TonyE Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 I seem to remember someone saying that the 76mm on the Pegasus class hydrofoils was horribly inaccurate. Is my memory correct? If so, how are the newer guns like the Super Rapido, etc?5-inch (127mm) and 3inch(76mm) will do, no need to produce any special super adaptibal insert-your-own-caliber-round, even if that one in a million chances might occure, if it does then they (your own side) will just have to take it (the world turns and it is not fair). Suck it up! IMO The 155mm AGS really only made a lot of sense if it could also use Army shells. If it cannot, then??? Unless they are assuming that they will never fire enough rounds that the ammunition costs will really matter.F* ck the 155mm, just use the 127mm (5inch), is it really that hard?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gewing Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 5-inch (127mm) and 3inch(76mm) will do, no need to produce any special super adaptibal insert-your-own-caliber-round, even if that one in a million chances might occure, if it does then they (your own side) will just have to take it (the world turns and it is not fair). Suck it up!F* ck the 155mm, just use the 127mm (5inch), is it really that hard?. I am even wondering if something like Polar for heavier weapon delivery would be the best option, and for a gun go with something with moderate fire support ability, but improved AA/AM. The French 100mm seems interesting. Now if the Bofors 120mm had continued development... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted October 21, 2007 Author Share Posted October 21, 2007 Now if the Bofors 120mm had continued development... It was almost adopted by the RN at one stage. The reason given for not doing so was 'insufficient flash proofing', whatever that means. We also went 127mm in the 50s. I think we should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted October 21, 2007 Share Posted October 21, 2007 Just some MORE proof to add on top of what has already been provided (not that you have bother to read any of it). http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Heavy+Artill...ion.-a075478469 In fact if you would stop acting like children & do some actual research on your own (since you autmatically reject anything I post), you will no don't (assuming that is you have any research skills) find similar proof from virtually every major/significant conflict of the 20th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FITZ Posted October 22, 2007 Share Posted October 22, 2007 I am even wondering if something like Polar for heavier weapon delivery would be the best option, and for a gun go with something with moderate fire support ability, but improved AA/AM. The French 100mm seems interesting. Now if the Bofors 120mm had continued development... I mentioned before that I reather liked POLAR as a concept but it got no support from anyone in the USMC or Navy so far as I can tell so maybe they know something I don't. I would agree that weapons like the existing Mk 45 Mod 4 or smaller ones like the 100mm M68 compact really don't cut the mustard. The fundamental problem is they just don't shoot far enough for what the customer wants. You can bitch about the requirements all you want but they are what they are so any solutions must be judged against how they meet those requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted October 22, 2007 Author Share Posted October 22, 2007 In fact if you would stop acting like children & do some actual research on your own (since you autmatically reject anything I post), you will no don't (assuming that is you have any research skills) find similar proof from virtually every major/significant conflict of the 20th century. In fact, if you would stop just trawling the net for links to post and actually answered the questions posed to you, you would be in less danger of being cited for repeatedly violating TN's good citizenship requirements and thus of being permabanned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 In fact, if you would stop just trawling the net for links to post and actually answered the questions posed to you, you would be in less danger of being cited for repeatedly violating TN's good citizenship requirements and thus of being permabanned.What questions have I not answered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 What questions have I not answered? These (posted earlier by Chris): 1) Exactly where and when (as in a date and a time) did US or UK forces run into a target that could not be taken out by a guided 155mm projectile (or two or three thereof) that could have been taken out by a guided 203mm? 2) What was that target? (as in how was it constructed, what did it house and what threat did it pose) 3) What were the implications of not taking out that target with NGFS? I guess he means answer them one by one, as simple as possible, as clear as possible, without obfuscating the answers or simply posting links/articles that try to support your answer or interpreting such "proofs" to your advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 I mentioned before that I reather liked POLAR as a concept but it got no support from anyone in the USMC or Navy so far as I can tell so maybe they