this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
214 points (96.9% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6623 readers
98 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Longest range cannons we had while they were in service, but yeah, rockets and such go further. Would have been interesting to see what partially self-guided and rocket-assisted shells in Battleship size could manage though.
That's why you park it in the middle of the carrier support group.
What with the advances in guided and rocket-assisted artillery lately, I am unironically (and, considering the sub, I should also say credibly) convinced that there will be a naval gunnery renaissance in the next couple decades.
Not only that, VLS cells can't be reloaded at sea, you have to go into port for that. Artillery shells don't have that problem.
I also wonder how well anti-missile systems would work against artillery. I think it's feasible to have some artillery on board vessels as a secondary to fall back on after spending all of the anti-ship missiles. Or you could fire the artillery alongside missiles to increase the variety of threats the target has to respond to.
Consider C-RAM (Army Phalanx) stands for Counter Rocket, Artillery, Mortar: I would assume it works perfectly fine against most artillery. But also, I suppose it would depend on the size of the artillery and type of the round. I wouldn’t expect a spray of 20-30mm rounds to do much at all to the trajectory of a 406mm Mk. 8 APC shell, for instance… but none of those are in service anymore.
Massive, inaccurate guns just aren't relevant to warfare anymore. A Tomahawk missile can hit a target with high precision and comparable payload at 50x the range of the Iowa's 16 inch guns. And for sustained bombardment, Arleigh Burkes have 5-inch guns that can fire 20 rounds a minute.
Good news they also have Tomahawks!
As part of their modernization in the 1980s, each of the Iowas received a complement of eight quad-cell Armored Box Launchers and four "shock hardened" Mk 141 quad-cell launchers. The former was used by the battleships to carry and fire the BGM-109 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAMs) for use against enemy targets on land, while the latter system enabled the ships to carry a complement of RGM-84 Harpoon anti-ship missiles for use against enemy ships. With an estimated range of 675 to 1,500 nautical miles (1,250 to 2,778 km; 777 to 1,726 mi)[103] for the Tomahawks and 64.5 to 85.5 nautical miles (119.5 to 158.3 km; 74.2 to 98.4 mi)[103] for the Harpoons, these two missile systems displaced the 16-inch guns and their maximum range of 42,345 yards (38.7 km; 20.9 nmi)[36] to become the longest-ranged weapons on the battleships during the 1980s; the ships' complement of 32 Tomahawk missiles was the largest until the Mk 41 VLS-equipped Ticonderoga-class cruisers entered service.