Why warships continue to feature guns like this when any real naval engagement will take place at distances too long for it to be useful?
>>30434002
pirates, signaling and close shore support
>>30434002
Pirate boats
>any real naval engagement
Define real. Because if you haven't noticed, warships do a lot of unglamorous boring business that doesn't involve massive fleet-on-fleet missile engagements.
>>30434002
sometimes ya just gotta shoot something, the same reason modern fighter jets still have a gun.
>>30434002
Why would any true Scotsman bother carrying a knife when his sword will do the trick?
>>30434002
Is that slow motion or is that the actual rate of fire? Seems pretty slow.
Because shooting a $15,000 speedboat 300 yards away with a 1.2 million $ Harpoon missile or a 1.41 million $ Tomahawk is stupid.
>>30434077
yeah its slow motion they just rubbed the spent shells with anti-chronotic cheetah blood so they wouldn't be effected by time and gravity
>>30434098
Then just use CIWS like phalanx, goalkeeper, dardo, etc. Why do you need a 3-in gun?
>>30434002
Because you're completely oblivious to anything any Navy has been doing since WW2,
>>30434115
>why do you need
SHALL
>>30434127
>Because you're completely oblivious to anything any Navy has been doing since WW2
This is true. I have no idea what the Navy does. Can you give an example of a time when these guns were actually used?
>>30434115
Because fuck you.
>>30434115
to cover the distance between 300 and 30,000 meters/yards
>>30434002
>Why warships continue to feature guns like this when any real naval engagement will take place at distances too long for it to be useful?
Because gun launched guided missiles.
>>30434077
You must have never seen a CROWS .50 cal fire/ Them bitches are slow but worth it. CROWS absorbs 80% of the recoil, but this does mean taking away the high firing rate.
>>30434115
Wasteful, little armour piercing potential. Sometimes you need to shoot a slightly bigger boat that isn't within optimal parameters to fire a missile at. Think armoured gunboats and corvettes.
>>30434115
for shots across the bow
in boat speak a shot across the bow with a cannon means "go away or i'm pushing your shit in"
Iowa Clas battleships used their main 16 inch guns in every war up to and including the first Gulf War. Those guns could only reach 24 nautical miles. The 155s on the Zumwalts will be able to accurately push 63 nautical miles inland. Guns are absolutely useful on warships.
>>30434002
Shore bombardment.
>>30434077
5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun can shoot off it's ready supply of 20 in about a minute. A shot every three seconds plus some time to traverse to a new aim point. Effective ROF is 16-20/minute. Effective range is about 24 KM.
>>30434077
Well judging by the webm its firing at around 20 rounds per minute, which for a gun of its size (its a Mk45, 5inch, 54 caliber gun or 127mm if you prefer) is pretty good.
The Royal Navy was shelling the fuck out of Gaddafi's forces as recently as 2011 with naval guns from HMS Liverpool.
Someone in Gaddafi's army thought it was a smart idea to fire an unguided missile inaccurately at a warship while sitting in a big convoy within its naval gun range.
You can guess how that went for them.
>>30434263
>We beat a small weak African army
>>30434115
A CIWS can't do this (skip to 0:15 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rldn9Hvzih4).
>>30434297
....why is this relevant to his comment? It sounds like you think he was trying to brag, but he was just relaying information with a humorous element.
Lighten up.
Didn't a British naval gun bag an anti-ship missile sometime ~recent~?
Not sure if it was during the Falklands or Gulf War 1
>>30434115
Because sometime you just need to blow up someone cheaply. Phalanx CIWS is actually expensive and is really intended to shoot LOS flying targets only. In close small non flying targets are also better shot up with small arms and MGs. But 300 yards away and up a naval gun system can really show how much you care. (*cough* elevation −15° to +65° )
>>30434297
And that is what most naval ships with these guns are doing right now, fighting rafts and bullshit.
>>30434263
HAH! Moral of Story: Don't shoot at someone with bigger guns if you cannot finish it with your first shot.
I know a former XO of the Liverpool. I will have to ask him about this. He has been out the RN for while but he might of heard about this.
>>30434263
Good pic, from a personal collection or a official one?
>>30434002
>Why warships continue to feature guns like this when any real naval engagement will take place at distances too long for it to be useful?
How about it's use as AAA? That's pretty goddamn useful. Any extra AShM protection is damn fine by me. Also, not wasting an SM-2ER/SM-6/LRASM on a pirate skiff is also pretty nifty.
>>30434298
It totally could.
C-RAM already uses MPT-SD, which includes a HE element and self-destructs after a set time. If you really wanted to, not difficult to use more explosive filler.
>>30434002
The Coast Guard has seen more gunnery action than any current active Navy ships except for Old Ironsides.
>>30434297
Every bit of practice helps.
>>30434002
Because there's a fuckload of targets that a missile would be wasted on, or just not be able to hit with good effect.
Guns do all of the work when it comes to policing national waters, and shore bombardment with guns is still a thing, even if niche.
>>30434297
And if the chinese ever escalated their actions in the chinese sea, you'll want some guns against these.
>>30434132
NOT
>>30434002
Gotta shoot refugees with something.
>>30434179
With modern munitions, I'm sure the Iowas probably have something closer to 50 NM now, but that's neither here nor there.
>>30435671
Why?
All they're going to do is bumrush you until they're within AShM range and fuck off. Guns won't do much.
I know they operate in the littorals as well, but good luck getting rounds on target before they've launched almost all their shit.
>>30435671
>Using guns against a missile boat
>>30434002
>>30434002
How are guns like these aimed, and how accurate are they? Plz don't just say "computers", obviously that's factor, but say if a ship was close enough could they actually aim for a certain part of the ship, like the bridge or engine? Also what's the limitation on how rough waters can be and still aim accurately compensating for waves? Is there any sort of sight/camera/whatever that factors into aiming?
>I know nothing of these things, if you opt to berate me for being lazy, rather than typing out a quick explanation, provide a link maybe?
>>30437420
Waves wouldnt be that big of an issue, considering tanks can fire on the move over rough ground with accuracy.
I assume it uses the same sort of system, laser rangefinder and a ballistic computer with a stabilized gun.
>>30434297
And had a delightful time of it. Make up your mind, do you want us to trash inferior military or not?
>>30434186
>bombarding
>with a single 3-5 inch gun
Pick one
>>30435864
>no useing lrlap Sprial 2 against missle boats.
>>30437420
math and more math
>>30437420
01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110010 01100101 01110100 01100001 01110010 01100100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01101111 01110010 00100000 01110111 01101000 01100001 01110100 00111111
>>30437844
With a side of math.
You have to lernate you some number to shoot them guns.
>>30437821
NIGGERS
>>30437962
>You have to lernate you some number to shoot them guns.
>>30434002
I'm geeking out at the prospect of some guy throwing spent shells outta that flap above the barrel.
You think he ever gets tired and stovepipes the bitch from limpwristing the toss?
>>30437981
Must be a marine.
>>30434297
>beat a small weak army
Literally what the US has been doing for the last 60 years, how are you surprised the bongs do it too
>>30437420
Radar.
And fucking computers.
>>30434002
Because maybe you don't want to fire a million dollar cruise missile at some shitty little pirate ship.
