Naval Pictures V: The Glorious Fifth

[kato]

The idea behind the pneumatic dynamite guns was that HE shells of the time with gunpowder as filler occasionally - often enough to be a problem - would explode in the barrel when fired due to the high g forces compressing them; with the pneumatic guns one could control the acceleration a whole lot better. Shock-resistant HE fillers - picric acid initially - were first introduced in the second half of the 1880s in France, the US switched over to "Explosive D" - ammonium picrate - around 1906.

[marauder648]

HMS Comet motoring along like one.

[Wrangler]

The Riga Class Frigate, SKR-57, one of 68 ships made for the USSR and her allies.



She was obsolete by the time 1956 rolled around and was cancelled.  I like the aesthetics of design since it reminded me of the of Fletcher Class some what.
It armed with 3 100mm cannons, Anti-Submarine rocket launcher, and  3 × 533 mm torpedo tubes.  There no surviving ships in commission, but given how the Russians dispose of their ships. There could be couple lingering around desolate bay in Russia.

[marauder648]

The Riga's were handsome ships, very much built in the WW2 destroyer escort mold, i'm surprised the Soviets kept them around for so long, would have saved so much money decommissioning them.

[kato]

There no surviving ships in commission, but given how the Russians dispose of their ships. There could be couple lingering around desolate bay in Russia.

China has a couple Type 065 supposedly still around as semi-museum ships used for recruiting and advertising for the Navy - and yes, commissioned for that role by some accounts.

They're basically reverse-engineered Rigas built in the 60s with the superstructure and guns moved around a bit - basically replacing the B position 100mm with a twin 37mm, replacing the twin 25mm with a twin 37mm moved slightly forward and re-adding that 100mm aft of it - and the propulsion replaced by civilian diesels.

"Type 065 Jiangnan" (NATO name), 529 Haikou in 1966, still with the pennant 209:



They also built a pair of air-defence frigates based on the hull in the 70s. These retained the hull and superstructure form of the above Type 065 Jiangnan and simply replaced the forward 37mm and that second 100mm aft with a twin HQ-61 rail launcher while adding some sensors in particular on a second mast. They were pretty unsatisfactory for the PLAN mostly because most of the armament wasn't ready until the 80s.

"Type 053K Jiangdong" (NATO name), 531 Yingtan as museum ship:

If you squint a bit you can see the resemblance.

[VhenRa]

Ah Rigas and Jiangnans.

I have become intimately familiar with em in Cold Waters game.

[marauder648]

IIRC the RN was possibly thinking about completing HMS Lion (the WW2 battleship of that name) as a 'battle-carrier' but the Lion and her sisterships were all cancelled and their materials put to use on other ships.

[ANS Kamas P81]

Sadly, Battlestars just don't work on the water...

[truetanker]

Oh wow... Naval Ops:Warship Gunner for PS2 for realsies?  :o :thumbsup:

TT

[DoctorMonkey]

The Popular Mechanics HMS Lion looks like a truly terrible concept - the guns and turrets take up too much hanger space while you can be sure that the runway extensions won't be able to be retracted in time if surprised by a surface combatant


While the Mediterranean and North Sea might have favoured a heavily armoured ship compared with the Pacific or even expansive Atlantic but trying to combine two such ship types (battleship and aircraft carrier) is always a hiding to nothing

[JadeHellbringer]

Oh wow... Naval Ops:Warship Gunner for PS2 for realsies?  :o :thumbsup:

TT

I was just playing the second one this morning, actually. Still haven't unlocked everything in it after over a decade.  :-[

[Charlie 6]

Really hard to maneuver in a gun fight if you have to chase winds to launch and recover aircraft.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Didn't the Imperial Japanese Navy actually try converting a battleship into a battleship/carrier hybrid?

[truetanker]

I was just playing the second one this morning, actually. Still haven't unlocked everything in it after over a decade.  :-[

I got all three versions, have many weird confiqs.

Loved the Cat Laser... with Flying Rubber Duckiez!

TT

[Ruger]

Didn't the Imperial Japanese Navy actually try converting a battleship into a battleship/carrier hybrid?

A pair of them actually, they converted their Ise-class battleships into battleship/carrier hybrids...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise-class_battleship

The HMS Furious spent part of her life in similar design...

Ruger

[Luciora]

They were more or less armored seaplane carriers.   I have the waterline Hasegawa kits and liked them alot for being different.

A pair of them actually, they converted their Ise-class battleships into battleship/carrier hybrids...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise-class_battleship

The HMS Furious spent part of her life in similar design...

Ruger

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

I was just playing the second one this morning, actually. Still haven't unlocked everything in it after over a decade.  :-[

Those games had a ridiculous amount of unlocks.  Some of which was quite convoluted to get.

[JadeHellbringer]

Didn't the Imperial Japanese Navy actually try converting a battleship into a battleship/carrier hybrid?

