Talk:Dual-purpose gun

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Angle of attack

"Angle of attack" is an aeronautical term dealing with airfoils. It was used inappropriately as a way to say "attacks at various angles", so I changed it.

Close-in weapon system

CIWS are not examples of dual-purpose guns, nor are they the modern equivalent. These systems fill the same niche as dedicated anti-air weapons such as the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon, 3.7 cm SK C/30, QF 2-pounder naval gun and Bofors 40 mm gun. Modern warships are still equipped with dual-purpose guns which are listed in this article, including the 4.5 inch Mark 8 naval gun, 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun and Type H/PJ38 130 mm naval gun. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No modern warship/navy, that I'm aware of, still retains the "dual-purpose gun" philosophy behind these cannons. They have all moved away from that antiquated idea of intercepting aircraft by firing slow cannons with far more effective missile equipped CIWSs. This is the point I was making. Name me one navy that is still pushing the "dual-purpose gun" ethos Cavalryman V31?

Boundarylayer (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim that modern naval cannons are the primary self defence weapon of modern warships, but they do retain true anti-surface and anti-air (dual-purpose) capabilities, the point is CIWS are dedicated anti-air (single-purpose) weapons. If you wish to draw a parallel with WWII era weapons, you should do so with the dedicated anti-air weapons listed above which are not the subject of this article. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They retain as much, of your, "true anti-air (dual purpose) capability" as a CIWS has the capability to engage surface targets. Which is, not much capability at all. For example, when is the last time a "dual purpose" gun ever successfully engaged a belligerent air-target Cavalryman V31? The article needs to reflect the reality that the "dual purpose" gun is not seen as a viable AA system in the modern world and that the "dual purpose" ethos was entirely replaced by missile equipped CIWS systems e.g Kashtan. Do you disagree? I'm more than willing to be convinced otherwise.

Boundarylayer (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree, CIWSs have no anti-surface capability. CIWSs have replaced dedicated anti-air cannons on modern warships, as such there is no need to link them to this article. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]