Coastal Defense Guns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message


adamc6 -> Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 7:09:00 PM)


Okay, not wanting to open the age-old debate over ships v shore batteries, but I had a bombardment task force w/2 US old BBs (16 inch guns) get pasted by the 5.5 inch pop guns of a Japanese Coastal defense BN at Shortlands. Now, I know that sometimes sh*t happens, but what commander would take his BBs in close enough to get wacked like that? My commander was Wright I think, naval skill pretty high 60s.

Comments? I know, I should just shut up and not complain that a Betty didn't put a torp in the Colorado.




Mynok -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 7:14:56 PM)


It shouldn't have been severely hurt from just 5in guns. What does the damage look like?




moses -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 7:23:53 PM)

Did you have it set for escorts bombard??? If so you ordered them to get close.[X(]




Big B -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 7:37:29 PM)

A further note about Coast defense Guns.

It appears that Minesweepers sweep the hex they are in - and - the adjacent hexes as well.

Given that, KBAD found out that MWSs don't fare well against 15" Coastal Guns (Singapore)....be careful where you sweep[;)]

B




adamc6 -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 7:39:57 PM)

Moses: correct, not that bad for damage -- but about 15 hits on each. Just don't see how that would be possible given the general range differential (noting that coastal guns can have elevations, etc. that allow greater range than similar weapons on-board ship).

Had escorts bombard off -- for this very reason.

Will make me very careful to note where the SIGINT sees coastal bns from now on!





rtrapasso -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 7:49:13 PM)

quote:

It appears that Minesweepers sweep the hex they are in - and - the adjacent hexes as well.


Supposedly not - that happens in UV, but we were told it doesn't happen in WITP (by a mod or a dev guy, i disremember which).




Big B -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 7:51:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

It appears that Minesweepers sweep the hex they are in - and - the adjacent hexes as well.


Supposedly not - that happens in UV, but we were told it doesn't happen in WITP (by a mod or a dev guy, i disremember which).

Well, KBAD said it happened to him last week (WitP ver1.6)....I dunno?
(I do know we shot the pants off his poor MSWs with our 15"ers[:D])




dereck -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 8:28:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: adamc6


Okay, not wanting to open the age-old debate over ships v shore batteries, but I had a bombardment task force w/2 US old BBs (16 inch guns) get pasted by the 5.5 inch pop guns of a Japanese Coastal defense BN at Shortlands. Now, I know that sometimes sh*t happens, but what commander would take his BBs in close enough to get wacked like that? My commander was Wright I think, naval skill pretty high 60s.

Comments? I know, I should just shut up and not complain that a Betty didn't put a torp in the Colorado.


History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Volume II, page 346.

quote:

It was nearly 0100 January 24 [1943] when the six ships swung to a southwesterly course to enter Kula Gulf. O'Bannon probed well ahead, then turned to take picket station at the northwestern entrance close by Kolombangara. Slitting the calm waters behind O'Bannon came destroyer Nicholas followed by flagship Nashville, cruiser Helena, destroyers DeHaven and Radford. Near the mouth fo the Gulf Nicholas (flying Briscoe's pennant) turned west, then north to parallel the coast and scout for seaborne opposition. The two cruisers and the rear destroyers made a sweeping turn to course NNW, and then the fun began.

From 0200 until 0229 the 6-inch guns gave tongue. Nashville and Helena, varying their Munda procedure, fired simultaneously but at different targets so that the Black Cat spotters would have no difficulty identifying salvos. Captain Briscoe's destroyers, penetrating farther into the Gulf and steering close to the western shore, commenced firing when the cruisers had shot off their allowance. In about an hour's time the two light cruiser poured nearly 2000 rounds of 6-inch onto and around the new airstrip, and with the aid of the destroyers added some 1500 rounds of 5-inch. The 6-inch guns behaved magnificently -- no check to the continuous rapid fire, and spectaculat fires were ignited ashore. A few short, puny, and inaccurate salvos from the coastal batteries bothered the Americans not at all. Throughout the war, Japanese coast defense batteries were strangely ineffective.




