|
mdiehl -> RE: Midway (3/30/2004 10:25:54 PM)
|
quote:
The evidence about the efficacy of naval bombardment against airfields isn't particularly strong either way, because there were relatively few attempts to shut down an airbase by naval gunfire alone.
It's rather like saying that the evidence concerning the utility of volcanic eruptions as part of an operational plan isn't strong because Rabaul waited until 1946 to blow and Aetna until late 1945. The evidence is clear, you are just in denial.
quote:
USN knocked out Japanese airbases on a regular basis..
Incorrect. The USN bombarded islands and atolls that had airbases many times. On no occasion did the plan rely on the bombardment to shut down the airfield. That was on every occasion accomplished prior to the bombardments by using CV-based aircraft. By the time Tarawa was being bombarded, there were no aircraft left. There were, however, standing buildings. When you consider that Tarawa was even smaller than Eastern Island, the folly of assuming that everything above ground will be ruined is self-evident.
quote:
And Betio's airfield was completely useless after the shelling.
Betio's airfield was useless before the shelling began because there were no aircraft there to shell, so the point is moot.
quote:
Only the IJN tried destroy airbased by naval gunfire alone and they did not try it very often. The bombardments of Henderson field are the best known examples - and they are not very good examples of what might happen at Midway for two reasons.
Contrary to mdiehl's opinion, I think size matters. Guadalcanal is 2,510 sq mi and Eastern Island is 0.5 sq mi.
Great. So you are suggesting that the bombardments at Guadalcanal suffered because Japanese shells landed 50 miles off target because the land mass was bigger. Riiiiiight.
quote:
When all the facilities and aircraft are in such a small area the liklihood of a "hit" increases substantially. So facilities and aircraft at Henderson field are not so densely packed as they are at Midway.
Henderson field with its central pagoda and non-revetment a/c park was approximately the size of both Betio and Eastern Island. In all cases the actual TARGET of the bombardment, whose location was known in advance, was the same size. The bombardment failed to wipe out everything above ground at Betio. The bombardment failed to wipe out everything above ground at Henderson field. It's irrational to assume that it would have worked on Eastern Island.
quote:
Check out:
http://users.swing.be/baten/bat/1099.html#63000
http://users.swing.be/baten/bat/945.html#62380
Utterly irrelevant since the cited web sites do not establish by what criteria success was assessed. The most important point, not raised in either of these cases, is that Henderson DESPITE all that heavy bombardment was not shut down nor did it run out of aircraft.
quote:
The largest bombardment force that attacked Henderson was 2 BB's, 1 Light Cruiser, and 9 DD's - they destroyed 49 aircraft. At Midway, the Japanese had about 7BB's, 10 CA's, 44 DD's (I think it was actually more than than). That's a pretty big difference and I would guess that not many aircraft would surve a 60 ship bombardment of a 0.5 acre island.
Well, when you consider that the USN subjected Pelelieu to a bombardment on that scale and that the USN was much better in 1944 at gunnery than the IJN in 1942 you begin to understand that it would not work. But I do enjoy the prospect of six BBs, a bunch of CAs, and DDs in gun range of Eastern Island. The collisions would be magnificent, and the USN CV launched air strikes would make the Phillippine Sea battles look like "favorable" outcomes for the Japanese.
quote:
But we'll never know.
You mean you'll never know. Not surprising because data doesn't seem to inform your opinion on this matter.
|
|
|
|
