How One American Shell Turned Japanese Destroyers Into Shredded Metal - YouTube

The 5"/38 Naval Gun: How American Engineering and Tactics Defeated Japanese Naval Supremacy in the Pacific

BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front)

The 5"/38 caliber dual-purpose gun represents one of the most successful naval weapons in history, serving from 1934 through the 1990s across multiple conflicts. This assessment examines the weapon's development, integration with radar fire control systems, combat performance against Japanese forces, tactical evolution, and relevance to contemporary naval operations—particularly the magazine depth and cost-exchange challenges revealed in recent Red Sea operations against asymmetric threats.

The Impossible Specification: Designing a Dual-Purpose Gun (1931-1934)

In 1931, the U.S. Navy Bureau of Ordnance confronted an apparently impossible requirement: design a single gun capable of engaging both high-speed aircraft and armored warships. Conventional wisdom held that these missions required fundamentally different weapons—rapid-fire, high-angle anti-aircraft guns versus heavy, flat-trajectory naval rifles.[1]

The Bureau's engineers rejected this limitation. The resulting 5"/38 caliber Mark 12 gun represented a calculated engineering compromise that would prove revolutionary:

Technical Specifications:[2]

Bore diameter: 5 inches (127mm)
Barrel length: 38 calibers (190 inches/15.83 feet)
Projectile weight: 54-55 pounds
Muzzle velocity: 2,600 feet per second
Maximum range: 18,200 yards (surface); 37,200 feet ceiling (anti-aircraft)
Rate of fire: 15-22 rounds per minute with trained crews
Ammunition: Semi-fixed (shell and powder charge as single unit)

The gun utilized power ramming systems enabling loading at any elevation angle—critical for tracking aircraft. The 55-pound Mark 12 common shell carried 3.2 pounds of explosive D (approximately 6% of projectile weight) with a base-detonating fuze delayed 0.01-0.05 seconds after impact. This delay proved devastatingly effective against lightly-armored targets.[3]

First production units entered service aboard USS Farragut (DD-348) in 1934. The weapon worked as designed, but few recognized its potential. The real revolution would come from integrating this gun into a comprehensive combat system.

The Integration Revolution: Radar, Fire Control, and Gyroscopic Stabilization

Building the System

The 5"/38 gun's combat effectiveness derived less from the weapon itself than from its integration into the Mark 37 Gun Fire Control System (GFCS), deployed beginning in 1938.[4] This system comprised four critical elements:

1. Radar Detection and Ranging

The Mark 4 fire control radar (1941) and SG surface-search radar (1943) gave American destroyers the ability to detect surface contacts at 15,000-20,000 yards in total darkness with ±50-yard range accuracy.[5] Japanese forces lacked comparable radar technology until late 1943, and even then their sets proved inferior in reliability and precision.

2. The Mark 37 Director and Mark 1A Fire Control Computer

The gyro-stabilized director tracked targets in azimuth and elevation while the 3,000-pound electromechanical computer below decks processed:

Own ship speed, course, and motion from gyrocompass
Target range, bearing, and movement from the director
Wind, ballistic data, temperature, and atmospheric pressure

The system calculated complete firing solutions in 20-30 seconds—far faster than manual methods—and updated continuously as tactical situations evolved.[6]

3. Stable Element Gyroscopic Compensation

The Mark 6 stable element established a true vertical reference independent of ship motion, automatically adjusting gun orders to compensate for pitch, roll, and yaw. Destroyers maneuvering at 30+ knots could maintain accurate fire—impossible with manual compensation.[7]

4. Remote Power Control (RPC)

The system transmitted firing orders to gun mounts via synchro transmitters. Electric or hydraulic motors automatically trained and elevated all guns to match director orders, enabling centralized fire control with all weapons tracking the same target simultaneously.[8]

The Combat Advantage

A typical radar-directed night engagement proceeded as follows:

