CD fire issues

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Having explored the Puget Sound Triangle of Fire I do know for a fact that in case of enemy bombardment/invasion, part of the procedure involved an officer rowing out to the enemy battlefleet in order to assign them their proper positions in the anchorage. That way all the effort put into those pre-arranged fire lanes woudn't go to waste. Chivalry in War is not dead after all.

Cricket, Eton, Olde Roast Beefe of England, Spithead, tommyrot, grogs all 'round, pip, pip, and whatnot.[:)]

The USA's shore battery "projects" history went from post-Revolution efforts like McHenry, through the founding of the USMA as an engineering school to train (you guessed it) shore battery builders, through RE Lee's time in the Corps of Engineers doing just that, through their utter failure to stop Union forces from re-taking 1) Norfolk, 2) Charleston, 3) New Orleans, on to Adm.. Dewey's antics at Manila Bay, and into the full-employment-for-shore-battery-guys 1920s and 30s.

In RL, armies just unload where the forts ain't and march overland to take them from the rear (as did Adm. Nelson and his merry men all through the Age of Sail. After the oak wood went away and fear of red-hot shot receeded, a lot less) (for other Great Moments in Shore Battery History, see "Drake at Cartagena", the "impenetrable fortress of the Spainsh Main.")

In AE not driving your invasion into the teeth of the CD emplacemnts is called "being gamey." Simply not sporting, Old Chap.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Bullwinkle

Yes, it was me talking about USS Tennessee.  Was hit by 6" shells off of Saipan (I think) and lost a secondary turret, but also silenced the battery in less than a minute after that.

Well, see, that's just crazy talk. "Everybody" knows that BBs are simply too unstable to hit anything.

Thanks for the memory help.

[seydlitz_slith]

So, to summarize,

1. Do not include warships in amphibous TFs if enemy CDs are present.
2. The CD/amphib TF routine will result in the loss or serious damage to the warships.
3. The current routine assumes that the warships steam into the anchorage and drop anchor at point blank range. Their guns can not depress enough to supress the CD units.
4. The warships will be the "meat shield" for the transports but even after they are destroyed damage will still be done to the transports.
5. If, however, you are trying to launch an invasion up a navigable river with CD forts protecting the river's mouth, you can safely sail past the forts without them engaging as long as you are in an amphibious TF. (See Rader's AAR...he is fighting Russia also and pulled this one off.)
6. Computer Admirals and Captains will stay in position like lemmings until their commands are totally destroyed. Retreat is not a consideration. In the binary world, these commanders are all zeroes.

I have to keep telling myself that the entire task force must have strayed into a dense and previously unmarked minefield as there is no other explaination for the loss of so many good ships.

It kind of goes like this You Tube Video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhFumDrxEE

[John Lansford]

Off of Tinian, USS Colorado was hit 22 times by shore batteries, and remained on the gunline providing fire support for a week before withdrawing for repairs.  Obviously she didn't have serious fires from these hits, or lost a lot of her firepower, or even serious flooding.  There's a photo floating around of her after this peppering, and several of the holes were in the blisters and outer plating near the waterline.

Also, off of Okinawa USS Tennessee was hit by a kamikaze that basically wiped out one complete side of her superstructure mounted weaponry; it hit at the flag bridge and cartwheeled down the superstructure, spraying burning gasoline and tearing up gun positions, until the fuselage and 550# bomb reached the aft end, where both penetrated the main deck and exploded.  Again, the ship did not leave the firing line for several days and even then an AR made the necessary repairs.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

So, to summarize,

1. Do not include warships in amphibous TFs if enemy CDs are present.

I'd say, based on my results, that #1 is key. Total damage to total ships appears to be less if you leave out the big guns from the landing forces. Suppression does not net out positive against total ship losses. If the big guns are absent, I "think", from very limited observation, that the CD batteries lighten up on the amphibs. This could be randoms though.

Also, tonight, I found out that pretty much every AE and AKE I have is suffering from the -65k bug discussed in the tech forum. This makes them useless for re-loading BBs. So, since I don't monitor ammo very often when I think it's being re-loaded by my trusty AE/AKE, my suppression fire may have not included the big guns. I knew about two AEs being screwed at Darwin; tonight I checked and I have three more that way at Saipan. Grain of salt time.

[Dili]

My BB's had "escorts don't bombard" when they shelled Miri and got 20+ system damage for their troubles. Unless that base had 14" guns firing back at them I don't see how they got hit if they were standing offshore out of range. As for your cruiser 8" guns' penetration values, what are they at 2000 yds?

