Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Coastal Defense Guns

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Coastal Defense Guns Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/18/2006 6:49:21 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

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".


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.

I am saying you are completely wrong in the sense of believing that coast defense guns would not produce results like you observe in the conditions you observed them. GIVE them targets they will hit them and hurt them.
I am a person used to analysing technical matters professionally, and using theory to create a model of what would happen in various circumstanes. I attempt to understand the physics, and also the organization involved. We never challenged the Tsu Shima Straits. Italy never challenged Gibraltar - except with submarines. Japan never challenged the Hawaii Separate Coast Artillery Brigade. But I can still tell you to expect results like you don't like if anyone did try such a thing. We long planned to invade Rabaul - but in the end did not - in part because to do so was going to be expensive. Landing elsewhere and going overland is not much better - it is worse for the troops in malarial country - and it gives you no proper line of supply. [Real world supplies do not instantly move over trails]. We long planned to Nuke Truk (too bad for the Trukese) - but the fleet was no longer there by the time we had a bomb to do it. The only major study of a challenge to a major defended place was the Japanese plan to invade Hawaii. And that plan is not understood in detail. But IF it had been attempted, and IF the fleet had arrived in Hawaiian waters strong enough to attempt it, it was clearly going to be a big problem. The only weakness was from the air - so presumably the plan was to exploit that by bombing the defenses - at least those in range of the landing area.


If Gibralter was in this game the CDs would obtain a better result than Jutland and Pearl Harbor combined. Cid, i respect your opinions and lots of your ideas and effort have merit but if you think that CDs are underpowered in the game I think I'll pass on RHS because it casts a shadow of suspicion on everything.


_____________________________





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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 151
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 11:03:29 AM   
Charles2222


Posts: 3993
Joined: 3/12/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


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.


I would say offhand that your Mr. Dower sounds like a bit of a putz. Won't be the first or last you meet in the academic world either. The board I refered to had free access to EVERYTHING concerning Japanese Coast Artillery. The war was over, the Japanese had lost, and they were being quite cooperative. While they might have destroyed evidence concerning Germ Research in Manchuria and the like, they had nothing to hide regarding Coast Artillery or AAA or Radar and other regular weapons. With the whole country living from hand to mouth on whatever the US brought in after the war, failure to cooperate might bring starvation. Why risk that to hide the range-finding gear on your unused CD guns?

And I can't buy your arguments about the Tokyo AAA. With the whole city and 100,000+ of their countrymen going up in flames around them, what would they be saving the ammunition for? To defend the rubble? Sometimes you just have to look at things from the viewpoint of common sense. Japanese AAA wasn't very goodl Their Fighters were OK when they had trained pilots and fuel, but their AAA just didn't cut the mustard. They didn't have nearly enough of the one "good to excellent" AAA gun they designed (the 100mm/65) and their fire control lagged behind as well. They HAD to resort to Kamikazes just to have a chance to get through US CAP and Flak. We had trouble with their CAP once in a while, but never with their AAA.


You might want to be careful that you don't venture into the "the USA AA was weak too, as PH proves". The Tokyo bombing at 6000 was every bit as much as surprise move as PH was in that they were so radically low and at night. Who would expect it? So why didn't they wipe all of Tokyo out then? You talk abotu saving ammo, and what better time to use it, right? Only problem is, if they were reacting poorly for that reason, what makes you think they knew it was such a great raid before it happened? Just like with PH being largely asleep at the time of that attack, isn't it possible that the AA crews were asleep or some such, resting up for the expected day attacks? Remember too, the USAAF wasn't doing night bombing in Europe by 4E's, so surely it's a big surprise, yes? The attack was planned as to achieve the maximum surprise and the maximum effectiveness. If this were any indicator of USAAF strategy, the reaction of the post-Schweinfurt raids would have been for the Germans to double up on night operations. I don't think either the Germans or Japanese had any idea whether the USA considering their raids successes or not. Sounds pretty reasonable aye?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 152
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 2:16:18 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Japan diodn't have any 4" AAA guns. They had a fairly effective 3.9" (100mm) AAA gun with a good reach and Rate of Fire, but poor Fire Direction compared to the US (who were mounting Radar Fire Control on their 40mm mounts by late in the war)


We are talking about the same gun. You are being a bit too precise and thus assuming it is not the same gun. Actually, Japan did have fine fire direction for its modern AAA guns - there were two versions of the set - one for the new 3 inch (a very rare weapon) and one for the new 4 inch.
The 3 inch was sort of a "Japanese 3 inch 50" - something we didn't get operational until after the war - but it is in the same class - actually slightly better as well as much sooner into operational service. [But foolishly, they didn't mass produce it.] The 4 inch they did mass produce, although in the event most were mounted on land, in spite of their design for shipboard use. These weapons were the ones on the rather outstanding AA destroyers - which were scaled down AA cruisers - a rather better idea than the Altanta class. These guns could elevate and traverse faster than other heavy dual purpose guns - certainly better than other Japanese guns and also better than virtually all foreign guns. They had high performance in terms of altitude, range and rate of fire.
But their greatest advantage was in fire control - both in the immediate sense and in the operational sense - because for the first time they were associated with proper specialist fire direction centers (or what at sea we would call a combat information center) - which in the case of the destroyers was located behind the bridge - a practice we later adopted and used on my own ship a generation later. The systems involved are rather different than ours, and neither the machines nor the terminology is understood by most Americans - including those who reported on them.
But "different" is not synonomous with "worse." Put another way, you don't want to be sailing or flying in range of these guns.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 153
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 2:25:30 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

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.


