Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/14/2005 11:48:35 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko



If this issue is resolved in sensible manner Ill have to apply for the new one...

O.



sigh....love is such a fickle beastie.


_____________________________


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 121
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 12:04:55 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735


I didn't think Escort TF's could unload. So, with BB's in the escort task force, you can't change back to transport TF. So, you can't have BB's in the same TF that is unloading. Hence, the BB in direct fire while unloading isn't possible.

(unless escort TF can unload)


I havn't done it in a while so i may be wrong about the "escort TF" part but there is a way to merge a TF with BB's in it into a transport TF. I'll check it out when i get home.


Well, I've never tried it. Maybe it works. I'll test when I play next as well.

bc

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 122
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 12:25:27 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		SOP = Standard Operating Procedure

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 123
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 2:02:18 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline 		Found this searching the net if it makes a difference one way or the other...

"A special mount for the gun was developed in 1943. "The 'Kelly Mount' was the equivalent of a transportable Panama Mount (155mm GPF) but made for the dimensions of the 155mm Gun M1. It was designed by Colonel Peter K. Kelly, then Regimental Executive Officer, Harbor Defenses of San Francisco, to enable the Long Tom to be used against moving seaborne targets. ... The Kelly Mount was officially designated as 155mm Firing Platform, T6E1. By the summer of 1944, the 155mm guns on the "Kelly Mount" were in action in the Pacific Theater of Operations by both US Army Coast Artillery units and US Marine Corps Defense Battalions. The mount was officially adopted by the Coast Artillery and Ordnance Corps as the 155mm Gun Platform, M1, with a unit cost of $4,964.00."

Sounds to me like the units starting the game should have a field artillery piece which later upgrades to CD.

Edit: Here is the link....http://www.strategyplanet.com/panzergeneral/ww2/Weapons/towed_artillery/usa/gundata/155mm_Gun_M1_longtom.html

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 124
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 2:11:28 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Okay here's the deal - find me an evidence that any (ANY) army arty regiment was issued "Kelly mounts" for its 155s and I'll shut up on this issue forever.... and ever.... and ever....

O.


_____________________________


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 125
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 2:15:04 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline 		I'm in your camp Oleg...

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 126
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 3:20:32 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Ooookay Mr. Not-Fanboi! Here's the unit that sunk 3 DDs, half dozen MSWs and PGs, and at least 20+ APs (that I care to remember) with 15-some more APs to sink of damage in coming weeks, when I did my Guadalcanal invasion:

US Army Field Artillery regiment! I guess heavily trained in anti ship coastal defence operations yes? I guess if they had one officer with navy training then it's OK for them to sink half the Japanese navy?

If you still think this is OK then Im afraid this discussion is really pointless.







Light ships can get slaughtered by CD guns real easy. I recall bombarding a Jap force Sprior put on Baker Island with destroyers and they got mauled. I recall later on landing at Lunga against fairly modest defence and again the light ships got mauled.

I'm not sure what Simon Prior had there in both of those instances, but I don't think it was "massive defence" by any means, just arty or maybe a single CD battery but I lost a dozen ships.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 127
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 4:39:23 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Okay here's the deal - find me an evidence that any (ANY) army arty regiment was issued "Kelly mounts" for its 155s and I'll shut up on this issue forever.... and ever.... and ever....

O.


Oleg....See the 2 threads I provided earlier..They are the "evidence" you seek.....

_____________________________




(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 128
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 6:19:48 AM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Okay here's the deal - find me an evidence that any (ANY) army arty regiment was issued "Kelly mounts" for its 155s and I'll shut up on this issue forever.... and ever.... and ever....

O.


Oleg....See the 2 threads I provided earlier..They are the "evidence" you seek.....


Army Field Artillery Batteries were not interchangeable with Coastal Artillery Batteries. However, the handful of 155mm Long Tom Coastal Artillery Batteries were interchangeable with Army Field Artillery Batteries.

