Which is better Missle or Gun?

[USNlover]

Hello, Which do you think is better missle or gun? I think that guns are better because you cant shoot down a bullet,take out a bunker with a missle, you cant detect it on radar, and you cant see it till its too late. However missles do have one shot,one kill capacity. So which do you think? :) :) :jump

[Feanor]

In regards to what?

Me having in my bare hands? I'll take the gun any time. At least I can fire it. :D

Seriously. You have to give more information.

[kato]

you cant shoot down a bullet,take out a bunker with a missle, you cant detect it on radar, and you cant see it till its too late.
All of these things are possible.

[GC13]

In addition to more damage missiles also have the benefit of being guided and of having much better range.

There's just something sentimental about the big guns though...

[StingrayOZ]

The short commings off guns and missiles are is that guns have limited range and limited size. Missiles are more expensive "per shot" (usually) and are more flexable.

You can certainly shoot down shells (with R2D2 CIWS it can be done on land). And missiles are more stealthy than shells these days and better at getting through defences.

But in this age with all munitions guided and steerable the line is blured.

Against fleshy targets guns are the go, against hardend targets missiles.

Guns are comming back into fashion on ships and aircraft and with troops and land vechicals. There was a time where they didn't fit guns to aircraft and ships were happy with 76mm guns.

[The_Zergling]

If you broaden the question to one between guided and unguided munitions I think the issue gets a bit more interesting. There are certain instances where missiles simply aren't as cost-effective (or even just plain effective) as "dumb" weapons. Mortars are a good example - while seeker heads can be affected negatively by bad weather, for mortars you simply adjust trajectory via mathematics and fire...

[USNlover]

If you broaden the question to one between guided and unguided munitions I think the issue gets a bit more interesting....

Well, I guess I should have said guided an unguided. How can shells be shot down? And Modern day missles cant hit bunkers because dont they need something to lock on to? Like a heat source or an engine? Because that was the entire reason why the USN put gun systems onto all there ships because they didnt have a missle that could destory a road.

[kato]

How can shells be shot down?
Just like any other projectile. Just needs better targeting due to the smaller size. See C-RAM.

And Modern day missles cant hit bunkers because dont they need something to lock on to? Like a heat source or an engine?
I think you need to familiarize yourself with a new concept called "GPS". Or that other one called "laser targeting". Or, wait, there's also the one called millimeter-wave radar.

Because that was the entire reason why the USN put gun systems onto all there ships because they didnt have a missle that could destory a road.
Actually, they just put guns back on ships because a certain US president back in 1961 after a failed Terrier demonstration decided that ships should have a backup (gun) weapon system in case missiles failed to shoot down an enemy aircraft.

[USNlover]

I was reading in a book all about Naval Gunnery that The navy tried to destory coastal roads in the Viet Nam War but they couldnt because their missles couldnt target the raods so they had to pull the Iowas back into service. :duel :flame

[kato]

Out of the Iowas, only New Jersey served in Vietnam, for a single tour in 1968/69, from October to March (well, 30 Sep to 1 Apr). Well above 90% of all shelling in Vietnam was done by cruisers and destroyers with 8- and 5-inch guns, and New Jersey was mothballed again in 1969 because the cost of operating her was just too prohibitive.

[Falstaff]

I was reading in a book all about Naval Gunnery that The navy tried to destory coastal roads in the Viet Nam War but they couldnt because their missles couldnt target the raods so they had to pull the Iowas back into service. :duel :flame

Well that was some time ago. With GPS guided stand-off weapons and the according submunition you can attack roads (and runways) very effectively, see the TLAM-D. I guess that today the question would be if a road (other than a runway) is worth an attack with an expensive cruise missile.

I think that in times of precision guided ammo there are basically three characteristics that make the difference, that's range, warhead size and costs.

[AegisFC]

I was reading in a book all about Naval Gunnery that The navy tried to destory coastal roads in the Viet Nam War but they couldnt because their missles couldnt target the raods so they had to pull the Iowas back into service.

Historically the best support gunnery has been done by 5-8 inch guns for plenty of reasons (danger fire, accuracy, rate of fire, ect). The main guns on the Iowa's were not ideal for shore bombardment, they are inaccurate, most of the blast from the shell is directed skywards and they can't be used for close support of friendly troops because of the large danger fire radius combined with less than stellar accuracy.

I'm quite sure the New Jersey was brought back for other reasons than to bombard a few roads.