No stretch. A mobile Coast Defense Gun unit should be able to emplace and be operational - fully operational - in a matter of hours. It should be able to shoot even faster, but under local control, with less accuracy.

The reason major coast defense installations took years to make are two fold:

1) The really big weapons were fantastic. The US M1919 16 inch gun took about 30 months to cast - and was balanced to a degree it is difficult to express in lay English. Many more US and Japanese super heavy mountings used surplus naval guns, which were not quite so perfectly made, but which nevertheless took a very long time to build.

2) Partial or complete fortification and use of tunnels and underground excavations take time to make.

Such systems are inherantly not wartime ones - they can only be built in peacetime. Mobile CD units, on the other hand, are just that. They depend on concealment, not fortification, for protection. And they do not need the really elaborate rangefinders super guns do - since they don't shoot 15-20 nautical miles.

Note that effective ranges are always less than maximum ranges, and coast guns will tend not to engage until they sense a tactical advantage in doing so. Opening fire tends to disclose your position - so you don't do it for a small chance shot. You wait until it is a good chance shot - then you roll the dice - and keep shooting more good shots - accepting the risk that they may shoot back in the context you are likely to win the bet.

(in reply to adamc6)
Post #: 154
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 2:30:04 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
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.


Monter is right. At point blank range when you have good target information and can spot the fall of your shot, you might expect to score 5-6% hits. At long (not maximum, just long) range, under the most ideal conditions, you never get close to half a % hits. Anything less than ideal conditions means you NEVER hit. Hit rates on the order of 0.2% are common. This is 2 hits per THOUSAND shells fired. Naval gunnery combat is a very chancy thing - which is one reason sailors risk it. [You would find few willing to sail into battle if the odds were as good as ivory soap purity each shot would hit them!]


(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 155
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 2:38:06 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

The board I refered to had free access to EVERYTHING concerning Japanese Coast Artillery. The war was over, the Japanese had lost, and they were being quite cooperative.


This is either poor wording or it is completely false and you are dead wrong. While such bodies did have access to everything we captured, they by defintion did not have access to things we didn't see at all. Having personally found 8 cubic meters of documents more than 30 years later, I can testify with certainty they could not have "had free access to EVERYTHING concerning...(whatever subject)." It is also true that SOME Japanese were cooperating. I have a fine book - written by hand by an IJN commander and naval architect - a fabulous report on the state of the captured ships and their histories. But I have TWO books written by an IJA colonel who UNDER ORDERS evaded all contact with us until the amnisty was granted and who NEVER reported anything to us. After two terms in the Diet leading a nationalist party, he went undercover again in his area of expertise (SE Asia) and has totally disappeared from history.
For a good sense of this sort of thing, read the just published history of the Nakano school.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 156
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 3:02:46 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

While they might have destroyed evidence concerning Germ Research in Manchuria and the like, they had nothing to hide regarding Coast Artillery or AAA or Radar and other regular weapons.


This is an assumption, and while it sounds reasonable, it just is not true.
The situation is complicated (EVERYTHING about Japan is ALWAYS complicated - if it isn't someone is making a mistake - complicated is the nature of Japanese culture). And some of it is our fault! When we issued surrender instructions, we ORDERED units surrendering to destroy their weapons!!! Thus, the First Submarine Flotilla, which was at sea with a combat mission, jettisoned ALL its aircraft and fired all of its torpedoes - and we didn't get to examine any of them. More significantly, orders were issued to destroy records BEFORE the surrender could be executed, and the vast majority of records were so destroyed. Study of specific matters has revealed that some things were concealed too - in shrines - burried in yards - lots of places. Some documents were sealed in tunnels and caves which had the entrances collapsed in such a way it was not clear there had been anything there. Some were captured en route to Soviet agents, who were buying them - and presumably others were NOT captured but actually delivered. Still others were assigned to special teams which went to remote places in China to continue working. And I regret to say that more than a few were indeed captured or turned over to us, but NOT given to the regular boards to see - and worse NOT turned over for scholarly examination either. Sometimes these records were destroyed - officially due to "lack of funding" to preserve them - but really to insure they do not become available for examination at all. [In 2005 a US intelligence contractor heading an official eight man team ran into significant opposition by DOE and DOD in spite of having EVERY POSSIBLE clearance and nominal "total access" authority. He ended up working with some of us who have experience getting the archives out. He wanted to know WHY we are still hiding this stuff? We must guess - but (a) after WWII we didn't want some things in Soviet hands and (b) today we don't want those same things in terrorist hands - so some of this may have a reasonable motive associated with it - even if the methods are excessive - hiding it even from those with classified access!] IF TODAY those with a mission assigned by the White House and total access cannot get at wartime materials related to Japanese technology, you can bet no one did in 1946. I have helped some authors, and served on one joint committee, and so have a small clue how high the brick wall is around Japanese technologies. I think there are aspects of it that are quite financial - and I have other experiences which suggest that a good deal of what is not allowed to be declassified is related to what is embarassing - although that officially is not supposed to happen. There are also machines NOT described in ANY records. For example, a "reconnaissance type Kaiten" was captured in July 1945 near Panama City. There is NO record of any submarine or other vessel delivering it or even being available to reach those waters. There is NO record of such a kaiten being built in any shipyard or naval source. Yet this midget - it had a two man crew and 600 pounds of cargo (raw silk) - was for many years at a US museum on Oahu and today is available for inspection in Japan. It is not unusual to find information on things like radar or other electronics, fire control computers (which tend to be electromechanical in that age, but which can be electrical, fluidic, mechanical or even electronic), weapons and vehicles which contradict what you read in reports allegedly comprehensively reviewing the same subject.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 157
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 3:11:56 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

And I can't buy your arguments about the Tokyo AAA. With the whole city and 100,000+ of their countrymen going up in flames around them, what would they be saving the ammunition for?