Sneer -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 8:37:08 PM)

neither commander makes bombardment from 30k - it doesn't make any sense it is too far away
if you want to have reasonable results you need to get closer - just in range of medium guns




Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 9:01:19 PM)

adamc6, check if your land commander in the base is not Close-in-Conolly.

EDIT: Ehh, he was an admiral, not land commander. I screw up a joke.




adamc6 -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 9:23:45 PM)


Okay, lots of good stuff -- so now I will ask it: Are coastal guns overrated in the game? Trying to think of incidents during WWII where they were effective.

Okay, Blucher @ Oslo, although that was a land-launched torpedo that really did her in, not the Krupp 11inchers, right?

Mers-el-Kebir, nope, they did hit the BBs, but no damage.

Casablanca, nope.

Normandy, nope.

Med amphib landings, nope.

Hmmmm.....

Granted, the threat of the guns kept ships at bay sometimes.......

Thoughts?





Feinder -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 10:16:58 PM)

In WitP, CD guns are EASILY reduced.

a. Air attacks vs. Port.
b. Bombard without escorts.

Also, the more supplies they have, the more they seem to fire. Reduce their supplies, and you'll get nary a peep from them.

Historically, sometimes they were effective, and sometimes not; and it depends on what they're shooting at, and what is considered "effective". One thing quickly learned was that invasions were generally forgone conclusions due to quantity; however that doesn't mean that that the CD guns didn't damage/sink anything. Did the CD guns STOP the invasions? Nope. Even at Wake Round #1, Japan got ashore. Did they damage/sink other vessels? Sure. But were they effective in stopping the invasion? No. Effective in damaging/sinking enemy vessels. Yep.

It's a dead horse about CD guns, or bombardments for that matter.

-F-




pompack -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 10:17:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: adamc6


Okay, lots of good stuff -- so now I will ask it: Are coastal guns overrated in the game? Trying to think of incidents during WWII where they were effective.



Here I would like to quote Ian Hogg but I can't find the reference and I don't remember the exact words. So, in paraphrase, "coastal guns were effective in WW II because no surface ship ever went within range unless they were desperate or present in overwhelming force". Of course he then discussed the guns at Cape Griz Nez (sp??) firing at and missing coastal shipping.




Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/10/2006 11:15:31 PM)

Hel Pennisula battery during September 1939 - 4 x 152mm Guns.

2 times won the battle against 2 German predrednaughts Schlezwig-Holstein and Schlesien both times damaging them only lightly but forcing them to retreat with only damage to well camouflaged battery were lost of observation tower which was quickly substituted by field-maded one.

Also earlier, 3 Sept 1939 battery with support of ships immobilized in Hel harbour: DD Wicher (4x130) and ML Gryf (6x120) defeated and very heavily damaged 2 german destroyers: Leberecht Maas and other of same type(both 5x127).

But mentioned actions werent actually during the invasions. Also note that Germas were scared about mine threat, but there wasnt any significant number of mines in area to worry about.

Note also that during Norway campaign, in Kristiansand, coast defence batterry of 210mm guns 2 times forced German invasion force (CL Karlsruhe, 2 TB) to abort their plans. City was captured at 3rd attempt because of misidentification of German ships - coas guns were not firing at them.





Mike Scholl -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/11/2006 5:27:32 AM)

The game totally fails to differentiate between Coast Defense SYSTEMS and artillery facing the coast. NOBODY (except for the failed German Attempt in Norway) screwed around with Coast Defense Systems during the war. The Japanese made no attempt to attack or invade Singapore or Manilla Bay from the sea. The Allies didn't try to land at Le Havre or Cherbourg. A Coast Defense System is capable of dominating the sea in it's location with pinpoint accuracy.
Just putting guns on the coast doesn't make a Coast Defense System. This was the situation during almost all invasions. Yes, there were guns that could shoot out to sea and onto the beaches. They might even have naval-type range-finders. But they aren't tied together into a "system" with pre-figured range tables, multiple spotting and fire direction centers, tidal charts, etc. They are just guns shooting at naval targets.