know something I don't. The major problem with POLAR, IMHO, is that VLS cells aren't currently reloadable at sea. Until we get this problem solved, I think POLAR is a non-starter for sustained, volume fires. Another issue is only a rather limited number can be carried on a Burke or Tico if they still want to carry a decent AAW and TLAM load out. I've also wondered, but am not sure, at POLAR's velocity profile, and how this might impact response times at the far end. I doubt it's as fast as a Mach 3.5 LASM, but how does it compare to lofted LRLAPs? Last, I've read rumors that there are issues in dealing with the MLRS-style rocket motor on ships, but I have nothing conclusive on this. If this last problem can be overcome, I still believe POLAR can be part of the solution. It can provide long-range, precision fires much cheaper than a TLAM. It can also provide a limited number of deep, volume fires missions, before the ships involved exhaust their VLS supplies. I also think an extended range version of the the 7" Lockheed Martin P44 missile is worth a look, if a 9-pack canister for Mk41 VLS cells can be built. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FITZ Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) The major problem with POLAR, IMHO, is that VLS cells aren't currently reloadable at sea. Until we get this problem solved, I think POLAR is a non-starter for sustained, volume fires. Another issue is only a rather limited number can be carried on a Burke or Tico if they still want to carry a decent AAW and TLAM load out. I've also wondered, but am not sure, at POLAR's velocity profile, and how this might impact response times at the far end. I doubt it's as fast as a Mach 3.5 LASM, but how does it compare to lofted LRLAPs? Last, I've read rumors that there are issues in dealing with the MLRS-style rocket motor on ships, but I have nothing conclusive on this. If this last problem can be overcome, I still believe POLAR can be part of the solution. It can provide long-range, precision fires much cheaper than a TLAM. It can also provide a limited number of deep, volume fires missions, before the ships involved exhaust their VLS supplies. I also think an extended range version of the the 7" Lockheed Martin P44 missile is worth a look, if a 9-pack canister for Mk41 VLS cells can be built. POLAR clearly isn't a volume-fire weapon - it is not going to replace Mk 45 Mod 4 or AGS. It offers a supplemental capability to tube artillery at sea in much the same way GMLRS does on land. There are lots of empty VLS tubes though and they can be quad-packed so a reasonable number could be carried on a ship tasked for NSFS, as opposed to BMD or carrier escort. But there is no clear requirement and no money for POLAR anyway... I still think LASM was a real loss, particularly for the near term. A lot of potential there in terms of warhead types, guidance systems and so on and relatively cheap, quick and easy to procure. PS Why is anyone still talking with pfcem? Clearly nothing is going to change. Op-Ed pieces as evidence, ignoring direct questions then claiming he answered them, just plain making stuff up... nothing changes. Ignore it and it will get bored and find someone else to annoy. Edited October 23, 2007 by FITZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pdoktar Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Oh, man. Here we go again with this "unbreakable" Mannerheim-line: Quote from Pfcem´s link In the Soviet-Finnish War (1939-1940), heavy artillery--mainly 203-mm and 280-mm guns--showed itself very well in rigorous winter conditions, difficult wood and swampy terrain in breaching the Mannerheim line. Without those artillery systems, the combat task--penetration of a heavily fortified defense system to a depth of eight to 10 kilometers and more--would simply not have been performed. There were 4 machine gun emplacements per kilometer with trenches, 2,5km of barbed wire fence per kilometer, 1 kilometer of anti-tank ditches and dragon teeth per kilometer of front.. So this is a mighty fortification isn´t it..? It is true that it was broken with massive artillery barrages and concentarted mass attacks, but I doubt that the 203 ja 280 guns played a CRITICAL role in breaking it. I wonder if the writer of that article still believes that finns started the Soviet-Finnish war a.k.a Winter War, boy if we´d only had heavy long-range artillery to reach Mainila (maybe 8 inch howitzers, not the puny 75mm..), I bet we sure would had a go at the Soviets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) There were 4 machine gun emplacements per kilometer with trenches, 2,5km of barbed wire fence per kilometer, 1 kilometer of anti-tank ditches and dragon teeth per kilometer of front.. So this is a mighty fortification isn´t it..? It is true that it was broken with massive artillery barrages and concentarted mass attacks, but I doubt that the 203 ja 280 guns played a CRITICAL role in breaking it. OT, but are there any online resources about Mannerheim line (in English)? Sort of... Construction of the objects, their relative placement and so on. EDIT: Now got an idea, Czechoslovakian Level IV protection blockhouses may resist AGS (lesser protection levels maybe as well) since they resisted Röchlig CP shells... But then I doubt