Long before I had any opinion on this subject, I met an American demographer in Tokyo who was studying the great firebombing raid in April (it was two days long). The city had been reduced to a population of 3,200,000 by wartime evacuation (it had been around 7 million). After those two days of raids 1,200,000 were left. Surrounding districts reported that 1,200,000 people had made it from the city to safety in those areas. This left a difference of exactly a million - which the demographer felt might still have problems. All the birth records were destroyed. All the civil infractructure that normally would issue death records were destroyed. Most of the bodies were consumed - not even bones survived from people who jumped into rivers. [The same thing was reported at Dresden - people in basements were turned into soup].
There is little possibility that only 100,000 died - even in just that one raid.
And that was not the first major raid on Tokyo.

I am sympathetic with your reasoning. But we are talking about wartime Japan, not London. The IJA ran things, and it knew that we were planning to invade. They ordered fuel and ammunition conserved to fight the battle - in the hope of inflicting so many casualties we would give up.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 158
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 3:16:23 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Sometimes you just have to look at things from the viewpoint of common sense. Japanese AAA wasn't very goodl Their Fighters were OK when they had trained pilots and fuel, but their AAA just didn't cut the mustard


I am a US Navy anti-air warfare specialist who became interested in history and studied the history of this subject. I refer you to official USAAF analysis which indicates that Japanese AAA which "wasn't very good" cause MORE casualties than "their fighters" which "were OK." This is not a historical curiosity. In spite of the great publicity given to fighter pilots, the same thing can be said of the PLA in China - its anti-aircraft units (SAM and AAA) have had far more success than its fighters. The same thing was true in Germany. And for that matter in the UK. This is the NORMAL case - so if you are using "common sense" you might want to consider that when deciding what to believe.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 159
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 3:21:45 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

We're not talking VIETNAM El Cid ... we're talking World War II ... many years BEFORE Vietname and where the lessons learned during WWII were applied to Vietnam. Stick on subject and don't muddy the waters.


I AM on the subject and the water is perfectly clear. Vietnam was using WORLD WAR TWO era weapons - some of them actually were made during the war but all of them were designed then. It was also using WORLD WAR TWO era tactics and doctrine. We tended to forget the basics of army type artillery in a secondary coast defense role - but the Vietnamese (with uniformed Soviet and Chinese advisors and sometimes actual units) taught me to study the basics. The basics work. Today I belong to a (state) regiment which has ancient PRE WWI artillery - but I assure you that they not only work, they have missions.


(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 160
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 3:28:45 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

But then again we're talking about the Americans/Allies being able to do something better than the Japanese so once again that flies in the face of the standards of posting in this thread.


I am growing tired of this "Allies/Americans always have the best" stuff.
I am an American fighting man (the opening words of the Code of Conduct by the way). I am an American technical guy too. But this is getting silly: NO NATION had comparable optical fire control to Imperial Japan during WWII. NO NATION EVER before, during or since WWII had men who were specialists in night optics in the sense Japan had them. They were blindfolded by day, fed special diets, and other measures that we have never considered, much less practiced. The combination of technical optics and trained specialists were often more effective in combat than our radar systems were in 1942, and dangerously competative thereafter. Did you ever notice the gigantic "pagoda" tops of Japnese battleships and cruisers? These gave them a height advantage over other nations. More height = more detection range. The leaders in world optics were German and Japanese - not American - firms. [This has not changed either, although they have merged.] SECURE Americans don't have to think we are always best at everything!

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 161
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 3:33:49 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Funny El Cid. So many other people are willing to post hard facts to back up what they say.


I think it is funny you seem unable to identify a hard fact when stated.
What particular hard fact would impress you? I have yet to make anything up. Japan (as my first US Navy chief said, before I had a clue) had "the finest warships" going into World War II, and the most powerful naval striking force on the planet. Japan trained (and still trains) for night and heavy weather operations like no other navy - including ours. Japan had weapons and weapons control systems that were generally competative and often superior - including the best torpedos - the biggest guns - the best optics - and the worlds first computerized anti-aircraft plotting center. This is a tiny list of hard facts - why are you complaining? And what good would it to to amplify it to a hundred or even a thousand - if you won't accept them?

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 162
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 3:49:10 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

If Gibralter was in this game the CDs would obtain a better result than Jutland and Pearl Harbor combined. Cid, i respect your opinions and lots of your ideas and effort have merit but if you think that CDs are underpowered in the game I think I'll pass on RHS because it casts a shadow of suspicion on everything.


You are correct about Gibraltar. You are probably incorrect about CDs in the game - because it is an esoteric subject no longer studied professionally in the free world (PRC has new CD gun systems, but we do not). It is most unlikely any game designers understood how to give CD its due.

I have not played many turns of WITP - although I have played UV since version 1.0 which I regard as essentially similar in this regard. My opinion has no influence over how the code is written or wether CD is too strong as you think, or not strong enough as I think. I think it is odd to allow something like an opinion to color your thinking about a mod! The only thing I did to affect CD was to insure that the right weapons were put in the forts - for both sides - where they were missing. And that data was adopted by Andrew for CHS - because it was popular. Wow - it is almost as if you are saying "If you disagree with me you cannot do any good work, and I am no longer interested in it, in spite of having volunteered to help test it." I regret this is how you feel - but since I have no ability to affect the way the code is written - I could not do what you seem to want even if I wanted to try.

