- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I finally got some time to dedicate to reading this thread..
As I first started reading through the posts I was very much in the camp that beleives the BBs are obsolete, of no use, and not cost effective ect...
However, I think, that may have been a bit premature. I think alot of us are looking at likely scenarios today, and within that context, I would agree, there is no role for a BB.
However, should we ever find ourselves in a situation where a Normandy style amphibious invasion is necessary, it is my beleif that the BBs will win the day. Keep in mind that should this happen, western or American forces will be up against an equal foe, someone that can actually fight back on a conventional platform.
Some of you have mentioned that the smaller guns on the destroyers or frigates could provide decent fire support. In theory this is true, but in practice I think this line of thinking is flawed.
a) The range is limited compared to the guns of a BB, thus the ships would have to get far too close to the shore.. This would not be idea as our ships would now be in range of land based enemy weapons systems like big gun emplacements. To the best of my knowledge all of our ships defence systems are based around intercepting missles. Can we defend against shells?
b) Frigates, destroyers or cruisers have other roles that they need to perform. Who is going to perform them while they are busy trying to fill a conventional BB role?
c) Psychological effect: Having artillery fire rain down constantly has a devastating effect on the enemy.
d) Suppression fire: It is my belief that a BB can provide better suppression fire, and thus better fire and movement capability for the marines who are just hitting the beaches then cruise missiles or any other type of missile for that matter. Missiles still have a role to play, and an important one at that. But it seems to me they are better suited for destroying very specific installations. Its all about economy of scale. If you try to use a tomahawk missile the same way you would BB gun fire, I think you would find that it is no longer more efficient then the BBs are.
As for what happens when the marines move further in shore. Well obviously the BBs role would end there, no question about that. My argument however is that supporting troops that far inland would not be the role of the BB. The idea here is, if the troops can move that far in, they are also able to bring their own artillery with them for fire support. But insofar as the initial beach landing, and ONLY the initial beach landing, I believe the BB remains the best platform for fire support.
I certainly agree that it is not efficient or feasible to man and operate BBs on a regular basis, but should the time ever come when we face an opponent that can fight back and we end up in a full blown conventional war requiring contested amphibious assaults, we will all be very happy that the USN kept a few IOWAS handy.
As I first started reading through the posts I was very much in the camp that beleives the BBs are obsolete, of no use, and not cost effective ect...
However, I think, that may have been a bit premature. I think alot of us are looking at likely scenarios today, and within that context, I would agree, there is no role for a BB.
However, should we ever find ourselves in a situation where a Normandy style amphibious invasion is necessary, it is my beleif that the BBs will win the day. Keep in mind that should this happen, western or American forces will be up against an equal foe, someone that can actually fight back on a conventional platform.
Some of you have mentioned that the smaller guns on the destroyers or frigates could provide decent fire support. In theory this is true, but in practice I think this line of thinking is flawed.
a) The range is limited compared to the guns of a BB, thus the ships would have to get far too close to the shore.. This would not be idea as our ships would now be in range of land based enemy weapons systems like big gun emplacements. To the best of my knowledge all of our ships defence systems are based around intercepting missles. Can we defend against shells?
b) Frigates, destroyers or cruisers have other roles that they need to perform. Who is going to perform them while they are busy trying to fill a conventional BB role?
c) Psychological effect: Having artillery fire rain down constantly has a devastating effect on the enemy.
d) Suppression fire: It is my belief that a BB can provide better suppression fire, and thus better fire and movement capability for the marines who are just hitting the beaches then cruise missiles or any other type of missile for that matter. Missiles still have a role to play, and an important one at that. But it seems to me they are better suited for destroying very specific installations. Its all about economy of scale. If you try to use a tomahawk missile the same way you would BB gun fire, I think you would find that it is no longer more efficient then the BBs are.
As for what happens when the marines move further in shore. Well obviously the BBs role would end there, no question about that. My argument however is that supporting troops that far inland would not be the role of the BB. The idea here is, if the troops can move that far in, they are also able to bring their own artillery with them for fire support. But insofar as the initial beach landing, and ONLY the initial beach landing, I believe the BB remains the best platform for fire support.
I certainly agree that it is not efficient or feasible to man and operate BBs on a regular basis, but should the time ever come when we face an opponent that can fight back and we end up in a full blown conventional war requiring contested amphibious assaults, we will all be very happy that the USN kept a few IOWAS handy.
