In the real war, shore bombardment that wasn't part of an invasion was fairly rare. Invasions were often countered with heavy CD fire, but bombardment missions, not so much.
I'm sure there was some instance of just a bombardment mission being attacked by CD fire and some damage being done to the attacking force, but a quick check didn't turn up any instances. There are many instances of invasion support ships getting hit.
I did come across this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_naval_bombardments_of_Japan_during_World_War_II
I know it's Wikipedia, but the Allies bombarded industries in Japan and while the article doesn't mention CD fire one way or the other, there were no Allied ships hit.
I think the game allows the Japanese to do a lot more shore bombardment than they did in the real world. Especially bombardments with BBs. They only tried that during the Guadalcanal campaign and it didn't turn out that well when you weigh the losses vs the gains. There really isn't any mechanism to limit the Japanese other than a house rule.
Bill
shore bombardment
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: shore bombardment
SCW Development Team
RE: shore bombardment
There is the very early shelling of Midway by Destroyers....lasted about one hour, the destroyers wandered in too close and one of them took a few hits, whereupon the other made smoke and they steamed away.
A straight bombardment run. There is a lot of subs shelling...but alas, not modelled in the game.
By the way only float planes can do night naval search so get yourself some Kingfishers, or Walrus, or Sharks or whatever it is you Allies have and get them flying nigh naval search. Then find any decent squadron with some NavB or NavT or NavL training and set them to Naval attack.
A straight bombardment run. There is a lot of subs shelling...but alas, not modelled in the game.
By the way only float planes can do night naval search so get yourself some Kingfishers, or Walrus, or Sharks or whatever it is you Allies have and get them flying nigh naval search. Then find any decent squadron with some NavB or NavT or NavL training and set them to Naval attack.
RE: shore bombardment
I'm not looking at it right now, but I thought that was in the context of worry about air strikes from Henderson Field??ORIGINAL: John B.
In Frank's Guadalcanal (a very good book) he states that "Kurita protested fervidly that the risks to his ships [of the Henderson bombardment] far outweighed the potential gains, but Yamamoto silenced these objections with the threat to do the job personally if Kurita balked."
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: shore bombardment
ORIGINAL: Lowpe
There is the very early shelling of Midway by Destroyers....lasted about one hour, the destroyers wandered in too close and one of them took a few hits, whereupon the other made smoke and they steamed away.
A straight bombardment run. There is a lot of subs shelling...but alas, not modelled in the game.
By the way only float planes can do night naval search so get yourself some Kingfishers, or Walrus, or Sharks or whatever it is you Allies have and get them flying nigh naval search. Then find any decent squadron with some NavB or NavT or NavL training and set them to Naval attack.
Subs can't bombard because I don't think there is any case of a sub bombardment doing anything actually useful militarily.
The bombardment of Midway was in the middle of the morning and the shore batteries had very good visibility of the destroyers. Most bombardments (other than invasion support) happened at night.
Bill
SCW Development Team
RE: shore bombardment
ORIGINAL: wdolson
Subs can't bombard because I don't think there is any case of a sub bombardment doing anything actually useful militarily.
The same could be said pretty much for midget subs on the Japanese side. British midgets actually trashed a cruiser, and got away, and they aren't modelled.
Let us not let facts, or reason, or anything else get in the way of having more mouse clicks.[:D][:D][:D][:D]
PS: I keep looking for incendiary balloons to launch at the West Coast, but can't find them.[&:] This will get Alfred's goat, but there is a listing in Tracker under devices for them. It must be a bug![:D]
RE: shore bombardment
I'm a little sad that there are no incendiary balloons. 
@Witpqs the book did not make the source of his concern clear but given the pain in the neck that the cactus airforce was your interpretation is certainly reasonable.
I thought of a couple of other bombardments and, alas, they don't seem to back up my position. Here is an account of the british bombardment of Tripoli in 1941 in which the port installations were damaged and, even though it was at dawn there was no reponse from Italian shore defenses.
http://ww2today.com/21st-april-1941-daw ... of-tripoli
Then there was the bombardment of Genoa that same year. Here there was some early warning but, again, no damage from the shore batteries that did get off some shots.
http://www.desertwar.net/operation-grog.html
ON the other hand, there were a number of hits at the Cherbourg bombardment but that was in the day time and the ships seems to have hung around longer to provide fire support to the land based forces.