The truth is I do not know if the CD routine works well or badly. And neither do you. We probably will know pretty soon - so why not wait and see what it turnes out to be? I see enough design issues with WITP to think there probably are things wrong with the CD routine. But that does not mean it is not a fair "quick and dirty first pass" routine. It might be.
I have seen many results in UV which seemed quite in the range of possible. And your reports (and your opponents) seem ALSO to be misjudged - the results are NOT in the wrong ball park. But I bet the routine is not perfect and can be made better. When I see the code I will try to make it better in any sense you or anyone can show it is not considering this, or exaggerating that. I prefer to assume things work until data FORCES me to believe it is broken. This is a method - not a conclusion. I am open to the possibility the CD is not right. And I bet it isn't perfect. I just don't think most of the negative opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of real CD guns. There are lots of exceptions in naval history, but Adm Nelsons statement "no sailor but a fool" challenges CD guns remains a valid axiom.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 163
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 6:10:12 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

If Gibralter was in this game the CDs would obtain a better result than Jutland and Pearl Harbor combined. Cid, i respect your opinions and lots of your ideas and effort have merit but if you think that CDs are underpowered in the game I think I'll pass on RHS because it casts a shadow of suspicion on everything.


You are correct about Gibraltar. You are probably incorrect about CDs in the game - because it is an esoteric subject no longer studied professionally in the free world (PRC has new CD gun systems, but we do not). It is most unlikely any game designers understood how to give CD its due.

I have not played many turns of WITP - although I have played UV since version 1.0 which I regard as essentially similar in this regard. My opinion has no influence over how the code is written or wether CD is too strong as you think, or not strong enough as I think. I think it is odd to allow something like an opinion to color your thinking about a mod! The only thing I did to affect CD was to insure that the right weapons were put in the forts - for both sides - where they were missing. And that data was adopted by Andrew for CHS - because it was popular. Wow - it is almost as if you are saying "If you disagree with me you cannot do any good work, and I am no longer interested in it, in spite of having volunteered to help test it." I regret this is how you feel - but since I have no ability to affect the way the code is written - I could not do what you seem to want even if I wanted to try.

The truth is I do not know if the CD routine works well or badly. And neither do you. We probably will know pretty soon - so why not wait and see what it turnes out to be? I see enough design issues with WITP to think there probably are things wrong with the CD routine. But that does not mean it is not a fair "quick and dirty first pass" routine. It might be.
I have seen many results in UV which seemed quite in the range of possible. And your reports (and your opponents) seem ALSO to be misjudged - the results are NOT in the wrong ball park. But I bet the routine is not perfect and can be made better. When I see the code I will try to make it better in any sense you or anyone can show it is not considering this, or exaggerating that. I prefer to assume things work until data FORCES me to believe it is broken. This is a method - not a conclusion. I am open to the possibility the CD is not right. And I bet it isn't perfect. I just don't think most of the negative opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of real CD guns. There are lots of exceptions in naval history, but Adm Nelsons statement "no sailor but a fool" challenges CD guns remains a valid axiom.


My only point here is that if you seriously believe that CD defences are not overly effective (especially when you are all about correct data etc yet ignore the historical examples of CD vs warship exchanges and embrace pure conjecture regarding how CD systems would have faired, and painting al CDs with the same brush that your CD systems are), this causes one to suspect some of your other assumptions. Frankly, I can't believe your are ignoring facts and relying on what ifs.




_____________________________





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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 164
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 9:26:14 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

My only point here is that if you seriously believe that CD defences are not overly effective (especially when you are all about correct data etc yet ignore the historical examples of CD vs warship exchanges and embrace pure conjecture regarding how CD systems would have faired, and painting al CDs with the same brush that your CD systems are), this causes one to suspect some of your other assumptions. Frankly, I can't believe your are ignoring facts and relying on what ifs.


The Major problem here is that the game makes no worthwhile differentiation between Integrated Pre-War Coastal Defense Systems and the kind of Artillery placed during the war to defend a coastal position. You just can't compare such things. Oahu or Manilla Bay or Singapore or Tsushima Straits or Vladavostok were all created ass integrated systems over years. They had heavy calibre guns in well-sighted and protected positions interlinked with multiple fire control and spotting positions and controlled minefields supplied with tidal tables and total surveys of the area. Within the area they protected they could bring down very accurate fire very quickly. And whether they were defended in a turret or behind great banks of earth and concrete or simply by being located behind a hill, they were very difficult to spot and engage with any effectiveness. These were VERY tough nuts to crack, and all were delt with by avoiding them or approaching them from overland.

During the war, numbers of medium and light calibre guns were emplaced for Coast Defense purposes. These could discourage light naval forces and provide some protection against landings in the immediate
area. About the BEST result such installations could hope for was achieved at Wake. Light Japanese Naval forces tried to land an invasion force and were beaten off with some loss and a lot of humiliation.
When they came back with better support they were able to achieve their goal. Most of the Japanese held Islands that were invaded had some CD guns of some sort. At no time did they really effect the outcome.
Sometimes these guns (or just artillery that happened to sight it) would open fire on passing ships. Rarely is there any report of success..., though they sometimes caused the ships to give them a wider berth. In test results, the most successfull would probably have been the mid to late war USMC Coast Defense Bns with their improved fire control..., but since by that time the Japanese were in no position to "test" them, no actual results exist. Overall, you could say that these installations were usefull for discouraging light invasions and bombardments, but not for preventing a major efforts by heavy forces.
The best defended area by this type of installation was probably at Normandy, where the landing was made between the heavily defended areas at Cherbourg and Le Havre. The CD artillery caused problems, but didn't stop anything. The guns that were felt to be the greatest threat (the 5 French 155 mm that were supposedly emplaced at Pont du Hoc) turned out to be something of a joke found parked in an orchard with their crews nowhere to be found. Later when US BB's tried to support the attack on Cherbourg they were driven off rather quickly by the Coast Defense System that the Germans had inherited from the French and improved somewhat.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 165
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 10:11:36 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Mike Scholl:

You are generally treating field guns prepared to fire against landing forces as a coast defence guns. There is much difference between them. Coast defence guns of medium calliber had enough power to endanger even the biggest ships.

