Converting Naval Weapons for use on land?

[Rainbow Six]

Guys, would appreciate your input here.

I've been doing some work on the south west of England lately, specifically Plymouth, which is home to a major Royal Navy base and am looking at the possibility of HMG forces stripping weapons systems from immobile ships for use a) as defensive platforms and b) as offensive weapons to use against the Duke of Cornwall's forces.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how practical it would be to take a surface warship's major weapons systems (e.g. 30mm oerlikon cannons, 20mm Phalanx CIWS, 4.5 inch gun) and convert them for use by land forces? Could these be used as a platform for gun trucks, or would they be too large? And would the engineering resources required be beyond that available after the nuclear exchange?

Cheers

[jester]

This has been done all the time in history!

Navy guns were placed on carriages durring the napoleonic war, the American Civil War, WWI <the rail guns> and WII, the large guns protecting Singapore, the guns from the damaged Battle Ships From Pearl Harbor were also used in fortifications in Hawaii, they also did this in the Philipines.

The Germans did this also on the Eastern Front, and in the Atlantic fortificaTIONS.

I have used them in some of my past campaigns. I liked using the old WWII 20mm antiaircraft guns as well as a 40mm Boffors on one platform.

A prime example is the creative use of the Germans 88mm flak as an antitank weapon.

I would think heavier guns could be mounted on trains, or entire gunturrets fitted on/in bunkers at key positions. Or maybe some freinkenarmor using lighter shipguns.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Definitely for some of the systems you mentioned like the 30mm Oerlikon cannons, the Oerlikon is literally just a "bigger machinegun". The Phalanx would be more difficult because it is completely self-contained and self-controlled (and heavy) - to make it usable I think you'd be better served by removing the gun and ammunition sections and placing them into some sort of artillery carriage plus you'd need to make a manual trigger mechanism. You're going to want someone with the right skills not just in mechanics but probably also physics to figure the recoil forces.
As for the larger naval guns, their turrets extend below decks and would require some serious lifting gear along with a properly prepared fort to emplace them in - altogether it's probably months if not years worth of work with the resources left in the Twilight world. The only real benefit would be as Jester mentioned, taking only the barrel and mating it to some sort of artillery carriage.

Don't forget that many RN vessels from that time period also had 20-30mm autocannon and .50 M2 machineguns for close in protection (I believe as a legacy from the Falklands War) so you'd have some weapons that would be a lot more portable (and could be mounted on a truck with a makeshift pintle or cradle). I would leave the main guns on the ships as they are and use them in the traditional Naval Gunfire Support role but firing from Portsmouth harbour rather than sailing the ships somewhere.

[pmulcahy11b]

I would think that if you can convert then for air use, you could convert them for ground use -- that's where some of the 40mm guns of AC-130s come from.

[jester]

When I said "gun turrets" I was thinking along the lines of the 5 inch gun mounts or the modern 120mm mounts that are used today or at least until recently. Like the guns on a destroyer. Those could be removed as a unit and mounted in a fort or on a railcar. As for the LARGER guns one would find on a cruiser or battleship, strip one or two out of the turret <which go down several decks, really those are more for the magazines and machinery for moving the entire turret>

Imagine if you will, a tall mountain <think Guns of Navarone> with such a monster gun. And it is the only passable area the gun covers, to bipass would mean you would have to go around and through mountains or worse, contaminated areas. It is more of a control and denial weapon. This can be the same for a straight, or channel or canal or channel. Again denying the enemy or whomever you dislike from using the area for fear of the weapon along. A psychological weapon for sure. Or, the weapon is mounted to a hull, and floated as a firing platform to an area to cause havoc to an enemy area. Take a naval gun say a 16 inch gun, put it on a railcar, then mount the rail car with a section of rail on the topdeck thus, allowing you some deflection to make adjustements. The ship points the gun in the general direction. The gun crew make smaller adjustments and then fires. The gun rolls down X distance of track and the gun is repositiononed to be fired again.

I can see several scenarios where the LARGE naval guns could be your reason for a PC campaign.

[Canadian Army]

The Phalanx CIWS has been adapted for operation on land:

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar (C-RAM) System





Seeking a solution to constant rocket and mortar attacks on bases in Iraq, the United States Army requested a quick-to-field anti-projectile system in May 2004, as part of its Counter-Rocket, Artillery, Mortar initiative. The end result of this program was 'Centurion'. For all intents and purposes a terrestrial version of the Navy's CIWS, the Centurion was developed in record time, with a proof of concept test in November that same year, and deployment to Iraq in 2005. Currently it protects forward operating bases and other high-value sites in and around Baghdad and is deployed by the British in the south of the country. Israel has purchased a single system for testing purposes, and is reported to be considering buying the system to counter rocket attacks and defend point military installations, though the nation's investment in an indigenous system known as Iron Dome has hindered these efforts. Recently Raytheon and Oshkosh have teamed up to build a prototype C-Ram on the back of a diesel-electric, 14-ton Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT).

Each CADS consists of a modified Phalanx 1B CIWS; capable of firing 3,000 or 4,500 M-246 or M-940 rounds per minute; powered by an attached generator and mounted on a trailer or a Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck (HEMTT) for mobility. The HEMTT version is specially configured to accommodate the 7-ton Phalanx weapon, by removing the load-handling system; normally carried on the back of the truck; and fixed platforms on the vehicle to integrate the Phalanx. Like the naval (1B) version, the CADS uses Ku-band radar and FLIR to detect and track incoming projectiles, and is also capable of engaging surface targets, with the system able to reach a -25 degree elevation. The CADS is capable of defending a 1.2 km square area. The CADS trailer is transportable by C-17 only one at a time, whereas three to four CADS HEMTTs can fit on a C-17.

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by jester

When I said "gun turrets" I was thinking along the lines of the 5 inch gun mounts or the modern 120mm mounts that are used today or at least until recently. Like the guns on a destroyer. Those could be removed as a unit and mounted in a fort or on a railcar. As for the LARGER guns one would find on a cruiser or battleship, strip one or two out of the turret <which go down several decks, really those are more for the magazines and machinery for moving the entire turret>

I'm not convinced that, with the resources available in T2K, it would be feasible to remove a bigger gun from a ship and adapt it for use on land.

In the UK, though, it's a moot point. The Royal Navy haven't had cruisers or battleships for some years. The last cruiser (HMS Blake) was decommissioned in 1979, the last battleship (HMS Vanguard) in 1960.

[Trooper]

Originally Posted by jester

This has been done all the time in history!

... or vice versa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_56_TK