"Field artillery had the mission of rendering close, continuous fire support to combat forces and providing long-range fires to restrict enemy movement and disrupt rear facilities, as well as serve in counterbattery capacities."

"Coast Artillery had existed as a distinct branch within the army since 1901 and as a combatant "line" arm past 4 June 1920. Its stated mission was to protect fleet bases, defeat naval and air attacks against cities and harbors, undertake beach defense while acting as army or theater reserve artillery, and provide a mine-planter service.

While Coast Artillery barrage balloon, automatic weapons, antiaircraft gun, and searchlight battalions were being phased into the new Antiaircraft Artillery, one type of Coast Artillery battalion remained viable. This was the handful of 155mm Long Tom gun battalions used throughout World War II in the Pacific. These were mobile extensions of harbor defense artillery, but used as normal heavy artillery during the numerous island campaigns in which it participated. Coast Artillery still retained fixed fortifications artillery in numerous harbor forts, although by the end of World War II these were mostly in a maintenance or "caretaker" mode. "

http://www.skylighters.org/history/coastart/

There were 19 Coastal Artillery Battalions with 155-mm Mobile Guns that served in the Pacific Theater; only 10 saw combat.

Where's Trey Marshall when you need him...

_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 129
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 7:28:37 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		In my present game, which has reached searly Sept. '42, there are 8 USMC Defense Battalions with the 155mm field gun for CD use, and 2 US Army CD battalions (batteries?) with the 155mm filed gun. There is one (1!) US Army FA battalion (battery?) that is equipped with the 155mm field gun at this time. This is why I have been strongly arguing against removal of naval capability for this weapon; to do so would be to castrate the units that were equipped with it specifically for use against attacking ships.

As Frag pointd out, the 155mm CD gun in the database is a much older design, with a big difference in range (16 vs 25), the older CD gun being deficient in this respect (it does have better armour peircing capability, but when considering that the CD guns are mainly for use against transports and light escorts, the penetration factor is less important IMO).

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to eMonticello)
Post #: 130
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 8:44:57 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735



Well, I've never tried it. Maybe it works. I'll test when I play next as well.

bc


I tested it tonight. Yep, it works. Create a Transport TF, load and sail, rondevuous with a surface combat TF, change the transport tf to type "Escort" and transfer the BB into the TF.....it will still unload troops at the destination and you have Battlewagon support

damn i'm good.

_____________________________


(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 131
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 2:04:11 PM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline 		Brad,

I agree with you. If an Army (or Marine) LCU was trained for Coastal Defense, then by all means it should be able to fire at ships with the CD gun (whether it's the older 155-mm gun or the 155-mm Long Toms that the Army units eventually receive in late 43). However, the plain ole' Army Field Artillery Battalions with mobile Long Toms should not have the same CD capability that the Coastal Artillery units had. The Army Coastal Artillery was considered a sub-branch within the Army and officers received different training at different facilities. Coastal Artillery School was located at Fort Monroe, VA, whereas Field Artillery School was in Fort Sill, OK. Sorta leads me to believe that there wasn't a lot of exchanging ideas between the two groups.

Equipping the Army FA units with a 155-mm Long Tom that is not a Naval Gun would solve that problem.

_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 132
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 2:14:29 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

In my present game, which has reached searly Sept. '42, there are 8 USMC Defense Battalions with the 155mm field gun for CD use, and 2 US Army CD battalions (batteries?) with the 155mm filed gun. There is one (1!) US Army FA battalion (battery?) that is equipped with the 155mm field gun at this time.


Just one? I'd have to check but it must be the 144th FA Rgt (not batallion/battery).

quote:


This is why I have been strongly arguing against removal of naval capability for this weapon; to do so would be to castrate the units that were equipped with it specifically for use against attacking ships.


