The-thing-next-door wrote:Isos wrote:The-thing-next-door wrote:1 vehicle with 2 guns is a lot cheaper than 2 vehicle with 1 gun but I was talking about naval aplication in withc you do not have spave for more than 1 turret anymore so more guns on the 1 turret is a good solution and dont try and tell me that 2 normal cruisers is cheaper than 1 with a bigger turret.
as for autoloaders ships will not need APFSDS,HEAT and HE they just need HE so you do not need to change ammo while feeding and even if you did you would not remove the round from the chamber you would fire it and the next one would be the new type.
If you mean buying 1 vehicle with 2 turrets instead of 2 with 1 turrets that's strategicaly stupid because if you lose 1 of them you have like 2 vehicles lost.
That's a similar situation with western countries replacing 4 fighter/bombers/interceptors by just 1 multirole fighter. Instead of buying 400 planes of all sort they buy just 100. It's more difficult to sustain big operations like that.
Technology is not so superior to to a numerical advantage specially if the enemy can destroy your costly new generation fighter or vehicles by missile like ATGM or Iskanders on the ground or in ambushes.
My point is that 1 vehicle with 2 guns gives you the same firepower as 2 vehicles with 1 gun but costs less than 2 vehicles.
I wonder if there will be a 180/203mm variant of the koalitsiya?
Single gun artillery is perfectly acceptable for land warfare but simply will not fit the fire rate requirments for naval aplications you cant simply have more turrets on a ship to solve the problem .
Sorry, but I cannot see why a naval application should require greater rate of fire.
Usually in the past, numbers of guns were relevant because 90% or more shells would simply fell on water, far away from their intended targets, and single rate of fire was quite low.
Today a radar assisted 130mm gun could easily fire 4 to 5 shells within 10 seconds, having around 50% on target on a moving target, more up to 100% on a stationary target.
What a faster rate of fire should accomplish? Killing two times in a row the same poor guys or disabling two times the same ship?
I think it is of far greater importance to expand the scope of artillery emplyment, i.e. developing intelligent munitions to cope with dispersed targets, highly mobile ones, hardened ones and so on.
By the way, for very specific application in naval warfare, it could be of interest to develop automated large caliber artillery as old 175/203 mm, instead of exotic multiple barrels medium caliber guns.