Also you are comparing three batteries at Wake (will be 12 guns?) to situation where 100 guns fired in game. That is completely wrong.

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 166
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 11:23:54 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Mike Scholl:

You are generally treating field guns prepared to fire against landing forces as a coast defence guns. There is much difference between them. Coast defence guns of medium calliber had enough power to endanger even the biggest ships.

Also you are comparing three batteries at Wake (will be 12 guns?) to situation where 100 guns fired in game. That is completely wrong.


What is wrong is treating mortars and infantry guns as dedicated CD guns. Just because the game makes no differentation between the two is no reason to assume all guns are like dedicated CDs. This is frankly ridiculous. If everything is going to be like the Guns of Navarone, their had better be a Gregerory Peck led invulnerable shock unit to counter them.


_____________________________





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

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 167
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 11:45:43 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


I am growing tired of this "Allies/Americans always have the best" stuff.


And a LOT of other people HAVE grown tired of YOUR constant Japanese are superior to anything the Allies had. Before you pull that line El Cid you may want to read all of your posts.

We admit the Japanese had things better than the Allies but what YOU won't admit (and will post your regular dozen rebuttals to per post) is that the Japanese may NOT have been superior in everything.



_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 168
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/19/2006 11:48:13 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Funny El Cid. So many other people are willing to post hard facts to back up what they say.


I think it is funny you seem unable to identify a hard fact when stated.
What particular hard fact would impress you? I have yet to make anything up. Japan (as my first US Navy chief said, before I had a clue) had "the finest warships" going into World War II, and the most powerful naval striking force on the planet. Japan trained (and still trains) for night and heavy weather operations like no other navy - including ours. Japan had weapons and weapons control systems that were generally competative and often superior - including the best torpedos - the biggest guns - the best optics - and the worlds first computerized anti-aircraft plotting center. This is a tiny list of hard facts - why are you complaining? And what good would it to to amplify it to a hundred or even a thousand - if you won't accept them?


We (or I) won't accept it because you don't post any of your facts. When someone asks for you to do so we get a response like this which is nothing more than rhetoric implying that you know what you're talking about and we should just accept it. That's not going to fly El Cid.

If you're going to make all these claims about how superior Japan was in World War II (I could care less about present day because that's immaterial to the WWII discussion) then BACK IT UP WITH FACTS INSTEAD OF YOUR RHETORIC.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 169
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/20/2006 1:31:14 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Mike Scholl:

You are generally treating field guns prepared to fire against landing forces as a coast defence guns. There is much difference between them. Coast defence guns of medium calliber had enough power to endanger even the biggest ships.

Also you are comparing three batteries at Wake (will be 12 guns?) to situation where 100 guns fired in game. That is completely wrong.


You need to check your facts. There were 4 5"/51 Naval guns at Wake. Coast Defense guns of Medium Calibre were usually 6" (or 152mm) 6.1" (or 155mm) or 8" (203 mm). Obviously able to engage cruisers, but a bit small for threatening BB's. The only difference between a Field Gun and a Naval Gun is the Mounting and the Fire Control. Look at French Light Cruisers of the period..., they all mount 6.1" Guns,
The same as their 155mm field guns. I think you are confusing "guns" with "howitzers". A field howitzer was seldom used in the CD role because of the lower muzzle velocity and penetraiting power. Though the larger ones (240 mm and up) were used as CD artillery in the same matter as heavy CD Mortars.

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 170
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/20/2006 2:11:40 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

My only point here is that if you seriously believe that CD defences are not overly effective (especially when you are all about correct data etc yet ignore the historical examples of CD vs warship exchanges and embrace pure conjecture regarding how CD systems would have faired, and painting al CDs with the same brush that your CD systems are), this causes one to suspect some of your other assumptions. Frankly, I can't believe your are ignoring facts and relying on what ifs.


I see. I understand too. While for the average person looking at history may be a good way to get a sense of what is possible, it is not the ideal way. As a technical guy it was my job to understand the physics (and organization and tactics) in order to make things better IRL. This same habit of thinking allows me to be able to understand what would happen in a situation that really did not occur. More than that, however, you are failing to use what didn't happen as POSITIVE EVIDENCE. It was certainly possible to challenge CD units over a span of decades - and years of actual major war. The fact that admirals elected NOT to try is direct evidence of their opinion about what the outcome would be. I spent years working in the aerospace industry - where ALL designs are simulated for years before they really cut metal. We have learned how to understand things so well we never design planes that won't fly any more - something which once was common. It isn't that we don't get it wrong - it is that theory allows us to figure it out before we build it. It may be we can only estimate the top speed in a simulator - and we need a real world test to know it exactly - but our estimate is going to be very close. You seem uncomfortable with going the route of theory - but this is well understood - and it produces real knowledge and useful truth. Your discomfort with this approach does not mean it is a bad one - or that any analysis based on a comprehensive understanding of the science is wrong.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 171
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/20/2006 2:19:56 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

My only point here is that if you seriously believe that CD defences are not overly effective (especially when you are all about correct data etc yet ignore the historical examples of CD vs warship exchanges and embrace pure conjecture regarding how CD systems would have faired, and painting al CDs with the same brush that your CD systems are), this causes one to suspect some of your other assumptions. Frankly, I can't believe your are ignoring facts and relying on what ifs.


