Gun Turrets and Modern Naval Warfare

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Warships also have to play support roles related to shore bombardment where rates of fire are important.

Are we not past the days of shore bombardment? (at least with these big turrets?) Precision airstrikes are far better.

reply to post by SteveR


I'm still confused by your use of the term 'turret'.
Turrets don't bombard shorelines, or do anything else. They are weapon mountings, not weapons in and of themselves. You seem to be using the term to refer to the guns mounted in the turret (and specifically, to large naval artillery like the 16" rifle). Could you please clarify your terms?

I'm asking for clarification because, while it may seem like a hair-splitting difference, it's actually a rather profound one. Discussing the viability of turrets (in the sense of weapon mountings) in modern warships is one subject (I personally prefer the vertical-launch / cellular system to a turreted or conventional launching system, just to get my two cents in), while a discussion of the viability of large artillery in modern warships is quite another.

To answer the question I *think* you're asking (one of the reasons I'm asking for clarification...I have trouble reading my own mind, never mind someone else's! :-D ). it's true that air strikes and precision guided munitions have obviated the need for the kind of beach-moving barrage fire used in World War II. On the other hand, smaller guns (like the 5" guns still used on US ships) are still handy to use on concentrations of troops, light vehicles, and other targets of opportunity that may be too numerous to engage with expensive missiles, or may show up when your aircraft are out of bombs.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
reply to post by Tonka

 

As for keeping one of the ships in service, why? One ship (regardless of what type of ship we're discussing) is probably not going to be available when you need it...it will be training crews, or undergoing refit / maintenance, or it will be busy somewhere else. Murphy's Law always gets its licks in. Even if it's available for the current crisis, the battleship doesn't do anything that other ships and / or aircraft can't do more effectively. A 5" gun can kill any armored vehicle on Earth, and a salvo of 5" can ruin an entire unit of infantry.

Lol you missunderstood me again!

You dont have to keep them in service! I said keep one on the naval registar so its available if needed. As long as its on the registar it can stay out of commision at a naval reserve facility fully sealed up and fitted out with de-humidifiers to keep her in a fit state for possible return to limited service if the need arose, the cost of keeping say New Jersey in this state is rather minimal considering the value she could lend if needed, theres a lot of ships at these reserve facilitys being given this treatment that should be scrapped, why not one more eh? At least New Jersey could offer something others cant. A return to service could be accomplished inside a 120 day period if the need was desperate enough, as I said even if she had to be towed and used as nothing more than a "Gun Barge" at least the capability would be there. Crew wise I cant remember there decommisioning dates off hand but I know Missouri was in the Persian Gulf in 91 so the experience to operate these ships is still there at least for another decade or so with no cost associated to that experience. The other bonus with these boats is she could be risked with impunity, if she were to be sunk nobody would be terribly devastated. Although it does raise an interesting question, how effective do you think a modern sea skimming missile would be against that belt armour!!

If 5 Inch gun platforms can carry out the same role then why are the Marines jumping up and down and why did they desperately try to intercede to keep at least one of these boats from being stricken?
They have nothing else to gain from requesting that one old battlewagon not be stricken and be kept in its reserve status.

Theory of relative gun/missile capabilitys are wonderful concepts, until your the poor bastard needing fire support, I know what guns I would want backing me up.

Speaking of books as I read in a previous post you mentioned HMS Agincourt so I gather your a Battleship/Artillery Buff, if you havn't already
read it I definitely recommend you get a copy of Richard Bryers Battleships Of The World 1905-1970. Covers every boat from Dreadnought to Vanguard. One of the best books I've read on the subject.

Breyer's book is a good one...I'm on my second copy, having worn one out during my university days. It's a good overview, but he covers too much in one book to go into great detail on any one ship, or on the evolution of the individual designs (at least IMO). For detail, I still like Friedman's work, or Garzke and Dulin's. The "Anatomy of the Ship" books are also good, if you need data on specific ships (Hood, Warspite, Fuso, Yamato, and Bismarck).

