Slitherine

quote:

Also, earlier I said that I could not find one example of CDs bitch slapping ships as in the original posts since the onset of iron clad warships, and still can't. Why have you been using references to Nelson etc when clearly we have passed the period of heated shot and wooden ships?

quote:

I don't need to study English El Cid. You post rhetoric you CLAIM are facts and never post your sources so people can determine for themselves whether they are in fact sources or just your beliefs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

I don't need to study English El Cid. You post rhetoric you CLAIM are facts and never post your sources so people can determine for themselves whether they are in fact sources or just your beliefs.

I repeat, go study English. Avoid words like "always" and "never" like the plague. I often cite sources. But only one case makes your statement false. Go look up the several threads where I gave data on the heavy Japanese coast defense forts - from an English language reference. Or this thread - you will have trouble not running out of fingers if you just note book names. Why don't you criticize someone else for citing this or that without every time giving you chapter and verse? News flash: I am writing fast, of the top of my head, and I don't know exactly what page and paragraph to find it in. To document everything takes three times as much time to write. There is no point taking that time because you are assuming I would falsely report - when I never would. For me attitude is everything - the essense of professionalism - and the key to accurate analysis. I will not honor unwarranted disrespect. You don't have to believe me - and I bet that after a month of documentation - sufficient to win a court case - you would STILL not believe me - because you already "know" anyone who says something radically different than you expect must be wrong. I run into this in my main modern specialty - PLA. No one believes PLA can have anything good or right. I hope we don't repeat 1941 and find out that is wrong in combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Theory is fine in the absence of fact, but the reality is there is lots of fact which illustrates that crediting non sepecialized CD guns with specialized capability is in error. Correcting this should be paramount before applying theory and conjecture.

These "facts" are false. Simply false. Talk to a regular artilleryman. My best friend and mentor (of 4 decades) served in US Army on 105s.
My present regiment is commanded by a group of ex-artillerymen - and they proudly maintain a battery of guns for us even though we are nominally light infantry. I don't know why you think ordinary artillery is not effective in a coast defense role, but give any competent artilleryman a realistic number of hours to set up observation posts, survey the firing sites, and fully establish an FDC - it is no longer safe to sail in range.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
You need to check your facts. There were 4 5"/51 Naval guns at Wake. Coast Defense guns of Medium Calibre were usually 6" (or 152mm) 6.1" (or 155mm) or 8" (203 mm). Obviously able to engage cruisers, but a bit small for threatening BB's. The only difference between a Field Gun and a Naval Gun is the Mounting and the Fire Control. Look at French Light Cruisers of the period..., they all mount 6.1" Guns,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
You need to check your facts. There were 4 5"/51 Naval guns at Wake. Coast Defense guns of Medium Calibre were usually 6" (or 152mm) 6.1" (or 155mm) or 8" (203 mm). Obviously able to engage cruisers, but a bit small for threatening BB's. The only difference between a Field Gun and a Naval Gun is the Mounting and the Fire Control. Look at French Light Cruisers of the period..., they all mount 6.1" Guns,

Hey man what are you talking about?

The longest French field gun from 155's was 155mm long GPF with barrel lenght 30 calibres. French light cruisers were armed with 155mm mod. 1920 guns, with length of 50 calibres. You are comparing 2 weapons one with barrell almost two times as long as the other one, saying they are the same? PLEASE CHECK YOUR FACTS AGAIN, before you will point out my mistakes.

Its obvious that naval guns have much longer barrel to give range and punching power, while field guns were only to deliver some quantity of explosives. This is why when you see in game CD gun, you cant think about army field guns!

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I thought that there were different guns defined for the CD units and the land artillery units?

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

I thought that there were different guns defined for the CD units and the land artillery units?

quote:

The longest French field gun from 155's was 155mm long GPF with barrel lenght 30 calibres. French light cruisers were armed with 155mm mod. 1920 guns, with length of 50 calibres. You are comparing 2 weapons one with barrell almost two times as long as the other one, saying they are the same? PLEASE CHECK YOUR FACTS AGAIN, before you will point out my mistakes.

quote:

I'm a gunner. I don't have to talk to a regular arty guy, I'll do. That's why I'm saying that even if the entire area were sited and zeroed indirect fire does not and should not be classed as dedicated CD guns and are nowhere near as effective as high velocity, directed, naval rifles. Apples and oranges and allowing them the same accuracy is simply in error.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

I'm a gunner. I don't have to talk to a regular arty guy, I'll do. That's why I'm saying that even if the entire area were sited and zeroed indirect fire does not and should not be classed as dedicated CD guns and are nowhere near as effective as high velocity, directed, naval rifles. Apples and oranges and allowing them the same accuracy is simply in error.