Perhaps there would have been more response if the brits came back several times per week as happens in the game, but certainly any initial bombardment seems to have had the element of surprise. But, based on this my earlier concerns may not have been as well founded as I thought at least for any initial attack. The code is right, the code is always right!! [&o] [&o] [:)]
@Witpqs the book did not make the source of his concern clear but given the pain in the neck that the cactus airforce was your interpretation is certainly reasonable.
I thought of a couple of other bombardments and, alas, they don't seem to back up my position. Here is an account of the british bombardment of Tripoli in 1941 in which the port installations were damaged and, even though it was at dawn there was no reponse from Italian shore defenses.
http://ww2today.com/21st-april-1941-daw ... of-tripoli
Then there was the bombardment of Genoa that same year. Here there was some early warning but, again, no damage from the shore batteries that did get off some shots.
http://www.desertwar.net/operation-grog.html
ON the other hand, there were a number of hits at the Cherbourg bombardment but that was in the day time and the ships seems to have hung around longer to provide fire support to the land based forces.
Perhaps there would have been more response if the brits came back several times per week as happens in the game, but certainly any initial bombardment seems to have had the element of surprise. But, based on this my earlier concerns may not have been as well founded as I thought at least for any initial attack. The code is right, the code is always right!! [&o] [&o] [:)]
John Barr
-
witpaemail
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:09 am
RE: shore bombardment
ORIGINAL: wdolson
In the real war, shore bombardment that wasn't part of an invasion was fairly rare. Invasions were often countered with heavy CD fire, but bombardment missions, not so much.
I'm sure there was some instance of just a bombardment mission being attacked by CD fire and some damage being done to the attacking force, but a quick check didn't turn up any instances. There are many instances of invasion support ships getting hit.
I did come across this:
I know it's Wikipedia, but the Allies bombarded industries in Japan and while the article doesn't mention CD fire one way or the other, there were no Allied ships hit.
I think the game allows the Japanese to do a lot more shore bombardment than they did in the real world. Especially bombardments with BBs. They only tried that during the Guadalcanal campaign and it didn't turn out that well when you weigh the losses vs the gains. There really isn't any mechanism to limit the Japanese other than a house rule.
Bill
Thats kinda the point Bill. Players DO what wasnt done in the real war. Fly massed 4E bombers at 1000 feet. Shore bombardments with scads of DDs and CLs. Invade Wake with 20 divisions.
And the game isnt equipped to handle that. Thats why players call things like this "gamey". Because they are "gaming the system". And you shouldnt have to lump house rule after house rule to stop it.
I suspect thats one reason a few players are constantly looking for replacement players, but I dont know that for sure. Because they just get sick of being "gamed".
RE: shore bombardment
Many of these things players can do that weren't done in the real war were things that were physically possible. The IJN could have used up their BB force bombarding Guadalcanal or other bases and the USAAF could have concentrated bombers and gone in at 1000 feet. Invading Wake with 20 divisions wasn't possible, but it would be horribly costly in game. It would likely tie up a massive number of transports plus they would burn through massive piles of supply every day.
There are things that can be done in game because players have 20/20 hindsight. The Japanese knew their bombardment of Henderson field with a BB did some damage, but they didn't know how much. The Cactus Air Force was in a deep crisis for a while, but they kept the planes flying and the Japanese really didn't know how badly damaged Henderson was. The US started using the old BBs for bombardment in later offensives in part because they knew how much damage they did when on the receiving end.
There are many areas where 20/20 hindsight comes into play.
4E bombers can be concentrated in large part because you can just steal the 11th and 7th AF's heavy bombers and put them in the Southwest Pacific, which couldn't happen in the real world because the commanders of those AFs would have had McArthur's head for doing that. The alternative is to build in a rather complex system of buying units out that is much more complex than the current one. And then you would have to accommodate actual units that were loaned to other commands for a period of time and probably some other things I'm not thinking of here.