T+0 minutes: SG radar detects enemy destroyers at 18,000 yards
T+2 minutes: Mark 37 director locks radar contact, computer begins tracking
T+8 minutes: Range closes to 6,500 yards; commander orders "commence firing"
T+8:05: All guns train automatically to computed bearing/elevation; first salvo fires
T+8:12: Radar tracks splashes, feeds corrections; second salvo fires with adjusted aim
T+8:20: First hits observed; guns continue 15-20 rounds/minute while tracking

By the time Japanese lookouts spotted American ships, shells were already inbound. The disparity became decisive: American destroyers detected, tracked, and engaged while remaining effectively invisible.[9]

Japanese Naval Superiority and the Long Lance Advantage (1941-1942)

The Type 93 Torpedo and Night Fighting Dominance

At war's outbreak, the Imperial Japanese Navy possessed decisive tactical advantage in night surface combat, built on three pillars:

The Type 93 "Long Lance" Torpedo represented the era's most advanced naval torpedo:[10]

Range: 43,700 yards at 36 knots; 21,900 yards at 48-50 knots
Warhead: 1,080 pounds explosive
Propulsion: Pure oxygen system (not hydrogen peroxide, as sometimes confused) producing minimal wake
Comparison: U.S. Mark 15 achieved only 15,000 yards at 26.5 knots with chronic reliability problems

Intensive Night Fighting Training

Japanese destroyer crews trained extensively for night combat using high-power binoculars (7x50 standard, 15x80 specialized), night vision adaptation protocols, and aggressive tactics: close to 8,000-12,000 yards, launch torpedo spreads, withdraw before counterattack.[11]

Early Tactical Success

The pattern of Japanese dominance emerged immediately:

Battle of Savo Island (August 9, 1942): Vice Admiral Gunichi Mikawa's cruiser force sank four Allied heavy cruisers in under 40 minutes using visual detection and Long Lance torpedoes—without losing a single ship.[12]
Battle of Tassafaronga (November 30, 1942): Eight Japanese destroyers engaged five American heavy cruisers, sinking USS Northampton and heavily damaging three others with Long Lance attacks. Japanese losses: one destroyer.[13]

The Tokyo Express—nightly Japanese destroyer runs to Guadalcanal—seemed unstoppable. Japanese destroyers delivered supplies, evacuated troops, and bombarded Henderson Field with impunity because they owned the night.

American Response: The First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal (November 12-13, 1942)

The chaotic night action off Guadalcanal provided the first glimpse of what radar-directed 5"/38 fire could achieve, though at terrible cost.

USS Laffey (DD-459) engaged the battleship Hiei at ranges estimated between 1,000-2,000 yards. Laffey's 5"/38 guns achieved repeated hits on Hiei's superstructure at point-blank range, contributing to disruption of Japanese command and control. Vice Admiral Hiroaki Abe was wounded and his chief of staff, Captain Susumu Nishida, killed. However, Hiei's eventual loss resulted from accumulated damage from multiple ships and subsequent air attacks.[14]

Laffey herself was sunk during the engagement—a pyrrhic demonstration that 5"/38 guns could damage even battleships if range closed sufficiently, but that early American tactics remained inadequate against Japanese night-fighting proficiency.

Tactical Revolution: From Long Lance Dominance to Radar-Directed Gunfire (1943)

Phase 1: Learning to Use Radar (Early-Mid 1943)

Early radar deployment proceeded haltingly. Many commanders treated radar as supplementary to visual methods rather than a primary sensor, negating its advantage. Admiral William Halsey noted commanders remained reluctant to engage targets without visual confirmation.[15]

Commander Frederick Moosbrugger at the Battle of Vella Gulf (August 6-7, 1943) executed what historians consider the first fully modern radar-directed night attack:[16]

Used radar to track four Japanese destroyers from 23,000 yards
Maneuvered into firing position without visual detection
Launched coordinated torpedo attack at 4,000 yards
Followed with radar-directed gunfire
Result: Three Japanese destroyers sunk, zero American losses

Moosbrugger's key insight: close range rapidly before Japanese destroyers can launch Long Lance torpedoes. At ranges under 6,000 yards, American radar-directed gunfire could achieve hits before Japanese ships effectively responded.