If there's question of removing naval capability from 155 or not, then I'd agree with you - too many dedicated CD units are equipped with this gun it would be wrong to take CD ability away from them. But I think it's equally wrong to make units like 144 FA into ship killers, though it's just one unit so may be deemed less important. That's why I argued for two versions of the gun in the DB.

Later in war US receives some corps' arty units equipped with 24x155 (naval) field gun and 24x155mm howitzer. I don't know how is the naval gun used in "pure" land battles? If it's used with reduced effectiveness, Allied player might see his dedicated land arty units equipped with 155mm field gun performing worse than expected later in war when attacking Japanese strongholds, which also may be a concern for some players (rare players got that far in the game though).

O.

_____________________________


(in reply to eMonticello)
Post #: 133
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 3:38:40 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline
quote:

As Frag pointd out, the 155mm CD gun in the database is a much older design, with a big difference in range (16 vs 25), the older CD gun being deficient in this respect (it does have better armour peircing capability, but when considering that the CD guns are mainly for use against transports and light escorts, the penetration factor is less important IMO).


Older is not worse.

From what I could find out, these older GPF guns ended up getting heavy use due to ammo shortages for the 155mm M1

Now as far as the M1 not being aimed at CD use, remember that this gun was sent to US Marine Defence groups. It was aimed exactly at that purpose.

While the GPF didn't have the same range, it was a extremely accurate gun with large amounts of ammo.

As far as mount differences, there are at least 4 variations that I have run into. None of them really affect the target, they affect mobility and arc of fire.


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 134
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 5:06:07 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline 		Soo...How would you aim that field artillery version 155mm gun to hit a ship a couple of kilometers off shore?


Kelly mounted 155


Not-Kelly mounted 155



I think the bottom line is: you cant use a 155 without that mount at moving targets. Look at the picture of the 155 and now pretend you are tracking a target 5 km away. Bear in mind that the 155 had very limited traverse (we are talking about 10 degrees either way) and after that you had to lift the trail of the 155s carriage. Incidentally, you cannot aim and traverse at the same time either, so one guy aims while another one traverses the gun for a handful of degrees...then what?

I dont know what the sights on CD guns looked like back in ww2, but I have seen Swedish coastal artillery pieces, and they had anti-tank-type sights/optics...and you dont get sights/optics like that on ye average artillery piece. Nor do you get AP ammo btw.

There is more to using a gun than just the specs of the gun.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 135
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 6:17:49 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		155mm in place at Sitka




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 136
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 6:18:39 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		The sights




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 137
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 6:22:15 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		The whole idea behind the Kelly mount (otherwise known as a mobile Panama mount) was to give the gun the ability to be turned quickly outside it's firing arc. Basically, it is a big track that the entire gun can be swung around on. Almost like a little turntable.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 138
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 6:26:56 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		If you have two different versions of the M1, a CD version and a FA version, then everything is hunky-dory. Right now we have only one version, and yet people keep crying for it to be only a FA version, with no capability of use against naval targets. This is the only reason I keep posting on this subject. Since the M1 was heavily used by CD batteries (regts, etc), we cannot countenance a move to prevent its use against naval targets. If Pry wishes to create a second version, all the better. To demote the CD batteries to the earlier GPF version would be a travesty, since I believe that the range of the gun is far more important in CD use than is the penetrating vallue of the AP round.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 139
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 6:38:27 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

155mm in place at Sitka





Mt Edgecomb off in the distance. I broke my wrist near that volcano on 9/11. It took me 24 hours to get to the hospital. I broke it just as it got dark on 9/11. I had to wait until daylight to travel. It was about a 15 mile ride on the back of an ATV and a little shorter boat ride to town. All of it was much bumpier than I appreciated. When I got to he hospital, and civilization, I discovered that my little problem wasn't much compared to what happened the day before.

I've hiked on some of the small islands that cover the entrance to Sitka. There's quite a few fortifications on some of them. It's pretty cool to find one that no one knows about (the one in the picture is probably very close to Sitka.)