On one point I am confused: why do you say "indirect fire"??? Land artillery can use either direct or indirect fire on a naval target. I am not understanding why you believe it must use indirect fire OR why indirect fire is somehow less effective than indirect fire from a naval gun is? On a ship we call direct fire "local control" in contrast to "director control." It is pretty rare for a ship to use local control except when the directors are out, but land coast defense guns, if undetected, may well prefer to allow the targets to close to point blank range before revealing their position.

Guns on land have inherant advantages over guns on ships. These ALWAYS include:

1) Guns on ships are moving with the ship's course and speed. Guns on land are at surveyed locations. This greatly reduces the fire control problem complexity, as you no doubt understand.

2) Guns on ships are moving with the sea itself. Not only do they pitch and yaw with waves and other motions of the ship in the sea, the sea water always has some (unknown) current - and this unknown generates an inherent error in the fire control solution. Modern ships attempt to compensate for rolling - but no ship can compensate for the current because its instantaneous value is not measurable.

3) Guns on land can be concealed. Guns on ships have no hills or trees to hide behind. There are no obstructions to observation unless the target is more distant than the visual horizon - in which case no gunnery is very accurate.

4) Guns on ships have more trouble measuring range than guns on shore do. Even the most primitive artillery unit can measure what we sailors call bearing from its OPs. The process of triangularization always yields an accurate range - more accurate than can be done by a ship - although it too can theoretically measure bearing from two different points - because the distance between those points is always less on a ship.

5) Guns on shore can use aiming stakes. It is primitive, but effective.
Actually, as you know, artillerymen often use prepositioned aiming stakes. It is just not common to put them in the water! But for a CD job, it is a good idea - and communist countries routinely train to do that. I can jam a radar. But I cannot jam an aiming stake! Properly used, it can yield range, bearing or both, depending on the situation. Ships never could use aiming stakes - since they are moving the relative position of the stakes constantly changes.

In addition to these advantages, guns on land may be proper high velocity rifles. Granted that sometimes mortars and howitzers are used - they are considered even MORE effective because of the angle they approach the target. They may not penetrate as much, but there is not as much to penetrate. But very often there is no inherant difference in a land gun and a naval gun. In our game, Japan should be credited with using 5.5 inch, 5 inch and 4.7 inch naval rifles (not to mention 6 inch, 8 inch and larger ones). These are actual naval guns - not land guns - even if mounted on land. Not much of a disadvantage vs guns mounted on ships in that. Only the advantages listed above.

Now, Mr. Gunner, please explain to me why your guns do not have an advantage over those guns on that ship over there?

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
You need to check your facts. There were 4 5"/51 Naval guns at Wake. Coast Defense guns of Medium Calibre were usually 6" (or 152mm) 6.1" (or 155mm) or 8" (203 mm). Obviously able to engage cruisers, but a bit small for threatening BB's. The only difference between a Field Gun and a Naval Gun is the Mounting and the Fire Control. Look at French Light Cruisers of the period..., they all mount 6.1" Guns,

Hey man what are you talking about?

The longest French field gun from 155's was 155mm long GPF with barrel lenght 30 calibres. French light cruisers were armed with 155mm mod. 1920 guns, with length of 50 calibres. You are comparing 2 weapons one with barrell almost two times as long as the other one, saying they are the same? PLEASE CHECK YOUR FACTS AGAIN, before you will point out my mistakes.

Its obvious that naval guns have much longer barrel to give range and punching power, while field guns were only to deliver some quantity of explosives. This is why when you see in game CD gun, you cant think about army field guns!