The only viable explanation for your BB's being shot at by some Japanese 5.5" coastal guns is that they were trying to knock out those guns. Unless or until those guns open fire, they are virtually invisable. So you would have to close the range trying to encourage them to fire so they could be spotted and engaged. But the game is pretty lame in this whole area. You really have little control over the situation. On one hand, you get to shoot at everything instead of engaging one target like you would in real life. And you can engage and run past CD Systems far too easily. On the other hand, you get "pin-****ed" by every artillery piece at any target you engage. Overall, the advantage is to the Japanese, who had a lot of Coastal Guns in the Pacific, but virtually no CD Systems outside of the Home Islands. And while Allied Mobile CD Units soon included Radar Fire Direction and became much more effective, the Japanese were still having trouble with their Fire Direction Radar in 1945, and were dependent on the mark one eyeball to the end.




JeffroK -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/11/2006 5:31:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack


quote:

ORIGINAL: adamc6


Okay, lots of good stuff -- so now I will ask it: Are coastal guns overrated in the game? Trying to think of incidents during WWII where they were effective.





Here I would like to quote Ian Hogg but I can't find the reference and I don't remember the exact words. So, in paraphrase, "coastal guns were effective in WW II because no surface ship ever went within range unless they were desperate or present in overwhelming force". Of course he then discussed the guns at Cape Griz Nez (sp??) firing at and missing coastal shipping.


IMHO,

The problem with CD is that it appears the complete unit gets to fire.

On an island hex, the guns would be distributed around the island, so as to cover all approaches but they all get to fire at a TF which (I assume) gets to chose its approach. On a Coast hex , 60 miles long, they equally seem to be heli-lifted to the exact spot. While they would be protecting the major facilities, I would land my troops away from those areas.

I think the CD unit should get to fire only a percentage of its weapons, the hard thing is to chose what figure[:(]




Mike Scholl -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/11/2006 5:44:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack


quote:

ORIGINAL: adamc6


Okay, lots of good stuff -- so now I will ask it: Are coastal guns overrated in the game? Trying to think of incidents during WWII where they were effective.



So you are just bombarding random pieces of coastline? Or are you targeting the port with the airfield where the CD Guns are located? You might have a point with an invasion effort---though an invasion has to land on a beach, and only certain portions of a coastline qualify. But a Bombardment has to be where the targets are..., and that's also where the defense will be.

Here I would like to quote Ian Hogg but I can't find the reference and I don't remember the exact words. So, in paraphrase, "coastal guns were effective in WW II because no surface ship ever went within range unless they were desperate or present in overwhelming force". Of course he then discussed the guns at Cape Griz Nez (sp??) firing at and missing coastal shipping.


IMHO,

The problem with CD is that it appears the complete unit gets to fire.

On an island hex, the guns would be distributed around the island, so as to cover all approaches but they all get to fire at a TF which (I assume) gets to chose its approach. On a Coast hex , 60 miles long, they equally seem to be heli-lifted to the exact spot. While they would be protecting the major facilities, I would land my troops away from those areas.

I think the CD unit should get to fire only a percentage of its weapons, the hard thing is to chose what figure[:(]





Mike Scholl -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/11/2006 5:47:47 AM)

IN REPLY TO JEFFK. i DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ABOVE
[[/quote]

So you are just bombarding random pieces of coastline? Or are you targeting the port with the airfield where the CD Guns are located? You might have a point with an invasion effort---though an invasion has to land on a beach, and only certain portions of a coastline qualify. But a Bombardment has to be where the targets are..., and that's also where the defense will be.

Here I would like to quote Ian Hogg but I can't find the reference and I don't remember the exact words. So, in paraphrase, "coastal guns were effective in WW II because no surface ship ever went within range unless they were desperate or present in overwhelming force". Of course he then discussed the guns at Cape Griz Nez (sp??) firing at and missing coastal shipping.
[/quote]





Feinder -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/11/2006 7:00:32 AM)

The proplem with "a percentage" is that...

1. You don't equally disperse a battery around an island. You would put them at places that took into consideration
a. Maximum arcs of fire.
b. Likelihood of an attack sector
c. Among other things.

True, you probably couldn't get ALL your guns to bear on a location. But, depending on what/where you were defending, you could probably get bring "a high percentage" to bear.