Sorry, my comment was to a player that send the battleships with invasion forces.

My 8" data is at muzzle so 0 yds.

[bklooste]

The code should be changed that cant you do more than 60 fire or 40 sys without penetrating period this would represent most of the super structure lost.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Anyway, I faintly remember (I'm no code expert) that penetration (the chance of penetrating hits) increases at lower ranges (well, it certainly should). And even a 180mm gun would be able to penetrate battleship armor at 2,000 yards. Thusfar I see no problems with the results.

Yes, penetration increases as the range decreases. But not to a great degree. A loooooonnnnnnng time ago, I posted some results from cruiser surface action (HMAS Canberra vs. Mogami) and complained because I had 1 CA and 3 CL's vs Mogami and not a single hit penetrated, even the 4 8" hits at 1k yards. I wasn't lucky enough to get a torpedo hit on her, so she steamed away (from PM to 2 hexes from Rabaul the next phase). She moderately damaged 3 CL's and took 45 non penetrating hits.

I know that the surface routine has since been modified, but not in regards to penetration (I think).

So, basically, if I couldn't get 8" hits to penetrate a CA at 1k yards, then those Russian CD 180mm hits won't penetrate BB armor at 2k yards.

The routine changed so that there are more superstructure hits. If a BB was hit 150 times, it's probable that 50 of them were penetrating hits on the superstructure. The BB would have SYS and Fire damage of 99 by the end of that ordeal. (which will sink it that turn, or the next.)

I think the CD routine is working well. But, ships and invasion task forces should have a logical withdrawal option. There's no logical reason that a BB would take the punishment as suicide instead of retreating.

[bklooste]

Right! But if the attacking ship is to have ANY chance of hitting it's own targets, it can't be out there maneuvering like a sports car doing "doughnuts" in the parking lot. It has to give it's own plotting team some consistancy of course and speed for them to do their jobs.

The truth, re the game, is that there is one CD routine that must work for PH as well as Mili, and those two situations are as unlike each other as assaulting with a Marine Division and an Indian Army artillery unit. (For once we are in agreement. One of the game's most regrettable failings is the failure to differentiate between real Coast Defense Installations and just guns mounted on the coast.)

Sorry a ship will always maneuver to the detriment of a firing solution. Thats what most of the FC in batlle ships was about and why they were far superior in WWII then WWI . Being able to maneuver , quickly determine a solution despite roll etc. There are a large number of cases in ship to ship fights where they zig zag , then quickly turn , fire ( and bring most turrest into play) and continue evading rinse and repeat .

Also when you are bombarding without observers etc its pretty hit and miss anyway.

I also think the game CAN differentiate and it does , these 5"-7" CD guns have very high accuracies compared to their ROF. A lot of the other guns and CDs do not . What the game doesnt allow is you to emplace and build a number of CD guns and create a new "fort" unless it was doen historically at that specific location.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: seydlitz

So, to summarize,

1. Do not include warships in amphibous TFs if enemy CDs are present.
2. The CD/amphib TF routine will result in the loss or serious damage to the warships.
3. The current routine assumes that the warships steam into the anchorage and drop anchor at point blank range. Their guns can not depress enough to supress the CD units.
4. The warships will be the "meat shield" for the transports but even after they are destroyed damage will still be done to the transports.
5. If, however, you are trying to launch an invasion up a navigable river with CD forts protecting the river's mouth, you can safely sail past the forts without them engaging as long as you are in an amphibious TF. (See Rader's AAR...he is fighting Russia also and pulled this one off.)
6. Computer Admirals and Captains will stay in position like lemmings until their commands are totally destroyed. Retreat is not a consideration. In the binary world, these commanders are all zeroes.

I have to keep telling myself that the entire task force must have strayed into a dense and previously unmarked minefield as there is no other explaination for the loss of so many good ships.

It kind of goes like this You Tube Video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAhFumDrxEE

The key for successful amphibious operations is simply to suppress coastal artillery before you land your troops. If you manage to do this (or if you know that coastal defense installations in the landing hex are weak), you can include capitol ships (I would not include BB's, just CL's because I prefer to cover landings with Surface Combat TF's being a rather cautious player) in your Amphibious TF.

The navigable river thing has nothing to do with this. This is simply an exploit of the game routines.