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Okay, then Ron, I take it you have no beef at all with my combat result then? You did say that you do not give a hoot about dedicated CD guns. I had in Lunga the 8th Base Force (6 5.5 inch and 16 4.7 inch guns), the 4th CD with (8 5.5 inch and 40 4.7 inch) and the 8th CD with the same armament as the 4th. I may be off some on my counts by a few or types though. My memory is not the same as it was. But all the units were fully upgraded to the next weapon and prepped at 40 for Lunga with ample supplies on hand.

They had been at Lunga for 1 week prior to his attack. Very low disruption or fatigue. These are all naval guns and not artillery pieces that fired. Or if any non naval guns fired, it was not many because they have hardly none.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

(snip)....
Yes I have a problem with your result but there are more issues at work here than just the broad paint stroke that seems to paint all guns like dedicated CDs. I have a problem also with the fact that the TF can't break off or maneuver to save its' ass, it just takes it. I also have a problem with the amount of fire any coastal gun seems to pump off. But a warship TF engaging unarmed APs breaks off early every time. If they could this would not have been the bloodbath you experienced, which was over the top any way you slice.

Either way, it is pretty clear to me at least (and to anyone who has read alot of naval history) that the result you had was extreme to say the least for whatever multitude of reasons , and if you guys like it great. If this is the norm around here I guess I give up. You win. My brain is sore pounding it against immovable objects. I'm going to go play in another sandbox.

quote:

I'm going to go play in another sandbox.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

BTW I want an answer and I need it now :)

As I thought, the guns as designed in this game are NOT firing at ships passing by unless they are of Naval or CD guns, or it's invasion force landing troops. Am I wrong?

If I am correct - game is working as it should be. CD guns (as I thought before in real life CD guns were always of naval type - I mean long barelled and high-powered - and not of army field type. You told me about US 155mm field gun acted as CD gun, but really its first time I've heard that relatively short barelled field gun acted as CD) are coast defence guns, and their mission is to fight ships. Other (field guns) are beaches-protection anti-amphibious guns and their task is to fight with troops, transports and landing crafts. Well as I see (mostly in AARs - still to few time spent on playing, to many time spent on forum reading and modding :) ) only CD fire at ships, and field guns firing only at amphibious forces trying to land at the base. Seems quite correct to me.

So again, please answer me if I am correct about behaviour of guns IN GAME.

I agree that bombardment TF commander should retreat much earlier avoiding heavy losses, and in real life this would happen. But if it wouldn't, we would surely get the ships slaughtered as we saw in combat report in first post.

I think the main error is that "Escorts Bombard" should be mad by designers OFF by default. This would (possibly? bombardments more cautious and less bloody. Full scale bombardment, with risk for the ships, should be only AN OPTION.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

This is a sure sign that the designers felt the guns were overpowered and a toggle can fix it.

quote:

with the same degree of effectiveness as CD guns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B


- Ok ok I know there are no stacking limits - of any kind - anywhere - nodda.... fine, point taken.
However, I don't know of any historical example of multiple CD units in the same area (not just 60 miles - but at the same point to cover the same beach/channel) that ever allowed anyone in WWII to put 100 or more guns simultaneously on the same target (ship).

That entire deal seems totally unrealistic to me....

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

I find this whole arguement stemming from the hex map and it's inherent faults. I guess one could argue for a percentage of CD guns to be effective on any given TF but there would always be some dissenters as to how many should really be effective.

On the other hand, you could just say that these gun regiments actually set up enough guns so that, no matter the location in the 60 mile hex, the same number of those guns will be able to target a TF. Of course it isn't true, but meh...it's how it works in game.

quote:

True enough, it's the way the system works and we are stuck with it....almost -
Quick solution: get out your editor, gut CD Gun units by reducing the number available in the game, and reduce the number of guns to a single battery - problem solved.

quote:

Ok ok I know there are no stacking limits - of any kind - anywhere - nodda.... fine, point taken.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


The turning escorts off toggle was added because the unarmoured escorts were getting slaughtered without player ability to control. This is a sure sign that the designers felt the guns were overpowered and a toggle can fix it.

quote:

I mean long barelled and high-powered - and not of army field type. You told me about US 155mm field gun acted as CD gun, but really its first time I've heard that relatively short barelled field gun acted as CD) are coast defence guns, and their mission is to fight ships.