# educate me please on navy guns



## FormerHorseGuard (24 Jun 2021)

Type 45 destroyer armed with BAE 4.5 inch Mk 8 naval gun. How much damage could it do to another destroyer? I am just curious. I realize they use the missiles to take out other ships at longer ranges than naval gun fire.
Could they do still beach landings with navy gun fire or those days over?


----------



## dimsum (24 Jun 2021)

If it got to the point of a ship-to-ship gunfight, it's pretty dire.  That being said, modern warships don't really have much (if any) armour so shells so would just punch right through.  Same with missiles.  

However, guns/missiles might cripple, but not sink, the ship.  The best way to sink a ship is through a torpedo - explode below the hull and "break its back".  The ship breaks in two and sinks.  

As for NGS (Naval Gunfire Support)...sure?  Probably a larger calibre (like a 5') is better, but if the ship is in gun range of the shore target, it's within range of anti-ship missiles from shore batteries.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Jun 2021)

It would suck to be up against a Russian cruisers who can fire their 130mm guns out to 23km in surface mode. I suspect they have some armour.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Jun 2021)

FormerHorseGuard said:


> Type 45 destroyer armed with BAE 4.5 inch Mk 8 naval gun. How much damage could it do to another destroyer? I am just curious. I realize they use the missiles to take out other ships at longer ranges than naval gun fire.
> Could they do still beach landings with navy gun fire or those days over?



The Type 42s had one 4.5in gun, fires 25 rds/ min I believe. They did great work during the Falklands War. Mates of mine who were there said it was like having a giant machine gun in direct support, and helped the ground forces win some really tough battles.


Under Fire: The Falklands War and the Revival of Naval Gunfire Support

The reputation of naval gunfire support (NGS) has waxed and waned since the initial development of the capability. At times, NGS has been considered to have been of supreme importance. At others, it has been viewed as worthless. By the end of the 1970s, there was burgeoning opinion in some circles that NGS had become obsolete. Operation Corporate – the Falklands War – demonstrated that reports of the demise of NGS had been greatly exaggerated.




			https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/portal/files/6920517/Under_Fire_Post_Print.pdf


----------



## dimsum (25 Jun 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> The Type 42s had one 4.5in gun, fires 25 rds/ min I believe. They did great work during the Falklands War. Mates of mine who were there said it was like having a giant machine gun in direct support, and helped the ground forces win some really tough battles.
> 
> 
> Under Fire: The Falklands War and the Revival of Naval Gunfire Support
> ...


True - and NGS has been used by the French recently (well, as of a few years ago) as well.  



Colin Parkinson said:


> It would suck to be up against a Russian cruisers who can fire their 130mm guns out to 23km in surface mode. I suspect they have some armour.


Again, if you're that close, you're well within range of anti-ship missiles and aircraft/helos carrying torpedoes.  Probably not the primary offensive weapon by that point.


----------



## CBH99 (25 Jun 2021)

If we're talking purely about naval guns on warships - and taking out everything else at play in naval warfare (enemy fast movers, helicopters, all missiles, torpedoes, etc) and focusing JUST on naval guns...

I think the Russians would have everybody beat.  Built to unleash hell AND take damage, tech be damned.


----------



## Underway (25 Jun 2021)

Naval gunfire support was also important in Libya 2011.  It's that experience where HMCS CHARLOTTETOWN was unable to assist ground forces while the British frigate could.  It was the Navy's own "Panjwai tanks" epiphany where we realized that Naval Fires was a must-have. 

As for ship to ship, that's a knife fight or mutual suicide pact.  Both sides are going to get cut and bleed to death.  No armour, high rates of fire, almost never miss, high explosives.  The ship that hits fuel or ammo first wins... sort of.


----------



## FJAG (25 Jun 2021)

Every once in a while when a field gunner wants to get humble he reminds himself that Wellington had a total of 156 guns at the Battle of Waterloo but that a single 1st-rate ship of the line in the British Navy came with no less than 100 guns almost all of which were of larger calibre than Wellington's. 

As FOOs we learned how to use naval gunfire support but rarely, if ever, got to practice it.

It is one of those things the Army rarely needs but when it does, its really nice to have available.

