quote:

The rest of the Japanese equipment was pretty old (they never declared anything "obsolete") and the Fire Control was not much better than "open sights" from the gun positions. The largest were the Krupp model 1890 11" Howitzers (which were used in the same manner as the US model 1890 and 1908 12" CD Mortars). Most were 3" to 4.7" pedestal mounts suitable primarily for shooting at Landing Craft.

quote:

The "key" to successful CD is the "Fire Control and Plotting" systems which direct the guns, and here the Japanese lag behind.

quote:

Even in 1945, they were unable to field a successfull Fire Control Radar for their CD units.

quote:

El Cid, I have never seen any of your posts backed up by the source, page number and quotes like so many of us do. If you don't have time for "scholarly documentation" in your posts don't post stuff which can't be validated.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

The "key" to successful CD is the "Fire Control and Plotting" systems which direct the guns, and here the Japanese lag behind.

This is a rare statement. It is 100% correct - in the first clause. And it is 100% false in the second. It is true there is little written in English about Japanese fire control which is complimentary - but there is some. That does not make it true to say the "Japanese lag behind." It appears they led - that only in 1945 do we approach their coast defense sophisitcation - in the very last month of the war - and that our almost as good's never were operational at all - although one mounting was proof fired.

quote:

And Japanese AAA stunk, or LeMay wouldn't have been flying B-29s over Japan at 6-9,000 feet.

quote:

CID Both standard Japanese Fire Control Systems (The Type 88 Electrical and the Type 98 Mechanical) was designed to use verticle (or Depression) Range-Finders. There are inherent limits in this type of installation (though it certainly made sense given the terrain of the Japanese coast) as opposed to the "Base End" system used in US installations which could sight and plot targets from a number of points along a coastline thousands of yards apart. The wider the base, and the more numerous the spotting positions, the better the data fed in to the plotting and fire control centers. You would have to mount your "Depression" Range-Finder a mile above sea level to achieve similiar triangulation. The Japanese coast is fairly rugged, but 5,000 foot cliffs along the coast are hard to come by. You keep talking as if only a "turret mounting" is modern because it has a roof and frontal armour. 100 feet of concrete and earth will stop a shell even better than 12 inches of armor. And Japanese AAA stunk, or LeMay wouldn't have been flying B-29s over Japan at 6-9,000 feet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

No El Cid, if you're going to say something like that you POST the data and sources to back up your assumptions.

I have posted sources on this before - more than once. I do not have time to do scholarly documentation in every comment - and I don't see this being done by others very often. If you elect to believe it isn't true - go ahead and believe it. But it IS verified and it WILL BE in the next version of CHS as well as RHS. I am a bit of a serious student of coast defenses - and have visited many of the major sites and collected literature on them. You are not required to believe me - but that does not mean it is not worthwhile to post quick and dirty for the sake of any who know I have a clue. There is a thread where it was said that my even-handed handling of this subject might result in reforms of a major oversite - and indeed it did in terms of getting a consensus in the CHS team. Ron is completely wrong - coast defense in the game is UNDERSTATED - not overstated. USN taught as late as Viet Nam not to tangle with coast defenses as a general concept. Guns ashore inherantly outrank ships. Only USS New Jersey could more or less ignore the NVA guns, and even she could get hurt in the sense of having people get killed. I have no clue what your attitude is based on - but this is a discussion board. It is a place to debate ideas. If you really want the sources - search in this board for the several places they are posted. Or ask politely.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

The original poster never told us what the damage level of the BB was. I know that 5.5 inch will not penetrate a BB in the game.

The other firestorm was created when Ron posted the results of my ambush against the CA's. The light armored CA took a beating from 40 5.5 inch guns and 60 4.7 inch guns. Give or take 5-10 of each. As did the accompanying DD's and CL's.

We really need further info on the damage state of the BB. If it was at 70 sys or something, then I would agree. But I would bet that it was around 20 with lots of topside hits (destroyed guns etc) maybe some fire damage too.

