RE: Coastal Defense Guns

RE: Coastal Defense Guns (Full Version)

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

Message

el cid again -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/21/2006 4:22:11 PM)
quote: Yes I have a problem with your result but there are more issues at work here than just the broad paint stroke that seems to paint all guns like dedicated CDs. This is two different matters technically speaking. In one sense, you are prefectly right in some cases - and oddly also in other cases the data makes you totally wrong. The devices often had ZERO penetration values - and in such cases they should not penetrate ANY armor. But often the penetration values for lower velocity weapons were wrong. This is easily fixed - and I have done it. But to the extent a howitzer was treated as the same as a high velocity gun, this is addressed (accidentally) by my device review. The OTHER difference is the opposite of what you seem to be saying. While it is TRUE that there is no special modeling for a major CD units advantages of fire control (redundancy, greater accuracy), or protection, this only means that any effort to fix that will make major CD units MORE effective. The game does not "treat all units like CD units" - it treats CD units like other units - in effect ships on land. Note that ANY land unit acting in the CD role has advantages - of concealment and an easier fire control problem (guns not moving) - over ANY naval gun unit. As far as I can tell, there is NO compensation for either of these things - CD units are treated more or less as the same as immobile ships. In that sense, all units may be underrated. IF we address the technical merits of your complaint, we probably will make the few major CD units much more effective. I don't think we can make minor ones more effective - but we probably should if we want to get it right. HOW do you think concealment should be modeled? HOW do you think the advantage of a non-moving gun should be modeled?

Demosthenes -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/21/2006 4:26:00 PM)
Not flaming you el cid (everyone take note of that...thank you[:D]) - My quoted suggestion was a simple way to solve the CD issue (on both sides) for typical island defenses - such as the case Dereck quoted from Morison regarding New Georgia. The idea being to cut down on the possibility on making Rock of Gibraltar fortresses everywhere and reserving that type of defense for the relatively few places that had them - such as Japanese home waters, Truck, Oahu,etc. The point being that in most of the Pacific (Solomon's, New Guinea, etc) historically surface ships from both sides were able to come in at night, conduct a shoot, and skip out pretty much unharmed. I don't know what the folks at CHS & RHS (what is RHS?) want, bit the original post on this thread IIR was about a typical bombardment that was not directed at a major fortress.. Demosthenes quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: True enough, it's the way the system works and we are stuck with it....almost - Quick solution: get out your editor, gut CD Gun units by reducing the number available in the game, and reduce the number of guns to a single battery - problem solved. Boy are you out of sync with what we are doing in CHS and in RHS! We just went to a bit of effort to ADD MISSING guns to CD units! And it was also popular when proposed (about three or four months ago). Both sides got hurt in the OBs on this subject. The theory (game theory) of CD units is not very far from real life: coasts are vast - but points that matter are relatively few and predictable. You don't care if they are a long way from the harbor entrance - it is the river mouth or harbor entrance - and nearby beaches - you defend. The actual location of things inside a hex is semi-abstract - but if you take the "normal" statistical case for a coastal hex, half of it will be land. And the port or river mouth will be in the center. [This same theory applies to minefields by the way. They are not really laid in equal density over the entire 2,827 square miles of the hex! They defend the approaches or narrows you expect ships to be in.] Anyway, the fraction of the hex out of CD range which is possible to be in is not as great as you might think, and any force in that fraction is not really challenging the harbor defenses. I have no theory problem with "they closed and they got shot at" - because if you were NOT attacking the base you would also NOT be engaged by units there!

Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/21/2006 4:27:48 PM)
First, 406mm Army guns are NOT field guns. They were designed to CD STATIC work, not for shelling enemy trenches in Europe. So you must find another example. We are discussing about difference between NAVAL and FIELD guns, not navy and army guns. Second, even if army field guns were called LONG guns, in terms of navy standards they are definetely SHORT guns (i gave an example: French Army longest 155mm was 30 calibres long - quite short when compared to 50 or 60 calibres used by navy)

el cid again -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/21/2006 4:29:45 PM)
quote: pointing out the fact that your posts have ALWAYS been pro-Japanese biased and have NEVER been what people could honestly called objective. You are drawing general conclusions from too narrow a database. Do some thread reading. I pointed out that there were 6 inch CD guns at Rabaul NOT in ANY version of the game. I pointed out that there were many missing guns at Pearl Harbor - both at the start - and wartime additions. I pointed out errors at Fort Stevens too. On ships and airplanes, I pointed out cases where ranges were excessive - in fact Don is furious I cut the range of the "long range" Pete. [While I am a Pete fan, it was never long range.] Japanese cruisers had uniform turret armor of 25mm (with an odd single exception - the unarmored Katori had 50mm) - but in the game you see up to 150 mm on Japanese cruisers - and I REFUSE TO PLAY until it is addressed. It would only take a single case to make you wrong - but there are scores of cases. Your problem is an attitude one - and I won't be addressing it any more. My posts are present for all to see - and for you to search if you like. While I tend to know a lot about Japan - I lived there and I studied the Pacific War to learn things of interest in my first profession - a USN sailor - it only means I will tend to notice when someone less informed gets it wrong. Pointing that out is not the same thing as saying "Japan is best" - in fact I don't think Japan had a functional polity then and I am not sure it does now.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/21/2006 4:44:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker The turning escorts off toggle was added because the unarmoured escorts were getting slaughtered without player ability to control. This is a sure sign that the designers felt the guns were overpowered and a toggle can fix it. Incorrect. Feature was added because historically heavier bombardment forces could stand off from shore at a safer distance and bombard vs. closing the shore where the escorts might get pummeled by the lighter/medium guns. Allows escorts to not particpate (and risk themselves) in the bomardment while still protecting their larger charges from threats at sea. (PT's, enemy warships etc) How am I incorrect? The entire thing was instigated because one either had to send in armored ships without escorts (to keep the escorts from being slaughtered), have an ASW TF "follow" them, or bombard and have the escorts get slaughtered.

el cid again -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/21/2006 4:46:32 PM)
quote: The easiest way to shut us people up El Cid is, instead of posting your multiple rebuttal posts, is to simply post one citing and quoting the source for the point you're trying to make. THAT is something you have never done and until you do whatever you post will always be questionable by quite a lot of people here. I cannot resist. Just because you are too lazy to search the posts, they are all still here. In fact, my original posts on CD units were incomplete in some details, so Andrew came back and asked for them, and in the end, all the most sigificant data for all the major sites got posted. It takes time to do that, and I feel no obligation to do it over and over again. Why you think I might "imagine" it when I say otherwise is a mystery - but it must be an emotional thing - apparently it isn't I who have trouble with things I don't want to believe. I have told you before the material is posted - and posted it remains - and you just complain - but never track it down. I also told you that if you were polite and positive I would give you cites - but that is not something you are willing to consider. It must really be you are afraid to think I might know something that is documented. It must really be that you don't want to look up the cites - or see them again - since it would take a lot less effort to be civil than to just throw charges. News flash: I do not need your approval. If you elect to believe I don't know squat, and have not actually seen not only books but actual sites, equipment and original documents (which at least I collect and to some extent can read), go ahead and live in your "the Allies were superior in everything world." And for the record, what Americans are better at than Japanese is being self critical. When we screw up - as in "knowing" Japanese are inherantly inferior fliers with second rate airplanes - we also can admit it - and move on to reforms at a pace that matters operationally. Japan took way too long to adapt to things they could have done to great advantage: they not only captured numbers of 40mm Bofors at Singapore, they actually put them in production. But they waited THREE YEARS to make trivial improvements to the gun, by which time it mattered not a whit. A naval flier proposed a training program in August 1941 that was really adopted - years later - too late. Japan had pre-war plans for escorts, never implemented, and a Grand Escort Command, implemented too late with too few assets to impact operations. Japan assigned the WRONG kind of ships to move troops - cargo ships - and forced those moving civil cargo to use passenger ships! Amazing but true. Japan had a fantastic advantage in Asian public opinion vs colonial powers, and squandered most of it by behaving (with some exceptions) worse than the "white men" behaved. There should have been unlimited manpower for industry, shipping and armies - but instead there was a lot of opposition - generated by really short sighted policy. Actually, the greatest advantage Japan had was position - a geographic fact - and otherwise it had severe disadvantages in resources, industry, technology and forces. The ONLY military advantage it had was the most modern merchant fleet and naval force on the planet - a hollow advantage because it could not stand up to attrition and retain its quality edge.

