Anybody up to speed with naval gunnery?

[Ozexpatriate]

While normally I would insist that anyone who ignores history is in peril of being doomed to repeat it, I would suggest that historical notions of gunnery are entirely irrelevant in a world of contemporary computer guided naval artillery. Whatever happened at Trafalgar, Jutland or the pursuit of the Bismarck is ancient history relative to contemporary computer-assisted naval artillery.

 

My concerns today are related to whether the 'ship killer' missiles available to some Asian nations are as lethal as they are construed to be.

[Michael Hodgson]

Who needs a guided missile to stop shipping?

All you need is a misguided canal pilot.

[PenrithBeacon]

11 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I think the normal procedure was to go to broadsides once they had found the range but obviously you can't fire broadsides in a stern chase.

 

...

True you can't fire broadsides in a stern chase, but salvos are still possible.

[alastairq]

Unless one has a large warship with all main armament  in a forward position?

[PenrithBeacon]

23 minutes ago, alastairq said:

Unless one has a large warship with all main armament  in a forward position?

I'm by no means an expert, just an interested observer, but I don't think that ever happened. Having said that, IIRC Marder does mention that such a configuration was mooted by the RN on the grounds that the RN always attacked and never ran away! Common sense prevailed. 

[62613]

5 minutes ago, PenrithBeacon said:

I'm by no means an expert, just an interested observer, but I don't think that ever happened. Having said that, IIRC Marder does mention that such a configuration was mooted by the RN on the grounds that the RN always attacked and never ran away! Common sense prevailed. 

HMS Nelson and Rodney had all their main armament forward; the original design from which they were cobbled together had the rear turret not far aft of midships. It wouldn't have been able to fire directly astern.

[The Stationmaster]

36 minutes ago, alastairq said:

Unless one has a large warship with all main armament  in a forward position?

The 'Nelsons' of course had exactly that arrangement with all three triple 16" turrets for'ard of the superstructure. However only the centre turretret was elevated above the other two so all three could only fire at the same time on the beam.  A similar arrangement was used on a number of Japanese heavy cruiser classes and on at least one Jpanese battlship class.

[admiles]

2 hours ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Who needs a guided missile to stop shipping?

All you need is a misguided canal pilot.

 

"Allegedly".......

[alastairq]

I suspect the thinking behind the 'all forrard' main batteries was to provide more concentrated broadsides?  Or, better 'shore' support?

 

The reference above to RADAR- assisted fire control brought to my mind a  book I recently re-read.

The IJN had very little in the way of effective RADAR fire control. Certainly in the later years when compared to the USN.

Yet, in many Pacific mix-ups, the IJN managed to be effective.

The IJN also appeared to have far superior torpedo technology  compared to the RN and USN...with effective ranges being way beyond that of the USN torpedoes.

 

Of course, aircraft proved to be the capital ships' undoing.  In all navies.

 

I do wonder which method of delivery was the more effective?

Dive bombing?

Or aerial torpedo attack?

 

[slow8dirty]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

I suspect the thinking behind the 'all forrard' main batteries was to provide more concentrated broadsides?  Or, better 'shore' support?

I believe it was to aid in reducing the length of the armoured 'citadel' and so help reduce overall weight, thus complying with the Washington treaty. This had a major impact on designs of the time. Compliance with same was often responsible for some of the more eyebrow raising design solutions. As was the blatant non-compliance of some of the signatories

Edited May 10, 2021 by slow8dirty
Too many thus's

[J. S. Bach]

2 hours ago, alastairq said:

 ...snip...

I do wonder which method of delivery was the more effective?

Dive bombing?

Or aerial torpedo attack?

 

Dive bombing.

[Tankerman]

17 hours ago, PenrithBeacon said:

Presumably that shell was one of a salvo ? I gather, from naval history books, that Dreadnought battleships and their successors usually fired their main armament in salvos, the better to ensure a hit.

 I have been told by some who served on battleships, that salvos were the normal method of firing the larger guns, 12 inch bore and above. This was for two reasons, firstly in order to reduce the vibration and stress on the ships hull and secondly to obtain a quicker correction of the fall of shot. However if, as at Jutland, the opposing fleet was at a comparatively short range then full broadsides were used to cause the maximum damage.

 

Concerning the use of broadsides I was told by one of the leckys when at Falmouth docks, who was a junior seaman on the Nelson, 9 x 16 inch guns in three triple turrets, was going to fire a broadside, spare hands were distributed throughout the ship. They carried boxes of electric lamps as the terrible vibration from the guns caused the lamps to shatter. 

[62613]

On 10/05/2021 at 12:54, The Stationmaster said:

The 'Nelsons' of course had exactly that arrangement with all three triple 16" turrets for'ard of the superstructure. However only the centre turretret was elevated above the other two so all three could only fire at the same time on the beam.  A similar arrangement was used on a number of Japanese heavy cruiser classes and on at least one Jpanese battlship class.

Also, the French Dunkerque (8 x 13") and Richelieu (8 x 15") classes

Edited May 12, 2021 by 62613

[lapford34102]

8 hours ago, alastairq said:

The IJN had very little in the way of effective RADAR fire control. Certainly in the later years when compared to the USN.

Yet, in many Pacific mix-ups, the IJN managed to be effective.

The IJN also appeared to have far superior torpedo technology  compared to the RN and USN...with effective ranges being way beyond that of the USN torpedoes.

The IJN were very well trained in night (and day) fighting when it came to ship on ship engagement, Jave Sea, Gudalcanal campaign. And their torpedo technology was the most advanced of any - "Long Lance" torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_93_torpedo.

However they didn't have it all their own way, The battleship USS Washington "the only American battleship during World War II to sink an enemy battleship in a "one on one" gunfight" used radar very effectively.

The sections on Naval Battle of Gudalcanal are worth a few minutes read.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Washington_(BB-56)#Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willis_Augustus_Lee#Naval_Battle_of_Guadalcanal

 

Stu

[Chris hndrsn]

On 09/05/2021 at 17:50, Siberian Snooper said:

The range of our 4.5 inch guns on the type 21s was around 8 miles. They and all subsequent guns are self loading and with similar rates of fire.

 

There must be one helluva lot of propellant to lob a shell 50 miles, unless it's a missile.

 

 

 Rocket assisted projectiles for land artillery have been around for a while

[Chris hndrsn]

9 minutes ago, Chris hndrsn said:

 Rocket assisted projectiles for land artillery have been around for a while

Such as:

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/hyper-velocity-projectile-hvp

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/long-range-precision-guidance-kit

https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/excalibur--tell-the-round-where-to-go-ndash-and-it-goes-there

[rob D2]

Crickey , this has become reminiscences of " sink the Bismarck “

[J. S. Bach]

OK: