Naval Bombardments - too weak?

[John Lansford]

Well, it was a daytime bombardment, so even if the gunners had all been rookies I'd think they could see where 3500+ troops were hiding on Baker, and manage to at least hit the island.
 
For that matter, if 3500 troops were on Baker, they'd almost have to be standing in formation to keep their feet dry, especially when you throw in the base support equipment, supplies, fuel, planes, etc.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Well, it was a daytime bombardment, so even if the gunners had all been rookies I'd think they could see where 3500+ troops were hiding on Baker, and manage to at least hit the island.

For that matter, if 3500 troops were on Baker, they'd almost have to be standing in formation to keep their feet dry, especially when you throw in the base support equipment, supplies, fuel, planes, etc.

Does the game code resolve area down smaller that the hex? IOW, are the relative sizes of RL islands taken into account in figuring bombarment outcomes?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Well, it was a daytime bombardment, so even if the gunners had all been rookies I'd think they could see where 3500+ troops were hiding on Baker, and manage to at least hit the island.

For that matter, if 3500 troops were on Baker, they'd almost have to be standing in formation to keep their feet dry, especially when you throw in the base support equipment, supplies, fuel, planes, etc.

According to Wikipedia Baker Island is almost 2/3 of a square mile. I once lived in a city that had about 40,000 people living in the 2/3 of a square mile that was residential, and that included houses, streets, parks.

I'm not saying that Baker should hold 40,000 (or even close) under combat conditions, but I am saying that standing room only (the way you describe it) gets you way, way more than 3,500.

The troops could certainly be missed by bombardment, and as pointed out previously some of the bombardment might be in the surf.

[John Lansford]

You've got to deduct out the airstrip and supply dumps from that 2/3 of a square mile though, and unless that garrison is building multistory homes then they are far more spread out than a city with 40,000 people living in it.  I'm just saying that Baker isn't so large that it would be easy to hide from 6 BB's throwing shells at you in the daytime.

[witpqs]

Foxholes, smoke, bunkers... they hid plenty for real in WWII.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

You've got to deduct out the airstrip and supply dumps from that 2/3 of a square mile though, and unless that garrison is building multistory homes then they are far more spread out than a city with 40,000 people living in it.  I'm just saying that Baker isn't so large that it would be easy to hide from 6 BB's throwing shells at you in the daytime.

John. You are correct that Baker or Wake or many other atolls/islands are severely lacking in real estate to hide in. AE dealt with this by limiting the size of the garrisons of such "micro-islands". Bombardments were more effective in WITP..., but you could also stack an Army on Baker Island.

It ain't perfect..., but it's gotten better. [8D]

[spence]

Basically I prefer the AE version of Naval Bombardments. The results obtained routinely by IJN warships (especially) bombarding airfields, etc in WitP were based on exactly one result obtained by IJN warships and routinely overstated the results against troops of even that one result by a factor of 10-100 (the real BB bombardment killed or wounded only about 150 troops: did do a nice job on the planes/runways though). Since the IJN always managed to get out of range of SBDs/TBFs in the ensuing day phase (IRL there would be quite a few IJN ship captains who probably did not realize they were out of range of Henderson Field on the morning after as the bombs came down) the tactic was grossly overused.

Just an aside. Is there any source of fresh water on Baker Island (sorta doubt it)? Midway made water with a desalinization plant (famous ruse to confirm Objective MI). Water probably was the really really limiting factor for garrisons on those little atolls. Seems like it would be hard to hide a desalinization plant from shells and bombs although I don't remember the Japanese targetting the one(s) on Midway (maybe it was because they thought it was OOC).

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: spence
Just an aside. Is there any source of fresh water on Baker Island (sorta doubt it)? Midway made water with a desalinization plant (famous ruse to confirm Objective MI). Water probably was the really really limiting factor for garrisons on those little atolls. Seems like it would be hard to hide a desalinization plant from shells and bombs although I don't remember the Japanese targetting the one(s) on Midway (maybe it was because they thought it was OOC).

An aside, and I don't know about Baker, but Diego Garcia, another atoll, has a "water lens" underground where a non-porus layer of rock/coral has a free space above and coral and topsoil above that. Wells work OK there, but base management is very careful to manage drawdown from the lens so that sea water doesn't seep into gaps. When I was there we never had "water hours" or any restrictions, but it also rained a fair bit too.

[Admiral Scott]

Anyone notice the #33 tweak listed with the new beta patch?

33. Tweaked Ship bombardment affecting port base.

Whats does this tweak do exactly?

[crsutton]

I am Ok with it. Sneak bombardments were rare and usually ineffective. Both sides did not like risking large warships in restricted waters. They were essentially raids and not like the deliberate sustained bombardments that the Allies used later in the war. No ship to shore fire control and very little chance to spot from aircraft at night. What do you expect?