A pair of them actually, they converted their Ise-class battleships into battleship/carrier hybrids...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ise-class_battleship

The HMS Furious spent part of her life in similar design...

Ruger

And the RN had the right idea with Furious- pick one and run with it. The Ises were ruined with that 'upgrade'- they ended up with very small theoretical flight groups aboard (neither ever carried planes beyond tests, to boot!), they lost 33% of their firepower straight-up, and realistically more than that- the midship turrets were badly masked by the new hangar setup, and had near-useless firing arcs- they'd have been better off removing them as well too and extending the deck further if they're going to do something like this. It was a miserable idea, it turned a pair of old but still dangerous dreadnoughts into paper tigers, and it accomplished exactly nothing.

I give a mulligan, however, on the similar upgrade to the heavy cruiser Mogami, in which case the badly-damaged rear turrets were replaced with a flight deck- still not great, but it was at least a fix to a damaged ship rather than wasting a healthy one.

[Ruger]

I give a mulligan, however, on the similar upgrade to the heavy cruiser Mogami, in which case the badly-damaged rear turrets were replaced with a flight deck- still not great, but it was at least a fix to a damaged ship rather than wasting a healthy one.

Somehow, I had missed that about the Mogami...very interesting...

Ruger

[glitterboy2098]

in the 70's there were proposals to refit some of the Iowa's into hybrid battleship-Carriers. using either Helicopters or Harriers.

i imagine the marines would have been enthusiastic for that concept.. a shore bombardment and air support platform, good for amphibious landing ops. the Navy i suspect was less enthused.

[Nightlord01]

The problem with a CB/BB hybrid is that the tasking for each is pretty much mutually exclusive. Modern ASCM also mean that the role of the BB is effectively removed from the battle space, they are now a pointless, expensive ship. Eventually it will be the other way around, BBs will once again offer something no one else can, but that may have to wait until space.

As for a shore bombardment, they have that already! Every single CG or DDG in the USN has a 5" gun, which is what is used for NGS. The big 16" guns were ship killers, not for shore bombardment, except in certain cases where it was used to bust hardened targets or lower the crest of a mountain 100'. 5" guns are more than enough for NGS, they have a higher rate of fire, integrate better with other ships and overall are much cheaper to run.

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

And the RN had the right idea with Furious- pick one and run with it. The Ises were ruined with that 'upgrade'- they ended up with very small theoretical flight groups aboard (neither ever carried planes beyond tests, to boot!), they lost 33% of their firepower straight-up, and realistically more than that- the midship turrets were badly masked by the new hangar setup, and had near-useless firing arcs- they'd have been better off removing them as well too and extending the deck further if they're going to do something like this. It was a miserable idea, it turned a pair of old but still dangerous dreadnoughts into paper tigers, and it accomplished exactly nothing.

Yeah, they sucked pretty badly in Warship Gunner 2, as well.

[Charlie 6]

As for a shore bombardment, they have that already! Every single CG or DDG in the USN has a 5" gun, which is what is used for NGS. The big 16" guns were ship killers, not for shore bombardment, except in certain cases where it was used to bust hardened targets or lower the crest of a mountain 100'. 5" guns are more than enough for NGS, they have a higher rate of fire, integrate better with other ships and overall are much cheaper to run.

Horseshit.  DDGs, with one 5"/64 mount are insufficient to generate a sustained all-weather direct support asset for a infantry battalion in an amphibious assault.  Sure, the 16-20 rounds of 5" fire per minute seems like it equates to six 155mm (or 6.1") guns firing in support of a infantry battalion until one realizes that artillery battalions do the mass killing on the conventional battlefield.  An artillery battalion killing mission (three 18 gun volleys or 54 rounds) destroys threat companies and their parent battalion cohesion.  Single gun ships can't compete.  Smaller rounds with less payload variety from smaller magazines isn't going to carry the day when maneuver can't overcome geography and well planned defenses.  Also, the current number of hulls sucked up by defending carriers precludes the use of the two-banger slightly less inefficient CGs in supporting landing operations.  That sets aside the entire discussion of reinforcing or general support fires either of which ground forces have a problem generating.

Besides, don't think for a second ships of any Navy can generate an effect time on target.  They might get the time right but the instability imparted by sea state generates an elliptical impact zone along the gun-target-line per rapid fire gun that negates the inherent effectiveness of overlapping burst radii.  It becomes laughably ineffective for massing fires.

Bottom line: this is why I spent a lot of time as an amphibious planner trying to figure out ways around a fundamental Service deficiency.  Hell, I still chuckle at the DESRON NSFS planner that didn't realize he couldn't shoot past a major coastal highway in North Carolina.  My response to his shocked expression was, "what you didn't know you couldn't shoot much farther than your fo'c'sle and even if you could nobody could do anything with it?"