Phase 2: Burke's Doctrine (Late 1943)

Captain Arleigh Burke synthesized emerging lessons into comprehensive tactical doctrine for Destroyer Squadron 23 ("Little Beavers"):[17]

Burke's Tactical Principles:

Use radar for early detection and continuous tracking
Close range aggressively to 5,000-7,000 yards at maximum speed
Hold fire until optimal range to avoid revealing position
Concentrate all ships' firepower on designated targets
Exploit gun rate of fire to overwhelm enemy before torpedo launch
Maintain formation discipline for coordinated fire control

The Battle of Cape St. George: Perfect Execution (November 25, 1943)

Burke's engagement demonstrated complete tactical reversal:[18]

The Setup:

American forces: 5 destroyers (Charles Ausburne, Claxton, Dyson, Converse, Spence)
Japanese forces: 5 destroyers (Ōnami, Makinami, Amagiri, Uzuki, Yūgiri) on troop evacuation run
Conditions: Dark night, rain squalls—ideal for Japanese visual tactics

The Engagement:

1:41 AM: Radar detected Japanese ships at 22,000 yards
Burke tracked continuously while closing range
Japanese remained unaware of American presence
2:03 AM: At 5,500 yards, opened fire with radar-directed salvos
First hits achieved within 30 seconds
Ōnami destroyed before completing torpedo launch—all 267 crew lost
Makinami sank attempting to fight back—total crew loss
Remaining Japanese destroyers fled

Duration: Approximately 42 minutes American losses: Zero ships, zero casualties Japanese losses: Two destroyers, 500+ sailors

The engagement validated Burke's doctrine completely. By closing inside Long Lance effective range before Japanese visual detection, American destroyers neutralized Japan's primary weapon. The 5"/38's rapid fire rate meant each American destroyer delivered 75-100 rounds per minute from five guns—volume Japanese destroyers could not match.[19]

Japanese survivors reported complete surprise. They described American ships appearing "suddenly" (actually tracked by radar 20+ minutes earlier), immediate accurate gunfire, and inability to organize response before catastrophic damage.[20]

Statistical Evidence of Tactical Shift

Night surface engagements, 1942 vs. 1944:[21]

Metric	1942	1944
Average engagement range	12,000+ yards	6,000-8,000 yards
First to fire	Japanese 70%	U.S. 85%
Torpedo effectiveness	Japanese advantage	Minimal factor
U.S. destroyer losses per engagement	1.3 ships	0.2 ships
Japanese destroyer losses per engagement	0.7 ships	2.1 ships

Shell Performance Against Japanese Destroyer Construction

The Mark 12 common shell proved particularly effective against Japanese destroyer design philosophy. To achieve speed and armament within treaty displacement limits, Japanese engineers employed hull plating averaging 11-14mm (0.43-0.55 inches)—approximately the thickness of a car door.[22]

The base-detonating fuze with 0.01-0.05 second delay allowed the hardened nose to punch through light plating before detonation. The explosion occurred inside the ship:

Blast waves ruptured bulkheads and equipment
Steam pipes carrying superheated steam exploded, filling compartments
Fuel lines broke, spraying oil onto hot metal
Often the explosion blew out hull sections on the opposite side

Survivors described being "inside a bell when struck"—the penetration sound, then catastrophic internal detonation, followed by accumulation of smoke, steam, and toxic gases that made damage control nearly impossible.[23]

Against battleship armor, the same shell would crater and break up. Against no armor, it might pass through without detonating. But against light destroyer armor, the common shell was perfectly matched: penetrate, then explode.

The Battle off Samar: Destroyers vs. Battleships (October 25, 1944)

The most dramatic—and most misunderstood—demonstration of 5"/38 capabilities occurred when Japanese battleships surprised "Taffy 3," an escort carrier group protected by only three destroyers and four destroyer escorts.