The game is already very complex with a lot of micromanagement of the logistical details. I don't think many players would be able to stand much more of it.
An additional reason that 4E bombers were not used for low altitude attacks had more to do with the value of these planes rather than the lack of capability as well as an over inflated opinion of the accuracy of the Nordon bomb sight (another thing players have 20/20 hindsight about). B-17s were often used on recon missions in the early war and they don't usually play that role in game. Having an idea of the enemy's build up and capability when there were few offensive assets was more important than striking a few token blows and risking losing airframes.
Another thing the game doesn't model is the ops loss rate. The problem is that when developers get ops losses anywhere near reality, players raise hell about it claiming it is too high. When opposition was low, ops losses were usually about 4% per mission, going up much more as opposition increased. Ops losses for B-29s and some other types were very high.
I think the biggest reason people quit PBEMs is not gaminess, but a lack of time to commit to the game. Committing to a PBEM game which can go in for years is a major commitment and people's live change. I've never player PBEM in large part because I can't promise to be able to keep up with the game for an extended period. The AI doesn't care if I quit because my life got busy.
Bill
There are things that can be done in game because players have 20/20 hindsight. The Japanese knew their bombardment of Henderson field with a BB did some damage, but they didn't know how much. The Cactus Air Force was in a deep crisis for a while, but they kept the planes flying and the Japanese really didn't know how badly damaged Henderson was. The US started using the old BBs for bombardment in later offensives in part because they knew how much damage they did when on the receiving end.
There are many areas where 20/20 hindsight comes into play.
4E bombers can be concentrated in large part because you can just steal the 11th and 7th AF's heavy bombers and put them in the Southwest Pacific, which couldn't happen in the real world because the commanders of those AFs would have had McArthur's head for doing that. The alternative is to build in a rather complex system of buying units out that is much more complex than the current one. And then you would have to accommodate actual units that were loaned to other commands for a period of time and probably some other things I'm not thinking of here.
The game is already very complex with a lot of micromanagement of the logistical details. I don't think many players would be able to stand much more of it.
An additional reason that 4E bombers were not used for low altitude attacks had more to do with the value of these planes rather than the lack of capability as well as an over inflated opinion of the accuracy of the Nordon bomb sight (another thing players have 20/20 hindsight about). B-17s were often used on recon missions in the early war and they don't usually play that role in game. Having an idea of the enemy's build up and capability when there were few offensive assets was more important than striking a few token blows and risking losing airframes.
Another thing the game doesn't model is the ops loss rate. The problem is that when developers get ops losses anywhere near reality, players raise hell about it claiming it is too high. When opposition was low, ops losses were usually about 4% per mission, going up much more as opposition increased. Ops losses for B-29s and some other types were very high.
I think the biggest reason people quit PBEMs is not gaminess, but a lack of time to commit to the game. Committing to a PBEM game which can go in for years is a major commitment and people's live change. I've never player PBEM in large part because I can't promise to be able to keep up with the game for an extended period. The AI doesn't care if I quit because my life got busy.
Bill
SCW Development Team
RE: shore bombardment
Bill IMO this is spot on!ORIGINAL: wdolson
Many of these things players can do that weren't done in the real war were things that were physically possible. The IJN could have used up their BB force bombarding Guadalcanal or other bases and the USAAF could have concentrated bombers and gone in at 1000 feet. Invading Wake with 20 divisions wasn't possible, but it would be horribly costly in game. It would likely tie up a massive number of transports plus they would burn through massive piles of supply every day.
There are things that can be done in game because players have 20/20 hindsight. The Japanese knew their bombardment of Henderson field with a BB did some damage, but they didn't know how much. The Cactus Air Force was in a deep crisis for a while, but they kept the planes flying and the Japanese really didn't know how badly damaged Henderson was. The US started using the old BBs for bombardment in later offensives in part because they knew how much damage they did when on the receiving end.
There are many areas where 20/20 hindsight comes into play.
