Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There have been naval bombardments (i.e. ships firing their guns at targets on land) for as long as there have been navies with guns. But I wonder, how effective of a strategy has it been?
During the War of 1812, the British Navy famously bombarded Fort McHenry in Baltimore; yet, come the morning, the fort still stood and "the flag was still there." Later on, the Civil War was started when Fort Sumter in Charleston was bombarded (mostly by land batteries, but also by a floating battery, so it sort-of counts). The bombardment failed to destroy the fort, though it did force its evacuation.
Naval bombardments reached their peak in World War II. The Japanese rarely used their capital ships for shore bombardments (a key exception being when battleships Kongo and Haruna shelled Guadalcanal's Henderson Field, with spectacular results), but the U.S. Navy showed no such hesitation. Battleships were routinely used to soften up Japanese-held islands prior to invasion. (Mitsuo Fuchida, the leader of the Pearl Harbor air attack, later wrote that they "did a terrific job of it, as any survivors from such garrisons will attest.") Indeed, near the end of the war, the battleships even attacked targets on Japan's home islands.
Even after World War II, bombardments continued to be used, as during the Korean War and some during the Vietnam War. Even as late as 1984, the battleship New Jersey fired her big guns against targets near Beirut during Lebanon's civil war.
So there's no question that naval bombardment has a long and storied history. My question is, has it worked? Has it had a decisive effect upon any battle or campaign in which it was used? In the case of the Pacific War, were the pre-invasion bombardments effective in reducing the enemy's strength, or were the defenders too dug in for bombardments to make any real difference? And finally, how likely do you think it is that naval bombardments would be used in any future conflicts?
It was my understanding that the naval bombardment prior to the D-Day landings didn't do a great job in softening up German defenses. I believe, though, that naval bombardment may have done better once the landings were ashore.
1. Naval bombardment of fortifications.
2. Naval artillery support.
At the end of the day artillery is artillery whether it is mounted on a boat or otherwise. Artillery has a tough time penetrating and reducing properly prepared fortifications, especially those built into mountains or taking advantage of soft soils (cushions the impact) and made out of reinforced concrete. Beyond that, artillery is only as good as the people directing it. When firing blind for AoE and suppression, artillery is not as effective as it is when being controlled by an observer feeding information back to the artillery.
Most fortification bombardment isn't very effective. The position is prepared to handle the fire and protect the defenders. Historically the effects of the siege itself and fatigue from the consistency of the shelling had more impact then the actual bombardment. So it was for WW2. For however spectacular the pre-invasion bombardments were, there was only so much they could do and in many cases they were largely ineffective in actually eliminating the defenders.
Where naval artillery shined is when it was used to attack specific targets with observers directing the fire. There are countless examples in both the ETO and PTO of naval fire stopping attacks, destroying defensive positions, etc. From the destroyers on Omaha Beach that pulled within yards of shore to provide direct fire to the same at Salerno who directly engaged German armor in fire fights. When naval support was available, the fire was generally accurate and devastating.
Later on, the Civil War was started when Fort Sumter in Charleston was bombarded (mostly by land batteries, but also by a floating battery, so it sort-of counts). The bombardment failed to destroy the fort, though it did force its evacuation.
It was not the Confederate bombardment which caused the surrender of Fort Sumter, it was the exhaustion of food supplies. The garrison suffered no casualties during the fight, not were any guns dismounted or destroyed.
The bombardment of fortifications briefly became effective when the explosive shell was invented and as was first demonstrated at Fort Pulaski in April of 1862, the old masonry forts could not withstand the pounding from heavy ordinance firing explosive shells. This was the end of stone forts guarding coasts.
However, forts constructed of sand and soil, such as Fort Fisher, proved that they could absorb a bombardment with no significant structural damage.
During the Leningrad siege, Navy support from ships, stranded in the bay, was very efficient. I think, same happened during siege of Sevastopol.
Not sure if you can still call it "bombardment" but apparently cruise missiles launch from Russian ships was very accurate and effective.
Beyond that, artillery is only as good as the people directing it. When firing blind for AoE and suppression, artillery is not as effective as it is when being controlled by an observer feeding information back to the artillery.
Where naval artillery shined is when it was used to attack specific targets with observers directing the fire. There are countless examples in both the ETO and PTO of naval fire stopping attacks, destroying defensive positions, etc. From the destroyers on Omaha Beach that pulled within yards of shore to provide direct fire to the same at Salerno who directly engaged German armor in fire fights. When naval support was available, the fire was generally accurate and devastating.
That was the problem during the Normandy invasion, forward artillery observers were either killed or communications destroyed. The Destroyers had to close because visibility was impenetrable and the only way to fire for effect was for the gunners to actually observe where shells landed.
I also agree that naval fire support is no different than any other form of artillery support and is especially effective against armor and troop movements and when the battle takes place within the range of naval gunnery can make or break a battle. This was demonstrated beyond WW2 in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq.
There have been naval bombardments (i.e. ships firing their guns at targets on land) for as long as there have been navies with guns. But I wonder, how effective of a strategy has it been?
So there's no question that naval bombardment has a long and storied history. My question is, has it worked? Has it had a decisive effect upon any battle or campaign in which it was used? In the case of the Pacific War, were the pre-invasion bombardments effective in reducing the enemy's strength, or were the defenders too dug in for bombardments to make any real difference? And finally, how likely do you think it is that naval bombardments would be used in any future conflicts?
I don't remember the details but I came up with a couple of engagements where possibly naval bombardment or the threat of naval bombardment, worked.
--- The Barbary Wars - Shore bombardment was a major part of the American strategy against the Barbary pirates.
--- Copenhagen - The British bombarded the City of Copenhagen in 1807 which convinced the Danes to surrender.
--- British naval attacks against Egypt and possibly China?
It sounds like the effectiveness of naval bombardments is dependent on three things:
- The dedication of the opposing troops
- The amount of preparation they have
- The overall strategic situation ("Can we still win, or if we continue to resist, will the British just level all of the civilian areas of Copenhagen- and still beat us?")
If the dedication and the preparation is high, and the over all strategic situation is not hopeless, naval bombardments
don't seem to do a lot of good.
The Marines who landed on Tarawa and Iwo Jima weren't impressed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Has naval bombardment been an effective strategy?
