Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Tossle

Would a navel battle today involve guns / cannons?

38 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
95 posts
2,660 battles

If there was a naval battle today, I cant imagine too many broadsides shot at each other would take place. Im thinking would be ships facing off 200km apart shooting missles at each other. Carriers would take part again with planes shooting missiles, helicopters dropping torpedoes, and submarines also using both torpedoes and missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WG Staff
606 posts
447 battles

I'd say say it's plausible but highly unlikely...

Maybe very old ships in the event of an EMP attack?

or... My country's navy :( using smaller calibre guns.. and MGs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,718 posts
1,988 battles

Whats so " 'World of Warships' General Discussion" about this post?

 

Anyway, Helicopters Dropping torpedoes at ships are suicide as it's air speed is pathetic. Those are better off for Anti-Subs or Reconnaissance Purpose stuff.

Edited by Alvin1020

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
1,125 posts

modern naval fight would happen 100+km away spam missile into each other.

but, if EMP hit and all electric equipment fried, those who have old school big gun will win.

 

so.... every nation should have big old BB as a last resort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

Naval battles in the modern day would likely involve ship or air-launched sea-skimming missiles at extreme ranges, and at closer ranges, guided torpedoes. Naval gunfire is a bit pointless at the moment unless someone figures out how to reliably stop guided missiles.

 

Also, moving this discussion to the appropriate forum

Edited by Syanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,718 posts
1,988 battles

modern naval fight would happen 100+km away spam missile into each other.

but, if EMP hit and all electric equipment fried, those who have old school big gun will win.

 

so.... every nation should have big old BB as a last resort.

 

 UlBiIdt.jpg

 

War isn't that simple, my friend. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIF]
Senior Moderator
2,562 posts

You would think that anti ship missiles would be the modern fight, but you would be wrong. All ships are regularly exercised in ship on ship gun engagements.

 

Although modern guns do spit out more rounds a minute then the old WWII guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
760 posts
6,922 battles

I've read a few books which talk about such modern day naval battles - One such hypothetical clash was between the naval fleets of two emerging naval powers India and Peoples Republic of China. (Forgot the author and book name, but the main characters were based around a USN guided missile destroyer (DDG) monitoring the clash)

 

The battle ends up being a long range engagement where both sides launch massive salvoes of anti ship cruise missiles at each other without sighting each other, much like at Midway. I believe aircraft played a minor role as only the Chinese in that situation had a light carrier, which was used mostly for Reconnaissance, air superiority and anti submarine operations. With sufficient numbers of missiles launched in several large salvoes, the sheer number of them would overwhelm the defensive systems of even the largest ships (close in weapons systems, countermeasures, long range anti missile missiles). Both sides suffer heavy casualties and ends up being a draw much like at Jutland as no side has a clear advantage.

 

The only use for guns in the future I can envisage is if electronic systems are knocked out on both sides, a close in brawl (or attacking small fast attack craft/planes), or shore bombardment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

The main issue with theorising on this topic is the same as with making theories about modern armies having a go at each other.

There hasn't been a large scale conflict between major powers in the past couple decades.

Thus we're lacking the practical data to analyze and work with and there's no telling what would really happen.

 

Take the good old Abrams as an example.

Great for tank on tank combat, lackluster at best for anything else.

Ridiculously long and intensive maintenance compared to other modern MBTs.

 

And the results speak for themselves, the Abrams is considered a valuable, but unreliable asset in current conflicts.

 

What does this translate into for naval combat?

 

Who knows?

With the r&d focus having been on intercepting both missiles and torpedoes for more than two decades it might aswell

be impossible to win a large fleet engagement with the pure use of the before mentioned armaments.

 

And that's without mentioning the newest generation of ships, which are being constructed atm like the german F125.

With guns that can reach targets up to 30km (regular ammunition) and projected 100km (range-enhanced ammunition).

 

As it stands we're looking at a similiar situation pre-ww2.

We have all these cool toys, but nobody really knows how to use them efficiently.

Let's just hope that we never get to find out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
760 posts
6,922 battles

The main issue with theorising on this topic is the same as with making theories about modern armies having a go at each other.

There hasn't been a large scale conflict between major powers in the past couple decades.

Thus we're lacking the practical data to analyze and work with and there's no telling what would really happen.

 

 

As it stands we're looking at a similiar situation pre-ww2.

We have all these cool toys, but nobody really knows how to use them efficiently.

Let's just hope that we never get to find out...

 

Fair call - also its worth noting the last time a decisive naval (fleet action) battle occurred that decided the outcome of a war was back at Tsushima 1905, during the Russo-Japanese war. Since than, naval battles have only been skirmishes that collectively helped win a war (some may argue Midway etc, but Japan would inevitable lose the war due to the sheer advantage the US had in industrial prowess and skilled manpower)

 

As Sun Tzu once said "The battle is won before it is fought" - You may win the battle but still lose the war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,604 posts
2,477 battles

Cannon, massive guns, artillery, probably going to be close like those at certain Alien and naval ship anime

(Wave Motion Guns)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SIF]
Senior Moderator
2,562 posts

one thing to keep in mind - most warships only carry 8 anti-ship missiles (numbers vary, but not by much), Surface to Air missiles can be used in surface engagements, but again, you have limited supply, and would most likely use them for their intended purpose, which means you have the guns, so close in fighting will most likely happen (at a range of 8-12 nautical miles, or upwards of 24 klms)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
3 posts
1,191 battles

one word. one weapon. one replacement for battleship main batterys

...... railguns

mach 7 projectiles.

no explosives,

no AP.... well.... actully...

when any object is going 8,600km..... its gonna penitrate EVERYTHING

you can look it up yourself. 22nd centruy warships will have railguns 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

one word. one weapon. one replacement for battleship main batterys

...... railguns

mach 7 projectiles.

no explosives,

no AP.... well.... actully...

when any object is going 8,600km..... its gonna penitrate EVERYTHING

you can look it up yourself. 22nd centruy warships will have railguns 

 

Once they get the major kinks out, I suppose. Like the power needed to run the things, a system to ensure that repeated firing doesn't cause calibration or alignment errors at best, or cause the gun to become non-functional at worst.