4E bombers can be concentrated in large part because you can just steal the 11th and 7th AF's heavy bombers and put them in the Southwest Pacific, which couldn't happen in the real world because the commanders of those AFs would have had McArthur's head for doing that. The alternative is to build in a rather complex system of buying units out that is much more complex than the current one. And then you would have to accommodate actual units that were loaned to other commands for a period of time and probably some other things I'm not thinking of here.
The game is already very complex with a lot of micromanagement of the logistical details. I don't think many players would be able to stand much more of it.
An additional reason that 4E bombers were not used for low altitude attacks had more to do with the value of these planes rather than the lack of capability as well as an over inflated opinion of the accuracy of the Nordon bomb sight (another thing players have 20/20 hindsight about). B-17s were often used on recon missions in the early war and they don't usually play that role in game. Having an idea of the enemy's build up and capability when there were few offensive assets was more important than striking a few token blows and risking losing airframes.
Another thing the game doesn't model is the ops loss rate. The problem is that when developers get ops losses anywhere near reality, players raise hell about it claiming it is too high. When opposition was low, ops losses were usually about 4% per mission, going up much more as opposition increased. Ops losses for B-29s and some other types were very high.
I think the biggest reason people quit PBEMs is not gaminess, but a lack of time to commit to the game. Committing to a PBEM game which can go in for years is a major commitment and people's live change. I've never player PBEM in large part because I can't promise to be able to keep up with the game for an extended period. The AI doesn't care if I quit because my life got busy.
Bill
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
-
witpaemail
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:09 am
RE: shore bombardment
ORIGINAL: wdolson
Many of these things players can do that weren't done in the real war were things that were physically possible. The IJN could have used up their BB force bombarding Guadalcanal or other bases and the USAAF could have concentrated bombers and gone in at 1000 feet. Invading Wake with 20 divisions wasn't possible, but it would be horribly costly in game. It would likely tie up a massive number of transports plus they would burn through massive piles of supply every day.
Not really. The linings of the BB guns had to be repaired after every firing. Not reflected in the game. The shells to shell shore targets were not the same shells that they would use in a surface engagement, yet the players can form bombard TFs at will at sea even. They should only be able to form bombard at a port with capacity to load the main guns of the ships (by the re-arm point schedule). Further, they should be at best at half ammo if a surface fight ensues thus forcing a withdrawl sooner.
There are things that can be done in game because players have 20/20 hindsight. The Japanese knew their bombardment of Henderson field with a BB did some damage, but they didn't know how much. The Cactus Air Force was in a deep crisis for a while, but they kept the planes flying and the Japanese really didn't know how badly damaged Henderson was. The US started using the old BBs for bombardment in later offensives in part because they knew how much damage they did when on the receiving end.
There are many areas where 20/20 hindsight comes into play.
4E bombers can be concentrated in large part because you can just steal the 11th and 7th AF's heavy bombers and put them in the Southwest Pacific, which couldn't happen in the real world because the commanders of those AFs would have had McArthur's head for doing that. The alternative is to build in a rather complex system of buying units out that is much more complex than the current one. And then you would have to accommodate actual units that were loaned to other commands for a period of time and probably some other things I'm not thinking of here.
The game is already very complex with a lot of micromanagement of the logistical details. I don't think many players would be able to stand much more of it.
An additional reason that 4E bombers were not used for low altitude attacks had more to do with the value of these planes rather than the lack of capability as well as an over inflated opinion of the accuracy of the Nordon bomb sight (another thing players have 20/20 hindsight about). B-17s were often used on recon missions in the early war and they don't usually play that role in game. Having an idea of the enemy's build up and capability when there were few offensive assets was more important than striking a few token blows and risking losing airframes.
Well, thats kinda the point also. The players can throw ships and planes away because the victory conditions dont make them NOT want to. An American plane should mean much more in points than a kamikaze for example. But it isnt. A plane is a plane and worth so many points. A ship is a ship and depending on how much displacement it is, it is so many points.
The Chinese are worth half as much as the other nations. Why? Simple, because the Chinese didnt care about frittering their troops away. There were plenty more where they came from.
The Japanese werent far behind that philosophy. Their "manpower" losses shouldnt be "awarded" at the same rate as allied nations for the same reason.
