Coastal Gun damage during bombard

Coastal Gun damage during bombard (Full Version)

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

Message

undercovergeek -> Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 12:40:09 PM)
6 BBs 4 CLs 4 CAs 12 DDs This is against Pearl and I am going in every 2 days, one visit i will be casualty free, next visit not so lucky! Im routinely losing 2 to 3 DDs every 4 days, outright sunk, and taking about 10 - 15 hits on the CA/CLs and BBs which they can cope with - is there anyway of avoiding this? Do i need to load up the TF with PC/PGs to act as cannon fodder Not on escort bombard so im not sure im doing it right.

rockmedic109 -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 1:08:53 PM)
Pearl Harbor has a lot of battleship size guns. 2-3 DDs does not seem to be too much. If your cruisers and battleships are not getting damaged, I'd say you are getting off light. I'm not sure there is much you can do except for air port attacks.

Feinder -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 1:15:55 PM)
You can put CDs out of commission by port attacks. But as previous poster said, Pearl Harbor has some huge guns protecting it. It makes Singapore look like a candy store. -F-

undercovergeek -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 1:16:52 PM)
if thats the expected loss, im fine with it - i just wondered whether it was advisable to lose so many DDs

Rob Brennan UK -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 1:45:31 PM)
make sure 'escorts bombard' is off to save you some valuable DD's

Mike Scholl -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 2:41:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undercovergeek 6 BBs 4 CLs 4 CAs 12 DDs This is against Pearl and I am going in every 2 days, one visit i will be casualty free, next visit not so lucky! Im routinely losing 2 to 3 DDs every 4 days, outright sunk, and taking about 10 - 15 hits on the CA/CLs and BBs which they can cope with - is there anyway of avoiding this? You are dealing with a fixed prewar CD installation who's Fire Control and Range Finding are superior to your own by several orders of magnitude. You are getting off VERY lightly...

herwin -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 3:07:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: undercovergeek 6 BBs 4 CLs 4 CAs 12 DDs This is against Pearl and I am going in every 2 days, one visit i will be casualty free, next visit not so lucky! Im routinely losing 2 to 3 DDs every 4 days, outright sunk, and taking about 10 - 15 hits on the CA/CLs and BBs which they can cope with - is there anyway of avoiding this? Do i need to load up the TF with PC/PGs to act as cannon fodder Not on escort bombard so im not sure im doing it right. In reality, Oahu was a fortress. To even bombard it with a reasonable chance of avoiding mines and the zeroed-in coast-defence rifles, you had to have air superiority. Although the theoretical maximum range of those battleship guns was 40 kyd or so, the maximum range at which they could hit anything on land was less than 12 kyd, and most of the coast artillery on Oahu could hit a ship reliably at that range. Considering that some of that coast artillery was battleship-calibre, be glad you're getting off so lightly! See this link.

undercovergeek -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 3:45:26 PM)
splendid, ill stay where i am then, resupplying from Lahaina and bombarding every 2 days, im using LBA from Lahaina to keep the airfield above 60% damage and Kates from the KB to destroy the port. 1. Are the targets of the bombardment entirely random? - the last 3 have just hit ground forces, no airfield, port or supplies. 2. Whats the best way to whittle down the supplies - im trying to get the supplies to 0 before the invasion starts? 3. I take it moving to escorts bombard would be suicide for my beleagured DDs? Again thanks for all help - just when i think im getting a tiny bit of knowledge a new 'chapter' of the game unfolds and i realise i know nothing about new chapter either!!

rockmedic109 -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 3:57:01 PM)
Thanks for the link Herwin. Great essay. IMHO the Japanese were doomed to loose the war the moment the war started. The only victory they could've had would have been a political one where US and Britain gave up and allowed them to keep DEI which I don't believe would ever have happened.

