Why Navy Ships No Longer Use Giant Cannons
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 бер 2024
- Do you like my shorts but you're looking for something with a bit more of a bang? Look no more! Introducing VEXR channel memberships. It's all explained in this wonderful video: • Up Your VEXR Experience
With a membership, you get the following:
1) All shorts released in full-sized 4k video
2) Extended raw footage after each and every video
3) 5 longer members-only videos a month
This premium content will also include my top 100 shorts as well, including new extended raw footage yet to be released.
As the channel keeps growing, we're slowly developing a team here to offer more and more content to you folks while also keeping with the theme and culture of the channel. If you'd like to support us on this journey, and get some dank 4k VEXR content in the process, check out the video above for more details on VEXR Premium!
#army #military #navy #usarmy #usmilitary #usnavy #ukraine #militarytraining #veterans #marines #marinecorps #navyseals #specialforces - Розваги
My dad served on the Wisconsin during Korea. He often spoke of how the ship would almost roll over when the 16's were fired.
I often wonder what those monsters sounded like..... i can only imagine the incredible noise, plus the incredible FEELING your body must experience when near these guns.
He lied ..or embellished...
Rolling over would require more than 45 degrees of list.
A full broadside on Wisconsin gives a gentle roll of about 1 or 2 degrees.
Does he get the shitty VA BS bout "your deafness is not job related"
Because we're boring 😔
✋️I second that.
The motion is hereby passed
Yep.
Ttftztcxrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrdddsssssrddrrtfw😢saa @@qwqe6518
You told your wife that it's not about size but it's about how you use it?😂😂
I expect drones will replace most armaments now and ships will become dron transporters
Without resorting to nukes, only the big guns (battleships) can erase landscapes.
Not really. Bombs delivered by planes often release far more explosive and kinetic energy. An AP shell may have 300lbs of high explosive (HE might have 1200), whereas a JDAM can have 2000, and is far more accurate (a couple of yards instead of many dozens)
And, believe it or not, the bombs are far less expensive to deliver- and can hit anywhere, not just within 20-ish miles of a coastline.
BUT... They are F'N COOL AF, though. I wish I'd been able to see them fire, eh?
Nice shots of USS New Jersey BB-62 Firing her main guns.
Just wait for the Missouri to come out of retirement for the millionth time for some coast bombarment
I say, engineer a missile where it can be shot out those big cannons, along with redesigning the barrel to take them. That would be cool.
The downside is that missiles costs like 200 times more than firing a 16" shell. And unlike shells, missiles can be intercepted ...the range/accuracy part is definitely the biggest negative factor tho. It wouldn't surprise me if big guns make a return and start being used in conjunction with missiles for mid-range threats.
I never understood this argument. The USN's AGS shells ended up costing 800k per shot. A Tomahawk is 2 million. The AGS shell can be intercepted. Rheinmetall demonstrated lower power lasers intercepting mortar shells by causing premature deflagration of their explosive content. That can be scaled up in power. THAAD intercepts ballistic missile threats at significantly greater speed in the terminal phase. If you can take out something going at Mach 20 then the challenge posed by some lame gun is trivial. Also, the Tomahawk may cost more, but it can actually evade threats in a denied environment, the fact that it's self-propelled and can cruise means it can be dynamically retargeted more easily.
Unguided shells make even less sense. So you're going to miss, necessitating higher payloads, so the shells suddenly balloon in size and you can carry less. Then your ships need to be bigger to carry more ammo.
Missile cost 200 times more but will definitely hit and destroy a target of course it could be intercepted theres a reason why navies all over the word are researching missile technology such as hypersonic etc because the accuracy, precision that can be obtained at longer ranges that definitely outrange the shell outweigh the cost
Cannons and shell's are only "invisible " for certain amount of range cause the energy produced by the explosion is still high at longer ranges it can be intercepted as the energy dissipated
I would rather see the Navy's rail gun project unshelved. Imagine a nuclear Battle Cruiser with two turrets each with four rail guns in place of those huge WW2 types for the main weaponry, Bushmasters for secondary/anti-air. On top of that, CIWS (Phalanx) and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile systems for close defense.
The size of the kinetic projectiles, and their non-explosive nature, would mean more ordnance can be carried. It could even include adding the Ageas system to tie it all together.
These days we have electronic warfare systems. Guided missiles can be deflected and GPS jammed by such system. Artillery shells are not affected by such system. Sure, the missile is very accurate but susceptible to GPS jamming . Price of 1 guided missile can buy you 200 artillery rounds . Throwing 200 unguided shells oppose to 1 missile at the enemy also guarantees a hit . " Quantity is a form of quality ". That was what Stalin said in the past. Missiles are good for very long range but giant cannons are very cost effective against unsophiscated enemy such as bombarding the coast of Yemen or flushing out pirates at the coast of Somalia.
It should be noted that the US navy sees it as a problem to lose those shore bombardment capabilities, because it's much more cost effective for secondary targets close to the shore and while they tried with th Zumwalts, they weren't able to replace it
Good luck on the long-form vids!This was a good one🔥
“As I keep telling my wife, It’s not about the size, it’s about how you use it”
This earned you my subscribe 😆
Good overview. (It's a basic subject, but for one of the first long form vids, this is a good debut! You got a sub! Cheers!)
One word missiles
The loss of the battleship is one of the greatest tragedies of "cool warmachines." I keep hoping that new tech will have them make some kibda comeback.
I’m amazed that no one corrected calling them canons so I’ll do it. They’re rifles
Missles can do the job better
Oooohh pleaseeeee do more videos daddddyyyyyyy
Goofy AI generated thumbnail
People on the internet will complain about the most puerile things. You’re getting free, good content and yet you still b!*ch about something. Some peoples kids…
So make one and send it to him so he can replace it than
And those 16 inch rounds are just way too cheap
OK, so other than aircraft carriers, what are ships doing? Just going after subs?
Many also have missiles and other weapon systems
This is so cool! I swear to god...yesterday, I was watching a few old military vids on the tube & I noticed how all the navies today have the same smaller (automatic) cannons, not like the old battleships of wars gone by. You saved me from having to read a boring Google search. Instead, I got to see your video w/ the touch of sarcasm & self-deprecating innyourendo about the...matter of size, as per your wife. And for that, I thank you! 😉😁
.,.."innyourendo!!!!"
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Is that related to innuendo?
@@Omar-kk9fp Kind of...but for much more dirty minds...not unlike ourselves! 🤣😁 It's actually from a line in a play, "Sir, are you indulging in sexual inyourendo?"
It's origin is as the French would say, a double entendre (pronounced, "doob-le")
They were using black powder in those big shells in ww2
I hope to add the Arabic language
😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
💰💰💰