I see. I understand too. While for the average person looking at history may be a good way to get a sense of what is possible, it is not the ideal way. As a technical guy it was my job to understand the physics (and organization and tactics) in order to make things better IRL. This same habit of thinking allows me to be able to understand what would happen in a situation that really did not occur. More than that, however, you are failing to use what didn't happen as POSITIVE EVIDENCE. It was certainly possible to challenge CD units over a span of decades - and years of actual major war. The fact that admirals elected NOT to try is direct evidence of their opinion about what the outcome would be. I spent years working in the aerospace industry - where ALL designs are simulated for years before they really cut metal. We have learned how to understand things so well we never design planes that won't fly any more - something which once was common. It isn't that we don't get it wrong - it is that theory allows us to figure it out before we build it. It may be we can only estimate the top speed in a simulator - and we need a real world test to know it exactly - but our estimate is going to be very close. You seem uncomfortable with going the route of theory - but this is well understood - and it produces real knowledge and useful truth. Your discomfort with this approach does not mean it is a bad one - or that any analysis based on a comprehensive understanding of the science is wrong.


Theory is fine in the absence of fact, but the reality is there is lots of fact which illustrates that crediting non sepecialized CD guns with specialized capability is in error. Correcting this should be paramount before applying theory and conjecture.

Also, earlier I said that I could not find one example of CDs bitch slapping ships as in the original posts since the onset of iron clad warships, and still can't. Why have you been using references to Nelson etc when clearly we have passed the period of heated shot and wooden ships?


_____________________________





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

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 172
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/20/2006 2:21:53 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

The Major problem here is that the game makes no worthwhile differentiation between Integrated Pre-War Coastal Defense Systems and the kind of Artillery placed during the war to defend a coastal position. You just can't compare such things. Oahu or Manilla Bay or Singapore or Tsushima Straits or Vladavostok were all created ass integrated systems over years. They had heavy calibre guns in well-sighted and protected positions interlinked with multiple fire control and spotting positions and controlled minefields supplied with tidal tables and total surveys of the area. Within the area they protected they could bring down very accurate fire very quickly. And whether they were defended in a turret or behind great banks of earth and concrete or simply by being located behind a hill, they were very difficult to spot and engage with any effectiveness. These were VERY tough nuts to crack, and all were delt with by avoiding them or approaching them from overland.

During the war, numbers of medium and light calibre guns were emplaced for Coast Defense purposes. These could discourage light naval forces and provide some protection against landings in the immediate
area. About the BEST result such installations could hope for was achieved at Wake. Light Japanese Naval forces tried to land an invasion force and were beaten off with some loss and a lot of humiliation.
When they came back with better support they were able to achieve their goal. Most of the Japanese held Islands that were invaded had some CD guns of some sort. At no time did they really effect the outcome.
Sometimes these guns (or just artillery that happened to sight it) would open fire on passing ships. Rarely is there any report of success..., though they sometimes caused the ships to give them a wider berth. In test results, the most successfull would probably have been the mid to late war USMC Coast Defense Bns with their improved fire control..., but since by that time the Japanese were in no position to "test" them, no actual results exist. Overall, you could say that these installations were usefull for discouraging light invasions and bombardments, but not for preventing a major efforts by heavy forces.
The best defended area by this type of installation was probably at Normandy, where the landing was made between the heavily defended areas at Cherbourg and Le Havre. The CD artillery caused problems, but didn't stop anything. The guns that were felt to be the greatest threat (the 5 French 155 mm that were supposedly emplaced at Pont du Hoc) turned out to be something of a joke found parked in an orchard with their crews nowhere to be found. Later when US BB's tried to support the attack on Cherbourg they were driven off rather quickly by the Coast Defense System that the Germans had inherited from the French and improved somewhat.


This is a good post. I agree with you about 90%. I am not sure, however, that anything you say justifies your conclusion. It appears that the game system models the guns properly for anti-ship combat - the database is flawed with respect to land targets if only because it is inconsistent - often rating weapons with zero values that are fictional.
It appears that, within the limits it is good for sea gun combat, the CD is modeled properly for weapon effects. You are probably right - it probably does not model the fire control advantages of the major forts - I was shocked to kill Fort Drum in a day in the first week of the war! But note that IF this criticism is valid, I am right, and CD is not effective enough - the opposite of Ron's charge it is too effective! The code probably treats CD guns as "land based ships" with no special advantage. But IF we change that, CD will (for some locations) become MORE effective - not less. Nothing about this idea (that the game does not model the big forts to full advantage) indicates there is a fundamental problem with ordinary CD guns.

My own concerns in real world operations have been entirely with the use of 122, 130, 152 and 155mm weapons - there are no big guns any more.
And these are surely all deadly weapons - albiet much more so to unarmored ships than to armored ones. But the game does appear to allow "hits" with no significant damage on armored ships - so it is not clear the system is broken.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 173
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/20/2006 2:24:20 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

What is wrong is treating mortars and infantry guns as dedicated CD guns. Just because the game makes no differentation between the two is no reason to assume all guns are like dedicated CDs. This is frankly ridiculous. If everything is going to be like the Guns of Navarone, their had better be a Gregerory Peck led invulnerable shock unit to counter them.


