HMS Erebus (I 02) - Monitor of the Erebus class - Allied Warships of WWII - uboat.net HMS Erebus has me wondering, were these ships worth the effort or not? I can't see a "partial" battleship being of value. The mission seems too limited for the resources expended.
My understanding was they typically made use of surplus armament so at least part of the resources were already a "sunk" cost (if you'll pardon the pun". They did seem to be good fire support platforms from what I've read but that still doesn't answer your question.
I guess the first question would be: Did they accomplish the mission they were designed/created for. Then: Did they do that mission better than an existing platform? Subjective valuations are better than none, btw.
Well looking at: HMS Erebus, RN monitor, WW2 It looks like Erebus provided a fair amount of support to a couple invasions and was available for others as well as doing a bit of bombardment on the side. HMS Roberts, RN monitor, WW2 shows a simliar pattern for Roberts http://www.steelnavy.com/CombrigAbercrombie.htm has the following: Abercrombie hit a number of mines - The RN probably preferred this happen to moniotors than to battleships and possibly to others hitting two mines like she did once might have sunk a DD for instance. I belive they also tended to have significantly shallower draft than battleship meaning they could go places for fire support a battleship couldn't. My impression is they performed a valuable service to the British. However to answer your question I'd need to know what alternative uses were available for the resources they used. In WWII Erberus was already built and so in that regards was probably worth while. Roberts and Abercrombie were newly built but used existing turrets and having them at least freed up other ships to do other things. So likely worthwhile. In WWI the fact that BBs were so mine sensative may be the overriding factor. Shallow draft and the lower value of these vessels allowed them to bring BB caliber support to places one wouldn't want to risk a battleship. It would be interesting to know the comparative cost between one and say a cruiser though
It was past it's time in my opinion. Churchill was a bonafide member of the gun-club, and I don't think he ever really embraced airpower as an offensive weapon until mid-war (Repulse and Prince of Wales for example of not appreciating local air power). So the monitors were built to provide heavy support where Battleships couldn't go. Thing is, bombers could do it better. Getting ships close to shore is never a good idea (example, Blucher) when the other side can still shoot at you. I wonder if their design philosophy was more of a ship that could be a mobile shore battery for the UK, than an offensive ship.
I would say the design philosophy for 20th century monitors was totally offensive, to carry the war to the enemy's coastal waters. In the late 1800s a monitor might have guns and armor comparable to a battleship and be able to engage it in one's own waters, but by WWI there was little chance of monitors impeding an enemy which was otherwise able to attack one's coastline. The WWI monitors came about more or less by accident. Around 1911 the Greeks had ordered a battleship (Salamis) to be built in Germany, but the largest German naval guns at the time were 12". The Turks then had a 13.5"-gunned battleship under construction in Britain (Reshedian, later HMS Erin) which the Greeks wanted at least to match, so they ordered their ship's armament, four twin 14" turrets, from Bethlehem Steel in the US. Came WWI, of course the British were not going to allow heavy guns to be shipped to Germany. This left Beth Steel with four expensive turrets. Since from their point of view the British had created the problem, Charles Schwab, president of Beth Steel, approached Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, and asked if he could use them. The western front had be then settled down to the point where the British were interested in bombarding German positions along the Belgian coast, but they had few warships that could do the job in shallow waters (one expedient was anchoring an old battleship as close as it could get and heeling it over so the guns could reach land). Churchill, who loved innovative ideas, feasible or not, jumpd at the chance and ordered four shallow-draft hulls built to carry the turrets. He also suggested the names General Grant, Admiral Farragut, Robert E. Lee, and Stonewall Jackson; but these were deemed indiscreet since the US was still neutral, so they ended up being named for British commanders like Lord Raglan, who inadvertently ordered the Charge of the Light Brigade. Once they had monitors the British became very enthusiastic about them. Four of the old Majestic class battleships were disarmed and converted to troopships to provide 12" turrets for eight more monitors. Then they started building new 15" turrets, the most powerful in the RN or the world at that point, for new monitors. Two of these turrets, in different hulls, went on to serve in WWII. A monitor, basically, could deliver individual heavy shells further inland than any other naval platform. A battleship could fire full salvos or broadsides, not as far, was considerably more valuable, and had other duties. A cruiser or gunboat about the size and cost of a monitor could deliver more but smaller shells at shorter range. Apparently there was at least a small niche for the monitor.
My understanding is that bombers lacked the precision that naval vessels could provide. It also takes a considerable number to provide the support that a naval vessel can. I disagree. Although you could use the same logic for air planes. The naval forces off Normandy seem to have come out ahead and provided valuable support. The same can be said for a number of invasions. Sicily comes to mind, for instance.
Stukas could do pinpoint attacks, but couldn't carry the weight of bombs equivalent to a OBB's main battery. For hardened targets, 14" AP shells are nice to have around. BTW, both von Rundstedt and Rommel noted the effectiveness of the naval bombardment, especially the OBBs' rounds deep inland. I think it was Texas that got into a duel with an 8" battery and silenced it?
Depends entirely on the bombers you're using. A squadron of say B-17's or Lancs could carpet bomb far more effectively than a naval barrage. Dive bombers are more precise yet, and fighter bombers were pretty damned good with their 5' HVAR's. And once you're beyond 20 miles from the ocean? Once out line of sight, a ship needs a forward air controller. Say you want to hit a column near a town. I'd rather use Jugs or Tiffies. A battleships guns would probably waste the town getting the range dialed in.
Match the weapon to the mission. If you want to take out a schwerepunkt you don't want to carpet bomb. If you want to break up an army, a few shells at a time won't do the job, no matter how big they are. Everything has it own characteristic limitations. Ships rather like having water under their keel, for example. So no naval battles in the Gobi. BTW, the NGFOs were pretty good by 1944.
Stuka's also had problems when there were opposing fighters around. From: WW II My conversion utility makes that an ~11" hit and ~9" hit.
Depends on how you measure "effectively". The bombers will spend more fuel and have to drop more bombs to get the same effect and are vulnerable to enemy fighters and AA. The ships on the otherhand are vulnerable to other ships, mines, and some aircraft. Almost everything I've read indicates that HVAR's were wildly inaccurate as were most fighter bombers attacking point targets. With a good spotter the town is probably in more danger from the planes. Somewhat dependent on when of course. But if you are talking WWII and I'm in the town I'd prefer the naval guns to be the ones talking.
