There was nothing wrong...the delay was because they had fired the 5 rounds in the 'Ready Magazine' inside the gun. The delay was the ready magazine being reloaded from the main armored magazine below deck.
"Now, as to the giant 16 inch guns, we don't trian people on those any more."
That would be logic, since you don't use those guns anymore, even in naval armament.
Though, in the first Gulf War, at the beginning of the 1990's, a US Navy cruiser, straight from WW2 (can't remember which one), although a bit modernized, was used to shell the Iraqis positions. As far as I can remember, that was the last time a cruiser was ever used in active combat operations.
@Briselance I'm fairly certain so. We still train people in the manual loading of 5 inch guns. It's what we have on our Abrams tank, after all. Now, as to the giant 16 inch guns, we don't trian people on those any more.
No offense to you yanks, but were the hell do you get the names of your ships from. Seriously. In the RN, you have ships like the HMS Invincible, HMS Triumph or HMS Dreadnought. You have some good ones eg USS Winston S. Churchill. But seriously some of then sound silly,
The names depend on the type of ship, for instance, LST's from WWII and later were all named for counties. Cruisers were named after cities, Battleships were named after States, Carriers were named after famous battles OR famous ships, like USS Lexington or USS Enterprise. Many ships now are named after people.
@nicknuke7 screw Tomahawk cruise missiles. I want a 16 INCH Gun at my Front and Back. Adding The Tomahawk missiles is like adding GPS to your car. 16 INCH is the Hole car and engine
Yeah, sure. Like you could afford to launch one of those super-expensive toys to shoot down an approaching enemy plane or boat. Tomahawk are perfect at long range, but in close range, when the target is literally in sight, Tomahawks just suck.
^^ Indeed. But missile can be countered by ... well ... countermeasures (gosh, this part here sounds sooo dumb ^^) ...
The radar necessary for the adequate use of Tomahawk missiles (and for any missile, btw) can be destroyed, sabotaged, blinded, jammed, etc. And you have countermissiles too (like the Patriot missile, I think)
But you can't outsmart a shell. Much more difficultly, at least.
@Briselance Tomhawks don't use radar, they are GPS guided and terrain map following. But your point is valid about counter measures and Missile Defense.
@Briselance Tomahawks are a long-range strike asset, we would never use it in a scenario where 5" would be an option (meaning where a target would be less than 13nm away). We'd sit a several hundred miles off a country's coast as use it.
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. INEQUALITY. INSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. BANKERS. LAWYERS. DRUG LORDS. JUDGES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
@packstack15 because, these ships have up to 36-48 tomahawk cruise missiles. thats enough to destroy 36-48 ships of eqiuvalent class. a super carrier can only take 2 or 3 hits from a tomahawk cruise missile before they are rendered useless to land/launch jets, helicopters may be able to fight still, but a run way with holes isnt good. but i do think we should keep more 25mm cannons on ships, they are great multi purpose weapons. the 25mm isnt to good for ship to ship though more ship to boat
@packstack15 These guns may be much smaller, but they have comparable firepower. These 5 inchers can fire exactly 10 times faster than the 16 inch guns on the Missouri. In the minute that it takes the Missouri to fire 2 rounds, this Mk45 will have already fired 20. And given the far more advanced fire control systems these Mk45's have, the majority of those 20 will have hit their target on the first try, whereas the 16 incher would have taken multiple salvos just to bring them onto target.
@packstack15 bigger IS better, that's why we have those things called missles. bigger boom than 16 inch guns. i mean i love the 16 inches, but there's no real use for them now a days. 5 inch is big enough, paying for 16 inch would just be a waste of money in this terrible economy.
@brandeezy108 Actually you are incorrect. Cost per ton of ordnance delivered by a 16" gun is a fraction of air dropped bombs or any missile. They are also highly accurate and capable. The Marines really hated to see the BB's retired. It was the ship that was expensive to operate. Short of a nuclear weapon the BB's were impervious to most modern missiles.
@bupturd alot of times the shell rolls off the deck into the ocean, the ones that dont, are most likely disposed of, or occasionally kept, given to commanding officers as decorations for offices and shit. i have one that was cut down into an ash tray.
It's bigger than a Main Battle tank's primary weapon. It would be plenty effective, especially since heavy plate armor, or really much armor at all above the waterline, is entirely obsolete in the age of anti-ship missiles.
The only reason to consider a larger deck gun would be for the purpose of fire-support to marines landing ashore. But then, as marines moved inland out of range, the big guns would become pointless again. How often have amphibious landings required bombardment since WWII?
For one, going to 6.1" (155mm) would give some commonality with land systems. Second, base bleed and rocket assisted 155mm shells already have something like 80 km range - quite respectable. Third, there are already GPS-corrected 155mm shells. Combine all this and you get a formidable system.