🍻


----------



## Underway (25 Jun 2021)

FJAG said:


> Every once in a while when a field gunner wants to get humble he reminds himself that Wellington had a total of 156 guns at the Battle of Waterloo but that a single 1st-rate ship of the line in the British Navy came with no less than 100 guns almost all of which were of larger calibre than Wellington's.
> 
> As FOOs we learned how to use naval gunfire support but rarely, if ever, got to practice it.
> 
> ...


I can believe it.  A single 127/64  OTO LW gun can drop 32 rounds in a minute.  Given the proper input, it can drop 5ish rounds with multiple rounds simultaneous impact by varying the arc of fire with every shot.  Now that's not quite a 155mm battery output in sheer explosive power but it's pretty damn good for a single gun.


----------



## FSTO (26 Jun 2021)

Underway said:


> I can believe it.  A single 127/64  OTO LW gun can drop 32 rounds in a minute.  Given the proper input, it can drop 5ish rounds with multiple rounds simultaneous impact by varying the arc of fire with every shot.  Now that's not quite a 155mm battery output in sheer explosive power but it's pretty damn good for a single gun.


And its an extremely mobile battery (as long as there is enough water underneath it)









						The Gallant Destroyers of D-Day
					

Spunky destroyers come within 1,000 yards from the Normandy shoreline, providing direct gunfire support for troops on the beach.




					www.usni.org


----------



## NavyShooter (26 Jun 2021)

I was on CHA during OP MOBILE - I worked with our SWC on a bunch of info for NGFS.  It was not anything we employed, but we put a lot of effort into it.

The 57mm on the Halifax Class has a rate of fire of about 220 rounds a minute, with 120 rounds on the mount.  It can fire 40 round bursts without needing to engage in a 'reload cycle'.  Firing a full turret load of 120 rounds (not including 1 on the shift-tongue) would take about 11 seconds per burst of 40 rounds, then a 10 second reload, then 11 to fire 40, 10 to reload, then another 11 seconds.

Normally you have 2 types of ammo in the turret - some designed for AA, some for surface targets.

If you used only one type, you could dump 120 rounds into a target area in 53 seconds.

Each 57mm shell has about 400 grams of HE in it, and is about 2" in diameter.  You'd be, effectively, firing 120 60mm mortar bombs into a target area in less than a minute.  

That seems to be a useful capability.  Alas, it was not implemented during Op Mobile.  

Interestingly our SWC ended up on a certain destroyer, and may have brought home a duffel bag with a 4.5 inch shell in it...that may have been fired while he was onboard that destroyer. 

One of the things I put together in the year following that deployment was an article for the Marine Engineering Journal.  It ended up getting published in 2012.  Summary - strip out the torps from the Stbd Torp mag, clear the Stbd Mezzanine deck, install a 1.9m turret ring, put in a 120mm Naval AMOS/NEMO turret, and you'd have the ability to deliver supporting fires, including precision guided mortar rounds with very little loss of capability.  (Retain Stbd Tubes, but store reloads only in the Port Torp mag.) 

Biggest problem was range - the limited range would put you VERY closer to shore, as compared to having a 127mm gun up forward.  However.  There is no good place on a Frigate to install a 127, the entire structure would have to be re-done wherever it was put.  

Here's a link to the article I wrote:



			https://www.cntha.ca/static/documents/mej/mej-70.pdf
		


Begins on Page 3.

NS


----------



## Underway (27 Jun 2021)

Very nice! How did you manage to get around the 57mm firing at a target designated by the CEROS?  Normally when illuminating the land you can get drift due to the backscatter from such a large target.  Was it sighted by the camera?  Or perhaps you can PM me as this might get really technical... lol

As for the 57mm we're basically 3P now for deployed operations. Still, probably take some BLP and HCER though.  3P is basically taking over as the stocks of the others get used up.  It's much better for AAW than the others.

The article was very intersting.  I think the RCN stole a little bit of your idea for the UAV embarkation.  The stbd torp launcher and magazine were stripped on HMCS Toronto to fit in the Skeldar for their deployment.  I haven't heard how it went though and if they used the bird the whole time or not.


----------



## NavyShooter (27 Jun 2021)

When we were in Libya, we had the old CCS, not CMS, so we still had the STIR instead of CEROS.

There was an offline program that the SWC got from the Warfare Center and it was used to target a grid square reference, rather than a locked on or illuminated target.  I don't recall the exact details - it's been a decade.


----------