even 8in superAGS would reach them from nearest sea Edited October 23, 2007 by Tuccy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 POLAR clearly isn't a volume-fire weapon - it is not going to replace Mk 45 Mod 4 or AGS. It offers a supplemental capability to tube artillery at sea in much the same way GMLRS does on land. There are lots of empty VLS tubes though and they can be quad-packed so a reasonable number could be carried on a ship tasked for NSFS, as opposed to BMD or carrier escort. But there is no clear requirement and no money for POLAR anyway... I still think LASM was a real loss, particularly for the near term. A lot of potential there in terms of warhead types, guidance systems and so on and relatively cheap, quick and easy to procure. Agreed. Another option for quad-packing might be a land-attack ESSM. Replacing the radar seeker with a larger warhead and GPS/INS guidance might drop the price significantly. An optimized trajectory and aerodynamics would increase its range. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 These (posted earlier by Chris): 1) Exactly where and when (as in a date and a time) did US or UK forces run into a target that could not be taken out by a guided 155mm projectile (or two or three thereof) that could have been taken out by a guided 203mm? 2) What was that target? (as in how was it constructed, what did it house and what threat did it pose) 3) What were the implications of not taking out that target with NGFS?I guess he means answer them one by one, as simple as possible, as clear as possible, without obfuscating the answers or simply posting links/articles that try to support your answer or interpreting such "proofs" to your advantage.What questions have I not answered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mote Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 What questions have I not answered? All of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 All of them.What questions have I not answered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 What questions have I not answered? Among others, these - 1) Exactly where and when (as in a date and a time) did US or UK forces run into a target that could not be taken out by a guided 155mm projectile (or two or three thereof) that could have been taken out by a guided 203mm? 2) What was that target? (as in how was it constructed, what did it house and what threat did it pose) 3) What were the implications of not taking out that target with NGFS? And I think you're on the verge of a permanent ban at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Among others, these - 1) Exactly where and when (as in a date and a time) did US or UK forces run into a target that could not be taken out by a guided 155mm projectile (or two or three thereof) that could have been taken out by a guided 203mm? 2) What was that target? (as in how was it constructed, what did it house and what threat did it pose) 3) What were the implications of not taking out that target with NGFS? And I think you're on the verge of a permanent ban at the moment.Did he ever answer this one - which I think is the grand-daddy: http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?s=&am...st&p=503791 David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 But then I doubt even 8in superAGS would reach them from nearest sea And this is why the US Navy should start the 25 year long multi trillion dollar project called the JERK System, short for Joint Earthmass Removal Kit. This would a special supertopsecret most sophisticated of the cutting edge technology, that would be capable of cutting a 1000 meter wide and 20 meter deep trench through Slovenia, Hungary and parts of Austria if need so that the NGFS ships could sail near enough to the Czech lands to be able to wreak havoc upon their evil fieldworks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 And this is why the US Navy should start the 25 year long multi trillion dollar project called the JERK System, short for Joint Earthmass Removal Kit. This would a special supertopsecret most sophisticated of the cutting edge technology, that would be capable of cutting a 1000 meter wide and 20 meter deep trench through Slovenia, Hungary and parts of Austria if need so that the NGFS ships could sail near enough to the Czech lands to be able to wreak havoc upon their evil fieldworks.Isn't there a HyperGavin variant with the digging screw of Prof. Challenger's machine out there somewhere? David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted October 23, 2007 Share Posted October 23, 2007 Oh, man. Here we go again with this "unbreakable" Mannerheim-line:Quote from Pfcem´s link In the Soviet-Finnish War (1939-1940), heavy artillery--mainly 203-mm and 280-mm guns--showed itself very well in rigorous winter conditions, difficult wood and swampy terrain in breaching the Mannerheim line. Without those artillery systems, the combat task--penetration of a heavily fortified defense system to a depth of eight to 10 kilometers and more--would simply not have been performed. There were 4 machine gun emplacements per kilometer with trenches, 2,5km of barbed wire fence per kilometer, 1 kilometer of anti-tank ditches and dragon teeth per kilometer of front.. So this is a mighty fortification isn´t