[bklooste]

supression does NOT work anymore not since the fire rate has been bumbed up. Read the earlier report on a Bombardment force that got smashed.  I do not that with Bombardment BBs have a higher chance to survive ( but still die) prob due to the shorter time.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

supression does NOT work anymore not since the fire rate has been bumbed up. Read the earlier report on a Bombardment force that got smashed.  I do not that with Bombardment BBs have a higher chance to survive ( but still die) prob due to the shorter time.

Are you referring to John Lansford's report (in this thread) about his recent experiences at Mili? He did not even report what exactly happened (TF composition, TF orders etc.). This would not exactly be a lot of information to base a statement like 'supression does NOT work anymore' on it.

[Local Yokel]

Since the report posted by the OP indicates that the sunken BB's formed part of the invasion TF itself, rather than a bombardment group, is there any reason to suppose that they were moving at all when shot at by the CD guns? I have in mind that when a SCTF attacks an unloading amphibious TF one sees statements in combat reports along the lines of "Japanese/Allied ships attempt to get under way". So when an amphibious invasion TF arrives at its destination, do all its ships immediately drop anchor, including any defending warships it contains? If so, what juicy, stationary targets they would make!

The other thing that struck me about these particular CD guns was their very high muzzle velocity - in excess of 3000 fps, compared with other countries' weapons of comparable calibre, which range from about 2700 to 2850 fps in their muzzle velocities. Since the Navweaps site specifically refers to the shortness of barrel life of the B-1-K's and B-1-P's, I suspect that by the end of this action they may have resembled smooth bore weapons - not that this may have mattered if their targets were riding at anchor waiting to be hit.

[John Lansford]

Keregulen,
 
Sorry that I didn't save the combat report to provide definitive proof that I'm telling the truth.  Here was the TF composition:
 
5 BB's (prewar types)
2 CLAA's
2 CA's
6 DD's
 
The orders were to bombard, with escorts set to "no bombard".  Mili had and still has been reconned from Makin with a squadron of F-5's and one of B-25's, plus aerial bombing raids from B-24's and B-25's from Tarawa and Makin.  I've also had two CV's hit the place occasionally when they sweep through the Marshalls, and no supply ships have made it there in at least a month and lived.
 
Every single one of the BB's took 20+ System damage, plus numerous weapon/device damage (mostly AA and secondary weapon mounts).  One of them had 28 System damage.  The two CA's took similar System and weapon damage, the CLAA's and DD's nothing.  IIRC Mili took some port damage and perhaps one or two guns were disabled.
 
Since Mili is still Japanese, I'll create yet another BB TF and send it down there and put the combat report up here once it occurs.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Keregulen,

Sorry that I didn't save the combat report to provide definitive proof that I'm telling the truth.  Here was the TF composition:

5 BB's (prewar types)
2 CLAA's
2 CA's
6 DD's

The orders were to bombard, with escorts set to "no bombard".  Mili had and still has been reconned from Makin with a squadron of F-5's and one of B-25's, plus aerial bombing raids from B-24's and B-25's from Tarawa and Makin.  I've also had two CV's hit the place occasionally when they sweep through the Marshalls, and no supply ships have made it there in at least a month and lived.

Every single one of the BB's took 20+ System damage, plus numerous weapon/device damage (mostly AA and secondary weapon mounts).  One of them had 28 System damage.  The two CA's took similar System and weapon damage, the CLAA's and DD's nothing.  IIRC Mili took some port damage and perhaps one or two guns were disabled.

Since Mili is still Japanese, I'll create yet another BB TF and send it down there and put the combat report up here once it occurs.

while the amount of sys damage can be discussed, I can surely live with BBs being damaged by medium calibre sized CD guns and 20 sys plus secondary mounts being knocked out is still something I can live with. What´s off for me is the BBs being sunk, like in the op mentioned.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Keregulen,

Sorry that I didn't save the combat report to provide definitive proof that I'm telling the truth.  Here was the TF composition:

5 BB's (prewar types)
2 CLAA's
2 CA's
6 DD's

The orders were to bombard, with escorts set to "no bombard".  Mili had and still has been reconned from Makin with a squadron of F-5's and one of B-25's, plus aerial bombing raids from B-24's and B-25's from Tarawa and Makin.  I've also had two CV's hit the place occasionally when they sweep through the Marshalls, and no supply ships have made it there in at least a month and lived.