Nikademus -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/21/2006 4:56:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker How am I incorrect? The entire thing was instigated because one either had to send in armored ships without escorts (to keep the escorts from being slaughtered) [8\|] A statement which does not mean the same thing as: quote: This is a sure sign that the designers felt the guns were overpowered and a toggle can fix it Wrong. The feature was added not because the designers felt the guns were overpowered but because the routine was not flexible enough to allow bombardment TF's to have a proper escort and not subject the unarmored warships to punishment from coastal defenses.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/21/2006 7:16:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos First, 406mm Army guns are NOT field guns. They were designed to CD STATIC work, not for shelling enemy trenches in Europe. So you must find another example. We are discussing about difference between NAVAL and FIELD guns, not navy and army guns. Second, even if army field guns were called LONG guns, in terms of navy standards they are definetely SHORT guns (i gave an example: French Army longest 155mm was 30 calibres long - quite short when compared to 50 or 60 calibres used by navy) You are correct that the largest "Field Guns" of World War II were 240 mm or less, and the ones above 200 mm weren't terrifically "mobile". And in general, Coast Defense Installations were equipped with Naval Guns (which makes sense for shooting at ships). But these were also suplimented by field guns in various locations. The 5 French GPF's supposedly mounted on Pont du Hoc were enough of a worry to the Allies that they dedicated bombers, a BB, and a Ranger Bn. to deal with them. And the US Army specifically designed and built special mountings to make use of it's 155 guns and 240 Howitzers in the CD role and used them throughout the war. The real difference in making an effective CD gun is in the Fire Control Systems. Ground targets don't tend to move to any great extent, so fire can be "walked in" if necessary. Naval targets tend to move constantly and have to be spotted and plotted and predicted to be hit. Smaller guns can be used in a direct fire mode at short range, but for longer range artillery even the shell's time of flight is part of the calculations. This requires specialized Fire Control. And not all guns---even when placed for use in the CD role---had all the specialized equipment needed. Many of the CD guns the Japanese placed in the conquered areas were naval-type guns, but generally only effective at shorter ranges because of limited fire-control. Their more modern (post 1920) pre-war installations had the Fire control to be effective out to their full ranges. These were "real" CD installations. The US, as much because they could afford and produce it, was able to supply it's mobile CD units (the Marine Defense Bns.) with full Fire control systems by mid-1942 (Wake's 5" naval-style equipment was limited in ability). But by the time it was deployed in the Pacific it had little chance to show what it could do. Only CD units should really be able to engage ships. Plain Field Artillery units should only be effective in firing at actual landings (troops on the beach). This is represented poorly in the game. Oh, and you don't actually need a LONG gun for CD use. The Japanese 11" and US 12" Coast Defense Mortars were only 10-12 calibre---but could drop a 750-1000 lb shell on the deck of a target where the armor was lighter.

treespider -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/21/2006 7:22:31 PM)
quote: quote: The easiest way to shut us people up El Cid is, instead of posting your multiple rebuttal posts, is to simply post one citing and quoting the source for the point you're trying to make. THAT is something you have never done and until you do whatever you post will always be questionable by quite a lot of people here. I cannot resist. Just because you are too lazy to search the posts, they are all still here. I assume from Post #22 of this thread in which he refers to... "Naval Weapons of World War Two" In looking this title up from Stone & Stone one finds... Campbell, John Naval Weapons of World War Two Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1985 Binding: Hardcover. Perhaps in the future when one of us wants to assert a fact the least we can do is cite the author and title. I

