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]

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

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.

[Ramjam]

I used to work at Devonport Dockyard and from working there and talking to a few navy guys this is the following I could get out of them that might help :

There was a 4.5 inch Mk8 gun set up on land in a fixed emplacement at HMS Cambridge to the SE of Plymouth until it closed about 10 yrs ago. It was the RN's gunnery school. If I remember rightly there were also every other sort of ship's gun set up there to train crews.

The 4.5 inch Mk8 has a auto-loader on ships but at Cambridge they had to manually load and fire it.

The sea around that part of the coast was a no-go area as it was a live fire range.

Hope that helps abit.

(p.s. The RN are now holding trials using 155mm ammo instead on 4.5 inch according to Wiki. The reason behind this is so the army and RN can use a standard gun calibre making logistics easier).

[Trooper]

This has been done all the time in history!

... or vice versa.

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

[jester]

Why not! In the Going Home campaign I had my PCs on a tramp steamer that was outfitted with autocannons, tank guns and antiaircaft guns,

And when that vessel sunk and they took over a large sailboat they outfitted it with a 40mm boffors and a quad .50<two of my favorite combinations to outfit PCs with.> I find that the heavy hitting power of a 40mm boffors or even a twin boffors like those from WWII ships anti aircraft batteries are just AWESOME! And wonderful when engaging light and medium vehicles and fortifications. I even had the PCs as a side mission going to salvage the arms from a A-10 Warthog that had done a bellylanding in the desert just to aquire its weapon systems and ammo.

I also preffer a 20mm autocannon like those found on WWII anti air defenses on ships another wonderful weapon. These are a bit bigger than a .50, but they do so much more. But, easily managed by a single man in a gunposition. And they are more easily aimed and less expensive than a 20mm gatling.

And then of course a favorite, the quad .50, or sometimes called "The Duster!" used in WWII and Korea either as a towed system or fixed on the bed of a halftrack or truck. These again are awesome weapons, they can cause most things to disentrigrate, making walls crumble, vehicles disapear and people vaporize. A perfect weapon for the PC who needs an equalizer!

As I said, I had the PCs aquire a towed quad 23mm gun from a ZSU and they mounted it on the bed of a truck. This was their tail end vehicle so if anyone hit them from behind, they could deal with it. As well as an ambush from the side of the road the weapon could be turned about 90degrees in either direction to the front to rake the roadside should they need it. Again, the massive fire of 4 automatic 23mm cannons would be enough to disuade any direhard attacker. I would dare say that all but a MBT would be daunted.

Ah, I love applying weapons for things they were never intended to be used for.

Another combination I liked, the 7.62 and a 20mm in the same mount, one for GP <the 7.62> to deal as an anti personel and light skinned targetes and the 20mm to deal with the harder shelled targets.

And then of course we have the Twin .50s! A wonderful duo that is decently fitted, although it can be a bit on the heavy side for dealing with light infantry and vehicles and a bit light for dealing with heavy targets, but still a nice general purpose platform that is light and easily mobile via a jeep, humvee or landrover.

[Rainbow Six]

Thanks for the input guys, some good info there. I'm going to go with a number of gun trucks carrying machine guns and cannons up to 30mm, and leave the larger guns on the ships, as Stainless Steel Cynic suggested.

Ramjam, thanks for the info on HMS Cambridge - very useful indeed.

Cheers

[avantman42]

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.

[Webstral]

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.

Sucks to be downrange.

Webstral

[jester]

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.

I am thinking removing the gun from a ship that is no longer able to sail, and mounting it on a railcare, a 5 inch turret is quite capable of fiting on a rail car and certainly a 120mm system which is common on modern frigates and destroyers.

And then we have the older vessels that have been converted into museum or training.

Around ports there are always lots of cranes and lifts to remove the entire system as a unit and mount it on a flatcar. Or, as I said move it to a narrow straight or channel or even river which will allow you to control the access which will be an important thing in a T2K world. I would say have a pair of 5 inch guns in and arround a river or river town or rivber entrance if I were a would be war lord in T2K. If you want to transit then I am the only game in town. Oh, you have the Vistual Krowla, good luck making it past my guns. But, hey, the transit and mooring fee isn't too high a price to pay. Certaily much cheaper than hiring a bunch of those rogues from the 5th that was destroyed at Kalisz who seem to be everywhere these days.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

First let me say that I see the Twilight game as one of survival in the ruins after WW3 so I do not see many, if any, groups having the resources to carry out major projects until they have had a few years (or decades) to stabilize and collect what they need to overcome the subsistence survival that would be the norm for the first few years after the wars end.
-----
There are still many concerns before you could take a turret such as the 5-inch and mount it on a railcar. Naval guns are typically set up with most of their machinery below deck level, certainly the majority of the ammunition handling is done below the deck. So you would have to configure the turret to allow a horizontal ammunition loader rather than the vertical loading system normally used. Lots of work there and the need for qualified personnel to do it.
Then there's the power issue, most turrets are electrically powered so you have to also supply power for that and lots of it.
There's also the issue that many modern turrets have only line-of-sight aiming mechanisms and no indirect fire aiming devices as they rely on the fire control centre for aiming information or are remotely aimed directly from the fire control centre. It seems a colossal waste to use a long-range naval gun in nothing but the direct fire role - unless you can get some fire control teams trained up to counter that.

You would be better off removing the gun and its cradle from the turret and mounting that on a railcar and treating it like traditional land artillery but you still need to incorporate devices to elevate and traverse and load ammunition.
I really do believe, like avantman, that this would be beyond the abilities of most groups in the Twilight world and if it is within their abilities, it is not worth the resources to make what is essentially a fairly limited use weapon - once the ammunition is gone there is no way to get more so for example if you only have 40 rounds, it is just not worth all the time and resources to make a naval gun into a land gun. That's assuming there is even any suitable ammunition left at all on the ship as most of it is probably on still serving ships rather than on damaged ships awaiting repairs in a dockyard.

The time and energy would be better spent making typical land fortifications or making simpler weapons. In fact I think you'd be better served making simple MRLS launchrails to fire blackpowder rockets.

[Legbreaker]

I'm with Stainless and Avantman. Some of the smaller weapon systems might be dismountable and used on land, but the bigger guns and missiles are going to have to stay where they are.
Even if the engineering issues of mounting the larger weapons are resolved, you still need the machinery to actually move them from the ship to shore. Even today there's not a lot of places that can shift an 8 inch gun turret.

Far better to leave them where they are and if possible shift the badly damaged hulk with tugs to where it can be sunk in shallow water.