True, but the 155mm howitzer is a lower velocity gun than the naval 5 inch gun. Moreover, the 155mm howitzer is designed to store and load the projectile and powder separately. These features complicate a naval application, where a higher velocity, flatter trajectory, and brass-cased ammunition for ease of load automation and rapid fire, all would be requirements for engaging surface targets too small, less valuable, or less dangerous (unarmed military transports) that would call for a missile
vcz11... 155 Rounds are mostly caseless, and therefore require a loader. the 155mm Palidin is one such platform. It requires a human loader to load the necessary type and number of bags of powder behind the projectile. The MK 45 is designed as an automated, quick response, multipurpose gun platform capable of somewhat rapid fire requiring the use of cased ammunition (especially in its salt water environment). The 5" .54 Cal could easily take out a Somali pirate mother ship! Just wish they would!
@vcz11 They have a 6-inch naval rifle developed for the Zumwalt class. It has a maximum range close to the 80 km you mention. I don't know about shell casings, but naval applications have used cased ammo whenever possible. Up to WWII, that was up to 6-inch. Probably why the US Navy chose to build so many 6-inch gun cruisers as opposed to 8-inch gun cruisers in the late '30's.
this day and age you never get close enough anymore......Harpoon and Tomahawk Anti Ship will kill them over the horizon. Even the SM Series of Anti Air Missiles have anti ship capability. Thats if a Hornet doesn't unload on them first. More or less it is useful still, also in support of amphibious landings
It's something like 500 times cheaper than firing a single Javelin missile, so there's the money waste. Not to mention the anti-missile defence project and the F-22...
Often wondered how an Iowa class BB would fare against the Bismarck. Or a modern day 5 inch gun would go against those Japanese CAs in the Battle of Samar if our DDs and DEs had them.
Bismarck was an Older design than the Iowa. It was an early WW2 BB, where the Iowa was a mid to late WW2 BB. Bismarck would have lost, but not without giving the Iowa a nasty bloody nose.
Had an uncle who served on the USS Idaho. Insists she could've taken on Bismarck. I would remind him about the Hood, although Idaho would've given a better account of herself. Really pissed him off.
The Iowas were retired because it was just too expensive to have 1,250 sailors manning each battleship and keeping it's now-awkward, archaic technology operating.
The shore bombardment function is still important, however. The best idea would be to take those guns and mount them on an updated, hi-tech version of the low-slung, heavily armored monitors that the RN used late 1800's early 1900's.
To comment on the BB vs DDG debate, I agree that a DDG is much more versatile and more effective against ships than any BB. Where we really need a BB though is to back up ground troops with long-range gunfire. The missiles are all good and fine, but are rarley used to help out the ground pounders due to cost and stuff.
I guarantee those casings left some smiley faces on the deck. The bos'n mates bitch so hard about that. The best thing you can use are these big thick rubber mats that are used on fishing boats. Then you can be a GM and not a deck ape when you have to fix the deck blemishes.
Yes, the recommissioned Iowa Class Battleships carried the TLAM(Tomahawk Land Attack Missile) variant of the Tomahawk. But the Navy also has the TASM(Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile) variant of the Missile.
Each of the ships in the class have been decommissioned and recalled to service multiple times. All four were recalled to service just prior to the Gulf War through the 600 ship Navy program. The USS Wisconsin and the USS Missouri participated in the Gulf War. All four ships of the class were decommissioned again after the Gulf War ended but all four are maintained at a state of readiness in the event that the Navy should see it fit to call them back to service yet again.
No way, an Iowa class would lose miserably to an Arleigh Burke, or any modern destroyer. Lets not forget that DDG's can hold 90 cruise missiles in the launch cells. The Iowa would be destroyed even before it appeared on the horizon.
Yeah, the range of the Iowa's guns is only 20 miles so any ship with missiles will do. But in the 80's the Iowa's got Tomahawk launchers so they might have a chance.
No, there's no anti shipping variant of the Tomahawk. The Iowa class carried 16 RGM-84 Harpoon missiles, but the early versions had trouble targeting small fastmoving targets.
A modern US Navy destroyer with its 5 inch gun would wallop any WW2 battlewagon. It is much faster , more maneuverable and has greater lethality by being far more accurate. The combo of missles, torpedoes ,and guns make the destroyers of today far more effective than the BB's ever dreamed of. The survivability is evident in the fact that there are no BattleWagons anymore so the DD wins! Do not underestimate their ability to counter any threat from subs, ships or aircraft using the Aegis System.
How pray tell will a 5-in shell penetrate the BB's armor? Or, for that matter, how much of an impression do you think the Harpoon or SM2 in surface mode would make on the BB's armor? US Navy weapons are designed to take on much smaller unarmored targets. Only the Russians with their large antiship missiles and shaped charged warheads might be able to do some damage. Oh, USN surface launched torpedoes? What a puny 90lb warhead designed to take out submarines against a BB? Funny.
