I have also read that, during WWII, there were "2 schools" of pre-invasion bombardment. In the European theater, it was felt that a long shelling just gave away the element of surprise, and allowed the enemy to move reinforcements into position for when the shelling stopped. Pre-invasion bombardments were of limited duration, to keep the enemy's heads down until just before the troops hit the shore (when they would then call in direct fire.)
In the Pacific, the Japanese were on an island, with no reinforcements coming. "As much damage as possible" was then desired, so really prolonged bombardments were used, and the longer it went on, the more destruction it caused, any of which was good.
Both the Japanese and the Germans had years to fortify their major positions, and the defenses were elaborate. Such positions were expected to be fewer in the world at the time of the Zumwalt origins. Even today, the artificial islands the Chinese are putting up are not "bunker-heavy." They usually do have a lot of electronic arrays on them which even 5 inch naval gunnery can make into scrap pretty handily.
Damned if we do, and damned if we don't. When the shells were canceled and the guns became unusable, "everyone complained." Now, here's a complaint about them even if they'd worked.
As a democracy, we are expected to be involved and have opinions. I think it is human nature that our opinions are usually always negative. I think we live to complain. It's too...much, little, hot, cold, late, early, fast, slow...always.
The second approach is the one used by the Zumwalts. Lots of stealth, making you a difficult target to acquire, and hopefully allowing you to "hit them before they hit you." Large guns require a large hull. Hiding a large hull is not conducive to lowering the costs of stealth. Those two goals work in opposition to each other. Reducing gun size then requires what was intended for Zumwalt...increasing range, and number of rounds per minute, to dump many smaller rounds very precisely on a target, to both destroy it with the smaller rounds and reduce collateral damage.
The navy found out repeatedly that small guns were largely ineffective in the shore bombardment role against dug in targets during WWII. The Zumwalts were a waste from the time they hit the drawing board.
Just try chopping down a 3-foot diameter tree with 5.56mm. With 7.62mm you can do it with ease.
Responses