Tour of Navy's newest destroyer

[grrl]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

destroyers and cruisers work just as well to support landing operations. the italian campaign didn't have a single battleship in it, iirc. and there were many many landings conducted there. i don't think there were modern battleships supporting the africa campaign or normandy invasion either

Correct, no modern battleships were used at Normandy. From wiki:


Seven battleships took part: four British and three US:

* USS Arkansas, BB-33, eastern Omaha Beach (Wyoming class, 26,100 tons, main armament: 12 - 12"/50 cal. guns) primarily in support of the US 29th Infantry Division.

* USS Texas, BB-35, western Omaha Beach (New York class, 27,000 tons, main armament: 10 - 14"/45 cal. guns, Flagship of Rear Admiral C.F. Bryant) primarily in support of the US 1st Infantry Division.

* USS Nevada, BB-36, Utah Beach (damaged and beached to avoid sinking at Pearl Harbor, Nevada class, 29,000 tons, main armament: 10 - 14"/45 cal. guns).

* HMS Nelson (1925, Nelson class, 38,000 tons, main armament: 9 - 16 inch guns). Held in reserve until June 10th.

* HMS Ramillies (1915, Revenge class, 33,500 tons, main armament: 8 - 15"/42 cal. guns).

* HMS Rodney (1925, Nelson class, 38,000 tons, main armament: 9 - 16 inch guns).

* HMS Warspite (1913, Queen Elizabeth class, 35,000 tons, main armament 8 - 15"/42 cal. guns).

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: ConstipatedVigilante

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
destrektor:

railguns have limited use because they require insane amounts of energy and can only take out very specific areas (direct damage vs. area of effect)

it's great for when you're fighting another ship, but terrible if you want infantry support.


to date, no ship is able to replicate the offshore firepower of the iowa class battleships.

too bad battleships were obsolete before they were ever really used in war.

?? Battleship bombardment was very useful in the pacific theater.

destroyers and cruisers work just as well to support landing operations. the italian campaign didn't have a single battleship in it, iirc. and there were many many landings conducted there. i don't think there were modern battleships supporting the africa campaign or normandy invasion either

WHAT??? Do you realize exactly how much battleship support there was during the normandy landings?

Warships provided supporting fire for the land forces. During Neptune, it was given a high importance, using ships from battleships to destroyers and landing craft. For example, the Canadians at Juno beach had fire support many times greater than they had had for the Dieppe Raid in 1942. The old battleships HMS Ramillies and Warspite and the monitor HMS Roberts were used to suppress shore batteries east of the Orne; cruisers targeted shore batteries at Ver-sur-Mer and Moulineaux; eleven destroyers for local fire support. In addition, there were modified landing-craft: eight "Landing Craft Gun", each with two 4.7-inch guns; four "Landing Craft Support" with automatic cannon; eight Landing Craft Tank (Rocket), each with a single salvo of 1,100 5-inch rockets; eight Landing Craft Assault (Hedgerow), each with twenty-four bombs intended to detonate beach mines prematurely. Twenty-four Landing Craft Tank carried Priest self-propelled howitzers which also fired while they were on the run-in to the beach. Similar arrangements existed at other beaches. Fire support went beyond the suppression of shore defences overlooking landing beaches and was also used to break up enemy concentrations as the troops moved inland. This was particularly noted in German reports: Field-Marshall Gerd von Rundstedt reported that ... The enemy had deployed very strong Naval forces off the shores of the bridgehead. These can be used as quickly mobile, constantly available artillery, at points where they are necessary as defence against our attacks or as support for enemy attacks. During the day their fire is skillfully directed by . . . plane observers, and by advanced ground fire spotters. Because of the high rapid-fire capacity of Naval guns they play an important part in the battle within their range. The movement of tanks by day, in open country, within the range of these naval guns is hardly possible.

Edit- I saw the update, there weren't any modern battleships, but they were still crucial to the landings and post landing operations.

Also, they were used extensively in the pacific campaign. Islands are pretty easy targets. So they just raked the entire surface in BS fire before they landed. We're talking bombardments lasting for days.

But railguns do have the ability to fire onto land, as the sheer energy from impact would definitely take out key buildings, bunkers, or even severely effect troops in the immediate impact region. So while it is a direct damage weapon system, an interview with some researchers on it described it as having potential area of effect capabilities. I cannot say how - it might just be from the pure energy from a Mach 3-7 piece of metal striking a surface and coming to a dead stop. Surely the impact would be intense and large. But possibly they are looking to include some kind of explosive warhead safely contained within the metal body, but not sure if they could do that as the safety would be key because any issue could cause complete destruction of the weapon system.

But yes, that is the reason they are taking awhile to develop. Energy requirements are brutal, I realize that. The main effort right now to figuring out a way to efficiently provide the necessary energy.

The big problem is that a rail gun will be restricted to line of sight fire, so it's effective range will be very short in many cases. Not what you want from such a big expensive weapon. I'd worry about the rate of fire as well.

Physics? Just aim it higher and do some calculations to get it to go further. Considering that our computers are damn good, I wouldn't be surprised if we could hit targets over the horizon.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Physics? Just aim it higher and do some calculations to get it to go further. Considering that our computers are damn good, I wouldn't be surprised if we could hit targets over the horizon.

That works if terminal velocity is as high as muzzle velocity, or for explosive weapons that don't rely on kinetic energy for damage. On a rail gun, I believe the muzzle velocity is much higher than terminal velocity and arcing the shots would result in a huge loss of power.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: tenshodo13

Physics? Just aim it higher and do some calculations to get it to go further. Considering that our computers are damn good, I wouldn't be surprised if we could hit targets over the horizon.

That works if terminal velocity is as high as muzzle velocity, or for explosive weapons that don't rely on kinetic energy for damage. On a rail gun, I believe the muzzle velocity is much higher than terminal velocity and arcing the shots would result in a huge loss of power.

Well, considering the Navy is hard at work on projectiles for soft targets, I think they've figured out a way to hit things on an arc without sacrificing too much power.

 

[judasmachine]

I don't think we need a navy, the ships are too easy to sink and far too expensive.


Seriously though, wish I could be there to see it.