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 140
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 7:58:15 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

The sights




Yeah...funny how those sights arent on the FA version eh? Which was a part of my point really.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 141
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 8:14:19 PM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Used as field arty then moved and used as naval gun. Very same gun.

quote:

The "Murderers Row" of 155mm guns continued shelling the Munda Airfield, Baanga Island, and other outlying islands throughout this phase. The primary targets were antiaircraft and field artillery positions, and ammunition dumps. Directed by both ground and air observers, this firing proved very effective. "The artillery shelling's accuracy has become a real thing. We can never tell when we are to die," wrote a Munda defender. On 15 July, landing craft carried Battery A to Tambusolo Island where it was assigned the mission of covering the western approach to Blanche Channel with 155s against the incursion of still dangerous Japanese ships.



(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 142
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 8:22:05 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		WHy not create a second 155 gun specifically for the FA regiments? I.e., have 2 types of 155s, basically the same gun, but have the arty version in the FA TO&Es, and the CD version in the CD units...

Admittedly, Im not up on all this, so I don't know which 155s are being discussed per se, but How about have the 155mm Field Gun for the FA units. This can represent the 155mm Gun M1 "Long Toms", or the 155mm Gun M1918A1s used in the PI in 1941. These guns are not classed as naval guns.


Then, for the CD Units, have the 155mm F. Gun. This can represent the 155mm Gum M1918A1, or the 155mm Gun M3 (modernized M1918A1s, which are themselves the French GPFs). These guns are classed as naval guns. This way, CDs can be ship killers, and the FAs can't be.

I may be completely wrong about this, Im afraid I don't have time to read 5 pages of arguing, but to me this seems like a good solution. After all, its kind of what I am doing in WPO, and it seems to work well.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 143
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/15/2005 8:50:17 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Used as field arty then moved and used as naval gun. Very same gun.



Yeah, same gun, different equipment. Which is what Ive been trying to communicate for 3 posts now.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 144
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/16/2005 6:45:47 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Where does it say different equipment in Frag's post? It sounds to me like it was the same equipment used in both roles:

"The "Murderers Row" of 155mm guns continued shelling the Munda Airfield, Baanga Island, and other outlying islands throughout this phase. The primary targets were antiaircraft and field artillery positions, and ammunition dumps. Directed by both ground and air observers, this firing proved very effective. "The artillery shelling's accuracy has become a real thing. We can never tell when we are to die," wrote a Munda defender. On 15 July, landing craft carried Battery A to Tambusolo Island where it was assigned the mission of covering the western approach to Blanche Channel with 155s against the incursion of still dangerous Japanese ships."

Can you show me where it says there were different guns issued to Battery A in this article?



BTW: Oleg, yes that was the 144th US Field Artillery Regiment (sorry, I've always thought of artillery in terms of batteries, it's my ACW background showing there) that is equipped with the Long Toms. In my game they are waiting at Midway for any evildoers (okay, Japanese incursions).

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 6/16/2005 9:16:07 AM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 145
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/16/2005 2:06:49 PM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Where does it say different equipment in Frag's post? It sounds to me like it was the same equipment used in both roles:

Can you show me where it says there were different guns issued to Battery A in this article?


All CD artillery involved in this campaign were from the 9th Marine Defense Battalion, a unit specifically trained for coastal defense. This suggests that they had equipment specifically designed for firing on ships. The Army's 136th FA Battalion also participated in the campaign; however, they were equipped with 155mm Howitzers.