Feinder -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/21/2006 10:47:43 PM)
quote: Only CD units should really be able to engage ships. Plain Field Artillery units should only be effective in firing at actual landings (troops on the beach). This is represented poorly in the game. Actually, I've tested the interaction/differences between CD and ART units fairly extensively in WitP. Within WitP, it is largely the case that ART units do -NOT- fire at enemy ships. ART units are usually equipped with devices of type "Army Gun". (* no relation to the branch of service, it's a "type" of device in WitP *). Whereas, CD type units are usually equipped with either "Naval Gun" or "DP" type devices. Device types: "Army Gun" - Will generally fire at LCU units only. During an invasion, they will cause further disruption to the landing LCUs, but generally do NOT fire at enemy ships. They -might- fire at an enemy ship, but I've never seen them do so. "Naval Gun" - Can fire at both ships and LCUs. So during an invasion, they shoot at the enemy ships, and cause disruption to the invading LCUs. Note that devices that are CD guns (like 15" guns at Sing), are of type "Naval Gun". "DP" - Some guns (including some landed AAA), are rated as DP. They definately fire at aircraft (duh) and at ships. I can't remember if they fire at the invading LCUs (you could tell by the "shots fired" message. "AAA" - These -sometimes- fire at ships. NOt very often, but the do occasionally. I tested this by taking a 155mm Field Gun, and changing it's device type to AAA. It did fire, but instead of say 10 shots, it took only 2 or 3. Can't remember the actual numbers, but the point being that AAA type guns do fire at ships, but much less often. I don't remember explicityly testing to see if they fired at LCUs, but I think they do. Note that their are some odd naming conventions in the WitP DB. Some guns NOT listed as CD guns by NAME, do actually work as CD guns. Remember that at "5 inch CD gun" device is a type "Naval Gun" in the DB (and can thus fire at ships and troops). However, the 155mm Field Gun, is also a type "Naval Gun", altho it is not called a "155mm CD gun". Flip on this is that the "75mm Field Gun" is a device type "Army Gun", and can NOT fire at ships. My extremely limited historical knowledge of 155mm Field Guns - My grandfather was a Sgt (E5) with the 4th USMC Def Btn in WW2 (actually in charge of one of the 155mm guns). He served with the unit from it's creation, up until the invasion at Pelilu. WitP is accurate in that it begins with 5" Naval Guns initially. The unit included those guns during it's intial deployment to New Zealand and then Efate. My grandfather said, they were WW1 vintage, and generally sucked. The unit was refitted with 155mm Field Guns for the invasion of Guadalcanal; and that they just left the 5" guns in the emplacements that they had dug for them. 4 USMC Def Btn landed on Guadalcanal on D + 3, their mission artillery support of the other Marines fighting, and to provide naval defense. He indicated that they did fire at, and destroyed quite a few enemy barges (and certainly quite a bit of support for ground attacks). The conversion did not mention fire vs. larger enemy surface ships (like DDs or larger). I interviewed him about 3 years ago (before this little flame-fest in WitP). Not to say they did or did not fire vs. large enemy vessels or their effectiveness, so I'm making no claims of use or accuracy vs. larger ships either way. FWIW, he also continued with the unit as it participated in 2 other landings further of The Slot (my notes are at home, I don't know the names of the islands off the top of my head). When the unit was slated to participate in the Peliliu invasion, "I just knew my number was up.". Ends up, as they were loading the guns onto the transport, one slipped the chain and was damaged. They needed a "volunteer" to stay with the gun until it could be sent for repair/reuse. My grandfather was senior, so the let him stay. They next week, he had a recurrence of severe Malaria, and was sent back to SanFran for 3 months. Lucky me, the invasions at Peliliu were quite costly. -F-