Harpoon ASMs and 5" shells wouldnt do shit but scratch the paint on an Iowa. BUT however a Mk-48 ADCAP torpedo would definitely sink an Iowa. The Mk-46 "lightweight" torpedo is designed for attacking Subs. Which in that case a 90lb warhead is plenty.
If a modern warship came within gun range of an American WWII battleship it would not survive for very long.
Modern warships are for the most part not faster than the Iowa class battleships, they absolutely aren't fast enough to evade the huge volume of 5" and 16" gunfire that would be directed at them.
The modern 5in gun would do little more than superficial damage to any WWII Battleship, and coming close enough to use it would doom the modern destroyer.
true that a battleship has rounds that would devastate a modern destroyer, but from experience on a ddg arleigh burke class destroyer, a battleship wouldnt stand a chance, if our guns didnt do the job, our torpedoes would have, that IS the primary function of a ddg destroyer, anti submarine warfare.
I hate the modern navies of the world today all vessels have weak armor and are almost completly dependent on missles. What conventinal slug weapons on board are only weak caliber at least a 8" inch gun would be more acceptable and have at least 2 of them. I'll admit battleships are obcelecent but to fall so much in just 60years time is pathetic to me. There is no surriviablility in the little amount of armor cuisers and destroyers to day have today.
Cool, my company used to fabricate that cover for FMC back in the 1990s. We dont any more since we closed up, but I hear its more stealthy shaped now. Believe it or not but that thing (cover) is all aluminum
100mm = 3.9inches. The Mark-45 USN and the German Oto compact 5"/54 guns are 5" = 127mm. There is a fucking HUGE difference in damage potential output. But I suppose Belgium is content with a rapid fire bb gun cause all you can sink is fiberglass speed boats.
You do also know that Italy and Germany are replacing the 127mm Compact(5"/54) with a newer Mod (5"/64) for improved range that has the same ROF as the US Mark-45 right? But yes the Oto Compact 5"/54 is rated for 40rds per minute vs the Mark-45s 20rds per minute. Although the Otos higher rate of fire also means it has less control on its shots. Thus the reason they reduced the RoF on the new model as it greatly improves shell dispersion.
i see the gun WHERES THE RAPID FIRE
TheHardrock000 1 month ago
Is there a guy in the turret throwing the empty cases out? What a cool yet at the same time boring job...
PrinceFillip 1 month ago
@PrinceFillip uh, it's automatically ejected.
brandeezy108 1 month ago
@brandeezy108 There's gotta be a guy in there, I just know it.
PrinceFillip 1 month ago
PEZ dispenser.... straight outta hell.
Sartanator 2 months ago
"uh oh, thats not supposed to happen" never what you wanna hear with a gun like that
k2477456 2 months ago
Are the shells being thrown out by hand?
psymaster1234 2 months ago
@psymaster1234 no it ejects the shells
Pkarchpray16 2 months ago
@psymaster1234 No, the gun is operated by an autoloader.
ULTRAHITLER 1 month ago
show the impact plz
fiendin281 2 months ago
fuckin bad ass. cant wait to be aboard these ships
TheSerenityhuck 2 months ago
if your saying thats rapid then the Belgians got a better 100mm cannon
TheHardrock000 2 months ago
There was nothing wrong...the delay was because they had fired the 5 rounds in the 'Ready Magazine' inside the gun. The delay was the ready magazine being reloaded from the main armored magazine below deck.
Bravo21 3 months ago
The gun is automated. There are no people inside doing anything. It is all done by machine and remote controls.
icihicpcl 3 months ago
nice vid, the squirrles were working hard that day
rgb0841 3 months ago
"Pirate poppers"
footmaverick 3 months ago
Can't believe the gun-operator just throws the shell casings out like an old can of baked-beans...they must be damn hot!!!
bertyUK 3 months ago
damn those are big ass shells
stgz13 4 months ago
it would suck to get hit by one of those ejecting shells
GnRSlash88 4 months ago
Who shoots these guns? Is it the Gunner's Mate? Fire controlman? or who? I only know some rating names, not their actual function lol
rifler27 5 months ago
@rifler27 Gunners Mate
fiemosport1 4 months ago
@fiemosport1 the FCs fired it on the ship I am on. GMs just load it.
keiga4 4 months ago 3
Those are some big ass shells!
Shaded07 5 months ago
damn they should make 16 inch gun ships like the iowa class or the yamoto class u know like the BB class ships
monsterchris16 5 months ago
@monsterchris16 Why need 16 inch guns with you have cruise missiles?
phillyZeroTen 5 months ago
those are some big as shels
nerfwarfail 6 months ago
127 mm ?
jawinge 6 months ago
Jam, are you kidding me? We need to re-instate the dual 5" mount policy. What's with the light weight mounts any how? SLOW,
jamesdewer 7 months ago
Who's throwing brass out the window?!
Astatine211 7 months ago
look mom its a can dispencer
still an epic gun though
theweirdoiscool 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Now, as to the giant 16 inch guns, we don't trian people on those any more."
