Another hypothetical question. Suppose a ship with a phalanx went against a battleship. Could the phalanx shoot down 16 inch shells. Would 12 inch or ever 6 inch shells be better to use in this match because they would have a smaller radar signature.
0 Kudo
Phalanx vs Missouri
| Author | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
 crazy yank |
Phalanx vs Missouri |
Lead | |
|
Posts: 165 (22-Jul-2007 19:57:19) |
|
||
|
taschoene |
Re: Phalanx vs Missouri | ||
|
Posts: 4289 (22-Jul-2007 22:46:07) |
Radar signature isn't going to matter much at all.
Given that a 16-inch shell has something like four inches of hardened steel at its thinnest point, and a couple of feet as seen from the front, Phalanx isn't going to do squat against it physically. A direct hit might alter the round's trajectory a bit, but given that actual hits are almost random chance anyway, this might end up hurting as well as helping. OTOH, the chance of actually scoring a hit with one of those shells is pretty slim and the ROF is painfully slow. For gunfire engagements against unarmored ships, I would tend to favor something in the six-inch range where ROF can be much higher and the odds of hitting correspondingly increased. |
||
|
seasick |
Shooting down shells | ||
|
Posts: 4868 (23-Jul-2007 01:23:16) |
For shooting down 16 inch shells, you need to hit the shell. Divirting the shell is as good as detonating. High explosive charges hitting all in the same area would upset its motion like a car clipping a boulder.
A missile launched from the ship hitting a shell broadside would also disrupt its motion. --- The World Wonders |
||
|
GUNNER4 |
Re: Shooting down shells | ||
|
Posts: 505 (23-Jul-2007 23:06:33) |
You'd have a better chance of having angles fly out of your arse.
One good thing about Naval artillery;virtually impossible to prevent them from hitting what they're heading for. GUNNER |
||
|
BEN1 |
Re: Shooting down shells | ||
|
Posts: 188 (24-Jul-2007 16:10:00) |
Well if Seawolf shot down a 4.5" shell surely its not beyond the realms of possibilty to shoot down/knock down a 16" shell
also a modified version of phalanx is used for land point defence against artillery/mortars is it not |
||
|
GUNNER4 |
Re: Shooting down shells | ||
|
Posts: 505 (24-Jul-2007 16:46:33) |
I didnt say it was impossble, I said "virtually impossible", as in a very very low probability. And note, a 407mm shell is going to be carrying more inertia and speed than a 4.5 inch.
GUNNER |
||
|
emc |
Re: Phalanx vs Missouri | ||
|
Posts: 3949 (24-Jul-2007 17:17:38) |
Phalanx relies on being able to detonate the warhead of an anti-ship missile to keep the missile from hitting the ship; it doesn't "deflect" the missiles. Indeed, I heard of a case where a Phalanx successfully engaged an inert missile, which then struck the ship, killing three sailors.
While Phalanx could probably hit a 16in shell -- it's actually going to be coming in on a more visible trajectory than a sea-skimming cruise missile (and it's probably hot enough to show up on infra-red)--it probably couldn't penetrate the projectile to detonate the warhead. At best it could destroy the nose fuze, which would result in a fast moving lump of steel punching an annoyingly large hole into the ship. Of course, one should do ones best to make sure that something suitable had been sent to meet the ship firing the 16in shell. Somehow I suspect that the ships which carry 16in guns are not terribly well protected against modern torpedoes. The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law. [Aristotle]
|
||
|
GUNNER4 |
Re: Phalanx vs Missouri | ||
|
Posts: 505 (24-Jul-2007 21:16:47) |
You bring out in me a question; what ship today COULD withstand a direct under the keel detonation of a say, MK-48 or similar torpedo?
I would assume even a 68 wouldnt fair well against that. I am mistaken in thinking that 61's were built with a torpedo protection in mind? Doubl ehulls, etc.? I never went further south than weapons berthing when I was TAD to 61 so I am not up to speed. GUNNER |
||
|
seasick |
Under Keel Torpedo | ||
|
Posts: 4868 (24-Jul-2007 22:25:56) |
The Iowa class torpedo defense was designed to counter contact detonation torpedos. As with most TDS built before and durring the WW2 it was obsolete by the end of the war.
An Iowa hit by a Mk48 torpedo or equivelent would take serious dammage if the hit was dead center. The best possible outcome would be a broken back and a soft kill that could knocker her out for the rest of an operation. ------------------ A 30 years later design, The Princton, survived a similar weapon, a bottom magnetic mine, which produced a bubble that gave her quite shock, but she was built very differently, also an under keel bubble was provided for in the design. The Iowa with its heavy armor and the heavy 16 inch turrets would certainly stress a broken keel far more than the lighter Aegis cruiser. --- The World Wonders |
||
|
Moskit |
Re: Under Keel Torpedo | ||
|
Posts: 1018 (26-Jul-2007 21:20:27) |
Quote:. Survived yes, but she was mission-killed. |
||
|
emc |
Re: Under Keel Torpedo | ||
|
Posts: 3949 (26-Jul-2007 23:47:37) |
...and she was also probably designed to more stringent shock standards. I think it is quite likely that an antique, like Iowa, would fare significantly worse than a modern warship, even one which is much smaller.
The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law. [Aristotle]
|
||
- Battleship Vs Battleship
- Should Battleships Be Back In Service?
- The United States Navy
- The Royal Navy
- The European Navies
- The Commonwealth Navies
- The Asian Navies
- Aircraft Carriers
- Fighting Ships Of The World
- Submarines
- Designing A Navy/Ship
- The Land Forces
- The Air Forces
- The Naval Fiction Board
- The Politics Of War
- Naval Help