I like the discussion on CD "SYSTEMS". They were -very- formidable. I just checked the DB, I think it's an interesting oversight that, the accuracy rating of the larger CD guns (8"+), which are undoubtly a part of these CD systems, actually have fairly low accuracy ratings, esp compared to the CD guns 5" and smaller. However, the smaller CD guns, with their higher accuracy rating, maybe a fudge for a higher rate of fire. I don't know how it's figured tho.

-F-




JeffroK -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/11/2006 8:51:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

IN REPLY TO JEFFK. i DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ABOVE
[


So you are just bombarding random pieces of coastline? Or are you targeting the port with the airfield where the CD Guns are located? You might have a point with an invasion effort---though an invasion has to land on a beach, and only certain portions of a coastline qualify. But a Bombardment has to be where the targets are..., and that's also where the defense will be.

Here I would like to quote Ian Hogg but I can't find the reference and I don't remember the exact words. So, in paraphrase, "coastal guns were effective in WW II because no surface ship ever went within range unless they were desperate or present in overwhelming force". Of course he then discussed the guns at Cape Griz Nez (sp??) firing at and missing coastal shipping.





No, I am chosing the best areas, and on an island like Guadalcanal there might be 3-4 targets to hit. I plan to limit counterfire by careful tactical planning. The defender has to cover a number of points as best they can, ports, landing beaches, airfields and ground troops. While they do the best they can to cover evreything, only few would get 100% coverage. But some of these could be onl the other side of the island

Currently WITP assumes perfection on the part of the Coastal defense, and assumes the Attacker uses the "Indians Circling the Wagon" tactic.




wylfsun -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/12/2006 9:28:56 PM)

do regular art such as 155mm fire on ships???




el cid again -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/12/2006 9:38:05 PM)

quote:

A few short, puny, and inaccurate salvos from the coastal batteries bothered the Americans not at all. Throughout the war, Japanese coast defense batteries were strangely ineffective.


We didn't really engage proper coast defense batteries. We engaged ad hoc, improvised coast defenses using anything available. Actually, IJA built and operated the "most sophisticated coast defense installations of all time" according to Naval Weapons of World War Two. These were formal coast defense brigades, with army-designed turrets (12 inch face armor) mounting surplus Navy guns of 8, 10, 12 and 16 inch calibers. The only thing comparable are two batteries on Oahu never completed during the war (one completed a few days after and was not commissioned) - using guns from USS Arizona. It may be no accident we didn't engage these units - they are listed in a 1943 US intelligence report.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/13/2006 4:01:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wylfsun

do regular art such as 155mm fire on ships???


IRL? The 155mm gun was the the STANDARD gun for US mobile CD units during the war. Placed on a "Kelley" or "Panama" mount and tied into a fire direction center, they were used to cover beachheads from the kind of Japanese activity so prevelant at Guadalcanal.

On the other hand, just plain field artillery wasn't much use for this kind of duty. The guns could shoot out to sea, but without a naval type fire control they couldn't track and engage targets unless they could see them over "open sights".




dereck -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/13/2006 7:20:15 AM)

edit




el cid again -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/13/2006 5:13:59 PM)

quote:

On the other hand, just plain field artillery wasn't much use for this kind of duty. The guns could shoot out to sea, but without a naval type fire control they couldn't track and engage targets unless they could see them over "open sights".


Boy is this wrong. I have faced 122, 130 and 150 army type land guns rolling around on the decks of junks as well as fired from shore positions. Used ashore they have tricks NO ship can use (aiming stakes for example). And HMAS Hobart was a victim of such guns using passive signal triangulation. It is an ancient principle that "no sailor but a fool" takes a ship in range of shore guns. We sometimes did it - but it was dangerous. [One thing we did was drill what to do if a ship lost steering or propulsion. The following ship would attempt to pass a tow line when the bow passed the stern of the disabled ship. The entire process had to be completed - and the speeds PERFECTLY matched - when the hauser ran out of distance. This is spooky stuff - and just practice is dangerous - never mind trying to do it under fire.]




