be shot down by the enemy, whereas the gun cannot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Wolf_(missile)

During trials, the missile performed impressively, successfully intercepting a 114 mm (4.5 in) shell on one occasion.

>>31864835
>successfully intercepting a 114 mm (4.5 in) shell on one occasion.
>on one occasion.

t. BAE

>>31864831

But im not OP.

Also, ship based radar is mostly LOS

>>31864835

Would it be able to stop a 16 inch super heavy shell?

:3

>>31864852

Not an argument.

>>31864862

Only intercepting one shell of many isnt a counter argument?

Looks like we have a neckbeard philosopher here.

File: WNUS_8-55_mk71_Hull_pic.jpg (34KB, 622x496px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 622x496px

>>31864859

No. We're not starting that. As OP I'm restricting this to 8-inch guns only. Nothing larger than that.

>>31864872

No, the point was that you cannot use missiles to intercept shells, however that's been demonstrated as not true.

>>31864859

I don't see why not.

>>31864891
>No, the point was that you cannot use missiles to intercept shells

I never said you could.

>>31864905

Is >>31864835 not you?

>>31864915

No.

You need to work on your language and communications skills.

Your inability to follow more than one conversation and line of thought further demonstrates your autistic tendencies.

>>31864915
Hurr wrong person and wrong argument

>>31864905

Right, so what did you say? Since you've really said nothing of real insight.

>>31863800

Plus, bigger guns fuck with delicate electronics. Refitted Iowas's tomahawks had a bitch of a time after every main gun firing.

>>31864170
>so what's the actual downside?

>less ammunition
>lower rate of fire
>more expensive

simple enough?

>>31863995
Sorry it's trash.
If it has the potential you said it wont be cancelled.


Like the anon said before more Burkes and conventional ships.

8 inch guns were found pretty inadequate compared to 6 inch guns even in ww2. Its not gotten better since.

A 4x heavier mount will cost you something in ships already heavilly loaded.

>>31863762
>There is no way that a 5-in
>is going to have the same penetration as an 8-in
Ask ur mom she has plenty of experience with both

>>31864767
>Like i said, theres no real war on, so we are just fine undergunning our ships to justify missile advancements.

You are so, so stupid to think this is what happens. I think that's why you can't get the logic of why you're wrong into your head.

>>31865030

>8 inch guns were found pretty inadequate compared to 6 inch guns even in ww2.

Proof?

>>31863634
The Mk71 failed to be an substantial improvement over the Mk45. There's no need to revisit it especially when you have AGS short-term and railguns long-term.

>>31866768

>AGS

There are only three Zumwalts and there are no plans to build more as far as I can tell.

>Railguns

Under-age plz leave.

File: hvp23.png (197KB, 1224x715px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 1224x715px

>>31866768
Lets not forget that existing 5in guns will have have greater effectiveness and versatility once HVP comes around.

>>31867016

You could apply the same tech to an 8-in gun though.

>>31866861
>implying railguns aren't the future

Missiles are too expensive to be the solution for everything. Lasers and other DE weapons will be short range for quite some time.

>>31867027
You could, but being that 8'' guns are ballisticly not that much better than the current guns, why?

A gps aided 5'' shell hitting your position directly has the same effect as an 8'' shell, your dead.

>>31867527

An 8" shell will travel further and hit harder. An 8" shell will also be more effective for providing gunfire support for troops against land targets.

>>31867603
8" shell actually does not travel all that much farther.

It hits harder, which is great if you cant land a shell on a point target, but today we can.

$10 trillion jet and it puts sailors in danger

>>31863634
Because 5" guns do AA better.

>>31867527

The only argument for going bigger than 5" as far as I'm concerned is going for 155mm commonality (like the Zumwalt).

Even if in practice the army and navy don't use exactly the same shells, it would provide opportunities for joint projects to improve guided shell range and accuracy, and reduce supply chain costs.

>>31863634
I agree that an 8" gun would allow for greater range, cheaper PGMs, and more effective bombardment.

However, your understanding of naval warfare is William Lind-tier

File: 1471745286617.jpg (41KB, 387x387px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 387x387px

>>31864025
>This post in its entirety

I don't think people appreciate just how heavy the 155mm shells a Zumwalt fires are. They're actually 90% the weight of traditional 8" shells. Now some of that weight is guidance and fins and so forth, but not much, and anyway to compensate it has a slightly heavier bursting charge than even an 8" gun.

Not to mention the barrels are liquid cooled. "Sustained" rates of fire quoted especially for naval guns only consider how quickly a crew can feed ammunition. In reality after a brief time period at that rate of fire, the gun needs to stop and cool down. The 10 RPM for the Zumwalt could be sustained basically until the ammunition is exhausted.

>>31871128
>liquid cooled 155mm barrels

I thought they looked fat for what they fired.
And now I know why.

Thanks anon.

>>31863762
Good thing the world decided to remove all armor from all warships.

Although a larger shell will have a more powerful busting charge.