The Forces:[24]

Japanese: Battleships Yamato, Nagato, Kongō, Haruna; six heavy cruisers; two light cruisers; 11 destroyers
American: Three destroyers (Johnston, Hoel, Heermann); four destroyer escorts; six escort carriers

The Action:

Commander Ernest E. Evans aboard USS Johnston (DD-557) ordered his destroyer to charge directly at the Japanese fleet. His 5"/38 guns engaged heavy cruiser Kumano at 18,000 yards, closing rapidly. Combined with torpedo hits, Johnston crippled Kumano, nearly blowing off her bow.[25]

The destroyers Hoel and Heermann, plus destroyer escorts, joined the attack with suicidal aggression. Their 5"/38 guns hammered Japanese superstructures—not penetrating heavy armor, but destroying fire control stations, observation posts, radio antennas, and secondary gun directors.

Critical Point: The 5"/38 shells did not sink battleships through armor penetration. The engagement's outcome resulted from:

Aggressive torpedo attacks causing tactical confusion
Effective smoke screens obscuring American carriers
Volume of 5"/38 fire disrupting Japanese command and control
Admiral Takeo Kurita's strategic miscalculation—believing he faced main battle fleet rather than escort carriers

Johnston was sunk with heavy casualties. Commander Evans received the Medal of Honor posthumously—the first Native American in the U.S. Navy so honored. Of Johnston's crew, 186 survived from approximately 327 aboard.[26]

The engagement demonstrated destroyer capability when desperately employed, but should not be interpreted as 5"/38 shells threatening battleship survival through gunfire alone.

Post-War Service and Evolution to Modern Systems

The 5"/38's Remarkable Longevity

Over 8,000 5"/38 guns were manufactured during WWII.[27] The weapon served:

Korean War (1950-1953): Naval gunfire support at Inchon and Chosin Reservoir
Vietnam War: Operation Sea Dragon and coastal bombardment
Last U.S. service: USS Orleck (DD-886) decommissioned 1982
Final retirement: Foreign navies operated 5"/38-equipped vessels into early 2000s
Service life: 68-86 years depending on user

Modern Descendants: The 5"/54 and 5"/62

The U.S. Navy transitioned to more capable gun systems beginning in the 1970s:

5"/54 Mark 45 (Introduced 1971):[28]

Barrel length: 54 calibers vs. 38
Projectile weight: 70 pounds vs. 54-55 pounds
Maximum range: 13 nautical miles conventional; 24+ nm with guided munitions (programs largely canceled)
Rate of fire: 16-20 rounds per minute
Crew: 6 personnel vs. 15+ for 5"/38 mount
Magazine capacity: 475-600 rounds per destroyer

5"/62 Mark 45 Mod 4 (Introduced 2000s):[29]

Barrel length: 62 calibers (310 inches)
Maximum range: 26 nm with Hyper Velocity Projectile (under development); 13 nm conventional
Rate of fire: 20 rounds per minute maximum
Full automation with reduced manning

Both systems represent evolutionary improvements in range, automation, and precision. However, they face new challenges in contemporary operations.

The Contemporary Challenge: Red Sea Operations and Asymmetric Warfare (2023-2024)

Magazine Depth and Cost-Exchange Problems

Recent operations against Houthi forces in the Red Sea/Bab el-Mandeb have exposed critical vulnerabilities in missile-centric naval architecture:[30]

Threat Profile:

Iranian-supplied attack drones (Shahed-136 derivatives): $20,000-50,000 each
Anti-ship cruise missiles (C-802/Noor derivatives): $500,000-1 million
Anti-ship ballistic missiles: $1-2 million
Swarm tactics: Multiple simultaneous low-cost threats

U.S. Response Costs (per round, FY2024):[31]

SM-2 Standard Missile: $2.1-2.5 million
SM-6 Standard Missile: $4.3-5.8 million
ESSM: $1.2-1.5 million
5" conventional round: $1,200-1,800
5" Excalibur guided round: $68,000-112,000

Cost-Exchange Problem:

Engaging a $30,000 drone with a $2.5 million SM-2 represents an 83:1 unfavorable cost ratio. USS Carney (DDG-64) reportedly expended 30+ missiles in multiple engagements (October-December 2023), costing $60-150 million to destroy threats valued at $5-15 million—a 4-10:1 cost exchange favoring the attacker.[32]

Magazine Capacity Constraints

Arleigh Burke-class DDG (Flight IIA) typical load:[33]

VLS cells: 96 total missiles (SM-2/SM-6, ESSM, Tomahawk, VLA)
5"/54 or 5"/62 ammunition: 600-680 rounds
RAM launcher: 21 missiles
Phalanx CIWS: 1,550 rounds 20mm

Critical observation: Gun magazine is 6-7 times deeper than missile magazine in rounds available.

