|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Senior Member
https://www.realcleardefense.com/art...ve_651682.html
Hopefully cheaper than a cruise missile...First, there is the Extended Range Cannon Artillery (ERCA). The new cannon is based on the M109A7 Paladin Self-Propelled Howitzer, itself a substantial upgrade of this system. With a longer barrel and new breach, the ERCA will be able to fire advanced precision-guided shells up to 70 kilometers and even up to 100 kilometers, more than twice the range of existing artillery systems
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
Same reason I believe in the naval concept of the dreadnought. Shelling is cheaper than launching rockets, and it is just as precise, plus more ordnance may possibly be carried in stores. Do not get me wrong. Submarines are very important, and the carriers, but a true honest to God gun platform is capable of so much, and with today’s capabilities. It is worth so much more, and I know my statements regard naval force projection.
Still it also applies to the army and their artillery capabilities. I think people forget about the importance of it versus all the smart bombs and airplanes, missiles, and the other shinny technology stuff. Sadly some may even look upon it as near obsolete 19th century technology. I believe Napoleon still has a very good point regarding artillery.
Member of the JPFO, NRA, and TSRA!
Senior Member
Zumwalts just need to be scrapped and any naval officers still in the service who were involved in pushing them need to be cashiered out.
Senior Member
No argument from me.Originally Posted by Coal Dragger
Member of the JPFO, NRA, and TSRA!
Senior Member
The Des Moines class heavy cruisers had Nine of the 8 inch self-loading Mark 16 guns, that could fire 10 rounds a minute. 355# shells, over 30,000 pounds on target per minute, out to almost 30,000 yards. Over 12 tons per minute of HE.
And 12 5 inch guns putting 15-20 rounds per minute out for another 4 tons per minute.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk16.php
For reference, Iowa’s 9 guns at two rounds a minute with super heavy AP shells put 48000 pounds of shells per minute on target, and just 34000 pounds of regular ammo.
That Drachenfeld YouTube channel leads to many rabbit holes...
Last edited by FromMyColdDeadHand; 12-02-20 at 18:47.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
Yes it does.
Ultimately against peer or near peer opponents most surface ships are simply targets for submarines, and if we want to use them for shore bombardment they’re easy close targets for all manner of anti-ship missiles.
Site Sponsor
I read somewhere they were toying with the idea of bringing back the Battleship and equipping it with a bunch of the Strategic Long-Range Cannons (SLRC's).
Hmmm....a bunch of +1500km range cannons on a mobile platform that can carry with it a crapload of ammo? Damn it man.
Senior Member
Don't toy with me.
Whiskey
May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one
Site Sponsor
LOL...it would save a lot of bomb sorties.
Also, depending on how accurate it is, any team, almost anywhere could have devastating cover fire support. No refueling required.
Senior Member
The Montana class finally get hull numbers, albeit redesigned and 80 years late.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks