Mike Scholl
Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003 From: Kansas City, MO Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Coastal guns are too accurate vs bombarding ships...not like they are stationary all the time. But, as Nikademus pointed out, how could ships successfully bombard Simpson Harbour and all the Rabaul airfields in real life, or most other bases? I'd say, reduce the chance of both suceeding BIG TIME! Hell, Henderson was flying aircraft the morning after Kongo and Haruna plastered it. If the results in this version of WITP were accurate, would any vessels be afloat to land troops at Normandy? Why not nix ability to bombard airfields altogether (aside from atolls)...it's a sixty mile hex and the fact that Henderson was bombarded should not be the reason why all should be vulnerable? Yamato's gunnery officer was on Guadalcanal when Kong/Haruna hit the airfield...this is not the norm at all. Most times, they missed Henderson completely, and it was on the coast. RON This statement all depends on what "coastal guns" you are talking about. During the Pacific War, quite a lot of artillery was deployed where it could shoot at ships when the opportunity arose. But true COAST DEFENSE ARTILLERY is not just a bunch of guns able to fire into the ocean..., it is a specialized branch of the service. The problem is that in the game this distinction seems to have been blurred. Numerous accounts during the fighting in the Solomans have Japanese Guns engaging naval targets. The usual results were a few DD's taking them under fire and knocking them out or supressing them in short order. Without the specialized plotting and spotting units of true Coast Artillery, guns weren't that effective against shipping. But WITH it, they were DEADLY. The example you use in another message of the Atlantic Wall is a good point. Only at a few Port Strongholds did the Germans have real Coast Artillery along the Wall. The rest were field guns of every imaginable type, nationality, and quality emplaced to fire on the beaches and landing grounds. Few ships were hit during the invasion because it was made between the "Fortified Ports"..., but a couple weeks later when the US Navy attempted to engage the Coast Artillery of Cherbourg it was driven off in with ease. Same is true of the Phillipines, where the Japanese avoided the Manilla Bay Forts like the plague until they could attack overland. Ditto Singapore. Operation Olympic was aimed at the Kwanto Plain and Tokyo..., but you don't see any plans to try to enter Tokyo Bay because it was protected by heavy Coast Artillery Defense works. True Coast Defense Artillery is a system. Spotters, plotters, tide; range, and atmospheric effects tables; minefields, searchlights, and Guns. Within there "sphere of influence", they could almost land a shell on a dime and give you 9 cents change. The more "mobile" CD units (Like those attached to a Marine "Defense Battalion" had the right equipment and training to be pretty effec- tive once emplaced and "ranged in". Regular "field artillery" wasn't trained to engage ships, and lacked the equipment to do so with much accuracy if the ships were moving. What is really needed in the came is a classification system that differentiates between Pre-war fixed Coast Defense installations (to be avoided unless you like losing ships), "mobile" Coast Defense Artillery units (need several days to set-up and emplace, then about 65% as effective as the "fixed" defenses), and just plain old artillery (which is possibly 20-25% as effective on a good day). Having a gun on a coast does not make it Coast Defense Artillery except in the broadest sense.
|