That would be logic, since you don't use those guns anymore, even in naval armament.
Though, in the first Gulf War, at the beginning of the 1990's, a US Navy cruiser, straight from WW2 (can't remember which one), although a bit modernized, was used to shell the Iraqis positions. As far as I can remember, that was the last time a cruiser was ever used in active combat operations.
Briselance 10 months ago
If ever the automated system breaks down, is it possible to send one or two men in the turret to operate it in "old school" style ?
Briselance 10 months ago
@Briselance I'm fairly certain so. We still train people in the manual loading of 5 inch guns. It's what we have on our Abrams tank, after all. Now, as to the giant 16 inch guns, we don't trian people on those any more.
halo07guy2 10 months ago
No offense to you yanks, but were the hell do you get the names of your ships from. Seriously. In the RN, you have ships like the HMS Invincible, HMS Triumph or HMS Dreadnought. You have some good ones eg USS Winston S. Churchill. But seriously some of then sound silly,
MrHaithwaite1992 10 months ago
@MrHaithwaite1992
The names depend on the type of ship, for instance, LST's from WWII and later were all named for counties. Cruisers were named after cities, Battleships were named after States, Carriers were named after famous battles OR famous ships, like USS Lexington or USS Enterprise. Many ships now are named after people.
RetSquid 10 months ago
@MrHaithwaite1992 all of them do have a reason for the names just like you good ol Brits Cheers mate
tnhl77 9 months ago
I'll pay 5 bucks to whoever puts their balls on one of the freshly-ejected shell casings.
CamelBallZee 10 months ago
@CamelBallZee i accept this challenge .... :D
GamingLeeLee 10 months ago
@GamingLeeLee I don't have 5 bucks anymore :'(
An evil magic elf jacked me.
CamelBallZee 10 months ago
Dont fuck with his Doritos!
theguitarguymike 10 months ago
This is nothing compared to the Gun on the Missouri. 16 INCH FTW
Hate how we go father into the future the guns get smaller. What happened to Bigger is better.
packstack15 11 months ago 9
@packstack15 We don't need big guns when we now have Tomahawk cruise missiles :D
nicknuke7 10 months ago
@nicknuke7 screw Tomahawk cruise missiles. I want a 16 INCH Gun at my Front and Back. Adding The Tomahawk missiles is like adding GPS to your car. 16 INCH is the Hole car and engine
packstack15 10 months ago
@packstack15 Whatever floats your boat...pun intended :D
nicknuke7 10 months ago
@nicknuke7
Yeah, sure. Like you could afford to launch one of those super-expensive toys to shoot down an approaching enemy plane or boat. Tomahawk are perfect at long range, but in close range, when the target is literally in sight, Tomahawks just suck.
Briselance 10 months ago
@Briselance I agree :D But they would never let any target come within a 50 mile radius in the first place ...lmaooo :D
nicknuke7 10 months ago
@nicknuke7
^^ Indeed. But missile can be countered by ... well ... countermeasures (gosh, this part here sounds sooo dumb ^^) ...
The radar necessary for the adequate use of Tomahawk missiles (and for any missile, btw) can be destroyed, sabotaged, blinded, jammed, etc. And you have countermissiles too (like the Patriot missile, I think)
But you can't outsmart a shell. Much more difficultly, at least.
Don't you think ?
Briselance 10 months ago
@Briselance Tomhawks don't use radar, they are GPS guided and terrain map following. But your point is valid about counter measures and Missile Defense.
jtoatoktoe 8 months ago
@Briselance Tomahawks do no rely on any radar system (namely SPY) for guidance. They use GPS/INS/TERCOM/DSMAC.
m0tbaillie 8 months ago
@Briselance Tomahawks are a long-range strike asset, we would never use it in a scenario where 5" would be an option (meaning where a target would be less than 13nm away). We'd sit a several hundred miles off a country's coast as use it.
m0tbaillie 8 months ago
@packstack15 Accuracy and Tomahawks.
m0tbaillie 8 months ago
@packstack15 Missiles are much better than cannons.
Agalloch100 4 months ago
@packstack15 Big Boom in Smaller Packagers
nakazatoGTR 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
CAPITALISM creates ELITE CRIMINALS. BANKERS. DRUG LORDS. INEQUALITY. INSECURITY. GREED. RUTHLESS COMMUNISM. NWO. NAZI. TERRORISM. LAZY PEOPLE. REBEL POLITICIAN. ANARCHY. worst is WAR etc.. etc..
CAPITALISM was designed only for CORRUPT OPPORTUNISTIC MANIPULATIVE LAZY POLITICIAN. BANKERS. LAWYERS. DRUG LORDS. JUDGES. CRIMINALS. DICTATORS. RULERS. KING. SULTANATE. EMPEROR etc. etc..
