Would .50 BMG be enough firepower for a vehicle-sized CIWS system?

Would .50 BMG be enough firepower for a vehicle-sized CIWS system?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    What do you want it to accomplish?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      theres this black guy who lives on my street and,

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Put on tank or APC or something
      Target incoming A2G missiles
      Shoot them and render them ineffective

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        So we're clear why do you think a smaller cartridge wouldn't do this?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Because ship CIWS systems are 20-30mm even though they don't have appreciable velocity differences over 12.7mm

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Any reason besides "20mm is used on ships"?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              More boom and a better fuse can be put in a 20mm compared to a .50 BMG. Theoretically .50 BMG is still plenty effective against aircraft, but you need to actually hit with it, so for missiles and Jets 20mm is what's needed, while against props and helos .50 BMG can still be effective at damaging those enough to make them stop flying or leave.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                Are we talking about anti air duty or intercepting anti tank weapons? Because I asked OP and all he said was he wanted it to defeat anti tank weapons.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                could probably do it with volume of fire against AT, but 20mm will still be more effective by virtue of having a fuze and not needing to directly hit to destroy the missile or cause the warhead to prematurely detonate.

              • 1 year ago
                Anonymous

                While 20mm would be the ideal solution, you have to work within space and weight constraints. Maybe downsize the current CRAM setup and employ a Gau 19 in place of the Vulcan. You won’t get as fancy rounds as the 20mm, but you can still get 3000rpm of .50 which is still pretty capable.

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              To stop Japanese pilots from kamikazeing into our new all gun heavy cruisers.

              ?t=55

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          .50 BMG doesn't have enough range, missiles fly fast, 20 mm is the bare minimum.
          Even in WWII .50 BMG was considered ineffective stopping aircraft attacks. Even 20 mm was being phased out by the end of the war and only managed to come back thanks to absurd rate of fire.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Let me ask you this, are ships and tanks usually hit by the same weapons?

            • 1 year ago
              Anonymous

              It would probably be fine for rpgs, but actual anti-tank missiles have comparable speed to anti-ship missiles, yes.

              .50 API was and still is plenty to deal with aircraft. 20mm is better for taking out bombers but not the kind of 20mm you are describing

              I said "stop aircraft attacks" not "take out aircraft" there's a reason why hellcats stuck with .50s while they were quickly replaced with 20 and 40 mm on ships.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            .50 api was and still is plenty to deal with aircraft. 20mm is better for taking out bombers but not the kind of 20mm you are describing

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    If using non-explosive ammo, even 5.56 will be enough to destroy the necessary parts of a javelin or adjacent missile

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Don't even need to downsize it.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    yes

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Gatling gun based CIWS is a dead concept. You can't carry enough ammo to just inaccurately throw shells at a target. Which is why all APSs use charges or shrapnel.

    CIWS was a flawed system from the get go that only existed because of limitations in technology. We're past the need for that now. A smaller number of more effective interceptors are much more efficient

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >smaller number of more effective interceptors are much more efficient
      word salad

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        No, that's actually very concise and descriptive of a specific design philosophy.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *