For Navy gunnery types

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Didn't a UK Type 42 shoot down a Styx heading for one of our battleships during Gulf War I? The idea of naval gunfire support was the reason for the Zumwalts and that hasn't gone well.

I do wonder if one 57 mm gun can handle multiple small craft attacks. They are forward mounted only. That seems standard on most ships nowadays. Yes, there are smaller 25 mm and 50 BMGs in other locations.

The Israelis have a torpedo carrying drone. Modern (or WWII) torpedoes certainly outrange the smaller guns.

[Nightvisionary]

Didn't a UK Type 42 shoot down a Styx heading for one of our battleships during Gulf War I? The idea of naval gunfire support was the reason for the Zumwalts and that hasn't gone well.

I do wonder if one 57 mm gun can handle multiple small craft attacks. They are forward mounted only. That seems standard on most ships nowadays. Yes, there are smaller 25 mm and 50 BMGs in other locations.

The Israelis have a torpedo carrying drone. Modern (or WWII) torpedoes certainly outrange the smaller guns.

I don't recall that but it certainly may have happened. I recall a reported missile inbound on the USS Wisconsin, being told to brace for shock, then hearing the CIWS fire. My memory was it was an unannounced drill but my executive officer who commanded one of the 5/38 gun directors told us many years later that it actually happened and the missile was destroyed. The small boat fast attack threat has been around since the late 19th century so it's not a new concept nor are smaller caliber guns to counter such threats. We had M2 50 caliber MG's and M72 LAW rockets while the Missouri had 25MM Bushmasters to counter potential threats from Iraqi Naval Commandos as well as the Iranians who got quite close as we transited the Straight or Hormuz.

[Bergeron]

The most recent open source document I could find on Naval Gunnery with analysis and performance specs discussed was this thesis from the Joint Advanced Warfare School:

https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...d_DDG-1000.pdf

In perhaps unsurprising fashion, larger calibers produce larger ranges. The watering-down of theZumwalts has been difficult to understand. An odd feature of the class that I’ve seen mentioned is how it is capable of sinking itself more deeply into the water for greater stability during gunfire. I wonder how useful or necessary is that capability.

The Zumwalt’s Advanced Gun System was good for a claimed 60 miles, but despite being a common 155mm bore diameter, the entire system was (is?) only operable with its unique ammunition, which the shrinking of the DDG-1000 class to three ships and concurrent shrinking of the ammo buys, caused the price-per-round to reach Tomahawk levels. And a Tomahawk can go for a thousand miles, and the AGS ammo could only hit stationary targets, and was only designed for land targets.

To my unwashed civilian eyes, the trade from missiles to guns is to trade range (missiles) for ammo capacity (guns). If shooting over the horizon is desired, then some form of engage-on-remote will be required, and guidance will be needed for the gun ammunition, eliminating the potential price advantage of guns.

I recall that Gerald Bull’s old HARP project used two 16” 50 caliber barrels joined together into a 16” 100 caliber barrel, and achieved suborbital flight. NAMMO’s also marketing 155mm ramjet guided artillery projos.

[Borderland]

The 57mm is a 5.56 Nato round for ships.

You don't really need anything else until you do.