el cid again -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/22/2006 12:08:10 AM)
quote: Only CD units should really be able to engage ships. Plain Field Artillery units should only be effective in firing at actual landings (troops on the beach). This is represented poorly in the game. Good post - with which I have only one quibble: The game does seem to actually FORBID army artillery to engage anything but landings. The key seems to be in the device classification - if it is a "naval gun" it is treated differently than if it is an "army weapon." And since SOME field guns (in existing databases - not mine) are "naval guns" - maybe you are talking about them? However, the only cases I know of are US field guns for some reason classified as "naval guns." The Japanese don't have such field guns. Aside from the fact the "modeled poorly" evaluation seems to be a bum rap, I am not sure I agree field guns cannot be effective. Do you think it was ONLY the Russians who used "pattern shots" from field guns vs ships? [A pattern shot is a pattern designed to put the target in a potential hit situation regardless of its maneuver. If you know its course and speed, you can estimate its maneuvering space. This is done on precalculated tables. It was universally taught in Cold War era communist nations - but I have not seen such a thing in US or Japanese literature.] By the time I was sailing, field guns were regarded as deadly in CD work.

el cid again -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/22/2006 12:11:49 AM)
Thanks Nik. Just so. The routine is intended to allow a commander to elect not to send unarmored ships in - not because they should not be beat up if they go in - but because they SHOULD BE! quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker How am I incorrect? The entire thing was instigated because one either had to send in armored ships without escorts (to keep the escorts from being slaughtered) A statement which does not mean the same thing as: quote: This is a sure sign that the designers felt the guns were overpowered and a toggle can fix it Wrong. The feature was added not because the designers felt the guns were overpowered but because the routine was not flexible enough to allow bombardment TF's to have a proper escort and not subject the unarmored warships to punishment from coastal defenses

Mike Scholl -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/22/2006 6:29:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: Only CD units should really be able to engage ships. Plain Field Artillery units should only be effective in firing at actual landings (troops on the beach). This is represented poorly in the game. Good post - with which I have only one quibble: The game does seem to actually FORBID army artillery to engage anything but landings. The key seems to be in the device classification - if it is a "naval gun" it is treated differently than if it is an "army weapon." And since SOME field guns (in existing databases - not mine) are "naval guns" - maybe you are talking about them? However, the only cases I know of are US field guns for some reason classified as "naval guns." The Japanese don't have such field guns. Aside from the fact the "modeled poorly" evaluation seems to be a bum rap, I am not sure I agree field guns cannot be effective. Do you think it was ONLY the Russians who used "pattern shots" from field guns vs ships? [A pattern shot is a pattern designed to put the target in a potential hit situation regardless of its maneuver. If you know its course and speed, you can estimate its maneuvering space. This is done on precalculated tables. It was universally taught in Cold War era communist nations - but I have not seen such a thing in US or Japanese literature.] By the time I was sailing, field guns were regarded as deadly in CD work. CID. I have no idea what the "database" of WITP says on the subject. I looked at it closely when I first got the game and saw so many numbers that made no sense compared to each other that I gave up even looking at it until or unless 2by3 provided a "key" to what they meant and how they interacted. I'll have to go back and look to see if it has 2 entries for a US M1A1 155mm gun (Long Tom). If they have a normal and a CD version, maybe they did better than I think. I noticed at that time they didn't seem to have the US model 1919 240mm Howitzer in the database at all. If someone put them in, I hope they were as "naval" or CD weapons. It's the only way they were used in the Pacific that I know of. As to a Field Gun being "effective", I'm sure they would do some damage if they hit. But unless the target was close (direct fire range) the fire control wouldn't allow them to "hold" a moving target with any degree of success. They might fire preplanned "patterns" into a specific area (like a narrow strait) with some effect, but in general their fire control systems just weren't built to handle the continuous shifts in relative position of a naval-type Fire Control System. They had no normal need for such capability. When the US made use of some "Field-type" guns in a CD role, they were put on pre-surveyed and plotted special mountings and tied into Naval Fire Control systems.