 

Last I heard, a railgun-equipped ship will be out for tests next year, though. We'll see how it goes.

Edited by Syanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,040 posts
1,326 battles

 

Once they get the major kinks out, I suppose. Like the power needed to run the things, a system to ensure that repeated firing doesn't cause calibration or alignment errors at best, or cause the gun to become non-functional at worst.

 

Last I heard, a railgun-equipped ship will be out for tests next year, though. We'll see how it goes.

 

And we'll also need a projectile that doesn't burn itself going at such fast speed, it also needs to pack enough explosives within to make sure it's doesn't just deal overpen damage.

 

one word. one weapon. one replacement for battleship main batterys

...... railguns

mach 7 projectiles.

no explosives,

no AP.... well.... actully...

when any object is going 8,600km..... its gonna penitrate EVERYTHING

you can look it up yourself. 22nd centruy warships will have railguns 

 

Packing no explosive in it would means it just gonna overpen the already lightly armored modern warships. Unless the shot somehow hits the citadel, it's not gonna do anything substantial. I think such has been demonstrated in the game. :hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4 posts
3,044 battles

Packing no explosive in it would means it just gonna overpen the already lightly armored modern warships. Unless the shot somehow hits the citadel, it's not gonna do anything substantial. I think such has been demonstrated in the game. :hiding:

 

Can't remember the exact details but the rounds will have an explosive force due to the sheer amount of kinetic energy it generates. If anything, the downfall of the railgun would probably be the durability of rails themselves. Not a lot of materials are design to withstand the heat created from throwing something at 10 times the speed of sounds. Pretty much the same problem the MG42 had with its barrel.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,163 posts
1,874 battles

Not really explosive force. IIRC, hypersonic projectiles create a vacuum as they fly. This is how modern APFSDS tank rounds work: high speed inert projectiles creating a vacuum when they enter/exit a target, resulting in a "frogs in a blender" effect. 

 

Problem is, warships are pretty large, so multiple inert projectiles striking at hypersonic speeds are not going to deal a lot of damage unless deliberately targeting critical zones such as propulsion or weapon systems, or hitting the CIC or other manned areas. At longer ranges, that's difficult to specifically target and aim for, and any railgun would be required to sustain a relatively high rate of fire to constantly punch holes in target ships. The power requirements of such a railgun, and the need to keep the rails aligned and functional is the reason why railguns are still very much experimental and in the development phase. 

 

The alternative is to configure it to fire a non-inert projectile, but designers have to figure out a way to slam it at hypersonic speeds without triggering the fuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
679 posts
3,488 battles

I've read a few books which talk about such modern day naval battles - One such hypothetical clash was between the naval fleets of two emerging naval powers India and Peoples Republic of China. (Forgot the author and book name, but the main characters were based around a USN guided missile destroyer (DDG) monitoring the clash)

 

The battle ends up being a long range engagement where both sides launch massive salvoes of anti ship cruise missiles at each other without sighting each other, much like at Midway. I believe aircraft played a minor role as only the Chinese in that situation had a light carrier, which was used mostly for Reconnaissance, air superiority and anti submarine operations. With sufficient numbers of missiles launched in several large salvoes, the sheer number of them would overwhelm the defensive systems of even the largest ships (close in weapons systems, countermeasures, long range anti missile missiles). Both sides suffer heavy casualties and ends up being a draw much like at Jutland as no side has a clear advantage.

 

The only use for guns in the future I can envisage is if electronic systems are knocked out on both sides, a close in brawl (or attacking small fast attack craft/planes), or shore bombardment.

 

 

China now has the biggest airforce in the world.  Not going to be a draw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
295 posts
501 battles

 

China now has the biggest airforce in the world.  Not going to be a draw.

Nope, their planes are su35/30/27s, J11 and J10s, and J20 and J3x (forget), compare to USAF and USN's F15C/E, F16, F18, F22, F35. China's airforce is quite underpowered until they mass produce J20 and get more than US's F35/20 count, and also, China have a huge disadvantage of don't have naval air forces form carrier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
406 posts
6,279 battles

An interesting theory - certainly in big ocean engagements I think the days of Big Guns are sadly over (there is something awesome about a 16 inch gun....) but consider littoral/coastal/river combat, where it may be too shallow for Torpedoes, Sea Skimming missles will have terrain to get in the way - we could see a resurgance of Gun combat - especially with the development of smart shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
33 posts
1,334 battles

we should also consider Actual pilot combat experience.  Perhaps the US has an edge....

 

Though it's debatable whether combat experience is a big factor in dodging missiles. Modern fighters are almost like CVs, with missiles instead of CAG, and the pilots'/captains' duty is to let loose the dogs of war without losing their vessels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×