Were battleships actualy usefull in WW 2 ?

Historical what if discussions, hypothetical operations, battleship vs. battleship engagements, design your own warship, etc.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Were battleships actualy usefull in WW 2 ?

Post by RF »

They certainly were useful - and not just in the Pacific but in the European theatre as well.

However it should be recognised that shore bombardment effectiveness can be limited in destruction effectiveness to those targets not located inside huge concrete bunkers and deep underground. Very similar to the experience of ground artillery in the First World War.
Shore bombardment was also more effective against attacking forces rather than defenders - for example the record of the KM ships (which were not true battleships) in the Baltic coastline destruction of hundreds of Soviet tanks, at ranges of up to 15 miles inland.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Were battleships actualy usefull in WW 2 ?

Post by tommy303 »

The good thing about battleship naval gunfire support was its ability to range quite far inland behind the beach defences as invading forces started to move inland. With the help of forward observers or observation aircraft, a battleship could break up a counter attacking force or disrupt the movement of enemy reinforcements before it could threaten the bridgehead.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
paul.mercer
Senior Member
Posts: 1224
Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 10:25 pm

Re: Were battleships actualy usefull in WW 2 ?

Post by paul.mercer »

Gentlemen,
Am I correct in saying that during the first Gulf war one of the Iowas was used for bombarding Iraqi positions? I would have thought that 9 tons of shells arriving every few minutes would be rather frightening!
User avatar
tommy303
Senior Member
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:19 pm
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Were battleships actualy usefull in WW 2 ?

Post by tommy303 »

Oh yes. Being under any kind of artillery fire is a daunting experience, let alone the really big stuff old-time navies could hurl at you.

Their shoulders held the sky suspended;
They stood and Earth's foundations stay;
What God abandoned these defended;
And saved the sum of things for pay.
User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7760
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: Were battleships actualy usefull in WW 2 ?

Post by RF »

paul.mercer wrote:Gentlemen,
Am I correct in saying that during the first Gulf war one of the Iowas was used for bombarding Iraqi positions? I would have thought that 9 tons of shells arriving every few minutes would be rather frightening!
Indeed. But they would lack the precision of a Tomohawk missile......
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.
Thorsten Wahl
Senior Member
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2009 4:17 pm

Re: Were battleships actualy usefull in WW 2 ?

Post by Thorsten Wahl »

if they use copperhead type ammunition the accuracy should be adequately.
Meine Herren, es kann ein siebenjähriger, es kann ein dreißigjähriger Krieg werden – und wehe dem, der zuerst die Lunte in das Pulverfaß schleudert!
Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1656
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: Were battleships actualy usefull in WW 2 ?

Post by Byron Angel »

..... The type of target is also a factor. If the quarry is an individual high value point target, then a precision munition is desirable. If the mission is against a field full of soft transport vehicles or a storage dump, then observed area fire by conventional munitions would IMO be adequate.


B
Post Reply