Shipbucket

so would it be possible to take the american 5"/38 or british 4.7" and create a true dual dual purpose mount
also one more question how effective were the bofors guns used on Polish destroyers compared to these or to better re-frase the question what was the best destroyer gun and or mounting to use before world war 2

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

You'd probably be better off with the 5/38 since those should be high-angle guns and were probably as close to "true" WWII DP mounts as you're going to get (they're going to be hampered more by RoF than anything else).

so to conclude the american 5/38 was your best bet for a prewar destroyer gun
radar wise the information is too classified for a true comparison and it comes down to assorted prefrences
gun wise its also assorted prefrences
is this correct?
one more question is their a single CIWS to prefer or they all once again have advantages and disadvantages and it come down to what your
navies prefrences are

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

Yep.

The USN is moving to RAM because it offers a longer range, and the Block 2 version can be fired out of the Mk 41 VLS system. The proliferation of SAMs as CIWS isn't a new thing (It's what early Sea Sparrow and Sea Chaparral were), but it does get a bit muddy as the performance that might be a CIWS for one nation might be a short range SAM for another.


Phalanx is so popular because it has no deck penetration, and is functionally a bolt-on system with minimal water and power demands (most people don't know that ship systems have water demands - Chilled water is the primary method of keeping things cool so that they run optimally).

Goalkeeper offers a longer range than Phalanx and a heavier shell (30mm vs 20mm), but it requires a much larger on-ship footprint.

The Italian solutions (40mm and 76mm - at the same time) offer even longer ranges, and higher chances of a single shell taking out an inbound, but both are going to have lower rates of fire than the Goalkeeper.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

ohhh i was always wondering why the french used crotale but no gun CIWS and yeah thats what i was thinking with the phalanx but i never knew about water cooling very interesting insight. How does a system like the Millennium gun compare would it be like in between phalanx and dardo with a low rate of fire compared to phalanx though (burst mode may add an advantage though) and for a system like the 76mm does the low rate of fire leave it at a serious disadvantage or the range is so much greater it makes up for it

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

The OTO 76 is actually considered CIWS/Anti-ASM capable. This is why Italian ships have so damn many of them.

The big advantage of "big gun" CIWS (40mm-76mm) is that they're "triple-purpose" - they can engage sea and land targets in addition to missile and air targets. So if you're looking to maximize economy they're the weapon of choice. Once again this is why Italian ships tend to be bristling with guns compared to their other nations' counterparts in order to get adequate coverage. This starts to eat into your economy and defeat the purpose, as far as tonnage goes (especially as these are comparatively heavy and have massive deck penetration to begin with). You can get away with, say, a 76mm at each end (and that's considered quite considerable anti-surface firepower) but at the expense of coverage. You also get a heavier explosive shell and the RoF isn't as low as you might think, but these "big gun" CIWS systems are unproven in an actual combat situation as far as actual missile/aircraft shootdown situations are concerned and the RoF is still slow enough that you're betting on the accuracy of your systems to take out the target within the first few hits.

TimothyC already went over Goalkeeper and Phalanx. The Millennium Gun is something of a Super-Goalkeeper: same firepower, somewhat less deck penetration and now you get at least some of that "dual purpose" use as I described from the above. MG is probably a bit better at actually engaging small surface craft than Goalkeeper and that's what MG's primary purpose is for anyway.

The biggest advantage of missiles is that since they actually lock onto and home in on the target you have a much greater pK (or at least in theory). You also have a much longer engagement range - the whole impetus was because the engagement range for Phalanx is so short the ship would still suffer significant damage from flaming debris resulting from missile detonation.

To elaborate a bit on that; It's more that the larger soviet missiles were flying telephone poles and were just as likely to be cut in half than detonate, and a lot of the AShM's energy for doing damage was kinetic, so even if you cut the missile in half, if it hits you, you're in a world of hurt.

_________________
𝐌𝐀𝐓𝐇𝐍𝐄𝐓- 𝑻𝒐 𝑪𝒐𝒈𝒊𝒕𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒕𝒐 𝑺𝒐𝒍𝒗𝒆

so would Millennium Gun be the most useful overall and thereby sort of the best or i miss understood

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!

There is no such thing as "sort of best," just "best for what you're looking to do." So it depends on what you want to do with it specifically.

...for example if you're looking to kitbash something with prewar 5/25s, RAM and Millennium Guns then you're free to go with whatever looks most tacticool to you.

yeah you are most definitley right about that and nooo hahahaha i was not planning something like that theyre just questions i have about creating the most effective warships

_________________
Projects:
Zealandia AU
John Company AU
References and feedback is always welcome!