it..? It is true that it was broken with massive artillery barrages and concentarted mass attacks, but I doubt that the 203 ja 280 guns played a CRITICAL role in breaking it. I wonder if the writer of that article still believes that finns started the Soviet-Finnish war a.k.a Winter War, boy if we´d only had heavy long-range artillery to reach Mainila (maybe 8 inch howitzers, not the puny 75mm..), I bet we sure would had a go at the Soviets. Did you actually read the entire artical or did you just quickly scan over it to look for something that did not look "right" to you? Are you saying that any & all information about actual FORTIFICATIONS along the Mannerheim line is false? It does not take much effort to find that the Mannerheim line was in fact a MUCH more heavily FORTIFIED line than you make it out to be. http://www.educypedia.be/education/worldwa...tifications.htm (lots of links)http://www.mannerheim-line.com/main.htmhttp://www.winterwar.com/mainpage.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MODERATOR Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 pfcem, your recent temporary ban and warning in this thread do not seem to have sunk in. Be advised that this is your *last* warning - modify your attitude if you wish to remain a member of the Grate Sight. MODERATOR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marek Tucan Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 (edited) Did you actually read the entire artical or did you just quickly scan over it to look for something that did not look "right" to you? Are you saying that any & all information about actual FORTIFICATIONS along the Mannerheim line is false? It does not take much effort to find that the Mannerheim line was in fact a MUCH more heavily FORTIFIED line than you make it out to be. Actually, even less so than pdoktar wrote, Karelian isthmus is 100 kilometers wide and counting ALL built concrete fortifications, ie 221 (incl. shelters), disregarding the real shape of the line and fact that some of the bunkers formed a second line around Viipuri, that is 2.21 bunker per 1 km of fortified line.Now for the quality, older fortifications were both with their concept and protection similar to Czechoslovakian vz.36 frontal fire pillboxes. Concrete thickness seems to be more and strength more or less the same, but OTOH not reinforced, so I have my doubts about the proposed protection against 6in guns. The comparable Czechoslovakian objects weren't considered to be even able to withstand direct 105mm hit and they were a bit tougher thanks to reinforced concrete.Newer objects again seem to be comparable to newer vz. 37 pillboxes. Without having exact wall thicknesses at hand, I'd guess it's the same as vz.37 with rised protection - that means 1 m of rein. concrete of the same strength in both cases. These objects were being considered to be 15cm-proof - against single direct hit.During firing trials it was found that with indirect fire, the chance of two direct hits is pretty slim. Of course back then, with pre-WW2 level of arty management. EDIT: For example description of storming bunker Sj4 Poppiuslinnake and others, so far I have found only two bunkers knocked out by artillery. everything else was infantry assault and explosives, in some cases aided by 45mm and 76mm direct fire against the fireports. And in one case, direct fire with 152mm CP shells. Edited October 24, 2007 by Tuccy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Tan Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 Disagree strongly with all this. NGFS is all about persistence and being on the gun line. Ergo, you need as many platforms as possible to do the job. LCS would have been the correct candidate for this mission had the Navy not cocked it up. Lots of platforms that you are willing to risk. The Zumwalts and such are strike platforms with the usual Navy caveats of keeping them OTH and thus requiring even more range to their weapons. There are no Atlantikwalls anymore. Such poisitions can be rapidly and decisively destroyed by air. NGFS is used to as supplementary arty until the guns are landed. As such, they will be mainly used for engaging targets of opportunity that have not been dealt with in the prep phase. I think that the shorter ranged missiles proposed for the LCS make a lot of sense. Micro-turbojet propulsion, small wings and a big ass warhead (500lb. equivalent). GPS/INS guidance with option of terminal laser homing. (seeker head switches on within 5 nm of target). Laser designation used for working point targets and danger close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corinthian Posted October 24, 2007 Share Posted October 24, 2007 And this is why the US Navy should start the 25 year long multi trillion dollar project called the JERK System, short for Joint Earthmass Removal Kit. This would a special supertopsecret most sophisticated of the cutting edge technology, that would be capable of cutting a 1000 meter wide and 20 meter deep trench through Slovenia, Hungary and parts of Austria if need so that the NGFS ships could sail near enough to the Czech lands to be able to wreak havoc upon their evil fieldworks. To be used in conjunction with the Wide Area Nuclear Kit-Extended Range (WANKER). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now