Magazine depletion timeline: After 90-96 missile engagements, a destroyer must withdraw for rearming:

Transit to VLS-capable port (Diego Garcia, Bahrain, CONUS)
24-48 hours pierside for reload
Return transit
Total time off-station: 7-14 days

Gun ammunition alternative: Can be replenished via underway replenishment (UNREP) in 3-6 hours, ship remaining available for missile defense throughout.

Why Guns See Limited Use Despite Advantages

Current Red Sea employment shows 5" guns used primarily against:[34]

Small boat threats
Some low-slow drones within gun envelope
Shore bombardment of radar/launch sites

Most air defense uses missiles because:

Threat detection ranges (50+ nm) exceed gun range
Cruise missiles travel at speeds (Mach 0.8-0.9) making gun engagement difficult
Risk management: Commanders prefer high-probability-kill missiles over lower-Pk guns for ship defense
Single gun mount can engage only one target at a time vs. Aegis multi-target capability

Hyper Velocity Projectile: Potential Solution

The Navy has pursued HVP development to address cost-exchange problems:[35]

HVP Concept:

5"/62 gun fires subcaliber projectile at very high velocity (3,000+ fps)
GPS/INS guidance with terminal semi-active radar homing
Estimated range: 26+ nautical miles
Estimated cost: $75,000-100,000 per round (1/30th to 1/50th missile cost)
Magazine depth: 600 rounds vs. 96 missiles

Status: Program experienced delays and budget cuts. Limited operational deployment as of 2024.

Congressional Recognition

Senate Armed Services Committee testimony (February 2024) acknowledged:[36]

"Unsustainable cost-exchange ratios" in Red Sea operations
Need for "deeper magazines and lower-cost effectors"
Recognition that missile-centric surface combatants face magazine exhaustion in extended asymmetric conflicts

Comparative Historical Analysis: WWII vs. Modern Magazine Depth

Fletcher-class DD (1942):[37]

5"/38 guns: 5 mounts × 300 rounds = 1,500 total
Displacement: 2,050 tons standard
Weapons per ton: 0.73 gun rounds per ton

Arleigh Burke-class DDG (2024):

5"/62: 1 mount, 600-680 rounds
VLS: 96 missiles
Displacement: 9,200 tons full load
Weapons per ton: 0.07 gun rounds per ton; 0.01 missiles per ton

Modern ships carry dramatically fewer weapons per ton of displacement, reflecting the shift to longer-range, higher-value missiles and space required for complex sensors and electronics.

Lessons for Naval Warfare: Past and Present

The 1943 Revolution: System Integration Over Individual Capability

The 5"/38's success derived not from the gun alone but from integration of radar, fire control computers, gyroscopic stabilization, and tactical doctrine. Captain Arleigh Burke—who would become Chief of Naval Operations (1955-1961), serving an unprecedented three consecutive terms—demonstrated that sensor superiority enables tactical initiative, close-range combat negates standoff weapons, and doctrine must adapt to technology.[38]

The tactical reversal from Japanese Long Lance dominance to American radar-directed gunfire superiority occurred in approximately 18 months (mid-1942 to late 1943), demonstrating that technological advantage poorly employed loses to inferior technology well employed.