>>31864835
Cool, now make that shell out of solid metal (not an HE filled tin can which is what 4.5" shells are).
And fire 10 per minute, per barrel.

Is the Sea Wolf / AEGIS / RAAM / CIWS going to save you?

>>31871181
Go ahead and post the naval shell over 4.5" made in the last 100 years that was "solid metal."

>>31865869
Someone really fucked up in designing their 8" shell or gun then.

File: CQQCh8tW8AEidC7.jpg (62KB, 595x496px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 595x496px

>>31864025

>>31867027
And you cut the ammunition quantity by a third. Good job.

>>31871202
.. did you miss the word "make" mate?

>>31863714
Alright, then let's see them shoot down 10 tomahawks at once.

>>31871230
So that would a no, there was no one brilliant enough to use your insightful idea.

>on the cusp of the laser revolution where dumb traditional artillery is going to be knocked out of the sky
>hurr ships need MOAR GUNS

I swear to fucking God if this were 1914 /k/ would be full of shitposters demanding the army needs more lancers.

>>31863634
Why do people make it so clear they have done nothing but read a wikipedia article, but worse, make it clear they ignored the parts that disgreed with them?


>At-sea technical evaluation occurred aboard Hull in 1975, and operational testing followed through 1976. The Operational Test and Evaluation Force determined inaccuracy made the gun operationally unsuitable, and concluded the lightweight 8"/55 was no more effective than the 5"/54 (with Rocket Assisted Projectiles).

File: Z0061-DSC_1091.jpg (495KB, 676x800px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 676x800px

>>31871128
>Not to mention the barrels are liquid cooled.
Didn't know that. Time to read more

>>31864529
>expensive as fuck
So? Why must you fucking idiots keep bringing this up like it's ths most important thing?
They have ALL THE MONEY.

Not to mention, they're more expensive, but they're better, you fucking idiot.

>>31871181

Solid metal 8 inch canisters wouldn't do more than superficial damage and defeat the point of using a gun in the first place.

>>31871128

So, does that mean the 155 is capable of frontally penetrating an MBT and by extension, "muh battleship" armor?

>>31871256

But don't you know anon? Lasers are just science-fiction and stealth, and nothing beats good old-fashioned kinetic weaponry.

We should be following Russia's example and emulating the Kirov, because we all know the RuN are among the most successful navies in history.

>>31871818

Penetration alone doesn't kill ships.

In WW1 and 2 plenty of ships took dozens of hits and damage control kept the ship afloat. In the battle off Samar a destroyer escort took hundreds of hits to sink and the USS Johnston took THREE 14 inch shells to one of its engine rooms.

WW2 destroyers were tin cans, too. The shells passed through them like bullets through paper targets.

However, a 14 inch shell that passed through a destroyer front to back would fuck it all up and destroy it.

Same with tanks.

It depends what ammo you're using and where you hit the target.

>>31863634

The coast guard has more fighting experience than the current US Navy.

>>31863634
I swear people act like torpedoes aren't a fucking thing....

>>31871859

>We should be following Russia's example and emulating the Kirov

The Kirov has a 5-in double-barreled gun. That's it. It's a missile cruiser first and foremost.

>>31871256
Lasers will only be good for short-range defense at sea level. It'll shine in air and space combat.

>>31871128
Makes me wonder how gunboats would do against tanks.

>>31871818
155mm killed some T-72 in direct fire in 2003, but that was more through destroying the structure of the tank then through penetrating the armor and bursting inside.

Battleship fanboys are right in that most anti-ship weapons today are not designed to penetrate armor. What they fail to realize is that designing such weapons is trivial (the US whipped together a super bunker buster in a matter of weeks for the Gulf War) and even 1940s test showed if you take an armor piercing bomb and stick a rocket onto it, you can penetrate any feasible deck armor that could be put on a ship.

>>31872858
In Raytheon's proposals for 5" versions of their Excalibur, they've proposed both laser guided and MMW guided shells, which could kill moving armored vehicles.

>>31872957

>super bunker buster

And Saddam had already built an underground compound that could and DID defeat it, IIRC.

He layered concrete slabs above it to trick bunker busters into thinking they penetrated it and caused them to detonate early.

>>31874218
>On the night of 27/28 February 1991, within hours of the ceasefire, two General Dynamics F-111Fs, loaded with one GBU-28 each, headed towards a target on the outskirts of Baghdad. The al-Taji Airbase, located 15 mi (27.4 km) northwest of the Iraqi capital, had been hit at least three times by GBU-27/Bs from F-117 Nighthawks, "digging up the rose garden".[11] The first GBU-28 was dropped off-target due to target misidentification. The second GBU-28 was a direct hit and penetrated the thick reinforced concrete before detonating, killing everyone inside.

>>31874248

So what happened?

Saddam had an underground palace with layers of concrete between layers is dirt to make bunker busters think they kaboomed inside the fortification.

Tell me. What happened there?

File: 1468911659767.jpg (55KB, 261x646px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 261x646px

>>31863634
>Its a "why don't destroyers have big guns again thread"