Demosthenes -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/13/2006 5:37:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

On the other hand, just plain field artillery wasn't much use for this kind of duty. The guns could shoot out to sea, but without a naval type fire control they couldn't track and engage targets unless they could see them over "open sights".


Boy is this wrong. I have faced 122, 130 and 150 army type land guns rolling around on the decks of junks as well as fired from shore positions. Used ashore they have tricks NO ship can use (aiming stakes for example). And HMAS Hobart was a victim of such guns using passive signal triangulation. It is an ancient principle that "no sailor but a fool" takes a ship in range of shore guns. We sometimes did it - but it was dangerous. [One thing we did was drill what to do if a ship lost steering or propulsion. The following ship would attempt to pass a tow line when the bow passed the stern of the disabled ship. The entire process had to be completed - and the speeds PERFECTLY matched - when the hauser ran out of distance. This is spooky stuff - and just practice is dangerous - never mind trying to do it under fire.]


Well el cid again, obviously you survived your ordeal of fire by these awsome shore batteries - so they must not have been that effective after all eh?

I'll take Morison's word for shore batteries - thank you very much.




KDonovan -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/13/2006 8:24:54 PM)

el cid...i'm curious as to what battle you always refer to.....IIRC i think you said it was during Vietnam....didn't know there was a naval battle during that war.....and i would like to read up on it....thanks




spence -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/13/2006 10:06:20 PM)

Fact is that field type guns and even naval type guns were not (except in the abortive Japanese landing attempt at Wake on Dec 11, 1941) able to inflict serious enough losses on any landing force to jeopardize the landing.

The aborted Japanese landing does illustrate however that the landing must be supported by sufficient naval firepower to suppress the coast defenses. In that instance the initial withholding of fire by the Wake defenders set the IJN up for a sucker punch. At close range the shore guns were able to score on multiple ships at once with the first salvos thereby changing several of the ship captains' concerns immediately from fire suppression to damage control. The relatively lightly armed invasion fleet had no reserve of firepower left after those initial hits to directly engage and suppress the now revealed coastal guns. That exaccerbated the Japanese's problem and led to the decision to abort/withdraw.

In contrast, American/Allied amphibious landings were massively supported by naval gunfire and air bombardment. The firepower brought to these landing appears to have been sufficient to suppress the relatively light weight coast defense artillery at the landing sites in every case (~100-150mm). Though the guns themselves may have survived until overrun by ground forces they were unable by their own fire to seriously impede the landing of those ground forces and supplies. I the only instance I know of wherein the USN engaged a coastal defense fort system (Cherbourg in 44) I believe the USN was unable to suppress the heavy guns therein and took some significant damage to the engaging ships. In that instance(s) no landing was attempted however; the USN/RN ships merely trying to support an advance by friendly forces on the landward side of the fortress.

Since I'm still in the purely defensive stage in my PBEMs as Allied and haven't even messed via the AI with the latter stages of engaging Japanese CDs I've not formed an real opinion about the effectiveness of coastal defenses. Most coastal defense units in the DEI are pretty pathetic (2-4 120-150mm guns) so the Japanese have little to fear from CD units. But they seem to have a plethora of CD units which in the AARs sure seem to inflict serious damage on Allied landing attempts.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/14/2006 10:00:52 PM)

The problem I see with coastal guns is much the same as with surface combat. The defender seems to be able to respond to EACH assailant, regardless of number, simultaneous nature of the attacks, and operations limits. So, instead of simply using the number of defending guns, they have used the number of defending guns multiplied by number of attacking ships!!! Who designed this, Jackie Chan? Bruce Lee?[8|][:D]

Unless this gets fixed, I can only see slapping more armour on ships, landing craft.

