The problem of major fort survival

[el cid again]

One of many problems with land combat is that a true fortress tends to lose FIRST the weapons which it should lose LAST. That is, Fort Drum will lose its few 14 inch guns early, instead of late or never.

Related to this, a fort tied to major supply sinks in other hexes by friendly LOC will tend to lose out in the supply allocation - instead of getting priority. I tried to "cheat" by giving Singapore Fortress 30,000 tons of undocumented, extra supply - but in days it is down to 1 month's supply requirement. A unit becomes stingy with its supply points only when it falls to its monthly requirement - and even then it will give up supplies to other units - even if it would not. I do not like that Fort Drum/Corregedor tend not to stay as strong as they should - losing in particular their heavy guns first. This because devices are killed by random numbers - and also apparently in listing order to some degree. Since we list heavy weapons first - and since in any case there are few of them - a minus 1 means you lost a big gun when the die rolls are right.

I may have found a workaround that will make selected static CD units tend to stay at near their full intended strength, even if the hex is not generating supply and other units keep sucking supply out of the unit. Testing.

[spence]

Test with the Japanese CDs...they shoot more, hit more and seem to do so regardless of supply level. You may find you have created the perfect invulnerable unit.

[el cid again]

Well - my present interest was generated by the rapid fall of Singapore - with five 15 inch guns in special mountings which are documented in one of the Warship series hard bound technical magazines. I have so far modified only major ALLIED coast defense units.

My intent is to require the guns be taken out by battle action (bombing, bombardment, defeat by an enemy ground unit in ground combat, etc) but NOT taken out by a lack of supply points - which now seems to happen more often than not in a protracted siege (in particular at Manila, where I have done extensive testing).

Making a unit tend to keep its squads should not make it invulnerable. Making it invulnerable to "vaporizing" due to supply status is not the same thing.

It is likely there are differences by nation/service for CD guns. But in general, in WITP, the Allies are rated better than the Japanese. That certainly should be the case for normal CD units. Japan did develop a fine - possibly the finest - coast defense forts in the world - but only at three sites - Aki, Iki and the Korean Coast near Pusan - to close the Tsushima Straits. In general, their CD units were not quite up to the same technical standards as Allied ones - in terms of rangefinder technology. Japan may have had better low level optics (e.g. for binoculars), and even ship rangefinders (see Yamato in particular), but the land based systems used a vertical system that could not provide the same accuracy as a widely dispersed horizontal base could do. IF - I have not noticed this - the Japanese CD are hard coded as more effective in general - I think that is incorrect. I will pay attention and see what there is to see? I suspect that it may be that you are seeing "more hits" only because (a) you play the Allies and they matter to you; (b) the Allies tend to make more landings with vastly more ships to hit; (c) the Japanese - after Makin Island showed their lack of defenses as a weakness - went over to using massive numbers of smaller CD guns - and to the extent this is represented in our data sets - you have a lot of guns firing and (d) smaller guns really do fire much more often than big ones, so they will score more hits (but do less damage per hit) than big guns will on the same number of targets. Allied CD units tend to have modest numbers of larger tubes - and statistically that will result in fewer hits - particularly when they get to shoot never (most places) or rarely (the rest) against a smaller number of targets.

What caused you to have this impression? What sorts of data did you see?

[spence]

I guess the most "impressive" display was when a group of IJN minesweeps cleared all the mines in Soerabaya Harbor without provoking a single shot from the CD units (30 odd 150 mm guns IIRC).  This in spite of 30000 supply or so.

Meanwhile The B-24s pound on the IJA CD unit on Kiska for a couple of months and the island is pretty much isolated and intense recon says there's 2 guns left on the island yet when the invasion comes those two guns fire 900 odd shots and sink about 5 or 6 of my minesweeps and proceed to damage a dozen transports.  Happened twice in two different PBEMs.

IRL the big CD units were never challenged (in the Pacific). The only CD unit that ever accomplished much was the one on Wake. The IJN/IJA ones got a hit on a ship now and again but really didn't amount to much.

 

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

I guess the most "impressive" display was when a group of IJN minesweeps cleared all the mines in Soerabaya Harbor without provoking a single shot from the CD units (30 odd 150 mm guns IIRC).  This in spite of 30000 supply or so.

Meanwhile The B-24s pound on the IJA CD unit on Kiska for a couple of months and the island is pretty much isolated and intense recon says there's 2 guns left on the island yet when the invasion comes those two guns fire 900 odd shots and sink about 5 or 6 of my minesweeps and proceed to damage a dozen transports.  Happened twice in two different PBEMs.

IRL the big CD units were never challenged (in the Pacific). The only CD unit that ever accomplished much was the one on Wake. The IJN/IJA ones got a hit on a ship now and again but really didn't amount to much.

 

Actually the number of 150s at Soerabaja is exactly HALF of 30 - that is 15. [See Naval Weapons of World War Two - which lists all shore mountings as well as ship mountings]

A minefield should be covered by fire - but one might not be able to see minesweepers in all conditions. When I told a very senior officer about minesweeping in Uncommon Valor - he said "I want some of those!" No minesweepers in history can do what our can do in the game - sweep AT FULL SPEED. Well - actually - anything can sweep mines that way - but it is going to get sunk clearing them! I tried mightily to change Matrix attitude about mines - but they went the other way - saying those who LIKE effective mines want a game that should be called "Mines in the Pacific"!

Anyway - since virtually nothing about mine warfare is very close to right - I suppose it is expecting too much for minefields to be covered by guns (which of course they are IRL).

