Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

As a game it does put some balance.  Gives the Japanese some way of earning points late in the war.
But isn't there another way instead of this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

It is the composition of task force. It makes the battleships close too much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RHoenig

While I agree that the greater accuracy of a fully integrated coastal defense fortress can be deadly, the Bluecher was a heavy cruiser with a max. armor of what 5 inch? and was hit by 11 inch guns. What has been reported here are two battleships with 10+ inches of armor, fired upon by max. 7 inch guns.
If the result of 7 inch guns against 10 inches of armor is the same as 11 inch guns against 5 inches of armor, why bother with 16 inchers on the BBs at all, the 8 inch CA guns will be quite sufficient and imagine the broadside, a BB could mount if outfitted with 8-inchers.

No, I´m not realy serious, but come on, 7-inch guns sinking BBs can´t possibly be right. Damaging them? Sure! Wreaking havoc with the superstructure? You bet! Sinking them? No way!

Check out the Hiei. She faced nothing bigger than an 8' gun, and mostly 5" at First Guadalcanal..., an was left helpless and burning to be finished off by A/C the next morning. A 7" may or may not penetrate the main strake of the belt armor at close range..., but it will penetrate virtually everything else. And being on fire is the most dangerous thing that can happen to a ship. Hits are strange beasts. San Francisco was hit something like 80 times in the same battle as the Hiei, but in spite of a number of 14" hits was still sailing and fighting when it ended. Her luck had been extrordinary, as any of dozens of those hits could have been fatal in another location.

It's not just what a ship is hit by.., it's also where it is hit, coupled with an element of luck. In the example above, the BB's were hit 100+ times at medium-short range. That's 100+ chances to get the one "lucky" hit that finds a weak spot and detonates the secondary ready use magazine or something else vital. Ants can and do eat elephants..., when there are enough of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Can anyone explain why my shore batteries don't even bother to fire? I am clueless..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Port Moresby at 98,130

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground
A-20A Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground
LB-30 Liberator: 2 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed on ground

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna
BB Kongo
CA Myoko
CL Jintsu

Allied Ships
AV Langley, Shell hits 1, on fire


Allied ground losses:
256 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 24 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 14 (3 destroyed, 11 disabled)
Vehicles lost 10 (8 destroyed, 2 disabled)


Airbase hits 25
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 132

BB Haruna firing at Port Moresby
BB Kongo firing at Port Moresby
CA Myoko firing at Port Moresby
CL Jintsu firing at Port Moresby


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a screenshot of the unit in question -

quote:

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

Well, it was my ships that were sunk in the PBEM by the Soviet batteries so I will weigh in....

The screen pic is one of the two batteries at Sovetskaya Gavan. The other fort unit was pretty much identical to this one.

This was an open sea port. There is no way that any commander would keep his ships in range of the shore batteries and engaged until all were sunk. That would not have happened.

Integrated and interlocking fields of fire still require the attacker to close. These were old guns (pre-WWI and many pre-Russo Japanese war) and they would not have had modern fire control devices. In fact, I sincerely doubt that these guns would have been able to hit a moving target over 3,000 yards away and certainly nothing at 10,000 yards. Also, the Nagato and Mutsu did have advanced fire control systems, weapons that could fire from well outside the range of the enemy guns, and would have been firing at fixed, non-moving targets. And at 10,000 yards these guns should not have been able to penetrate the armor of Japan's two most powerful prewar battleships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

It is the composition of task force. It makes the battleships close too much.

Incorrect the PBs closed to 2K the AK landed , the BBs and CA stood at 10K yards and were creamed much more than the other ships .

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Out of supply , Surprised and a lot exp crew / bad commander ? Was it night ? I note the CDs are far worse against ships making a landing then a bombardment.