HARD WORKING PEACE LOVING HAPPY HONEST SOCIETY were always the slave victim and poorly starve to death. :(
kopellhinex 3 months ago
@packstack15 because, these ships have up to 36-48 tomahawk cruise missiles. thats enough to destroy 36-48 ships of eqiuvalent class. a super carrier can only take 2 or 3 hits from a tomahawk cruise missile before they are rendered useless to land/launch jets, helicopters may be able to fight still, but a run way with holes isnt good. but i do think we should keep more 25mm cannons on ships, they are great multi purpose weapons. the 25mm isnt to good for ship to ship though more ship to boat
MUJUNKY 2 months ago
@packstack15 These guns may be much smaller, but they have comparable firepower. These 5 inchers can fire exactly 10 times faster than the 16 inch guns on the Missouri. In the minute that it takes the Missouri to fire 2 rounds, this Mk45 will have already fired 20. And given the far more advanced fire control systems these Mk45's have, the majority of those 20 will have hit their target on the first try, whereas the 16 incher would have taken multiple salvos just to bring them onto target.
booya155 2 months ago
@packstack15 The guns may be 5 inch, but the Harpoons are near unbeatable.
ULTRAHITLER 1 month ago
@packstack15 bigger IS better, that's why we have those things called missles. bigger boom than 16 inch guns. i mean i love the 16 inches, but there's no real use for them now a days. 5 inch is big enough, paying for 16 inch would just be a waste of money in this terrible economy.
brandeezy108 1 month ago
@brandeezy108 Actually you are incorrect. Cost per ton of ordnance delivered by a 16" gun is a fraction of air dropped bombs or any missile. They are also highly accurate and capable. The Marines really hated to see the BB's retired. It was the ship that was expensive to operate. Short of a nuclear weapon the BB's were impervious to most modern missiles.
kblackav8or 1 month ago in playlist Survival
not rapid fire my friend...
giuffsa1 1 year ago
the guns load and fire automechanically NO Sailor is chucking empties on the the deck.
awahlster 1 year ago
for a modern naval gun is slow.
trueorlies 1 year ago
@trueorlies look like semi-auto!!!
staffsgtamous 10 months ago
pretty damn imprsesive for a cannon, the iowa classes guns can only manage like 2 rounds a minute....
mrwxyz101 1 year ago
@mrwxyz101 True, but a round from this gun weighs about 60 pounds. It would mess up an average house.
A 16" round from an Iowa class BB weighs over 2000 pounds and would demolish an entire city block.
agwhitaker 1 year ago
i love how the shell appears you can imagine some huge bloke just hurling it out side lol
TheWeeklyLawReports 1 year ago
Watch out Bin Laden
viperattack100 1 year ago
@viperattack100 but.... Who is Bin Laden?
rodrigogiorgi89 8 months ago
now thats a gun
theRAFrule 1 year ago
It looks like it takes a shit when it discharges the shell.
ciavarella1292 1 year ago
Nothing like the 16 inch guns from the Iowa class, but impressive nonetheless...
Rightwinggolfer 1 year ago
Looks kinda like someone is hiding in the turret and throwing empty shells onto the deck.
Monkeynuts502 1 year ago
Definition of Rapid. Moving, acting, or occurring with great speed.
RyanLFC86 1 year ago
one shot every three seconds isn't that fast.
USSWISCONSIN64 1 year ago
@USSWISCONSIN64 for a 5 inch gun its freaking lightning, and its getting faster...
Rightwinggolfer 1 year ago
lol, it looks like there is just some guy inside throw the spent shells out.
rb26dett32 1 year ago
Guns should never leave Naval ships. You can shoot down a missile but not an artillery shell.
indoorin 1 year ago
@indoorin
Really... Apparantly the Royal Navy didn't get that memo when they decided to shoot down a couple 4.5inch shells with their VL SeaWolf
chrthiel 1 year ago
@indoorin true. very true.
USSWISCONSIN64 1 year ago
I think casings are returned - and eventually reused - would be a silly thing to fill the oceans with..
herauthon 1 year ago
@herauthon Some times they are re-loaded but if they go over the side its not a big deal, brass dissolves in salt water in 2 weeks.
GunsOfThePhoenix 1 year ago
thats awesome
kawasakikx250ff 1 year ago
Sicc
Homage281 1 year ago
you must not no how big 5 inchs is
canadianbacon957 1 year ago
lol, those bullet keeper thingys
jeroenvermunt 1 year ago
GTFO MY BOAT!
