Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: reg45

True, naval guns would be of little use in Afghanistan, and 16 inch (or bigger) guns are really too heavy to transport over land. So you have a valid point. But when one considers modern ballistics can increase the range of big guns to 50-100 miles vrs 25 miles for a WW2 gun alot of targets fall within the range of a modern main naval battle gun should anyone ever decide to build one. Space born Kinetic energy weapons would work well for this purpose too. A bit more expensive but a stream of cannon balls with a V of 20,000 mph would do a lot of damage to a harden bunker.


24 posted on 09/19/2009 6:09:01 AM PDT by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: jpsb

What about taking one of the old 16 inchers, weighting the muzzle and giving it guidance, triggering mechanism to fire it when the muzzle touches the roof of the bunker?


35 posted on 09/19/2009 6:35:59 AM PDT by Quickgun (As a former fetus, I'm opposed to abortion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Jeff Head
*PING* to post 24.

:-D

Cheers!

42 posted on 09/19/2009 6:51:08 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: jpsb
Wouldn't an object of that mass traveling at 20,000 mph cause damage equivalent to a nuclear weapon?
64 posted on 09/19/2009 7:37:18 AM PDT by JrsyJack (There's a little Jim Thompson in all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson