Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

16-in Guns vs Hard Targets : A Reality Check

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by vannor View Post
    Is, your hypothosis that Heavy gun bombbardment without H.E. is ineffective?
    Originally posted by Shipwreck View Post
    My hypothesis is that if they had used HC instead of AP against El Hank (and AP instead of HC at Mili Island), the results would have been the same as historically.
    During the bombardment of Brest, HMS Warspite used both AP and HE. Results were disappointing.

    As noted earlier in the thread, *hard-targets* remain largely unaffected by near misses, even when using 14-inch, 15-inch or 16-inch guns against them.
    Last edited by Shipwreck; 20 Sep 08,, 08:19.

    Comment


    • HMS Warspite vs Battery Goldbrunner, September 1944

      Battleship Warspite by V.E. Tarrant :

      Early on the morning of 10 September 1944, Warspite, in company with the destroyer Ulysses and HM tug Growler, sailed from Portsmouth bound for a bombarding position thirteen miles west of Cap Le Havre, which she reached at 09:45. The object of the bombardment was to assist the British Fleet Corps's assault on Le Havre by silencing enemy gun batteries. Spotting was by aircraft.

      Four our of five allotted targets, and two others indicated by aircraft, were engaged at the extreme range of 32,000 yards. In all Warspite expended 304 x 15-inch shells.

      The first of these targets, engaged at 10:05, consisted of three 170mm (6.7-inch) guns in casements [see Battery Goldbrunner at Clos-des-Ronces]. Despite two direct hits and a third in the mouth of one of the emplacements, two of these guns were still firing at Warspite when the ship withdrew; 183 rounds were expended at this target.

      Comment


      • It takes two to tango.... The facts are true, but I think you guys are still being pretty unfair to the poor ole Warspite. The guns and shells of Warspite were designed to poke great big holes in warships with up to approximately 12 (guessing the thickness her shells could penetrate) inches of face hardened steel. Those bunkers she was firing at were composed of highly reinforced concrete two to three dozen feet thick DESIGNED to repel battleship HE and AP rounds. What I am trying to say that it is unfair to blame the guns for their inablity to knock out the gun emplacments but rather the failure of the type of ammunition to penetrate the bunkers.

        That is my two cents worth, and here are two cents more...

        In modern warfare, if trying to neutralize gun emplacments such as those present at Normandy, I think that the "bunker buster" bomb would be the most efficient method of dealing with emplacments. If the use of naval guns were desired for such an action then a new type of round would need to be designed to deal with highly reinforced concrete.

        Unfortunatly planners back in WW2 didn't have the toys we do today, so had to make the most of what they had.
        Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...

        Comment


        • Originally posted by maximusslade View Post

          That is my two cents worth, and here are two cents more...

          In modern warfare, if trying to neutralize gun emplacments such as those present at Normandy, I think that the "bunker buster" bomb would be the most efficient method of dealing with emplacments. If the use of naval guns were desired for such an action then a new type of round would need to be designed to deal with highly reinforced concrete.

          Unfortunatly planners back in WW2 didn't have the toys we do today, so had to make the most of what they had.
          Tallboy, grand-slam?

          Comment


          • Tallboy, grand-slam?
            Not exactly a precision weapon....
            Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...

            Comment


            • Originally posted by maximusslade View Post
              Not exactly a precision weapon....
              MOAB perhaps. No precision but no need to be either.;)
              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                MOAB perhaps. No precision but no need to be either.;)
                MOAB is GPS-guided. ;)

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Shipwreck View Post
                  MOAB is GPS-guided. ;)
                  My bad, Didn't mean to imply she wasn't. Just the destruction it would cause if applied correctly would probably by far out due gunlaying.
                  Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by maximusslade View Post
                    Not exactly a precision weapon....
                    Yes but they were still remarkably effective against concrete targets, and a battleship if I recall

                    Comment


                    • How about the guided 2,000 lbs concrete bomb?
                      All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
                      -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

                      Comment


                      • Yes, near misses from the Tallboy did send the Tirpitz to the bottom. Without actual data, I would have to assume that a near miss of a Tallboy against one of those gun bunkers would make life extremely unpleasant *sarcasm* for the gun crews inside, but I doubt that it would take the gun itself out of action. Secondly, using the Tirpitz as an example, direct hits with any high altitude bomb was extremely difficult, if memory serves me correctly, not a single Tallboy hit the Tirpitz. If you can't hit a big target like the Tirpitz, it would take a lot of luck to hit a much smaller in size bunker.

                        As for the 2000lb concrete bomb. I dont think it would do any better than a 2700lb AP shell. Again, my personal thoughts.
                        Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often...

                        Comment


                        • Near misses in the water though is much different then on land. Nothing transmits shockwaves better then water/liquid.:)
                          Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                          Comment


                          • I kinda wonder why they never developed a DU round for the battleships in the 80's. Would have made those guns alot more effective against hard targets.
                            "If a man does his best, what else is there?"
                            -General George Patton Jr.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by maximusslade View Post
                              Secondly, using the Tirpitz as an example, direct hits with any high altitude bomb was extremely difficult, if memory serves me correctly, not a single Tallboy hit the Tirpitz.
                              At least 3 direct hits were achieved with the Tallboys on Tirpitz : 1 on 15 September 1944 (Operation Paravane) and 2 on 12 November 1944 (Operation Catechism).

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by maximusslade View Post
                                Yes, near misses from the Tallboy did send the Tirpitz to the bottom. Without actual data, I would have to assume that a near miss of a Tallboy against one of those gun bunkers would make life extremely unpleasant *sarcasm* for the gun crews inside, but I doubt that it would take the gun itself out of action. Secondly, using the Tirpitz as an example, direct hits with any high altitude bomb was extremely difficult, if memory serves me correctly, not a single Tallboy hit the Tirpitz. If you can't hit a big target like the Tirpitz, it would take a lot of luck to hit a much smaller in size bunker.

                                As for the 2000lb concrete bomb. I dont think it would do any better than a 2700lb AP shell. Again, my personal thoughts.
                                Yes but it should not be outwith technical possiblity to fit a modern guidance
                                head to a tallboy. One would probably have to change the tailfin to remove
                                the spin that Wallace designed into it. Then since the scrapping of
                                the V-bombers there is nothing adapted to carry one.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X