Q-Ball -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 5:55:16 PM)
That essay assumes the Japanese could even capture Midway, which was in itself very dubious. The author correctly points out the complete lack of a real amphibious doctrine that could land in the face of real opposition, which would have been encountered at Midway. Shattered Sword has a great appendix on this subject, and concluded pretty strongly that even if the US CV's were all sunk, the Midway invasion force was totally inadequate, would have been defeated on the beaches, and eventually the victorious IJN CV's would have just sailed home, leaving Midway in US hands.

herwin -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 6:24:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball That essay assumes the Japanese could even capture Midway, which was in itself very dubious. The author correctly points out the complete lack of a real amphibious doctrine that could land in the face of real opposition, which would have been encountered at Midway. Shattered Sword has a great appendix on this subject, and concluded pretty strongly that even if the US CV's were all sunk, the Midway invasion force was totally inadequate, would have been defeated on the beaches, and eventually the victorious IJN CV's would have just sailed home, leaving Midway in US hands. That's also the conclusion of the USMC history of Japanese landing operations.

herwin -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 6:26:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rockmedic109 Thanks for the link Herwin.� Great essay.� IMHO the Japanese were doomed to loose the war the moment the war started.� The only victory they could've had would have been a political one where US and Britain gave up and allowed them to keep DEI which I don't believe would ever have happened. Yes, the Japanese were the only country that fought the war with limited (but unrealistic) objectives.

saj42 -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 6:38:59 PM)
If there are no allied TFs or subs in the area then why send DD escorts? Leave them at Lahaina and avoid losses. As Japan you cannot afford to loose DDs needlessly. Port attacks with your airforce will 'gradually' reduce the number of CD guns. The IJAF light bombloads are not working in your favour here.

undercovergeek -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 7:56:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tallyho! If there are no allied TFs or subs in the area then why send DD escorts? Leave them at Lahaina and avoid losses. As Japan you cannot afford to loose DDs needlessly. Port attacks with your airforce will 'gradually' reduce the number of CD guns. The IJAF light bombloads are not working in your favour here. i (now i see mistakenly) thought they would soak up the damage from the CDs and screen the BBs and CAs, are you saying just BBs and CAs wouldnt receive any substantial hits from the CDs without the DDs present?

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 8:08:03 PM)
They'll get hit - but they are more likely to survive since they have better armor and are larger ships.

niceguy2005 -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (10/14/2008 10:13:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: undercovergeek 6 BBs 4 CLs 4 CAs 12 DDs This is against Pearl and I am going in every 2 days, one visit i will be casualty free, next visit not so lucky! Im routinely losing 2 to 3 DDs every 4 days, outright sunk, and taking about 10 - 15 hits on the CA/CLs and BBs which they can cope with - is there anyway of avoiding this? You are dealing with a fixed prewar CD installation who's Fire Control and Range Finding are superior to your own by several orders of magnitude. You are getting off VERY lightly... Glad someone pointed this out. I think only losing a couple of DDs is very light indeed. I would have expected losing a CA or two and maybe a BB. Massive port attack is the only way one could, or should be able to eliminate those guns. I wonder if IJ 250kg bombs were big enough to penetrate the bunkers?

undercovergeek -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (11/4/2008 11:11:44 PM)
ok - it did get more bloody - a few smoky CAs and CLs now! However, i have bombarded Pearl everyday for 3 weeks, at least 80 level bombers have pounded the port and got it upto 65% damaged a day, the invasion force arrived today - 85 APs with 5 divisions and 4 engineer regiments and other stuff - not one AP has made the landing intact, and i would imagine not one is going to sail away! other than loading up the invasion force with PGs is there any other way i could have survived that much damage or is it Pearl and thats that?! Secondly, i understand a airstrip with 20% damage prevents a strike launch, and 60% damage prevents CAP is there a port equivalent whereby the CD guns dont reply?