TheMasterMarine 1 year ago
a Must have for in the garden
Pacovl8 1 year ago
i love it how the hulls pop out ^^
NKCrime 1 year ago
alot of naval gun jam these days
andreweng666 1 year ago
what do the do with the brass
bupturd 2 years ago
Reload it
VMFA115Starloric 1 year ago
@bupturd alot of times the shell rolls off the deck into the ocean, the ones that dont, are most likely disposed of, or occasionally kept, given to commanding officers as decorations for offices and shit. i have one that was cut down into an ash tray.
icx88888 1 year ago
@rysnyper50002 lol i see what u mean midget throwing them out
MRmatapatpat 2 years ago
Looks like some miget is inside the cannon throwing the shells out lol
rysnyper50002 2 years ago
dogshit mate
slopcxz 2 years ago
you would be able to kill someone boarding your ship if that gun was firing uber fast =P the shells would kill them i mean
ENZO234258 2 years ago
I dn't know why...but I laughed at the way the shell was ejected...looks like someone toss it out...= =
travischan03 2 years ago
Yeah, they have a job for throwing the brass out.. You have to be under 4'10 though. LOL
VMFA115Starloric 1 year ago
I am surprised that the Navy did not choose a 7 or even a 10 inch for the standard deck gun.
pwnage0013 2 years ago
How effective would the 5 inch gun REALLY be in combat?
bullcurr 2 years ago
It's bigger than a Main Battle tank's primary weapon. It would be plenty effective, especially since heavy plate armor, or really much armor at all above the waterline, is entirely obsolete in the age of anti-ship missiles.
The only reason to consider a larger deck gun would be for the purpose of fire-support to marines landing ashore. But then, as marines moved inland out of range, the big guns would become pointless again. How often have amphibious landings required bombardment since WWII?
geekalpha 2 years ago
true enough!
bullcurr 2 years ago
For one, going to 6.1" (155mm) would give some commonality with land systems. Second, base bleed and rocket assisted 155mm shells already have something like 80 km range - quite respectable. Third, there are already GPS-corrected 155mm shells. Combine all this and you get a formidable system.
vcz11 2 years ago
True, but the 155mm howitzer is a lower velocity gun than the naval 5 inch gun. Moreover, the 155mm howitzer is designed to store and load the projectile and powder separately. These features complicate a naval application, where a higher velocity, flatter trajectory, and brass-cased ammunition for ease of load automation and rapid fire, all would be requirements for engaging surface targets too small, less valuable, or less dangerous (unarmed military transports) that would call for a missile
geekalpha 2 years ago
vcz11... 155 Rounds are mostly caseless, and therefore require a loader. the 155mm Palidin is one such platform. It requires a human loader to load the necessary type and number of bags of powder behind the projectile. The MK 45 is designed as an automated, quick response, multipurpose gun platform capable of somewhat rapid fire requiring the use of cased ammunition (especially in its salt water environment). The 5" .54 Cal could easily take out a Somali pirate mother ship! Just wish they would!
RescueDiver32201 2 years ago
@vcz11 They have a 6-inch naval rifle developed for the Zumwalt class. It has a maximum range close to the 80 km you mention. I don't know about shell casings, but naval applications have used cased ammo whenever possible. Up to WWII, that was up to 6-inch. Probably why the US Navy chose to build so many 6-inch gun cruisers as opposed to 8-inch gun cruisers in the late '30's.
hallmobility 1 year ago
@hallmobility
Actually, that had more to do with the Washington Treaty.
Unlike the 8" heavy cruisers, there were no restrictions on 6" light cruisers
chrthiel 1 year ago
Well Congress is hell bent on keeping the the short bombardment requirement
jtoatoktoe 1 year ago
i think its only for ship to ship combat. that thing can be useful when targeting the enemy deck.
JinKazama92 2 years ago
Mainly ship to shore bombardment.
canihazburger 2 years ago
this day and age you never get close enough anymore......Harpoon and Tomahawk Anti Ship will kill them over the horizon. Even the SM Series of Anti Air Missiles have anti ship capability. Thats if a Hornet doesn't unload on them first. More or less it is useful still, also in support of amphibious landings
jtoatoktoe 1 year ago
PEz dispencer from hell
ithicaplasma 2 years ago 75
Comment removed
bornindagutta 2 years ago
Stupid ! waste the moneys!
dmtau 2 years ago
sad use of english words.
amznrnfrst 2 years ago 17
It's something like 500 times cheaper than firing a single Javelin missile, so there's the money waste. Not to mention the anti-missile defence project and the F-22...
bum291 2 years ago
Can I ask you?What is your national?
And thanks !
dmtau 2 years ago
thats amazing ive never seen this before
300Squares 2 years ago
Not paying out BB's at all here but 300 years of rule over the sea is fare time if you ask me i give the Aircraft carrier 150 years
Mrbob200 2 years ago
300 years? True (post dreadnought period) BB's were invented around WWI.
chrthiel 2 years ago
haHAHAHA!!! that is one badass gun right there
frozenhell98 2 years ago
The USS iowa is the only BB that reminds mothballed which means she is the only one combat ready
Mrbob200 2 years ago
Often wondered how an Iowa class BB would fare against the Bismarck. Or a modern day 5 inch gun would go against those Japanese CAs in the Battle of Samar if our DDs and DEs had them.
tullibee 2 years ago
Bismarck was an Older design than the Iowa. It was an early WW2 BB, where the Iowa was a mid to late WW2 BB. Bismarck would have lost, but not without giving the Iowa a nasty bloody nose.