Hits mean nothing if no real damage is being done. I hit a Dutch CL around 90 times with 4.7 inch guns and barely scratched the paint in a surface battle.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

The rest of the Japanese equipment was pretty old (they never declared anything "obsolete") and the Fire Control was not much better than "open sights" from the gun positions. The largest were the Krupp model 1890 11" Howitzers (which were used in the same manner as the US model 1890 and 1908 12" CD Mortars). Most were 3" to 4.7" pedestal mounts suitable primarily for shooting at Landing Craft.

While there are elements of truth here, essentially false. There were many more marks of weapons and fire control than this, and the most significant are not cited - 5.5 inch, 6 inch, 8 inch and 12 inch rifles. There were also 5 inch dual purpose coast defense mountings, and late in the war, something like 114 4 inch AAA which were the finest of Japanese guns, and which actually have more range than the 5 inch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

And Japanese AAA stunk, or LeMay wouldn't have been flying B-29s over Japan at 6-9,000 feet.

According to USAAF data, even on the occasions the Japanese mounted effective fighter defenses against B-29s (see Genda's Blade for example, using recon planes to permit distant intercept, or the JAAF's "last technical surprise of the war" when a patrol line from Kyushu to mid Honshu brought down B-29s in numbers, impressing their crews) - we lost more B-29s to AAA than to fighters. The worlds only computerized air defense plotting center was in Tokyo. Nothing comparable existed in London or any other place. And there was never an Allied AAA simulator comparable to what Japan used - permitting training in all light conditions without using any ammunition against targets that could be made to appear to be any enemy (or friendly) aircraft. Now you don't have to like this information. But it is accurate information. Japan also may have introduced the AAW plot at sea - a room behind the bridge on its AA destroyers - something I saw in the USN of the 1960s - but have not yet found a reference to in WWII.

quote:

ORIGINAL: adamc6

Original poster here.....a bit amazed at the state of the thread.

Anyway -- when I posted I had not checked the BBs....and I restarted soon after due to learning curve.

From memory, one BB was hit 17 times and the other 18. Now, I'm not complaining that my 16' guns should have taken out the guns, I am asking how the hell those pop guns could it me, with the range advantage, that many times. I am not a technical guru like some of you, but a Coastal Artillery BN that has been in place for maybe a month (this does not make me think of a sophisticated system) can pull that off? Just seems like a stretch. (and no, for those who did not read the whole thread, I did not have escorts set to bombard).

I don't mind someone setting me straight, but do it with some panache and not just a "yeah, it could happen."

quote:

ORIGINAL: adamc6
I am asking how he hell those pop guns could it me, with the range advantage, that many times.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

quote:

388 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

It appears we take different meaning from this line. You are saying that means there were 388 guns whereas I take it to mean there were 388 shots.

Since 2ndACR already told us there were 100 guns, I'm sticking with my interpretation. [;)]

yes, definetely there were 100 guns and 388 shots fired from these guns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Dont forget that bombardment TF to be succesfull must see what is aiming for. It is far harder to spot camouflaged CD guns than to see a ship in open waters. Actual leser maximum range of 6 inch CD guns than those 16 inch put on BB doesn't matter, as land based guns have greater effective (I mean range of seing results of its own fire) range of fire while aiming at ships, than ships aiming at land targets.

quote:

Funny, I've been reading about military history since I could sit on the toilet and I can't come up with historical examples to match anything near what is going on in the game that does not predate ironclad ships. I'd like to see your examples that prove me "completely wrong".

quote:

There is no chance to hit something (with exception of hitting "forest") at maximum range of BB's! You must came closer to watch effects of your firing. And then range of 6 inch guns is enough. While bombardment there is no such thing as range advantage. This is the reason why some nations ever bother to create CD guns.

quote:

Allied battleships bombarded several ports and other installations in the Japanese Home Islands in July/August 45. I haven't found much more than sketchy descriptions of the bombardments other than that they were credited with inflicting some damage to steel mills and oil installations. In what I've seen there was no mention whatever of being engaged by any coastal defenses. The Allies were not apparently intimidated by whatever coastal defenses may have been present.

quote:

Japanese Fire Control certainly doesn't seem to have impressed the US Seacoast Artillery Research Board that analyzed it after the War.
"Obsolescent" is the most prevelant word in their study of the subject. They are much kinder than the board studying Japanese military electronics, who described it as being composed of the kind of materials that anyone could have bought in a radio shop in the States in the 30's.

quote:

But the problem is the sheer volume and accuracy of the fire...don't you see a problem with a CL getting hit 90 times!!!?