As for Kiska -

a) Recon reports might not be right
b) Recon reports what you saw YESTERDAY - not what was fixed since then
c) CD guns are not the only thing that shoots "shots" at ships! Many weapons will in certain conditions - see the Manual. This is also quite correct.
d) Hundreds of tests have not produced a report of this sort. What mod were you playing?

As for the Japanese CD not amounting to much - IRL their big CD was never challenged - and we knew about them (see the Japanese Army Order of Battle). We didn't go where they were.

But the Japanese DID defeat our large CD guns - at Manila - and at Singapore. Granted it was not a "fair fight" vs ships.
They were no different than we were - they didn't challenge the big guns if there was any alternative. This may be a testimony that they were effective. Denial is a part of the mission. Japan bought gigantic four engine German bombers long before WWII - to use against Fort Drum. By the time war came, only three were still flying - soon broken up for scrap value of their immense airframes. Long before the US had a four engine bomber.

[el cid again]

I have applied the modifications to keep the big guns working only to three Japanese forts: Aki, Iki and Fusan's fort (which has a different name). [Aki and Iki are islands in the Tsushima strait - one in the middle - one near Kyushu]

I also applied them to Manila Bay defenses, Singapore, San Francisco, Panama City, a late war work in the Victoria BC hex, Fort Stevens (mouth of the Columbia) and Greys Harbor (Aberdeen/Hoquiam), Los Angelus, Seattle and San Diego.
There is some question if Seattle, Fort Stevens and Grey's Harbor should be on the list?

There are many other CD units - but the rest are a different sort of work - smaller guns - more guns usually- and for various reasons they do not have problems getting into action.

[Capt. Harlock]

ORIGINAL: spence


IRL the big CD units were never challenged (in the Pacific). The only CD unit that ever accomplished much was the one on Wake. The IJN/IJA ones got a hit on a ship now and again but really didn't amount to much.

IIRC the invasion of Tarawa was such a challenge -- but the fight was over before it could be historically interesting. Colorado managed to stick a shell in the magazine of the eight-inchers on that side of the island. But without that stroke of luck, things might have gone differently for the landing force.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

One of many problems with land combat is that a true fortress tends to lose FIRST the weapons which it should lose LAST. That is, Fort Drum will lose its few 14 inch guns early, instead of late or never.

Related to this, a fort tied to major supply sinks in other hexes by friendly LOC will tend to lose out in the supply allocation - instead of getting priority. I tried to "cheat" by giving Singapore Fortress 30,000 tons of undocumented, extra supply - but in days it is down to 1 month's supply requirement. A unit becomes stingy with its supply points only when it falls to its monthly requirement - and even then it will give up supplies to other units - even if it would not. I do not like that Fort Drum/Corregedor tend not to stay as strong as they should - losing in particular their heavy guns first. This because devices are killed by random numbers - and also apparently in listing order to some degree. Since we list heavy weapons first - and since in any case there are few of them - a minus 1 means you lost a big gun when the die rolls are right.

I may have found a workaround that will make selected static CD units tend to stay at near their full intended strength, even if the hex is not generating supply and other units keep sucking supply out of the unit. Testing.

By the 1930's only fully casemented guns stand any chance of surviving long in the face of air power and plunging ship fire. The only fully protected guns in Manila was Fort Drum. All the rest of the gun emplacements had no overhead cover, and were by treaty not permitted to be modified.

[el cid again]

This is quite true - but note that the Guns at Manila Bay and Subic Bay (a sort of sideshow of Manila Bay) were remarkably effective - although only Fort Drum was wholly undamaged and technically able to close the Bay all by itself - if only there was food for the men on board! [It was treated like a ship. It also looked like a ship, and was nicknamed "the concrete battleship." In spite of which, although it used 14 inch guns, it had ARMY turrets.]

There is a new Osprey book on The Defenses of Manila Bay - and The Concrete Battleship about Fort Drum was the first to disclose that the fort considered not honoring Gen Waynewright's order to surrender - but the issue of food forced them do to so. I think that means that the defense of Manila Bay should have been left to a well stocked Fort Drum - and the main defense put on the disease free mountains - withdraw from Clark NORTHEAST into the mountains - rice growing - and deny Japan the biggest copper mine in Asia, the gold fields, etc. You might last the entire war up there. Meanwhile, Manila port is just as closed (by Fort Drum) as by an entire Army. Indeed - how does an Army on Bataan stop ships in Manila Bay? Only the big guns do that. The unprotected, open big guns - except for Fort Drum. Keep the other batteries - by all means. Back them up with some infantry. But the main army should fight in disease free territory - with mountains and swift rivers every few km - and nearly unlimited food availability (it is two crop per year rice country).

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
By the 1930's only fully casemented guns stand any chance of surviving long in the face of air power and plunging ship fire. The only fully protected guns in Manila was Fort Drum. All the rest of the gun emplacements had no overhead cover, and were by treaty not permitted to be modified.

Don't buy this for a moment. The Japanese had total air superiority over the Philippines for months and only managed to put one "big gun" permenantly "out-of-action". The guns and mountings were designed to withstand the enomous stresses of their own firing; and short of a direct hit on the mounting itself, they were very resistant to damage.

[el cid again]

US ammunition was well protected - and almost impossible to spot from the sea or air. Attackers pretty much had to hit the guns - or their control towers - and then the guns could still fire on an emergency basis. Many problems plagued the guns at Manila Bay - including enemy artillery - threatened overrun by enemy infantry - gross (and in my view inexcusable) problems with food supply - and others. Air attack SHOULD have been a worse problem than it was. Japan focused its attacks on Fort Drum - believing that was the big deal - and planed 26 feet of concrete off the top! But not one system went down. Had they dropped bombs and shells in the same amount on the open guns, they probably would have done better.