As to keeping a battleship in Category B reserve, most of my problems still exist. You're still going to need to maintain crew proficiency, and even sixteen years ago that wasn't easy. As for which guns I'd want covering me if I were on a hostile beach, I'd settle for the 5", and solid tactical air support. I'll do some digging...somewhere among the stuff I've collected for essay writing and model building, I've got a firing plot for one of the Iowas from a 1980-something exercise. Her 16" gun impacts are scattered over an area bigger than the Pentagon. That's a bit too wild for me to feel safe on the same beach.

I'm also curious about when the Marines started raising so much Gehenna on behalf of the battleships. The last high level comment I heard was the issuing of a set of USMC requirements for naval surface fire support. The battleships didn't come close to meeting them. I'm also wondering where the Marines are going to need battleship gunfire support, given that current doctrine seems to be to avoid contesting beachheads in favor of a deep-projection scheme that pushes the initial battle inland using VTOL transport. Details and discussions can be found in various articles in "Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute" between 2003-2005.

reply to post by Brother Stormhammer


Lol, Im still on my first copy!! I pull it out every few years and read it cover to cover, the only book I've ever done this with, I think i've read it like 20 times, something about it keeps me comin back! You are right though it is more of a general overview of every class and lacks a lot of technical detail as a result.

The issues regarding the marines I read about a while ago just before the ships were stricken. I honestly cant remember where I read this thats why I asked if anyone else could confirm.

Its refreshing to talk with someone who actually knows something about a subject. Im fairly new to the forum thing and only stumbled on this through a google. From what I've read of other posts\posters most of them dribble S@#T with little or no factual argument to back up claims.
Had one the other day telling me he worked on ship reactor plants, his level of basic grammar/sentence structure told me otherwise!

Might start me first thread I think you'll know it when you see it.
Also although not a technical work by any means but have you read
Salvo by Bernard Edwards, another rather enjoyable book.

When I first read this I thought the navy should move to 155mm instead of 5in or 4.5in as this would allow the use of the work done to improve precision on land systems.

Now I've come across this link I thought I would actually post my thought.

155MM Study Looks To Pack More Punch Into The Royal Navy's Fleet

www.baesystems.com...

my links never work first time

[edit on 31-12-2007 by deckard83]

Years ago I had the opportunity to go on board a CGN 41 which was in for repairs. During a shock test the gun mounts on the 5 inch gun failed..bolts broke or sheared off. They had apparrently used bolts to hard in make up and hence with not sufficient give in the metal composition.

Walking over to the turrent I got a surprise. Up to this time I was under the illusion that these turrents were manned. When I looked into the access door there was only mechanics and plumbing..lots of plumbing. Metal braided high pressure hoses. No room whatsoever for a human. This was when I realized that these turrents were automated.
This was the last of the Nuclear Cruisers built in this country. I do believe that these guns are still in service on other ships ..surely with updates made to them and the firing/control systems.
Though it has been years now since this event, as I recall I was also surprised to find that the access door was some kind of fiberglass composite door.

Also in this shipyard many years ago was a very heavy lift crane...stationary whirler crane. This crane had a multiple wire/pulley heavy lift block on it..and a very short stocky boom. I have only seen this crane used one time before it was dismantled.
What the olde timers told me was that this crane was used for installing the heavy turrents on the battle ships they were building back in those days of olde. I did not know until talking to them that these guns were a whole assembly with several levels ...... loaded into a hole running down into the hulls of these ships. The barrels were installed later..but the turrent assembly was what was loaded with this heavy lift crane. It was very intresting to hear these olde timers tell these stories.
There is still a building in this yard which to this very day is called the "Turrent Shop" where these turrents were assembled prior to being moved under this olde crane for installation.