 

[mikecj]

Hell, I still chuckle at the DESRON NSFS planner that didn't realize he couldn't shoot past a major coastal highway in North Carolina.  My response to his shocked expression was, "what you didn't know you couldn't shoot much farther than your fo'c'sle and even if you could nobody could do anything with it?"

 ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  I think people are quoting you on that.  I heard that one last month at an exercise.

[worktroll]

Re the Iowa conversion ideas - can you imagine the turbulence coming over that flight deck when the ship's moving at any speed?

Well, you don't have to. Look up Moskva class. Amongst many shortcomings of the design, turbulence over the flight decks was a real problem.

So back-end air platform is fine, for ships at anchor.

[ANS Kamas P81]

I also have to question the shock from 16" gunfire on exposed, tied-down or otherwise not-in-use aircraft.  From NavWeaps:

The AP Mark 8...creates overpressures exceeding 50 psi (3.5 kg/cm2) close to the muzzle and 7 psi (0.5 kg/cm2) at a distance of 50 feet (15 m) from the muzzle.

[Nightlord01]

Horseshit.  DDGs, with one 5"/64 mount are insufficient to generate a sustained all-weather direct support asset for a infantry battalion in an amphibious assault.  Sure, the 16-20 rounds of 5" fire per minute seems like it equates to six 155mm (or 6.1") guns firing in support of a infantry battalion until one realizes that artillery battalions do the mass killing on the conventional battlefield.  An artillery battalion killing mission (three 18 gun volleys or 54 rounds) destroys threat companies and their parent battalion cohesion.  Single gun ships can't compete.  Smaller rounds with less payload variety from smaller magazines isn't going to carry the day when maneuver can't overcome geography and well planned defenses.  Also, the current number of hulls sucked up by defending carriers precludes the use of the two-banger slightly less inefficient CGs in supporting landing operations.  That sets aside the entire discussion of reinforcing or general support fires either of which ground forces have a problem generating.

Besides, don't think for a second ships of any Navy can generate an effect time on target.  They might get the time right but the instability imparted by sea state generates an elliptical impact zone along the gun-target-line per rapid fire gun that negates the inherent effectiveness of overlapping burst radii.  It becomes laughably ineffective for massing fires.

Bottom line: this is why I spent a lot of time as an amphibious planner trying to figure out ways around a fundamental Service deficiency.  Hell, I still chuckle at the DESRON NSFS planner that didn't realize he couldn't shoot past a major coastal highway in North Carolina.  My response to his shocked expression was, "what you didn't know you couldn't shoot much farther than your fo'c'sle and even if you could nobody could do anything with it?"

And yet, one recent conflict had three different navies working together to generate just this effect in the amphibious battle space, quite successfully at that.

While a massed land battery might be superior in terms of fire support, they aren't meant to be the same thing. A gun line is not there to destroy a BN, they are there to suppress the defences in an amphibious landing zone.

[DoctorMonkey]

The Iowa conversion would be wasted with Harriers as they can sit further off shore with their speed but as a forward refuelling and rearming point for AH-1s they'd be great


With what I think we should consider to be the forever-death of the battleship the question becomes whether to create a NGFS "module" for a 5"+ gun or three for more expendable hulls like the LCS or the RN's new cheaper frigates (Type 31e or something?) or just abandon the idea of NGFS altogether


The limitations of using smaller guns on smaller ships was demonstrated in the Falklands War 36 years ago - single tube per ship, systems jam with prolonged use and you then have to wait for the ships to change places or sort the problem


A NGFS ship (monitor?) would also work nicely for police type actions like anti-piracy, drug interdiction etc - basically anything except high end air defence or anti submarine operations

[Daryk]

I'm with Charlie 6 on this one... I'd be shocked to see anything like a gun "line" anywhere in US service.  At the Fleet level, I've seen single DDGs be argued over for missions thousands of miles apart within a single Combatant Command AOR (and I'm not talking about the Pacific).  And I don't remember the last time an ARG didn't disaggregate the instant it deployed. In actual practice, Marines will be lucky to get a single surface ship for NSFS, as limited as they are.

[Wrangler]

There too much inexperience people planning out these ship designs and technology hurtles.  It would take alot effort to get gunpowder for 16 guns made, never mind the guns themselves.  Industry isn't there anymore to build this stuff after good century of building this stuff.  My impression once they shuttered guns production after WWII, the US lost the ability to sustain any further larger cannons beyond 5inch guns.  Now you have people who design and plan these ships for today, who don't want use guns.  If railgun development hadn't been shelved, it properly that would been answer to being able get shore bombardment capabilities back aside relaying on Tomahawk missiles.

There likely more to it than why guns and fire-support has faded, but its my opinion from all the material I've read.


The image was to be the ship that was going test fire the guns at sea, but the Expeditionary Transports were in such high demand, the navy couldn't spare one.  Which is odd to me sort of, since were not doing alot activity i I am aware of over seas in coastal regions that need ground troops brought there..