How much of a difference did battle ships and destroyers make in the
Pacific battle?? Since the carriers were out to sea when Pearl was
attacked, and looking at the day by day reports of the battles, it seems
that most damage was done by the planes from the carriers. Torpedo
bombers and such. It doesn't seem like the damaged battleships were
missed. Also, how effective were the bigger bombers in the ocean
battles. Looking at a particular photo on the Navy's history web site,
B17's were a complete miss when going after a Japanese ship.

Both your points are valid. Curiously, the Japanese could be said to
have invented the concept of the carrier battle group, which the
Americans used to such good effect from 1942 onward. Perhaps they did
the U.S. Navy a favor in so rudely divesting the Pacific Fleet of its
battleships?

Battleships saw heavy use as seaborne artillery throughout the war,
right up to its last days.

And high-level bombing did prove ineffective against ships,
vindicating the navy's decision not to use the Norden bombsight (a
navy project) but to develop dive-bombers instead.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com