Every single one of the BB's took 20+ System damage, plus numerous weapon/device damage (mostly AA and secondary weapon mounts).  One of them had 28 System damage.  The two CA's took similar System and weapon damage, the CLAA's and DD's nothing.  IIRC Mili took some port damage and perhaps one or two guns were disabled.

Since Mili is still Japanese, I'll create yet another BB TF and send it down there and put the combat report up here once it occurs.

Instead of 1 TF with 5 BB's... try 2 or 3 TF's with 1-2 BB's... as a work around.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Right! But if the attacking ship is to have ANY chance of hitting it's own targets, it can't be out there maneuvering like a sports car doing "doughnuts" in the parking lot. It has to give it's own plotting team some consistancy of course and speed for them to do their jobs.

The truth, re the game, is that there is one CD routine that must work for PH as well as Mili, and those two situations are as unlike each other as assaulting with a Marine Division and an Indian Army artillery unit. (For once we are in agreement. One of the game's most regrettable failings is the failure to differentiate between real Coast Defense Installations and just guns mounted on the coast.)

Sorry a ship will always maneuver to the detriment of a firing solution. Thats what most of the FC in battle ships was about and why they were far superior in WWII then WWI . Being able to maneuver , quickly determine a solution despite roll etc. There are a large number of cases in ship to ship fights where they zig zag , then quickly turn , fire ( and bring most turrets into play) and continue evading rinse and repeat .

I don't suppose you would care to cite some of the "large number of cases in a ship to ship fight" you mention? Bismarck certainly didn't in the Denmark Strait, nor Warspite at Matapan, and neither Oldendorf or his Japanese opponent at Suriago Strait. What you do see in ship to ship actions is some mild course changes of a few degrees to chase salvos.

More radical maneuver is pretty much limited to night engagements and attempts to disengage. Even then, if you look as "Second Guadalcanal", the only radical turns involved were made to avoid torpedoes..., not during the gunfire exchange. Your "spin on a dime and quick draw with a BB" couldn't possibly work until the refinement of millimeter band fire control radars after WW II.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Keregulen,

Sorry that I didn't save the combat report to provide definitive proof that I'm telling the truth.  Here was the TF composition:

5 BB's (prewar types)
2 CLAA's
2 CA's
6 DD's

The orders were to bombard, with escorts set to "no bombard".  Mili had and still has been reconned from Makin with a squadron of F-5's and one of B-25's, plus aerial bombing raids from B-24's and B-25's from Tarawa and Makin.  I've also had two CV's hit the place occasionally when they sweep through the Marshalls, and no supply ships have made it there in at least a month and lived.

Every single one of the BB's took 20+ System damage, plus numerous weapon/device damage (mostly AA and secondary weapon mounts).  One of them had 28 System damage.  The two CA's took similar System and weapon damage, the CLAA's and DD's nothing.  IIRC Mili took some port damage and perhaps one or two guns were disabled.

Since Mili is still Japanese, I'll create yet another BB TF and send it down there and put the combat report up here once it occurs.

Mmph, seems that your CLAA's were the 'culprits'.

Bombardment TF came within range of coastal defense guns despite escorts being set 'to do not bombard' because they carry (destroyer) 5in/38 guns (range 18K yards). No heavy damage, no penetrating hits. CLAA's not hit due to target selection routine (target priority and random factors). Mili Fortress has 8x 15cm and 3x 14cm CD (range 19K and 22K yards) guns.

I would say you were a little bit unlucky but the overall results are OK.

[John Lansford]

Uhh, Keregulein, the CLAA's didn't bombard at all.  If the Mili defenders have only 15cm guns then the BB's and CA's should have been able to sit outside their range and bombard to their heart's content.

[jhdeerslayer]

CD's is one thing in this game I have always thought was way out of whack. Many, many sweet points but CD's is not one of them.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Uhh, Keregulein, the CLAA's didn't bombard at all.  If the Mili defenders have only 15cm guns then the BB's and CA's should have been able to sit outside their range and bombard to their heart's content.

CD certainly isn't perfect in the game, but there is an element of reality in your result. The defending guns have a range of at least 11 miles, and you are there to "silence" them. To do that you have to "spot" them and "fix" their location. Good luck doing that from over 12 miles away vs. guns camouflagued on a low lying island.

The Japanese attacking Wake still hadn't sited it's guns when they closed to less than 3 miles. So it's reasonable to expect you had to close the range considerably to try and "draw" the defender's fire. If they don't "open up" until you get within 4 miles, they can shoot effectively at you during your 7 miles of withdrawal. So your results aren't totally out of line.