dereck -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/23/2006 7:07:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos If Morrison write about destroyers attacking from short range heavy defended and well prepared to defence base, like Truk or Rabaul - he is definetly wrong. Nothing of that ever happened. This is from History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Volume 6, page 420: quote: Five destroyers of Captain Simpson's Squadron 12 threw the first ship bombardment into Rabaul on the night of 17-18 February. Under heavy cloud-wrack and through frequent rain squals the destroyers, guided by SG radar (that great gift of God and the double-domes to mariners), entered St. George Channel before midnight, steamed around Duke of York Island in search of shipping, and fired 3868 rounds of 5-inch on Rabaul town, installations and supply areas during the midwatch of 18 February, while steaming 20 knots under a smoke screen. They also launched 15 torpedoes against shipping in Blanche Bay. Shore batteries opened up on the destroyers about five minutes after the bombardment commenced, but made no hits. After this exhibition of courage and good seamanship, Simpson retired at 30 knots. According to the book between 17 and 29 February 1944, Destroyer Squadrons 12, 22, 23 and 45 bombarded both Kavieng and Rabaul on three occasions. The only damage suffered by US destroyers were made by Jap shore batteries at Kavieng where they made hits on the Buchanan and Farenholt. From History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Volume 6, page 421-22: quote: FInally Captain Earle's Squadron 45, thoroughly fed up with the "milk run" duty in the III Amphibious Force, was let in the bombardment game. The full squadron left Purvis Bay 23 February, fueled at Stirling Harbor and entered St. George Channel at 2330 on the 24th. East of Cape Gazelle the senior division continued in a westerly direction along the south coast of New Ireland, while COmmander E.B. Taylor's division (Anthony, flag) headed straight in for Rabaul. Between 0030 and 0100 February 25, Taylor made three runs across the front of Vunapope area, where military stores were stacked high and deep. Coastal batteries replied, but made no hits.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (2/23/2006 12:07:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Thanks Nik. Just so. The routine is intended to allow a commander to elect not to send unarmored ships in - not because they should not be beat up if they go in - but because they SHOULD BE! quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker How am I incorrect? The entire thing was instigated because one either had to send in armored ships without escorts (to keep the escorts from being slaughtered) A statement which does not mean the same thing as: quote: This is a sure sign that the designers felt the guns were overpowered and a toggle can fix it Wrong. The feature was added not because the designers felt the guns were overpowered but because the routine was not flexible enough to allow bombardment TF's to have a proper escort and not subject the unarmored warships to punishment from coastal defenses Thanks Nik. Just so. The routine is intended to allow a commander to elect not to send unarmored ships in - not because they should not be beat up if they go in - but because they SHOULD BE! Not against non dedicated non CD units! For the love of gawd!

treespider -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (3/1/2006 12:00:37 AM)
Just picked up John Wukovits - Pacific Alamo - The Battle for Wake Island. Interesting account of the 1st Japanese attempt to invade on December 11, 1941. In summary - USMC had three(3) two gun 5 inch batteries on Wake for a total of six 5 inch guns. The Japanese had bombed Wake for three days with aircraft. Major Devereux ordered the batteries to hold fire until his order. Rear-Admiral Kajioka pulled his TF within 8,000 yards without receiving American fire. Japanese commence shelling at 8,000 yards. Close distance to 6,000 yards and continue shelling. Kajioka orders distance closed to 4500 yards. At this point Devereux issues orders to fire at will. Battery A hits Yubari four times damaging the cruiser. A destroyer intercedes and lays smoke and is also hit by Battery A. Battery L hits Destroyer Hayate with 3rd salvo (without a range finder which was destroyed during Japanese bombardment) and scores a magazine explosion sinking the ship. Before the Japanese are able to pull out of range Battery L scores hits on a second destroyer, one transport and one cruiser. Battery B scored hits on two of three Japanese destroyers. By the end of December 11 the atoll's three 5-inch batteries and 4 Wildcats of VMF-211 sank two surface ships and one submarine, as well as damaging seven other ships.