Droop21 -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (11/5/2008 9:14:23 AM)
Never tried to invade Pearl, but in my experience best weapon against fortresses is time (which is a rare commodity for Japan). Bombard (by air) and isolate the base long enough to get the supply levels down alot and then I believe all the guns (especially the larger ones) go silent. Also, keep in mind that in a landing, all units present shoot at the invading TF, so if Pearl is defended by a few divisions (and that they have supply) they will hurt your TF. You might want to check Admiral Laurent's AAR, because you will find there a detailed account how he captured of Pearl (Jan 42)

undercovergeek -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (11/5/2008 10:32:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Droop Also, keep in mind that in a landing, all units present shoot at the invading TF, so if Pearl is defended by a few divisions (and that they have supply) they will hurt�your TF. You might want to check Admiral Laurent's AAR, because you will find there a detailed account how he captured of Pearl (Jan 42) this may be the answer - im following Admiral Laurents AAR as my inspiration and taking notes, but as im still learning i have an occassional peek at the supply situation in Pearl from the Allies point of view and they have 6000 left, they need 8000 but they still have some - is your recommendation to delay the landings until there are no supplies left - and without my peeking how would i tell this ina pbem situation?

Droop21 -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (11/5/2008 5:15:29 PM)
I would delay the landings at least until the supply goes at least below 4000. I am under the impression that complete lack of supply stops any repair (can an expert confirm). This if airfields do not repair, then you have finished off the supply. Another indicator of the supply level is the flak intensity (or coastal gun if you dare). I've seemed to notice that when supply gets very low, flak becomes nearly non existant.

undercovergeek -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (11/6/2008 12:44:32 AM)
and the biggest supply sucker is port attack or bombardment?

Droop21 -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (11/6/2008 8:39:53 AM)
Always wondered [;)]. Reading the combat reports, I tend to think it is airfield, as the same attacking force tend to cause more runway, service damage and supply damage than port attacks do. However I don't know if port damage suck more supply to get repaired

undercovergeek -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (11/6/2008 11:30:36 AM)
if i attempt to wipe out all the supplies then - is there a rough time estimate on how long it takes me to work through 6000 supplies - the AI has forts at 6 and building to 7 at 16% but it hasnt moved for days. With regards to air field attack been the most successful the runway is already at 100% damage and the air base is at 75% surely once they reach 100%i cant take anything else out of these, unless i let them recover and attack again but im trying to get in there asap - i fear the arrival of the 40th div!! Im on the island already but can always go back a turn and wait - just wondered how long it would take to get rid of that many supplies

Droop21 -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (11/6/2008 11:52:14 AM)
Fort levels will not increase as long as there is damage to the port / airport. The speed a which supplies dwindle depends on many factors: how much damage you inflict (both through repairs and from airport/port supply hits), how many units are there and if the units participate to combat. Regarding on whether to keep your units there or not depends on what relative strength you have. If you have good AV vs. the AI and you have sufficient supplies, it will mean that they can't counter-attack and whipe your units. In that case, I would keep them there and launch attacks to accelerate the supply consumption. From my personal (painfull) experience, keep a very close eye on your supply units if you decide to keep them there: I've seen 2 divisions (including a marines division) be completly whiped out by a counter-attack in Truck because I let them run out of supplies [:@]

spence -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (11/6/2008 1:05:22 PM)
No one seems to have paid the slightest attention to the absurdity that a few dozen bombs and a bit of strafing on Dec 7th renders the 5 or 6 major airfields on Oahu inoperable for a week or so.

undercovergeek -> RE: Coastal Gun damage during bombard (11/6/2008 1:24:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence No one seems to have paid the slightest attention to the absurdity that a few dozen bombs and a bit of strafing on Dec 7th renders the 5 or 6 major airfields on Oahu inoperable for a week or so. hey, i didnt write it - im just trying to land on Pearl and have some APs leftover after the fight! and if my bombing campaign is to be believed its 80 planes everyday, even if they only drop one bomb thats 560 a week - i would have thought that would make your runway a bit holey

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.5620117