How A Battleship Works

Warfare changed.........

And example is the difference of holding up to the likes of an exocet missile.

The Iowa Class Battle Ship compared to the HMS Sheffield is a good example.

btw, the Iowa Class battleships do have low mileage......

The US was the first to realize their near uselessness is a sea battle. It wasn't until the battle of the Philippines that battleships fired at each other from a close enough range that ships sank other ships in any measurable quantity.

The navel tactics at that time were to engage the enemy at about 20 miles. Both the battleship and the targets are moving. The ships fired at the bright spot just over the horizon. There was no reconnaissance feedback to see if the shots were even close to the fleet. Any damage to enemy ships during these attacks were the result of dumb luck. Aircraft determined the outcomes of all the navel battles including the Battle of the Philippines where the US had a 5:1 air superiority. The US rarely used battleships as an offensive weapon.

Yamamoto is criticized for protecting his battleships over his carriers by keeping them out of range in the battle of Midway. This was the traditional strategy of that time. As a result, the US crippled the Japanese Navy with a few lucky hits to his carriers. Historians speculate if Yamamoto engaged the US carriers with his battleships they may have been able to sink some US carriers, evening out the score. Yamamoto was not willing to trade battleships for carriers. After Midway, the disadvantage of not having carriers became obvious.

Ships are very useful when the targets are large and not moving especially if they have reconnaissance feedback.

I find it odd that the one task that the battleship did very well is almost never brought to any discussion, naval bombardment of a coast. The very heavy fire power these brutes could deliver over ten miles inland had a very significant impact at every sea invasion of Europe in WWII. But Navy military egos prefer to focus on just sea to sea combat. Similarly the pride of an air force is the air to air fighter pilot and their sleek, fast fighter planes. The attack, reconnaissance, transport and bomber planes just do not get the same respect.

Getting back to the naval bombardment a battleship could provide. This floating artillery platform could bring more fire power to a coastal land battle in five minutes than any ten carrier planes of the era. IMHO the weapon that obsoleted the battleship was not the aircraft carrier but the cruise missile with precision guidance.

So, true,....

If one knew of history..... Such as when the U.S. (Patton) landed in Africa, to take Casa Blanca. As a example. The big guns can turn the tide, and go a lot farther inland also.

Unfortunately, it didn't help later on in Tunisia, (which Patton also missed because he was on a diplomatic mission)

Yes, especially if the enemy lacks a weapon to breach a foot of armor 20 miles out in the ocean. The battle is one sided. Planes can be shot down but how do you stop a 16" shell? I think they should have refitted at least one of the old ships so the guns could fire more safely. They were still using WWII gun cotton until they were decommissioned after one misfired blowing up the turret.

'....tactics at that time were to engage the enemy at about 20 miles...... The ships fired at the bright spot just over the horizon. There was no reconnaissance feedback to see if the shots were even close to the fleet. Any damage to enemy ships during these attacks were the result of dumb luck.....'

.

Something is amiss.

.

Assuming battleships are roughly 200 ft from keel to mast top and draw about 30 ft, there should be mast starting about 170 ft above sea level.

.

Assuming fire control is positioned high, but some distance less than the very top, we can calculate the distance one could begin to see something that stands 170 ft above sea level.

.

The calculation is just the sum of the distances to the horizon for the two heights (viewing and observed). Those distances are the square root of the sum of the height squared and twice the product of the height and the radius of the earth.

.

A much quicker rule of thumb is the distance to the horizon in miles is pretty close numerically to square root of the height above sea level in feet times 1.32 (1.23 non refracted).

.

Assuming fire control is only at a vantage 100 ft above sea level, the top of a mast that is only 100 ft high will begin to become visible a little over 26 miles away.

.

Since fire control likely has a higher vantage, and other ships were often in excess of 100ft high, it is improbable that they were firing blind at 20 miles and that any hits were just dumb luck.

Midway,......... I thought that was a majority of attacks were by air........

I do not know what the background of what you said of keeping the battle ship out of the battle....... The Japanese even knew at the time, that it was the carriers that gave the advantage...... any battle ship support would have been for antiaircraft duties.