|
Post by cwemyss on Jul 22, 2022 12:57:22 GMT -6
The Sovs put Metel/SS-N-14 on most of their fleet too, up to battlecruiser size (the Kirov)... same basic idea as ASROC.
Maybe once medium AShMs are available, an ASW missile launcher could be an option as a separate type of installation, giving a (possibly significant) ASW bump to the design.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jul 22, 2022 15:56:41 GMT -6
Thank you - I was pretty sure the US missile cruisers had some ASW capability; was not sure about the ships of other nations.
I appreciate the info.
DASH was the light helicopter - remotely piloted? - that in practice was pretty much a failure. From what I recall, DASH conversions mostly kept the helipad and lost the copter.
|
|
|
Post by andrzej597 on Jul 22, 2022 19:50:31 GMT -6
It is possible that there was something more useless than depth charges on a WW2-era light cruiser, but if so I'm not aware of it. Only depth charges on a WW2-era aircraft carrier (seriously, some japanese carriers had depth charges and mortars fitted by design).
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jul 23, 2022 1:42:58 GMT -6
Thank you - I was pretty sure the US missile cruisers had some ASW capability; was not sure about the ships of other nations. I appreciate the info. DASH was the light helicopter - remotely piloted? - that in practice was pretty much a failure. From what I recall, DASH conversions mostly kept the helipad and lost the copter. DASH conversions did not get a suffiently large "helipad" to operate helicopters, it was a VERTREP point at best. Yes, the USN was not very successful with DASH, the JMSDF however made it work. DASH was always considered an inferior solution to ASROC that consumed less space&weight.
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Jul 23, 2022 1:48:54 GMT -6
It is possible that there was something more useless than depth charges on a WW2-era light cruiser, but if so I'm not aware of it. Only depth charges on a WW2-era aircraft carrier (seriously, some japanese carriers had depth charges and mortars fitted by design). Oh, one could make the point that AA rockets were even more useless, after all they did not even work as a weapon system, regardles of on what class of ship they were installed. There was even some concern that they might have been the cause of HMS Hood's loss. They only were of use insofar as they were developed into artillery and air-to-ground rockets...
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jul 23, 2022 17:21:02 GMT -6
As much as I have moaned previously about getting off-topic with historical chat... I'll quickly join in on this one.
There is another element of the AA rockets/ UP mounts in WW2 that often goes unnoticed, The UP mounts as used by the RN were the first use of proximity sensors, the original stepping stone towards VT fuses. So while they were garbage mines on parachutes, (Just using rockets with large bursting charges would have been much more effective) they did kick-off the development that lead to some of the most effective AA weapons.
|
|
|
Post by andrzej597 on Jul 24, 2022 13:37:41 GMT -6
Only depth charges on a WW2-era aircraft carrier (seriously, some japanese carriers had depth charges and mortars fitted by design). Oh, one could make the point that AA rockets were even more useless, after all they did not even work as a weapon system, regardles of on what class of ship they were installed. There was even some concern that they might have been the cause of HMS Hood's loss. They only were of use insofar as they were developed into artillery and air-to-ground rockets... Surprisingly enough, the idea of AA rockets didn't completely die out, and as late as 1969 Thomson CSF of France developed and even built (!) a radar-directed self-propelled AA rocket launcher "Javelot" - both in ground version (48 missiles launcher mounted on an AMX-30) and naval one (96 tubes). Predictably, no one ordered that thing.
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Jul 27, 2022 11:17:29 GMT -6
TO: RTW3 FORUM FROM: ADSERIA MESSAGE READS: I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD TO THIS DISCUSSION STOP I JUST WANT TO START GETTING NOTIFICATIONS FOR THIS THREAD STOP MESSAGE ENDS
|
|
|
Post by stevethecat on Jul 27, 2022 12:14:11 GMT -6
TO: RTW3 FORUM FROM: ADSERIA MESSAGE READS: I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD TO THIS DISCUSSION STOP I JUST WANT TO START GETTING NOTIFICATIONS FOR THIS THREAD STOP MESSAGE ENDS
That's a setting in your own profile.