Cant see screenshot

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Can anyone explain why my shore batteries don't even bother to fire? I am clueless..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval bombardment of Port Moresby at 98,130

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
P-40E Warhawk: 2 destroyed on ground
A-20A Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground
LB-30 Liberator: 2 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 1 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 2 destroyed on ground

Japanese Ships
BB Haruna
BB Kongo
CA Myoko
CL Jintsu

Allied Ships
AV Langley, Shell hits 1, on fire


Allied ground losses:
256 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 24 destroyed, 18 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 14 (3 destroyed, 11 disabled)
Vehicles lost 10 (8 destroyed, 2 disabled)


Airbase hits 25
Airbase supply hits 6
Runway hits 132

BB Haruna firing at Port Moresby
BB Kongo firing at Port Moresby
CA Myoko firing at Port Moresby
CL Jintsu firing at Port Moresby


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a screenshot of the unit in question -

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Check out the Hiei. She faced nothing bigger than an 8' gun, and mostly 5" at First Guadalcanal..., an was left helpless and burning to be finished off by A/C the next morning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Nikademus,

What source did you get that information on Hiei from?  Everything I've ever read of that battle indicated Portland firing pointblank into Hiei's stern is what disabled her steering and kept her from escaping.  Was the BC's stern completely unarmored?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Don't recall about what exactly damage the steering gear. But, Yamamoto ordered (too late) that she not be scuttled in the hopes that she would absorb US air attacks to aid IJN efforts.

I don't recall if he had reversed himself or earlier had simply assented to reports, but (too late as mentioned above) he did order her to remain afloat as a target for the enemy!

My information is from Frank's Guadalcanal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'm pretty sure Yamamotto made the final decision in the end after further consultation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Base has 251325 Supplies, at night, Commander was switched to best I could afford he has 59 Leadership, 67 Agression land 42, experience 62 moral 99

I am guessing only reason my guns did not fire was because at night time, Moonlight 53% and it was light rain.
However if my guns didn't fire because of that then how the hell were the battleships so accurate?

quote:

Sorry, but I have to agree with TF composition. Placing the BB in an amphibious TF makes them behave differently than if they were in a Bombardment TF. I have a hunch that they'll stick around until the troops unload which might not be what one desires.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Base has 251325 Supplies, at night, Commander was switched to best I could afford he has 59 Leadership, 67 Agression land 42, experience 62 moral 99

I am guessing only reason my guns did not fire was because at night time, Moonlight 53% and it was light rain.
However if my guns didn't fire because of that then how the hell were the battleships so accurate?

Escorts of Japanese TF were (according to the combat report) set to 'do not bombard'. Thus the Japanese TF only employed main armament. Shortest range of guns used were the 14cm/50 3YT guns (range 21K yards) on CL Jintsu. Coast defense guns in 5th RAA Coast Art Rgt are 6in Mk V/VI guns (range 17K yards). = Coast defense guns were not in firing range.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Can anyone explain why my shore batteries don't even bother to fire? I am clueless..

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldGuard1970

Hi Freeboy,

I am making the distinction between using ships to take on fortresses and using ships to support a landing.

Relative to a CD gun, ships are really big targets, ...and they sink. A zone with lots of CD weapons would be an ugly nut for a TF to challenge. Yes, I intend to use ships to support my landings, but I hope to pick landing zones that are not covered by massive batteries.

If we really must send our ships against substantial shore batteries, then it would be best to use air to try to suppress the batteries first. (I think Port Attacks are what we use in AE for that effect.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Base has 251325 Supplies, at night, Commander was switched to best I could afford he has 59 Leadership, 67 Agression land 42, experience 62 moral 99

I am guessing only reason my guns did not fire was because at night time, Moonlight 53% and it was light rain.
However if my guns didn't fire because of that then how the hell were the battleships so accurate?

Escorts of Japanese TF were (according to the combat report) set to 'do not bombard'. Thus the Japanese TF only employed main armament. Shortest range of guns used were the 14cm/50 3YT guns (range 21K yards) on CL Jintsu. Coast defense guns in 5th RAA Coast Art Rgt are 6in Mk V/VI guns (range 17K yards). = Coast defense guns were not in firing range.