Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 14:07:17 -0700
>X-Sender: warpup@viser.net
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
>To: mahan@microwrks.com
>From: Warren Bruhn
>Subject: “monitor”
>Precendence: bulk
>Sender: mahan-owner@microworks.net
>Resent-From:
>Resent-Date: Wed, 6 Aug 97 14:05:32 EST
>Resent-To: dave@openlines.com
>X-Status:
>
>Mention on the consim list of the US Marine’s disappointment over the lack
>of guns on US Navy ships reminds me on one of my favorite ship ideas,
>inspired by Ian Buxton’s book, “Big Gun Monitors”.
>
>Try out this ship type in a modern naval game or game of modern small unit
>tactics that involves an amphibious invasion. If the game involves economics
>of producing the ships and delivering firepower to the beach, so much the
>better, because I think this ship would be economical to build and operate.
>
>”Amphibious Support Ship” [ASS]
>
>Displacement: 10,000 tons to 14,000 tons (naval architect out there???)
>Engines: diesel (economical and with long service life)
>Speed: 24-25 knots (more than enough to keep up amphibious task forces)
>Armament: 2 x 14″ (or 12″) in separately trainable barbettes
>Special features: laser guided shells
>Defenses: some anti-air and anti-missle point defenses, maybe a small gun
>Armor: none needed, but ship should be gas tight to defend against bio-chem
>Construction: very sturdy… to withstand the shock of these very heavy guns
>Electronics: also must be able to survive shock of own guns
>Special features: fairly broad beam for stability and to survive a torpedo
>Other feature: designed to survive grounding on beach (likely accident)
>Other feature: reasonably shallow draft to operate at beaches & estuaries
>Intended lifespan: 50 years of useful life with timely overhauls
>Number: 4 (2 on each coast… always expect one to be in overhaul)
>Spares: 3-4 spare barrels per gun to replace worn barrels (32-40 total)
>Other spares: two spare sets of diesel engines, some spare electronics
>Crew: 250-300 + Marine artillery staff (depends on level of ship automation)
>
>Advantages:
>(1) Much cheaper way to provide amphibious firepower than aircraft >or missiles.
>(2) More practical than reactivation of old 16″ battleships.
>(3) Military manpower requirements increased by only 1000-1500 people.
>(4) Economical addition to Marine amphibious firepower.
>(5) Constant readiness enhanced by having one fully ready unit on each coast.
>(6) 50+ years serviceability could be achieved with sturdy construction.
>(7) Experience with gun casting could help US metalurygy and steel mills.
>(8) Use of simple technology such as guns could provide political benefit.
>(9) Psychological impact good for Marines, bad for potential enemies >of Marines.
>
>Disadvantages:
>(1) Too economical for most military planners and politicians to comprehend.
>(2) Requires spending to help the Marines… which politician would do that???
>(3) US business wouldn’t build the ship sturdy enough to do its job long term.
>(4) Building big guns again would be really expensive.
>(5) Building big guns again would take considerable time.
>(6) These ships would appear to be clearly “imperialist” weapons.
>(7) Requires suffering through a right wing political period to get >these ships.
>(8) Politician will want these ships to fire at drug-lords’ airstrips.
>(9) Diesel exhaust is not nice for global warming or port city air quality.
>
>Speculative Use:
>(1) If all surface and air naval support failed, this big “ASS” could try to
>land a laser guided 14″ shell on speeding enemy missle boat.
>
>Personal Note:
>I am anti-imperialist and I applaud reduced military size & expenditure.
>However, navies are hard to build in a hurry, and a strong and potent
>amphibious capability is integral to strong naval power. This “ASS” is worth
>the consideration of Congress.
>
>If any of you try including this fantasy ship in a modern naval or land
>game, particularly one involving economical force, please let me know how
>the simulation turns out.
>
>Warren Bruhn

Posted via email from mahan’s posterous