How do we know how the game treats these things? How do we know that there is a problem here? I can see how it might be a problem - but not seeing the algorithms - I do not see how we know it is.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 174
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/20/2006 2:33:31 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

We admit the Japanese had things better than the Allies but what YOU won't admit (and will post your regular dozen rebuttals to per post) is that the Japanese may NOT have been superior in everything.


Wow. Boy are you confused. You may search in vein for a single statement by me that "the Japanese are superior in everything." They clearly were not. Further, it is my view that the Japanese were "overspecialized" - that they built doctrines and machines to fulfill them that only worked if the enemy "cooperated" (behaved as expected). Once these were understood, it became possible to render them ineffective, and the over-specialized stuff was ill suited to be used in some other way (with some exceptions).

I think you are confusing debating skill with an overall evaluation. Just because I defend an idea - or attack an idea - with strong words, facts and logic does not tell you ANYTHING about my OVERALL evaluation of the Japanese - reread the above to get a sense of that. I am NOT a JFB in the terms of this board - and I will go on as long as you like on any subject - good or bad - on either side. I am a nit picker and I don't like things that are misstated - so I attack things which are incomplete or wrong in my view. But do not think I cannot similarly criticize systems or concepts of Japan or any other nation. You are jumping to wholly unwarranted conclusions to think I believe, or ever even one time said, Japan is always best. It was not. It just is a whole LOT better than uninformed American opinion had it at the time, and somewhat better than semi-informed American opinion has it at this time. Lots of esoteric information indicates we really still underrate what we faced. If you think about it, that only means we did even better than we thought we did - it is not really a criticism of us we beat people with better stuff than we understand!

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 175
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/20/2006 2:46:32 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

We (or I) won't accept it because you don't post any of your facts.


Go study English. To make a statement that is true is to post a fact. You are NOT saying I don't post any facts - you are saying I didn't give you sources for them. That is different entirely. And it also is false. You will find that I have cited books, and in a few cases stated that I am the source, being an eyewitness to this or that. You are either completely ignoring this, or you wish to have some sort of scholarly citation - which is not really appropriate to a general discussion board. I am doing other things - and I don't have time to look up every thing to scholarly standards - and will not do so for someone who is disrecpectful and not going to believe it anyway. You already "know" I am wrong - what is the point trying to impress you. You also won't believe anything I may have seen on a physical site, in a physical form in a museum, or in Japanese - since you won't trust my translation. [This latter is slightly justified: Japanese is HARD to read - it was NEVER properly read even in the era it was written - and it is IMPOSSIBLE to know now what terms of art meant when no living person can explain them. A typical sentence in Japanese only implies a subject - the reader must make assumptions and guess - fill in the blank if you prefer. The idea that boards of experts actually understood the documents in front of them is ludicrous - they didn't understand much at all. I am associated with one of only seven Japanese language immersion schools in all of North America - a school entirely staffed with native Japanese speakers who are also linguists with masters degrees. NOT ONE of these could translate the title of a book I have on I 400 properly - it took me over a year to figure it out. They rendered a word intended to mean "hypothetical" as "etherial" in English. I would not be offended if you felt my translation was wrong in the sense that NO ONE has a comprehensive grasp of these old documents. But I AM offended because you "know" I MUST be wrong in concluding we grossly underrate the technology we face - in spite of the fact I am probably right more than 9 times in 10.) I see no point in trying to deal with your attitude. ONLY IF you are actually interested in how one can know what is not widely known - and that probably includes learning some Japanese - is there any point in getting really specific about how we know what we know. If you begin by knowing we can't know that- you will only accept my saying "yeah - you are right - and I don't know anything." But, as you can guess, I won't say that.

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 176
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/20/2006 2:55:57 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

We (or I) won't accept it because you don't post any of your facts.


Go study English. To make a statement that is true is to post a fact. You are NOT saying I don't post any facts - you are saying I didn't give you sources for them. That is different entirely. And it also is false. You will find that I have cited books, and in a few cases stated that I am the source, being an eyewitness to this or that. You are either completely ignoring this, or you wish to have some sort of scholarly citation - which is not really appropriate to a general discussion board. I am doing other things - and I don't have time to look up every thing to scholarly standards - and will not do so for someone who is disrecpectful and not going to believe it anyway. You already "know" I am wrong - what is the point trying to impress you. You also won't believe anything I may have seen on a physical site, in a physical form in a museum, or in Japanese - since you won't trust my translation. [This latter is slightly justified: Japanese is HARD to read - it was NEVER properly read even in the era it was written - and it is IMPOSSIBLE to know now what terms of art meant when no living person can explain them. A typical sentence in Japanese only implies a subject - the reader must make assumptions and guess - fill in the blank if you prefer. The idea that boards of experts actually understood the documents in front of them is ludicrous - they didn't understand much at all. I am associated with one of only seven Japanese language immersion schools in all of North America - a school entirely staffed with native Japanese speakers who are also linguists with masters degrees. NOT ONE of these could translate the title of a book I have on I 400 properly - it took me over a year to figure it out. They rendered a word intended to mean "hypothetical" as "etherial" in English. I would not be offended if you felt my translation was wrong in the sense that NO ONE has a comprehensive grasp of these old documents. But I AM offended because you "know" I MUST be wrong in concluding we grossly underrate the technology we face - in spite of the fact I am probably right more than 9 times in 10.) I see no point in trying to deal with your attitude. ONLY IF you are actually interested in how one can know what is not widely known - and that probably includes learning some Japanese - is there any point in getting really specific about how we know what we know. If you begin by knowing we can't know that- you will only accept my saying "yeah - you are right - and I don't know anything." But, as you can guess, I won't say that.