The 2024 Challenge: Magazine Depth and Cost-Efficiency Return

Red Sea operations reveal that in extended asymmetric conflicts against low-cost threats, missile-centric ships face magazine exhaustion and unfavorable cost exchanges—problems the 5"/38 era solved through:

Deep magazines (1,500 rounds vs. 96 missiles)
Underway replenishment capability
Cost efficiency ($1,500-75,000 per round vs. $2-5 million per missile)
Sustained engagement capacity

The persistent limitation: Guns cannot replace missiles for long-range defense or high-speed target engagement. Both capabilities remain necessary.

The Pendulum Swings

Naval warfare requires balancing high-end capability (long-range missiles for peer threats) with magazine depth and cost-efficiency (guns and cheaper munitions for asymmetric threats). After two decades of missile-centric design philosophy, the pendulum may be swinging toward greater emphasis on guns, directed energy weapons, and cheaper effectors.

The 1943 lesson remains valid in 2024: the best weapon is the one you can keep firing.

Conclusion

The 5"/38 caliber dual-purpose gun stands as one of the most successful naval weapons in history—not because it represented revolutionary technology, but because American engineers built a competent, adaptable system and American tacticians developed doctrine to exploit its capabilities.

The weapon proved particularly effective against lightly-constructed Japanese destroyers when employed at close range with radar fire control. From initial deployment in 1934 through final retirement in the early 2000s, the 5"/38 and its descendants served for 68-86 years across five major conflicts.

For contemporary naval professionals, the 5"/38's history offers enduring lessons:

System integration matters more than individual platform capabilities: Radar + fire control + guns created effectiveness greater than components alone
Tactics must exploit technology: Burke's range-closing doctrine neutralized Japanese torpedo advantage
Magazine depth enables sustained operations: Deep magazines matter in extended conflicts
Cost-efficiency affects strategic sustainability: Favorable cost-exchange ratios determine who can sustain operations
Adaptable systems defeat specialized systems: Dual-purpose weapons provide flexibility when circumstances change

The current challenges facing the U.S. Navy in the Red Sea—magazine exhaustion, unfavorable cost exchanges, and logistical constraints—echo problems solved 80 years ago through emphasis on magazine depth, replenishment capability, and cost-effective weapons. History suggests the solution lies not in abandoning advanced capabilities but in balancing high-end systems with deeper magazines and cheaper effectors.

The 5"/38 began as an idea experts called impossible. It became the most successful naval gun ever designed. Between those points lies a truth applicable far beyond naval warfare: breakthrough success comes from refusing to accept false limitations, building adaptable systems rather than specialized platforms, and developing tactics that exploit technological capabilities rather than merely possessing technology.

That is the legacy of the 5"/38 caliber gun—and the lesson for contemporary naval warfare in an era of asymmetric threats and constrained resources.

Sources and Citations

[1] Friedman, Norman. U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History. Naval Institute Press, 1982, pp. 89-94.

[2] Campbell, John. Naval Weapons of World War Two. Naval Institute Press, 1985, pp. 127-131.

[3] Bureau of Ordnance. OP 1112: 5"/38 Caliber Gun Crew's Handbook. U.S. Navy Department, 1945.

[4] Bureau of Ordnance. OP 1140: Fire Control Instruments. U.S. Navy Department, 1944, pp. 45-67.

[5] Friedman, Norman. Naval Radar. Naval Institute Press, 1981, pp. 89-103.

[6] Friedman, Naval Radar, pp. 156-164.

[7] Friedman, Norman. Naval Firepower: Battleship Guns and Gunnery in the Dreadnought Era. Naval Institute Press, 2008, pp. 238-240.

[8] Campbell, Naval Weapons of World War Two, pp. 134-136.

[9] Composite engagement timeline based on action reports from USS Charles Ausburne and USS Claxton, November 1943. Naval History and Heritage Command archives.

[10] Campbell, Naval Weapons of World War Two, pp. 211-214.

[11] Evans, David C., and Mark R. Peattie. Kaigun: Strategy, Tactics, and Technology in the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1887-1941. Naval Institute Press, 1997, pp. 287-293.

[12] Morison, Samuel Eliot. History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Volume V: The Struggle for Guadalcanal. Little, Brown and Company, 1949, pp. 37-63.