I believe also that Brother Strothammer is correct in that the skills to rebarrel or resleeve these olde guns is a dying art or knowlege. Not many around anymore skilled in this art. I also understand that the sleeves are still in storage somewhere as is the olde ammo.

The USS Wisconson is ported across the bay from me in Norfolk. A very intresting tour. The last time I went ..she was still on the registers as a ship of the line with areas closed off to the public and under enviornmental preservation. I believe these olde BBs have been retired as of today.

I have also seen the USS North Carolina down in Willimington bay. Also a very intresting tour..especially in those gun turrents.
The most startling thing I noted in these olde WW2 vintage battleship museums is how the men must have suffered in these turrents under battle stations/combat. By this I mean before the advent of enviornmental controls we so take for granted today. I recall going into one of the 5 inch double gun turrents or are they 3 inch guns in those days?? Well nevertheless moving air..was an olde black metal fan bolted sideways on the inside of the turrent. It must have been horrid standing duty/watchs in the hot Pacific Ocean.

I agree with many of the posters in that the days of these olde battleships is over as gun platforms. Merely the advent of precision guided munitions from aircraft has changed this field.
Also while beach assaults are not obselete ..I believe today the object is often met with high mobility ..helicopters and such...often landing behind a enemy position ...not direct assaults up the beach so to speak. You know..pee diddle diddle ..right up the middle?? Not so much today but high mobility and going around hard obsticles and getting behind the enemy and letting air power deal with such obsticles. This tactic too was obvioius in Iraq. I think this was also Douglas McArthurs tack as much as possible in his island campaigns. Land in the less defended areas and get ashore..behind he enemy. Not high casualtys in heavily defended areas...but get your people and supplies ashore.
Though they still train for these beach assaults I believe this type of right up the middle tactic is going out of date.

If I am understanding correctly the modern tactic today is as much as possible ..they are moving so fast ...it is like crap through a goose in these assaults..while the enemy cannot even get off the porta potty.
One of the very devout dogmas here seems to be..not to get bogged down. Keep moving towrds the objective.

No....I dont think gun turrents will be going out of style..but more to tailored uses. I also think that many of the posters are correct in their references to economy..of the turrented rifle. I also understand that there are advances taking place in the types of ammunition available for these guns.
Even guided munitions. This should keep these types of weapons in use for the forseeable future.

No I dont think gun turrents will be obselete..I think they will be around for some time. They will just adapt as have so many inventions.

Thanks,
Orangetom

reply to post by Tonka


Tonka,

Concerning this concept. As refering to this thread posted below the quote.

Its refreshing to talk with someone who actually knows something about a subject. Im fairly new to the forum thing and only stumbled on this through a google. From what I've read of other posts\posters most of them dribble S@#T with little or no factual argument to back up claims.
Had one the other day telling me he worked on ship reactor plants, his level of basic grammar/sentence structure told me otherwise!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and replied to by this thread here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

With these threads in mind and in view also of your thread above on this board..I will clue you into the error or missing link of your thread on the firing of torpedos from a submarine.

I know of four methods for firing torpedos from torpedo tubes. Not two as you posted. The two you posted are valid and I have worked on the water ram system you describe as being the more common system today.

You seem to put a very high value on academic excellence and research ..sources. No problem here. It is just that much in this field (submarines) is not for public consumption. Nor found on the web....and for good reason.
Since you are wont to take this tack on academic excellence and research you will have no problem finding out or discovering the other two methods. I look foreward to you posting your research results and sources.