Scioneer 2 years ago
Had an uncle who served on the USS Idaho. Insists she could've taken on Bismarck. I would remind him about the Hood, although Idaho would've given a better account of herself. Really pissed him off.
tullibee 2 years ago
The Iowas were retired because it was just too expensive to have 1,250 sailors manning each battleship and keeping it's now-awkward, archaic technology operating.
The shore bombardment function is still important, however. The best idea would be to take those guns and mount them on an updated, hi-tech version of the low-slung, heavily armored monitors that the RN used late 1800's early 1900's.
pinz2022 1 year ago
To comment on the BB vs DDG debate, I agree that a DDG is much more versatile and more effective against ships than any BB. Where we really need a BB though is to back up ground troops with long-range gunfire. The missiles are all good and fine, but are rarley used to help out the ground pounders due to cost and stuff.
SharperSMH 2 years ago
I've been thinking for awhile that a BB would be good when anti-missile technology becomes good enough to make missiles obsolete.
Then you'll likely see a resurgence in gun development (i.e. the railgun).
sirh0213 2 years ago
hahahah Rail guns where Canned even on the DDX class
Mrbob200 2 years ago
Well, that sucks. I guess we need to bring back the 16" battleship guns.
Nothing like lobbing an object the mass of a small car at someone and doing it over the horizon.
sirh0213 2 years ago
Or convince the english to give us their 'Museum piece" 18" guns :P
A shell heavier than that of the US Super heavy and nuclear shells.
peepeevagi 2 years ago
But ballistically inferior...
iowa61 2 years ago
that's real navy power! : )
Dafilopride94 2 years ago
I guarantee those casings left some smiley faces on the deck. The bos'n mates bitch so hard about that. The best thing you can use are these big thick rubber mats that are used on fishing boats. Then you can be a GM and not a deck ape when you have to fix the deck blemishes.
hollandja29 2 years ago
Yes, the recommissioned Iowa Class Battleships carried the TLAM(Tomahawk Land Attack Missile) variant of the Tomahawk. But the Navy also has the TASM(Tomahawk Anti-Ship Missile) variant of the Missile.
gn4179 2 years ago
But they were removed from service before the First Gulf War.
chrthiel 2 years ago
Each of the ships in the class have been decommissioned and recalled to service multiple times. All four were recalled to service just prior to the Gulf War through the 600 ship Navy program. The USS Wisconsin and the USS Missouri participated in the Gulf War. All four ships of the class were decommissioned again after the Gulf War ended but all four are maintained at a state of readiness in the event that the Navy should see it fit to call them back to service yet again.
GRSniper24 2 years ago
yep thats right.... oh i have a itch they wont get out of that bunker now where is my BB
Mrbob200 2 years ago
No way, an Iowa class would lose miserably to an Arleigh Burke, or any modern destroyer. Lets not forget that DDG's can hold 90 cruise missiles in the launch cells. The Iowa would be destroyed even before it appeared on the horizon.
argonwraith 3 years ago
sure, but there is something majestic about 16" guns.
juufa72 3 years ago
I'd even put my money on a handful of old Osa class missile boats.
chrthiel 2 years ago
Yeah, the range of the Iowa's guns is only 20 miles so any ship with missiles will do. But in the 80's the Iowa's got Tomahawk launchers so they might have a chance.
argonwraith 2 years ago
Tomahawks are land attack missiles and wont do sqat against moving ships.
chrthiel 2 years ago
wrong. They have anti-ship versions too.
gn4179 2 years ago
No, there's no anti shipping variant of the Tomahawk. The Iowa class carried 16 RGM-84 Harpoon missiles, but the early versions had trouble targeting small fastmoving targets.
chrthiel 2 years ago
what ssm can cary
RISK515 3 years ago
is there just a bloke in there throwing shells out XD
(btw thats a joke to the more dense people here on youtube)
Chance2345 3 years ago
why the hells it called a 5 inch gun?
DaBossk 3 years ago
the bore is 5 inches
riflemanjim 3 years ago
whats a bore?
DaBossk 3 years ago
Bore is the size of the hole in the barrel.
riflemanjim 3 years ago
I think it was named in honour of your penis
11111FALCON11111 3 years ago 2
hahaha good one
DaBossk 3 years ago
Just a joke champ but you did leave the window open.