[13] Morison, The Struggle for Guadalcanal, pp. 311-327.

[14] Frank, Richard B. Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle. Random House, 1990, pp. 371-383.

[15] Halsey, William F. Admiral Halsey's Story. McGraw-Hill, 1947, p. 156.

[16] Morison, Samuel Eliot. History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Volume VI: Breaking the Bismarcks Barrier. Little, Brown and Company, 1950, pp. 210-223.

[17] Potter, E.B. Admiral Arleigh Burke. Naval Institute Press, 2005, pp. 92-98.

[18] Burke, Arleigh A. Action Report, Commander Destroyer Squadron Twenty-Three. November 30, 1943. Naval History and Heritage Command.

[19] Campbell, Naval Weapons of World War Two, pp. 127-131.

[20] Japanese Monograph No. 116. Southeast Area Naval Operations, Part III. Military History Section, Headquarters, Army Forces Far East, 1952, pp. 89-92.

[21] Compiled from Morison, History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Volumes V-XIII, statistical appendices.

[22] Stille, Mark. Imperial Japanese Navy Destroyers 1919-45 (1). Osprey Publishing, 2013, pp. 18-22.

[23] Crenshaw, Russell S. South Pacific Destroyer: The Battle for the Solomons from Savo Island to Vella Gulf. Naval Institute Press, 1998, pp. 187-192.

[24] Hornfischer, James D. The Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors. Bantam Books, 2004, pp. 197-312.

[25] Stille, Mark. Imperial Japanese Navy Heavy Cruisers 1941-45. Osprey Publishing, 2011, pp. 38-39.

[26] Congressional Medal of Honor Society. "Ernest E. Evans." https://www.cmohs.org/recipients/ernest-e-evans; Naval History and Heritage Command. "USS Johnston (DD-557)." https://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/danfs/j/johnston-dd-557.html

[27] Ordnance Pamphlet 1112. Catalog of Naval Fighting Ships' Guns. Bureau of Ordnance, 1945.

[28] Friedman, Norman. The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapon Systems, 5th Edition. Naval Institute Press, 2006, pp. 678-682.

[29] Naval Sea Systems Command. Mark 45 5-Inch/62 Caliber Gun Weapon System. NAVSEA Public Affairs, 2019. https://www.navsea.navy.mil/Home/Warfare-Centers/NSWC-Dahlgren/Media/Fact-Sheets/Mark-45-Gun-Weapon-System/

[30] U.S. Naval Institute News. "USS Carney Shoots Down Drones, Missiles Launched by Houthis from Yemen." October 19, 2023. https://news.usni.org/2023/10/19/uss-carney-shoots-down-drones-missiles-launched-by-houthis-from-yemen

[31] Congressional Research Service. Navy DDG-51 and DDG-1000 Destroyer Programs: Background and Issues for Congress. Updated October 2024, pp. 34-38.

[32] Eckstein, Megan. "Navy Destroyers Burning Through Expensive Interceptors Fighting Houthis." Defense News, January 15, 2024.

[33] Naval Sea Systems Command. Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG). NAVSEA Public Affairs, 2023.

[34] U.S. Central Command. "Update on Red Sea Incidents." Multiple press releases, October 2023-March 2024. https://www.centcom.mil/

[35] Office of Naval Research. Hyper Velocity Projectile (HVP) Program Overview. ONR Public Affairs, 2022.

[36] Senate Armed Services Committee. "Posture Hearing on Department of the Navy." Testimony of Admiral Lisa Franchetti, CNO. February 27, 2024.

[37] Friedman, U.S. Destroyers, pp. 134-142.

[38] Potter, Admiral Arleigh Burke, pp. 314-316.

Author's Note: This assessment represents research current through December 2024 using available declassified sources, official naval histories, and peer-reviewed scholarship. Some tactical details from specific engagements remain subject to interpretation due to conflicting primary source accounts and the chaos of night surface combat.

Search This Blog

Science, Time, and Spirit

How The 5"/38 Caliber Gun gave US Destroyers A War Winning Edge