Navel gunfire with 5 inch guns inadequate?
Yes, it is inadequate for shore fires. It is only good for soft targets, and has limited range. The reason WWII ships could close the beach enough to hit stuff, was the longer range larger bore tubes behind them suppressing the anti-ship capable arty.
I'm certainly no expert either, but isn't the needed capacity rather vague?
No, the needed capabilities are very specific. The mount needs to perform shore fires, anti-surface, and anti-air. The most effective use is anti-surface, the next is debatable. Certainly it is useful against slower larger air targets, but against manuevering anti-ship sea skimming missiles, it is not. For shore fires, it does not have the required reach and punch that is required by doctrine (and agreements).
Certainly a 16 inch shell is far more powerful, penetrating and frightening. But judging from the Pacific campaign in WWII. shore bombardment by heavy ships- 5,6,8,12,14,16,and even 18(?) inch shells were used, and I don't know if any of them were decisive in a battle, especially against a dug in enemy.
This is a much argued point. However, by doctrine one does not do oppossed beach landings without effective fires. There is a reason for that. As far as effectiveness, large bore rounds are devastating even in proximity. You may not kill get a hard kill, but you certainly get mission kills. The other real pluls of larger bores is range. Hitting brigdes or choke points to cut off or attrite re-enforcements is huge in oeprational fires. Naval Gunnery has filled this role effectvely on numerous occasions. For example, the southern France landings in WWII near Nice were extremely successful due to fires. Both pre-landing preps, and during the assaults. The defending forces were paralized.
One problem was that they were so powerful (and inacurate) that they could not be used near friendly forces. Exceptions were the destroyers that provided 5 inch and smaller direct fire support from close in.
Not true. Every round type has fires guidance on what makes it a "Danger Close" mission. Bigger rounds have bigger circles based on shell effects. For example, a large bore HE penetrator is going to have a smaller Danger Circle than a VT fuzed Shrapnel round popping 50 feet in the air.
The Marine f4U Corsair pilots that learned to give close air support with rockets and machine guns helped also.
Yes, CAS has become a element of Joint Fires during assaults, however, CAS works more methodically with phase lines than arty must. It is due to ground mobility, speed of the battle, and stay times. Arty is much more flexible and safe in this regard. A well tuned FSCC can reek havoc with ground fires.
On the opposite side, 20, or even 40 mm guns were found to be inadequate against determined kamikaze planes. The plane might have a lot of holes in it, but it might hold together long enough for a determined pilot (or autopilot in a cruise missle) to fly it to it's target. That was the purpose of the 76 mm guns introduced later in the war. It was able to seriously damage the smaller planes with one hit/ near miss. Proximity fused 5 inch guns was even better.
The introduction of VT fuzes was the game changer for Air defense. Only an idiot pilot gets within gun envelopes now. The Argentines were able to pull off some pretty crazy runs in the Falklands based on terrain masking, as do the Brits now-a-days up in Faslane, but again, a littoral fight with terrain masking. But the days of strafing armed vessels is over, and has been since we introduced VT fuzes. These came in all calibers and when tied to radar directors, were extremely devasting. Even the optical directors were brutal. Here is a good page to check out the Mk32 gun system and other 5inch mounts from WWII. Note the use of radar directors.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12_pics.htm
I wonder if there are any statistics for the size of the guns, their relative numbers, the number of rounds thrown up, and the efficiency against attacking planes.
Yes, substantially so. For example on 4 June at Midway of 146 US aircraft lost only 2 were by Japanese AAA. Whereas use by US forces of VT fuzed ammunition went from 2000 rounds per kill to about 500. Other estimates are even better.
Modern CIWS are generally small size, but the accuracy and the huge number of rounds thrown up , compensates.
Yes and no. CIWS is a 20mm round (not that small) and it is innaccurate by design. The tracking system is very accurate, but the weapon itself has a designed in dithering to spray the rounds in a shotgun like effect.
For shore bombardment size would seem to matter, but if so why is the Literal combat ship equipped with a single 57 mm gun? I might work as a CIWS, but bombardment of the shore?
The 57mm is not designed nor intended for shore fires.
I suspect accuracy/ guided projectiles far outweighs mass. The Small diameter Bomb illustrates this. A single ~ 100 kg bomb replaces a few sticks of 500 pound bombs.
Welcome to modern precision guided warfare. One sorty can now make multiple kills, whreas in the old days, multiple sorties were required for one kill. It is also cheaper.
Leave the few deeply buried command,bunkers for the cruise missiles or Naval aviation, or even Standard Missiles.
Tomahawk has limited hard target utility. In can do the job, but is not that versatile. Standard Missiles have no shore engagement capability. They are anti-air and anti-surface only.
To fight, an enemy has to expose himself except for possibly thin protection. If you can hit him, you can kill him. I suspect the trend is towards one bullet/ shrapnel per kill rather than 10,000 bullets per kill. Guidance, along with ridiculously capable reconnaissance, and sensors is what will win battles in the future. Essentially, every soldier and piece of ordinance is a sniper, rather than a half blind recruit throwing bullets every which way.
Yes and somewhat no. Suppression fires are still alive and well. It is what enhances mobility and "lines of fire" control.
. This can be reloaded on the fly, but is preferred to shoot the ring, and then load the ring and repeat. Most installed units are kept at 80 rounds per minute or less. Typically they are set to 20 or 40. I have seen an 80 round rated mount fire at 96 rounds per minute in the horizontal (which is the slowest firing position, more elvation shortens the cycle time). Good design when it works.