I don't need to study English El Cid. You post rhetoric you CLAIM are facts and never post your sources so people can determine for themselves whether they are in fact sources or just your beliefs. You have never posted your sources the way other people have and when people ask for your sources your standard response is you don't have time.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 177
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/20/2006 2:56:14 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

You need to check your facts. There were 4 5"/51 Naval guns at Wake. Coast Defense guns of Medium Calibre were usually 6" (or 152mm) 6.1" (or 155mm) or 8" (203 mm). Obviously able to engage cruisers, but a bit small for threatening BB's. The only difference between a Field Gun and a Naval Gun is the Mounting and the Fire Control. Look at French Light Cruisers of the period..., they all mount 6.1" Guns,
The same as their 155mm field guns. I think you are confusing "guns" with "howitzers". A field howitzer was seldom used in the CD role because of the lower muzzle velocity and penetraiting power. Though the larger ones (240 mm and up) were used as CD artillery in the same matter as heavy CD Mortars.


In a way, both of you are correct. Mike is right - most CD guns are not specialist weapons - they are remounted field guns or naval guns. Monter is right, the way they are used is threatening even to protected ships. But Mike is right that a 5 inch gun (4.7 or 5.5) is not going to penetrate the side armor of a battleship. Penetration for a high velocity rifle (in the range 27,000 to 30,000 fps) at short range is 1.75 times caliber - that corresponds to 210 mm for a 120 mm gun, 228 mm for a 130, and 245 mm for a 140 mm gun (which are, respetively, 4.7 inch, 5.1 inch and 5.5 inch guns for those who don't speak metric). That should not matter much to a battleship with 12 inches (305 mm) of armor - if matter means sinking. But it DOES matter in terms of wreaking the fire control systems, starting fires, killing lots of people, etc - even for a battleship. Anyone on deck, manning a gun tub, is in trouble if a 5 inch battery opens up in effective range. So are the officers and lookouts and signalmen on the bridge wing. As I say - both of you are right.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 178
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/20/2006 3:01:10 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Theory is fine in the absence of fact, but the reality is there is lots of fact which illustrates that crediting non sepecialized CD guns with specialized capability is in error. Correcting this should be paramount before applying theory and conjecture.


These "facts" are false. Simply false. Talk to a regular artilleryman. My best friend and mentor (of 4 decades) served in US Army on 105s.
My present regiment is commanded by a group of ex-artillerymen - and they proudly maintain a battery of guns for us even though we are nominally light infantry. I don't know why you think ordinary artillery is not effective in a coast defense role, but give any competent artilleryman a realistic number of hours to set up observation posts, survey the firing sites, and fully establish an FDC - it is no longer safe to sail in range.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 179
RE: Coastal Defense Guns - 2/20/2006 3:03:47 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

We admit the Japanese had things better than the Allies but what YOU won't admit (and will post your regular dozen rebuttals to per post) is that the Japanese may NOT have been superior in everything.


Wow. Boy are you confused. You may search in vein for a single statement by me that "the Japanese are superior in everything." They clearly were not. Further, it is my view that the Japanese were "overspecialized" - that they built doctrines and machines to fulfill them that only worked if the enemy "cooperated" (behaved as expected). Once these were understood, it became possible to render them ineffective, and the over-specialized stuff was ill suited to be used in some other way (with some exceptions).

I think you are confusing debating skill with an overall evaluation. Just because I defend an idea - or attack an idea - with strong words, facts and logic does not tell you ANYTHING about my OVERALL evaluation of the Japanese - reread the above to get a sense of that. I am NOT a JFB in the terms of this board - and I will go on as long as you like on any subject - good or bad - on either side. I am a nit picker and I don't like things that are misstated - so I attack things which are incomplete or wrong in my view. But do not think I cannot similarly criticize systems or concepts of Japan or any other nation. You are jumping to wholly unwarranted conclusions to think I believe, or ever even one time said, Japan is always best. It was not. It just is a whole LOT better than uninformed American opinion had it at the time, and somewhat better than semi-informed American opinion has it at this time. Lots of esoteric information indicates we really still underrate what we faced. If you think about it, that only means we did even better than we thought we did - it is not really a criticism of us we beat people with better stuff than we understand!


I'm not confusing debating skill with overall evaluation El Cid. I'm pointing out the fact that your posts have ALWAYS been pro-Japanese biased and have NEVER been what people could honestly called objective. According to your posts the Japanese can do EVERYTHING better than the allies and when anybody disagrees with you you resort to your long multiple posts in attempts to bombard people into submission.

I'm surprised and astonished that you only posted a mere TWO posts to my one as you usually tend to get more rebuttal posts out of what other people post.

And as far as I am concerned, and others who have been in touch with me, you are one of the premier JFBs El Cid.

You are not a nitpicker El Cid ... you just can't seem to bear that people disagree with you especially when that disagreement seems to mean that the Japanese weren't as superior as you imagine they were.

I'm not asking anybody to be an Allied Fan Boy or a Jap Fan Boy but just be objective and realistic. When you post something that is objective and can -- and WILL -- back it up with your sources instead of all your rhetoric then you can shed yourself of the label of JFB.

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.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Coastal Defense Guns Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.453