Examples:

Naval bombardment of Palmyra, at 110,90 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

264 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
DD Usugumo, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Hagikaze, Shell hits 16, on fire, heavy damage
DD Arashi, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
CL Kitakami, Shell hits 16
CL Kinu, Shell hits 12
CA Kumano, Shell hits 10
CA Suzuya, Shell hits 12
CA Mikuma, Shell hits 9
CA Mogami, Shell hits 14
CA Chokai, Shell hits 11
BB Yamashiro
BB Fuso, Shell hits 2
BB Hyuga
BB Ise

Allied ground losses:
255 casualties reported
Guns lost 6
Vehicles lost 2
Runway hits 1
Port supply hits 1


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

42 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

MSW Tomozono Maru #3, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Wa 10, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
AP Yamafuku Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire
DD Amatsukaze, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
Japanese ground losses:
18 casualties reported


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

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 114
1603 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Japanese Ships
AP Taiho Maru, Shell hits 2
DD Hayashio, Shell hits 18, on fire
CL Nagara, Shell hits 18
AP Sanfuku Maru, Shell hits 8
AP Otake Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Kidokawa Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire
AP Kashiwa Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Daitei Maru, Shell hits 8
AP Anrugu Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Teiryu Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
AP Horai Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Tango Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Hakone Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire
Japanese ground losses:
726 casualties reported
Guns lost 20

Allied ground losses:
46 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


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

TF 114 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90) - Coastal Guns Fire
Back!

TF 114 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90
91 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
MSW Tomozono Maru #3, Shell hits 23, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Wa 10, Shell hits 24, on fire, heavy damage
DD Hayashio
AP Kembu Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire
DD Amatsukaze, on fire, heavy damage
AP Shinwa Maru, Mine hits 1
Japanese ground losses:
35 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 114
655 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
AP Yamafuku Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
DD Hayashio, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Ryoyu Maru #21, Shell hits 18, on fire, heavy damage
CL Nagara, Shell hits 4
AP Kasuga Maru #2, Shell hits 4, on fire
Japanese ground losses:
934 casualties reported
Guns lost 10

Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 114 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90)

TF 114 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90

Japanese Ships
AP Daitei Maru, Mine hits 1
AP Tatsujin Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 114
254 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
AP Yamafuku Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
AP Otake Maru, Shell hits 15, on fire
AP Shikano Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Kyuma Maru, Shell hits 6
Japanese ground losses:
40 casualties reported



-----------

TF 18 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90)

TF 18 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90

Japanese Ships
AP Toko Maru #2, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Michishio
Japanese ground losses:
8 casualties reported

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 18 935 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
AP Ryotaku Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Asashio, Shell hits 4
AP Kaedesan Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Toko Maru #2, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
DD Michishio, Shell hits 6
DD Oshio, Shell hits 3
AP Konron Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire
AP Kiyoshima Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Baikal Maru, Shell hits 4
DD Arashio

Japanese ground losses:
504 casualties reported
Guns lost 7
Allied ground losses:
40 casualties reported
Guns lost 3


----------

TF 18 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90)

TF 18 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90

Japanese Ships
DD Arashio
DD Oshio
DD Michishio

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 18
603 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
DD Asashio, Shell hits 6
AP Kaedesan Maru, Shell hits 21, on fire
DD Arashio
AP Tanba Maru, Shell hits 6
DD Michishio
DD Oshio, Shell hits 10
AP La Plata Maru, Shell hits 16

Japanese ground losses:
240 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Allied ground losses:
24 casualties reported


---------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 18 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90)

TF 18 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90

Japanese Ships
DD Arashio
DD Oshio
DD Michishio

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 18
285 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
AP Toko Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire
AP Ryotaku Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Michishio
AP La Plata Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
28 casualties reported


--------

TF 18 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90)

TF 18 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90

Japanese Ships
DD Oshio, on fire, heavy damage
DD Asashio
DD Michishio

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 18
57 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied ground losses:
10 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 63 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90) - Coastal Guns Fire
Back!

TF 63 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90
112 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
MSW Tama Maru #2, Shell hits 26, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Tama Maru, Shell hits 22, on fire, heavy damage
PG Seikai Maru
PG Kyo Maru #10
PG Choan Maru #2
PG Shoei Maru
PG Kyo Maru #8, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 63
313 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
PG Kyo Maru #10
AP Kaijo Maru #2
AP Daihachikyo Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire
PG Shoei Maru, Shell hits 12, on fire
AP Chichibu Maru, Shell hits 10

Japanese ground losses:
352 casualties reported




Andrew Brown -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/15/2006 2:20:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
And HMAS Hobart was a victim of such guns using passive signal triangulation.


I am interested to know what are you referring to here?




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.78125