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Japanese Fire Control certainly doesn't seem to have impressed the US Seacoast Artillery Research Board that analyzed it after the War.
"Obsolescent" is the most prevelant word in their study of the subject. They are much kinder than the board studying Japanese military electronics, who described it as being composed of the kind of materials that anyone could have bought in a radio shop in the States in the 30's.

This reminds me of a long standing argument between me and an academic named John W Dower. He writes - in proper documented scholarly fashion - that Japan deliberately destroyed almost all its records. Then he goes on to argue there was no important technology at all of the sort we debate (which is atomic technology) - because we cannot cite the documents he says were destroyed. [When some of them turn up, he says "it is a deception" because he knows, in advance, it cannot be true! But I submit that a classified document in wartime intended for a tiny, official audience was not written to decieve us decades later.] These boards had very little to study - and what they did have was the stuff regarded as not particularly important to destroy. I do think their views of what they saw are valuable. But to assume this is anything like a complete picture is pretty unwise. Over time a good deal of material - written and testimonial and physical - has come to light - and these conclusions do not stand up well against the test of time. There was nothing at all wrong with Japan's air warning system - air raid sirens routinely gave two hours notice - according to many sources - including American POWs. Japan's effective state of air defense was affected by that most basic of military sciences: logistics. A lack of fuel for fighters or a lack of ammunition for guns does not mean that the fighters or the guns were not effective. We have specific examples that show the opposite. Had Japan not been so constrained in fuel and munitions, and had it not decided NOT TO USE BOTH in order to have stocks for an anticipated major battle, we would have suffered worse casualties. You are confusing operational factors with capability. Not the same thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

But the problem is the sheer volume and accuracy of the fire...don't you see a problem with a CL getting hit 90 times!!!?

Nope. But I have the advantage of being trained to fight coast defenses.
We were told the Vietnamese trained (under Soviet doctrine) to get a disabling hit if they could - on ANY ship. To this end they would use "pattern fire" - patterns designed so that, given your course and speed, there was NO maneuver you could use that would take you out of the risk field. All they wanted was ONE lucky hit. THEN they would concentrate fire on the disabled ship - and were expected "to achieve dozens of hits in a matter of minutes, with a high probability of fatal damage in less time than it takes to rig a normal tow." To deal with that we were taught to do something very scary - rig a tow before the disabled vessel stopped - during the passage along side of her - AND (the tricky part if you could rig the lines that fast) PERFECTLY match speed with her at the moment the hawser went taught (else the line will part - and its energized parts will be killing men - not to mention that the target will then get pounded exactly as you don't think is possible). We actually did this - except not under fire - in drill - and got to the point we had a fair chance of pulling it off. It is fantastic seamanship - and as far as I know not even IJN (with the best seamen in the world, in a military sense, due to adverse condition training) attempted it. [NO other nation, then or now, trains in bad conditions for difficult evolutions at sea to the degree Japan does - an no other nation, then or now, loses more lives in peacetime doing such training].

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

quote:

ORIGINAL: adamc6
I am asking how he hell those pop guns could it me, with the range advantage, that many times.

There is no chance to hit something (with exception of hitting "forest") at maximum range of BB's! You must came closer to watch effects of your firing. And then range of 6 inch guns is enough. While bombardment there is no such thing as range advantage. This is the reason why some nations ever bother to create CD guns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

One problem we may have is this "show me examples." I am not particularly interested in examples - which in the case of these exotic systems are very rare. Few coast defense battles were fought against proper modern coast defense systems - and those that were didn't get fought in terms that the systems were designed for (see Fort Stevens).
You are missing the big point, which is WHY this is the case: it is because these defenses were too effective to challege with ships - even battleships. You can hardly find an example when real world admirals were not stupid enough to sail into a trap. But you will be hard pressed to find a coast gunner from anywhere who was not confident he could hit a target. And the data supports the gunners.