[lolz]

gotta agree,naval bomb. are just fine

[HHI]

Although it's been tweaked several times, the bombardment concept goes all the way back to UV to enable the Japanese to bombard Henderson and get out without being blasted by aircraft. It has oscillated in effectiveness all these years. It does not accommodate the bombardments carried out by the USN at all well, being designed to model the hit and run tactics required at Guadalcanal by the Japanese. US BB's still fire off all available ammunition in two shoots, even if set to 'remain on station', one night, one day. I have no idea how that compares to actual ammunition expended, since I don't know what a unit of fire is in A/E. My thought is that it is considerably short in comparison to reality.

I was not aware of the impact of DL on the bombardment results, but it makes sense. I'll recon my next target very thoroughly.

Actual US bombardment results were very poor to very good. Tarawa's bombardment was woefully short, but much was learned through testing of emplacements built like those found on Tarawa. The bombardments at Kwajalein/Roi-Namur were devastating to the extent that the Japanese did not attempt to defeat landing at the beach after that. Iwo's bombardment was far short of that requested by the assault force, but probably would not have been effective in any event.

In my opinion, a sustained bombardment (whether Naval, air or artillery) should reduce the fortification level of the target and destroy guns. Daylight bombardment should be far more effective than night bombardment.

[jackyo123]

someone suggested a new bombardment mode, to go along with the 'nightime shoot n scoot' mode  - 'day long sustained' - a great idea really.

Expectations? Well, on a size one or 2 airfield, packed with close to a hundred planes, I would think 5 BB's would be able to wreck a lot of aircraft.... I picture a size 1 airfield as no more than a dirt strip and some fueling drums alongside - sort of like 'fighter 1' was at Henderson when it was first used.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Most player's expect the kind of destruction associated with a days-long deliberate fire exercise. But they want it all done in the safety (to them) of a high-speed in and out under cover of darkness. I've always wished the game had made the differentiation and offered both---"Day-Long Spotted Shoot" and "Night-Time Shoot and Scoot". Though even the first was a failure at Tarawa...

Agree with this as it pertains to troops. But not airfields. They were fixed locations, easily recon'd. There should at least be some significant airfield damage and plane damage. Easily repairable by the Allies and less so by the Japanese.

As for troops, even if the casualties are correctly low, the disruption should be signifcant.

[spence]

The "guarantee" of safety provided by the game's "shoot and scoot" bombardment mission would have been an interesting concept to the skipper of HIJMS Kinugasa amongst others (Kinugasa was the biggest ship but by no means the only ship sunk by planes from Henderson Field after one of those RL IJN bombardments).

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Most player's expect the kind of destruction associated with a days-long deliberate fire exercise. But they want it all done in the safety (to them) of a high-speed in and out under cover of darkness. I've always wished the game had made the differentiation and offered both---"Day-Long Spotted Shoot" and "Night-Time Shoot and Scoot". Though even the first was a failure at Tarawa...

Agree with this as it pertains to troops. But not airfields. They were fixed locations, easily recon'd. There should at least be some significant airfield damage and plane damage. Easily repairable by the Allies and less so by the Japanese.

Not all that easy Mynok. Henderson Field was over a mile inland into the jungle of Guadalcanal..., so while the Japanese knew exactly where it was on a map, they still had to determine exactly where they were in relation to it to fire effectively. And figure it out at high speed, on a dark night, from several miles worth of identical-looking jungle coast. I wouldn't call it "easy"...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Mynok

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Most player's expect the kind of destruction associated with a days-long deliberate fire exercise. But they want it all done in the safety (to them) of a high-speed in and out under cover of darkness. I've always wished the game had made the differentiation and offered both---"Day-Long Spotted Shoot" and "Night-Time Shoot and Scoot". Though even the first was a failure at Tarawa...

Agree with this as it pertains to troops. But not airfields. They were fixed locations, easily recon'd. There should at least be some significant airfield damage and plane damage. Easily repairable by the Allies and less so by the Japanese.

Not all that easy Mynok. Henderson Field was over a mile inland into the jungle of Guadalcanal..., so while the Japanese knew exactly where it was on a map, they still had to determine exactly where they were in relation to it to fire effectively. And figure it out at high speed, on a dark night, from several miles worth of identical-looking jungle coast. I wouldn't call it "easy"...

Just use GPS! [:'(]

[jackyo123]

they used float plane flares to designate the field. Probably had spotters as well on Mt Austen

[John Lansford]

I thought the whole point of putting larger warships in the amphibious TF's was to simulate the NGFS ships firing at the defenses to soften them up.  IIRC that was how it was described before AE came out when we were asking for a new Invasion Support mission, rather than the one or two hour "bombardment raid" we have now.
 
The ships in the amphibious TF's now, though, appear to just respond to CD fire, and not a general "fire to keep their heads down" mission.