Profile>Edit profile>Notifications
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Sept 6, 2022 13:11:06 GMT -6
Only depth charges on a WW2-era aircraft carrier (seriously, some japanese carriers had depth charges and mortars fitted by design). Oh, one could make the point that AA rockets were even more useless, after all they did not even work as a weapon system, regardles of on what class of ship they were installed. There was even some concern that they might have been the cause of HMS Hood's loss. They only were of use insofar as they were developed into artillery and air-to-ground rockets... How about minesweep gear on a BB? Or elevated AA guns (guns elevated a level or two above the deck on a pillar. Had to be climbed up to and had no easy means of getting ammo to them)
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Sept 6, 2022 13:15:08 GMT -6
Oh, one could make the point that AA rockets were even more useless, after all they did not even work as a weapon system, regardles of on what class of ship they were installed. There was even some concern that they might have been the cause of HMS Hood's loss. They only were of use insofar as they were developed into artillery and air-to-ground rockets... Surprisingly enough, the idea of AA rockets didn't completely die out, and as late as 1969 Thomson CSF of France developed and even built (!) a radar-directed self-propelled AA rocket launcher "Javelot" - both in ground version (48 missiles launcher mounted on an AMX-30) and naval one (96 tubes). Predictably, no one ordered that thing. It really didnt die out... EVER. A SAM is an AA rocket. A missile is a rocket but not all rockets are missiles. Kinda like how all warships are ships but not all ships are warships.
|
|
|
Post by asdfzxc922 on Sept 9, 2022 3:36:20 GMT -6
As much as I have moaned previously about getting off-topic with historical chat... I'll quickly join in on this one. There is another element of the AA rockets/ UP mounts in WW2 that often goes unnoticed, The UP mounts as used by the RN were the first use of proximity sensors, the original stepping stone towards VT fuses. So while they were garbage mines on parachutes, (Just using rockets with large bursting charges would have been much more effective) they did kick-off the development that lead to some of the most effective AA weapons. You're conflating two mostly unrelated projects. The Navy's Unrotated Projectile system used the parachute bombs, while the Army's Z-battery system used a conventional HE warhead with an optical proximity fuze.
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Sept 22, 2022 19:08:21 GMT -6
Thank you - I was pretty sure the US missile cruisers had some ASW capability; was not sure about the ships of other nations. I appreciate the info. DASH was the light helicopter - remotely piloted? - that in practice was pretty much a failure. From what I recall, DASH conversions mostly kept the helipad and lost the copter. Heck, the torpedo tubes on the side are primarily intended for ASW torpedoes, not anti ship torpedoes. And yes, the USN employs ASW torpedoes that are fired from VLS.
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Oct 13, 2022 13:21:36 GMT -6
Oh, one could make the point that AA rockets were even more useless, after all they did not even work as a weapon system, regardles of on what class of ship they were installed. There was even some concern that they might have been the cause of HMS Hood's loss. They only were of use insofar as they were developed into artillery and air-to-ground rockets... How about minesweep gear on a BB? Or elevated AA guns (guns elevated a level or two above the deck on a pillar. Had to be climbed up to and had no easy means of getting ammo to them) Paravanes are a self defense mechanism against mines for non-minesweepers. Most mine strikes are against the sides of a ship because the bow wave often pushes a moored mine outboard. It then swings back and strikes the side of the ship. Paravanes catch those mines that are pushed outboard and pulls them away from the ship until their mooring lines are cut. They were standard equipment on capital ships for many years for good reason. When elevated AA guns were in use the reasons against them were much less significant. The aircraft of the day were slow and fragile, only flying in good weather where they could be spotted at a distance. They were also expected to be few in number, so continuous firing over long periods was unlikely. While a technological dead end, I certainly wouldn't rank them up there with unguided AA rockets.
|
|
|
Post by christian on Oct 31, 2022 4:15:29 GMT -6
Oh, one could make the point that AA rockets were even more useless, after all they did not even work as a weapon system, regardles of on what class of ship they were installed. There was even some concern that they might have been the cause of HMS Hood's loss. They only were of use insofar as they were developed into artillery and air-to-ground rockets... How about minesweep gear on a BB? Or elevated AA guns (guns elevated a level or two above the deck on a pillar. Had to be climbed up to and had no easy means of getting ammo to them) A notable battleship with mine clearing gear would be Bismarck which had an attachment on her nose so she could do active mine clearing, along with an active and passive sonar. The paravanes would be attached to the bugspiere when extended and she would be able to clear mines. Not that many other battleships have it so its unlikely to have been relevant. Attachments:
|
|