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.

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.

 

[Pre-Dreadnought]

Didn't the Americans bring back guns to their fighter aircraft because being able to shoot down an opponent in a dogfight is sometimes necessary? Missiles don't always do the job. In relation to Naval issues, which this question relates to, I think it is possible a commander would very much welcome a decent calibre gun on his ship under certain circumstances. Currently the missile, and anti-missle systems, are the weapons of choice. Personally, I would err on the side of caution and equip ships with both missiles and guns and then rely on analysis after such ships are called upon to act.

On a related point, there is a lot of effort put into countering incoming missiles, be they physical or electronic. There is no defence (except armour) against a decent sized shell aimed at your hull. That would worry me.

 

[My2Cents]

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

Actually, when the British were testing the Seawolf missileback in 1978 they claimed that they were using 4.5" shell for targets to save money. They had at least 1 successful interception.

Technology has improved since then, but unless the big gun battleship comes back it is just not economic to intercept gun projectiles, not impossible. Besides, guns seldom do enough damage with only 1 or 2 hits (not counting extreme luck) to end the fight.

 

[My2Cents]

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.

There are video guided missiles, too.

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.

There are probably a dozen different stories. I heard it was because the Long Beach was forced to run out to sea and call to a destroyer for help when approached by a pair of North Vietnamese patrol boats. After that they retrofit her with a pair of 5” guns.

 

[My2Cents]

Guns and missiles are complimentary systems. Which is better depends on the target and circumstances.

Guns do best at short ranges, including point blank, and cannot reach as far as missiles. They also lose accuracy as range increases. The gun itself is very heavy vs. the damage a single round does, as is the mechanical stress (recoil) it puts on the hull when firing, limiting the size of ships that large guns can be placed on. But the per shot weight is low allowing large magazines without a significant design penalty.

Missiles have longer ranges, usually much longer, and accuracy is not effected by range. But most cannot be used against targets within a fairly long short range. Warheads are much heavier, as is the size, weight, and cost of the missile, so typically only a few are mounted on a vessel. But the launcher weight and firing stresses are much low, allowing even fairly small vessels (>50 tons) to mount several.

Simply put, a good warship design needs both.

 

[kato]

Considering the 5" guns were added in 1962/63 and her first Tonkin deployment was in 1967 i'm going with the Kennedy version

 

[Waylander]

I think we talked about this in the RN thread, too.

Modern systems like the US and UK 155mm systems which are in development as well as existing designs like the 127mm lightweight from OTO Melara coupled with modern ammunitions (Volcano family, SMARt, Excalibur,...) bring shipborn gunfire to a totally new level.

The combination of modern guns and modern rounds enables ships to reach out and target a multitude of targets at very long ranges. Be it ships, vehicles or fixed land targets.

Firing a couple of intelligent 127mm rounds with submunitions at a group of vehicles some 80+km inshore is impressive to me.

Interestingly such new munitions are also a real danger to any ship coming close to shore. A frigate/destroyer preparing for a shore bombardement will have a bad day if a battery of moden 155mm SPHs decides to perform some nice counterfire missions...

 

[STURM]

As has been mentioned, guns ands missiles are complimentary, but it really depends on the availibility of funding and threat perceptions. Though it was almost 30 years ago and technology has improved tremendously, one major lesson learnt from the Falklands was the value of having guns to deal with close air threats that have not been engaged by onboard missiles. I believe this lesson still applies today, especially to smaller navies that might not have the same level of air protection or early warning as NATO navies would in a conflict.

Though not as useful as 127mm guns for the fire support role, smaller calibre guns such as the Bofors 57mm and Oto Melara 76mm are more useful for the anti-air role because of the higher rate of fire. Assuming missiles, chaff and jamming has failed, a ship's main gun is the last line of defence against incoming missiles.

BTW, does anyone here know if the Swedish navy uses it's 57mm for fire support or is it not part of it's doctrine?

 

[IronsightSniper]

Personally, I'm a bigger fan boy of Missles than guns, bigger booms, longer boom, sharper boom.

But, I can't carry a FIRE button around all the time and expect to neutralize the petty mugger by firing a Javelin at him, so, Mano to Mano, I'd take an AK-200 anyday. But, in this day and age, Humans suck, so we made things out of the Earth to do jobs for us. Against those things, Missiles.