Concerning nuclear work. I will tell you since you obviously do not know..one of the chief characteristics of being able to do or perform nuclear work is not high academic excellence...it is being able to follow instructions...to the letter. This is a dicipline. The other characteristic not told to the public and which you will not find in textbooks and reserach, is a certain level of disposability and expendability. It is not fashionable to speak of these things...no matter how true. Translate that PC.
If you have ever had to work a job in a area of both high radiation and contamination ..you will know of what I speak. You follow a strict protocol here...both for your safety and those around you. Getting crapped out and haveing to be scrubbed or your outer skin level removed if it is to high a level of contamination is not pleasant..nor internal contamination.
YOu learn instinctively to watch the radiological technicians taking readings/maps daily, doing an exercise called "walknig the dog." They will put thier probe on a length of string or a pole so that they can take readings comfortably and in certain areas at a distance from the radiated/contaminated sources. You watch carefully for these areas in which they take extensive readings. Meaning be much more careful if you must work or transit through these areas. This means dicipline/awareness.
You pay attention..dicipline in frisking out of an area. Also your personal dosimetry(electronic nowdays) and your TLD (Thermo illuminesent dosimetry)Usually nothing happens..all proceeds normally. It is the abnormal frisks which spook you and raise your alarm level as well as others. Experience a few of these...whether you yourself or someone you know. It is what we call a pucker factor. After all we dont want to be carrying this "crap" home to our familys. You don't learn this so intimately and personally in research or through academia.
You and others would be surprised to know what ordianry items would set off a frisker...such as bannanas. Yes bannanas from the stores. Other items of daily use too.

I know people with high academic excellence. I would not trust them with my life and safety...most of them that is. Being able to accomplish a task is not the same as researching it or academia. I have had many opportunitys to have this fact verified to my satisfaction both in nuclear and non nuclear work. Remember ..school is out here. Give some of these academics and researchers a wrench and many will get you killed or maimed for life on these jobs.
I am selective about the person/persons working with me on certain hazardous jobs. One would be foolish not to be selective. Academics and research alone is not getting it here. I have found it sometimes necessary to enforce this on the jobs I work. I have told the boss that I dont want so and so working with me..period.

Remember too..in the field of pilots..military pilots..they are of sorts academics..men and women of letters. Someone makes the decision as to when, how, and where these people are expendable and disposable. After all..when delivering a nuclear device..how expendable and disposable is this person of letters..especially once the device is delivered. This decision, expendabilty and disposability, has been made by someone since the founding of this nation. At that moment school is out. For those who must make these expendable/disposable decisions..guess what Tonka...school too is out.
How about a naval officer...expendable and disposable?? How about a whole ship or aircraft carrier?? Submarine???
There are people out here reading this and other threads..who know this is not just an academic exercise or research...when it comes to the rubber meeting the road. It is quite real.

I was at one time a member of a towed field artillery unit. 155mm towed artillery...on a gun crew. One day out on the range we had loaded the howitzer and were waiting for the command to fire. To our surprise the fire mission was called off. We were instructed to unprime the lock , open the breech remove the powder charge, (powder bags) deposit this charge in the powder pit, lower the gun and then punch the shell out of the barrel.

Guess what Tonka...school is out here!!

Talk about a conversation breaking right down. Everyone was like..speechless. We all knew the horror stories of accidents which had happened. Albeit ..they were rare but they were also recorded as having occured. I was the guy who had installed the point detonation fuse in the 155mm shell and tightened it up. None of us had ever performed this operation. Up to that very moment we had always fired the projectile down range.
We assembled the cleaing rod and installed the cone on the end lowered the barrel and tapped the round out of the barrel onto the loading tray. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief. No one was thinking about school, research or adacemia here. I can gaurantee you that for a fact. Most of us were thinking of going to relieve ourselves and shortly did so.

None of these tales makes me or anyone involved better than another person. Hardly. It makes us very different in that we know when school and academia is out and the rubber meets the road.

Those on this board and reading this thread who have, in the course of thier lives, found themselves in similar situations know instinctively of what I speak.

Academia and research is just academia and research. It is nice but it is not where the rubber meets the road.

I felt that you and others here would like to know this. To those of you who do instinctively know.....I salute you!!

Orangetom



[edit on 2-1-2008 by orangetom1999]

[edit on 2-1-2008 by orangetom1999]