Would the US have been able to achieve the same results without battleships in WWII? Suppose the new WWII battleships weren't built and the old ones weren't refitted or repaired after Pearl Harbor, these resources went to heavy cruisers and carriers instead, with some big British type monitors built to use those older guns for shore bombardment. What effect would this have had on the outcome in the Pacific? What do you think?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
How necessary were BB's in WWII?
Collapse
X
-
Would not have had the AA firepower to defend the landing forces and carriers.
With the number of battleships that were available, shore bombardment would not have been as effective with the result of more causalities and a possibility of loosing an entire landing force in the Pacific and in Europe.
Comment
-
But isn't it also true that a lot of the time the Naval artillery was on way too flat a trajectory to efficiently take out the Japanese defenses?Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Comment
-
Originally posted by BenRoethig View PostLeyte might have been lost."Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gunnut View PostHow so? Battleships became an escort rather than the main striking force due to the perfection of carrier aviation and tactics. Equal number of fleet carriers instead of battleships at Leyte Gulf would have led to the same result.
Its also well known that the CV's or CVE's as history has shown couldnt hold up to Japanese BB guns. And one must remember that the USN as well as all other services had limited resources in ships and planes for some time so send in the ships that were expendable, the BB's included and save the Carrier for major fleet actions such as Midway etc.
US BB's went on well after WWII to provide the very same service the CV's couldnt do and cheaper at that. The right tool for the right job and BB's actions in most cases were also not dependant on weather as aerial operations were.Last edited by Dreadnought; 21 Jul 10,, 22:45.Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Comment
-
*Now that I think about it, you can tecnically add the Battle of the North Sea to that list as well, and tecnically the Sharnhorst was a battlecruiser.:))
IMO, The Brits could have also finished off Bismark as well at night, instead waiting till first light the next day.Last edited by Dreadnought; 23 Jul 10,, 04:38.Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dreadnought View PostAh, but Leyte Gulf and battles like Savo Island were fought at night time. Carrier Ops were no good for that since you wouldn't be able to tell Japanese ships from American ships in the pitch dark on moonless nights.
And how many Battleships took part in the Battle of Salvo Island?
Both the Battle of Salvo Island (9 Aug 42) and Cape Esperance (11- 12 Oct 42) were Cruiser and Destroyer battles. Didn't have or need BBs for them.
Surigao Straits saw the DD force inflict the most damage, Not the BB line.
And the Guadalcanal battle on 14-15 Oct Hiei was damaged by CA/DD then destroyed by aircraft.
Kirishima is the only ship that was hurt bad by BB fire. Causing her skipper the scuttle her. But not before she hurt the SD.
The proof that they were not needed, or more precisely that no more were needed was the US canceling the Montana class and the last 2 Iowas. Along with delaying the building of the Mo and Whisky for more important priorities. Essex Carriers
Comment
-
Originally posted by USSWisconsin View PostWould the US have been able to achieve the same results without battleships in WWII? Suppose the new WWII battleships weren't built and the old ones weren't refitted or repaired after Pearl Harbor, these resources went to heavy cruisers and carriers instead, with some big British type monitors built to use those older guns for shore bombardment. What effect would this have had on the outcome in the Pacific? What do you think?
Notice that we did cancel all additional BBs after Midway. Focused on Essex carriers. The "New" WW2 Battleships had all been laid down prior to the US realizing that the era of Battleships was over.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by shadow01 View PostThey did that at Tarawa but learned from that error in future landings.
IIRC, even the 5-inchers were too flat...?Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.
Comment
Comment