Here's an excerpt from the Guam National Historical Park website below, which contains the source for Frag's excerpt:

"The 'Long Tom' 155mm M1A1 Gun

The first defense battalions were equipped with naval ordnance designed for shipboard mounting and modified for use ashore, often requiring extensive engineering and manhandling to emplace in static positions. The war soon required the ordnance to be mobile, which was accomplished by adapting Army ordnance material. Obtained first were the standard M1918 GPF 155mm guns. These were followed by the M1A1 155mm gun employed by defense and corps artillery battalions throughout the war. This piece weighed 30,600 pounds, had a split trail and eight pneumatic tires, was moved by a tractor, and was served by a combined crew of 15 men. It could be pedestal mounted on the so-called "Panama Mount" for its coast-defense mission. It remained in the Marine Corps inventory long after World War II."

http://www.nps.gov/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003121-00/sec2a.htm

http://www.nps.gov/wapa/indepth/extContent/usmc/pcn-190-003133-00/sec3.htm


_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 146
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/16/2005 5:35:12 PM   
joey


Posts: 1408
Joined: 5/8/2004
From: Johnstown, PA
Status: offline 		I have read this posting on the 155 mm field gun, and I though I would add my two cents. If the issue is whether the 155's would fire at ships, I would offer this: my sister's father in law maned a 155 mm field gun in the war. I asked him about this issue. He said they would indead fire at ships or anything else that was from the other side. So, I do not see the game result posted in this forum as an abnormality. He said the 155's were indeed an awesome weapon.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 147
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/16/2005 6:05:38 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Yeah, same gun, different equipment. Which is what Ive been trying to communicate for 3 posts now.



I well understand the point you're making. Have read (easy-to-google) several accounts that the "Kelly-mount" enabled the M1A1 Long Tom to fire at sea-moving targets. Problem with this seems to be that the Kelly-mount was first invented and used in 1943. But the US-Army started to equip mobile coastal artillery units with the Long Tom in 1941 and the USMC started to do this with their defense battalions in 1942.

I simply don't understand why they would have equipped coastal defense units with guns that were not able to fire on naval targets!

(However, for the sake of game balance, it seems nevertheless to be a good idea to make guns in coastal artillery units different from those in normal artillery units.)

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 148
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/16/2005 8:12:55 PM   
Hortlund


Posts: 2884
Joined: 10/13/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Yeah, same gun, different equipment. Which is what Ive been trying to communicate for 3 posts now.



I well understand the point you're making. Have read (easy-to-google) several accounts that the "Kelly-mount" enabled the M1A1 Long Tom to fire at sea-moving targets. Problem with this seems to be that the Kelly-mount was first invented and used in 1943. But the US-Army started to equip mobile coastal artillery units with the Long Tom in 1941 and the USMC started to do this with their defense battalions in 1942.

I simply don't understand why they would have equipped coastal defense units with guns that were not able to fire on naval targets!

(However, for the sake of game balance, it seems nevertheless to be a good idea to make guns in coastal artillery units different from those in normal artillery units.)


You can use the gun to fire at naval targets if you have
1) a sight
2) ammo (AP ammo is not normally used by artillery because...well because it would be bleeding stupid to fire AP indirectly)

If you use the gun in an anti ship role, the crew will have one hell of a time once the ship is outside your ~20 degrees of traverse. Btw, if anyone has any hard numbers of the exact traverse, I'd be more than interested to hear about it. All my sources say "very limited traverse" etc. Because then the gun crew (15) needs to manhandle the gun around, and as you can see in the pictures I posted of the FA version, thats not gonna happen easily.

So therefore, they added a new invention
3) the Kelly mount
that enabled the gun to traverse much easier.

Now, my point is, the gun is still the same gun, but
without 1) you wont be able to hit squat
without 2) you wont be able to sink any ship larger than DD
without 3) you wont be able to use the gun on moving targets

So...it is quite reasonable to say that the difference between the FA version and the CD version is the presence of equipment that enables the gun to be used efficiently against sea-going targets.

_____________________________

The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close.
In its place we are entering a period of consequences..

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 149
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/16/2005 8:28:41 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Another major problem is the ability of all guns in the hex being used as CDs during the particular phase. Another case where the 60 mile hex is ignored. Personally I'd like to see only dedicated CD guns firing at shipping. One has to assume that the other guns are being used alsewhere and because they are not dedicated, they should not perform as well as the others.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Hortlund)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.813