11111FALCON11111 3 years ago 2
A modern US Navy destroyer with its 5 inch gun would wallop any WW2 battlewagon. It is much faster , more maneuverable and has greater lethality by being far more accurate. The combo of missles, torpedoes ,and guns make the destroyers of today far more effective than the BB's ever dreamed of. The survivability is evident in the fact that there are no BattleWagons anymore so the DD wins! Do not underestimate their ability to counter any threat from subs, ships or aircraft using the Aegis System.
monkigun 3 years ago 3
How pray tell will a 5-in shell penetrate the BB's armor? Or, for that matter, how much of an impression do you think the Harpoon or SM2 in surface mode would make on the BB's armor? US Navy weapons are designed to take on much smaller unarmored targets. Only the Russians with their large antiship missiles and shaped charged warheads might be able to do some damage. Oh, USN surface launched torpedoes? What a puny 90lb warhead designed to take out submarines against a BB? Funny.
ferdelance01 3 years ago
Harpoon ASMs and 5" shells wouldnt do shit but scratch the paint on an Iowa. BUT however a Mk-48 ADCAP torpedo would definitely sink an Iowa. The Mk-46 "lightweight" torpedo is designed for attacking Subs. Which in that case a 90lb warhead is plenty.
Cirux321 3 years ago
If a modern warship came within gun range of an American WWII battleship it would not survive for very long.
Modern warships are for the most part not faster than the Iowa class battleships, they absolutely aren't fast enough to evade the huge volume of 5" and 16" gunfire that would be directed at them.
The modern 5in gun would do little more than superficial damage to any WWII Battleship, and coming close enough to use it would doom the modern destroyer.
junior09252007 3 years ago
true that a battleship has rounds that would devastate a modern destroyer, but from experience on a ddg arleigh burke class destroyer, a battleship wouldnt stand a chance, if our guns didnt do the job, our torpedoes would have, that IS the primary function of a ddg destroyer, anti submarine warfare.
gangstar1219 3 years ago
I agree, I wish that the battleship was back. too bad, it's too expensive.
ferrariguy1000 3 years ago
I hate the modern navies of the world today all vessels have weak armor and are almost completly dependent on missles. What conventinal slug weapons on board are only weak caliber at least a 8" inch gun would be more acceptable and have at least 2 of them. I'll admit battleships are obcelecent but to fall so much in just 60years time is pathetic to me. There is no surriviablility in the little amount of armor cuisers and destroyers to day have today.
sommer98 3 years ago
Cool, my company used to fabricate that cover for FMC back in the 1990s. We dont any more since we closed up, but I hear its more stealthy shaped now. Believe it or not but that thing (cover) is all aluminum
L2fish 3 years ago
blubb blubb
Zeckenkiller321 3 years ago
rapid???? muhahhahah, ever have seen a oto melara gun on a german frigate?????
Zeckenkiller321 3 years ago
ure so smart. u know how many milimeters these rounds are?
BF2mods 3 years ago
its the same size, moron!
Zeckenkiller321 3 years ago
Both you fools should see Belgium's 100mm autos. Just as fast as the oto melara, with 24mm wider barrel.
Gunslinger145 3 years ago
100mm = 3.9inches. The Mark-45 USN and the German Oto compact 5"/54 guns are 5" = 127mm. There is a fucking HUGE difference in damage potential output. But I suppose Belgium is content with a rapid fire bb gun cause all you can sink is fiberglass speed boats.
Cirux321 3 years ago
You do also know that Italy and Germany are replacing the 127mm Compact(5"/54) with a newer Mod (5"/64) for improved range that has the same ROF as the US Mark-45 right? But yes the Oto Compact 5"/54 is rated for 40rds per minute vs the Mark-45s 20rds per minute. Although the Otos higher rate of fire also means it has less control on its shots. Thus the reason they reduced the RoF on the new model as it greatly improves shell dispersion.
Cirux321 3 years ago
I believe its 76 mm......that's WAY smaller than the 127 mm's of the 5 inch.
CaptainAmerica322 2 years ago
this is 5in gun. its on a US destroyer which are all armed with 5inchers
4everUSNavy 2 years ago
as are U.S. Cruisers
jtoatoktoe 1 year ago
The guy chucking them empty cartridges out got an arm on him, Call the NFL.
supressorgrid 3 years ago
nobody throws them out, is there a little person inside of every rifle then? same concept.
hahayoullneverknow 3 years ago
Yes, there is a little elf inside of my Enfield. When he aint busy ejecting shells, he bakes cookies.
supressorgrid 3 years ago 12
hm, if they call that rapid fireing, they better buy and Oto Malera next time :)
alioringmastai 3 years ago
dude that IS rapid firing for that kinf of gun
Spartainwarlord 3 years ago
Exactly. A 5in can never fire as quickly as a 76mm(which is what I think he means - Oto Melara make several naval guns).
mongrellius 3 years ago
Yea, you can use an Oto Melara if you want half the range and half the effectiveness.
No sane Marine would except NGFS from a 76mm popgun when he could get a 5 inch (127 or so mm).
Puh-lease.
seanboud 3 years ago
hm....76 mm vs 127 mm.......I think they'll stick with 127 mm.
CaptainAmerica322 2 years ago