spence -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (3/1/2006 4:54:41 AM)
Suppressive fire seems to be ignored in the routines. When the Nips came back on 22 Dec they brought along 4 CAs along with what they had before. The Marine shore batteries accomplished little in response to the heavy fire laid down by the reinforced invasion forces. As mentioned in another thread (re nuclear naval bombardments or some such) the USN bombardment forces in later invasions all but completely suppressed the CD units on the invaded islands...and did pretty useful work suppressing the Japanese field artillery as well.

treespider -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (3/1/2006 5:12:06 AM)
quote: Spence said: Suppressive fire seems to be ignored in the routines. When the Nips came back on 22 Dec they brought along 4 CAs along with what they had before. The Marine shore batteries accomplished little in response to the heavy fire laid down by the reinforced invasion forces. In skimming through the account of the second attack it appears that the japanese did not use Shore bombardment but landed under cover of darkness and kept their surface units out of range of the 5 inch guns. I could not find an account of Japanese shore bombardment in the second attack other than two cruisers being ordered to fire a diversionary bombardment on Peale island who lost there bearings and actually fired the bombardment into the ocean sevral miles away. quote: As mentioned in another thread (re nuclear naval bombardments or some such) the USN bombardment forces in later invasions all but completely suppressed the CD units on the invaded islands...and did pretty useful work suppressing the Japanese field artillery as well. One thing I failed to mention was the fact the Americans were amazed that the Japanese came in so close at Wake on Dec 11th. In an interview after the war Devereux said that the Japanese "should've wiped us out with ease." One of the themes in this section of the book seems to be that the Japanese ship guns from the December 11th force could easily out range the US 5" CD guns. I don't recall but the routine in the game whereby the player can decide whether escorts bombard or not applies to what ships...CL and smaller or Destroyer and smaller? Perhaps the routine should have be based on range instead of ship class if we really wanted to micro-manage. Afterall we are able to set AC altitude in 1000' increments.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (3/1/2006 7:49:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: Spence said: Suppressive fire seems to be ignored in the routines. When the Nips came back on 22 Dec they brought along 4 CAs along with what they had before. The Marine shore batteries accomplished little in response to the heavy fire laid down by the reinforced invasion forces. In skimming through the account of the second attack it appears that the japanese did not use Shore bombardment but landed under cover of darkness and kept their surface units out of range of the 5 inch guns. I could not find an account of Japanese shore bombardment in the second attack other than two cruisers being ordered to fire a diversionary bombardment on Peale island who lost there bearings and actually fired the bombardment into the ocean sevral miles away. quote: As mentioned in another thread (re nuclear naval bombardments or some such) the USN bombardment forces in later invasions all but completely suppressed the CD units on the invaded islands...and did pretty useful work suppressing the Japanese field artillery as well. One thing I failed to mention was the fact the Americans were amazed that the Japanese came in so close at Wake on Dec 11th. In an interview after the war Devereux said that the Japanese "should've wiped us out with ease." One of the themes in this section of the book seems to be that the Japanese ship guns from the December 11th force could easily out range the US 5" CD guns. I don't recall but the routine in the game whereby the player can decide whether escorts bombard or not applies to what ships...CL and smaller or Destroyer and smaller? Perhaps the routine should have be based on range instead of ship class if we really wanted to micro-manage. Afterall we are able to set AC altitude in 1000' increments. Interesting possibility..., just make sure your accuracy falls off as rapidly as your own description indicates " two cruisers being ordered to fire a diversionary bombardment on Peale island who lost there bearings and actually fired the bombardment into the ocean sevral miles away". As the bombardment routine makes virtually all bombardments into high speed night "shoot and scoots", we should have a LOT of "badly bruised ocean" out there. That's the dichotomy..., get close enough to spot the target and risk being shot at, or stand out at maximum range and drop shells indiscriminately over the area. US preparatory bombardments were generally done slowly in daylight with air spotting and support---which the game makes a somewhat difficult operation to duplicate.

jwilkerson -> RE: Coastal Defense Guns (3/1/2006 5:10:05 PM)
quote: CL and smaller or Destroyer and smaller? CLs are lumped in with the Big Boys ... not the Escorts ...

Page: << < prev 4 5 6 7 [8]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.34375