Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
From: budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Shore bombardment (was Re: Possible BB mission in Gulf)
Message-ID: <1990Sep13.011846.15917@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 13 Sep 90 01:18:46 GMT
References: <1990Aug17.023708.1350@cbnews.att.com> <1990Aug22.025605.16798@cbnews.att.com> <1990Aug28.042652.28982@cbnews.att.com> <1990Aug30.025707.28318@cbnews.att.com> <1990Sep5.014756.12883@cbnews.att.com> <1990Sep7.205335.13354@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: budden@trout.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg)
Hanhwe,

Terry is right -- the fire control systems on WWII vintage battleships
was/is very good.  Both for anti-ship and shore bombardment and both for
low trajectory and plunging fire.  Plunging is what you are describing
as indirect or howitzer.

The techniques for fire control are well developed; rest assured that
the Marines can call fire quite well thank you when they need it and
a BB is available. 

Look up some of the WWII battles for verification.  The Pacific war,
is of course, pretty well documented in Navy lit, but better examples
may be found in the European theater.  Look at the work that the
US and UK BBs (plus a UK monitor) did at Salerno.  And to a lesser degree
in Sicily.  Army credits indirect fire from shore bombardment as
saving their bacon more than once -- bombardment turned back armored
thrusts by the Germans.

Navy got some undeserved bad publicity in Lebanon.  Get past some
less than well informed news and you'll find that the BBs did OK
at what they are supposed to do.  Main problem is that if you are
trying to pick out a small target and minimize collateral damage,
a BB 16" salvo is a tad much.

Rex Buddenberg