Are Battleships huge cannons better or worse than Close air support and other kind of artillery for the purpose of supporting infantry?
>>64664970Worse in every conceivable way.
Even the main gun shells of a battleship have only the explosive mass of a small aircraft bomb, but they are 2000 lb armor-piercing bombs that hit targets at Mach 1.5.
>>64665060The american plane bombs for CAS largest is mk84 2000lbs ergo 1000kgs.IOWA main guns are 1235 kg
>>64665228>HC Mark 14 fill: 153.6 lbs. (69.67 kg) Explosive D>Mk 82 bomb (500lb): 192 to 196 pounds (87-89 kg) various
>>64664970They're dogwater, there's a reason New Jersey only did one stint on the gunline off Vietnam. The cult of personality around the Iowa's and battleships in general belies the mediocrity of their naval gunfire support.
>>64664970Bit of a problem that you need to be within 20 miles of shore, they can only be in one location at a time, resupply is more difficult, and they need a crew of 2000.I'd take 200 A-1 Skyraiders over a battleship any day of the week.
Semi related to this threadWere AShMs a threat in Vietnam? Afaik it was the same time as the Eilat sinking
They will absolutely fuck up any stationary fortified position because those cannons are designed to sink Battleships. Battleships don't really do frag/high explosive that well though.
Better because it sounds cooler screaming in to target