The US dropped the bombs in part, if not the main reason, because of "war weariness". 10% of the total US Navys losses in WWII happened at Okinawa.
Another thing the game doesn't model is the ops loss rate. The problem is that when developers get ops losses anywhere near reality, players raise hell about it claiming it is too high. When opposition was low, ops losses were usually about 4% per mission, going up much more as opposition increased. Ops losses for B-29s and some other types were very high.
I think the biggest reason people quit PBEMs is not gaminess, but a lack of time to commit to the game. Committing to a PBEM game which can go in for years is a major commitment and people's live change. I've never player PBEM in large part because I can't promise to be able to keep up with the game for an extended period. The AI doesn't care if I quit because my life got busy.
Bill
WitPAE is a game. And a GAME should be able to be "won" by either side equally. I am NOT SAYING that Japan should be able to win the war. But if Japan does more damage to the allies than his historical counterpart while taking less losses, then he should "win the game", yes even if that means the allies control all of mainland Japan.
Japan can win this GAME, but only at the end of 1942, and only if the allies dont do a Sir Robyn. After that, the points the allies rack up will prevent a Japanese victory OF THE GAME. And this I suspect is also a reason a lot of games filter out.
Also, there was a reason allied bombers flew higher and higher as the war went on. The AA fire in the stock game of AE is a joke that doesnt discourage low level bombing.
-
pontiouspilot
- Posts: 1131
- Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:09 pm
RE: shore bombardment
The point of over-exertion of bombardment units, especially BBs concerns me. I know it is valid. I use bombardment a lot....in my worthless opinion even the BBs are forced to earn their keep. BUT, I do not want to get "gamey" with my floating artillery. What is a reasonable window for using a BB before I voluntarily withdraw the unit? Who is the ordinance expert here????
RE: shore bombardment
It's part of the game. Just use them. None of it is perfect and very little of it is worth HR'ing. If you are doing some refereed strictly-historical seeking simulation with the game, sure fine. And of course, whatever opponents agree on is fine anyway. But there is no ultimate set of HR's to make it 'right'.ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot
The point of over-exertion of bombardment units, especially BBs concerns me. I know it is valid. I use bombardment a lot....in my worthless opinion even the BBs are forced to earn their keep. BUT, I do not want to get "gamey" with my floating artillery. What is a reasonable window for using a BB before I voluntarily withdraw the unit? Who is the ordinance expert here????
Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home
RE: shore bombardment
ORIGINAL: wdolson
Many of these things players can do that weren't done in the real war were things that were physically possible. The IJN could have used up their BB force bombarding Guadalcanal or other bases and the USAAF could have concentrated bombers and gone in at 1000 feet. Invading Wake with 20 divisions wasn't possible, but it would be horribly costly in game. It would likely tie up a massive number of transports plus they would burn through massive piles of supply every day.
ORIGINAL: witpaemail
Not really. The linings of the BB guns had to be repaired after every firing. Not reflected in the game. The shells to shell shore targets were not the same shells that they would use in a surface engagement, yet the players can form bombard TFs at will at sea even. They should only be able to form bombard at a port with capacity to load the main guns of the ships (by the re-arm point schedule). Further, they should be at best at half ammo if a surface fight ensues thus forcing a withdrawl sooner.
BB guns did need service, but not after every firing. There were many instances Allied BBs supported land operations for many days. At Surgaio Strait Olendorf's BBs engaged the Japanese force after supporting the invasion for a few days and there was no concern about their barrels being too worn.
At D-Day the Allied naval support was on station a lot longer than expected and eventually they had to be withdrawn for replacing the barrels after being used daily for weeks, but it took weeks to get to that point.
Bill
SCW Development Team
RE: shore bombardment
ORIGINAL: witpqs
It's part of the game. Just use them. None of it is perfect and very little of it is worth HR'ing. If you are doing some refereed strictly-historical seeking simulation with the game, sure fine. And of course, whatever opponents agree on is fine anyway. But there is no ultimate set of HR's to make it 'right'.ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot
The point of over-exertion of bombardment units, especially BBs concerns me. I know it is valid. I use bombardment a lot....in my worthless opinion even the BBs are forced to earn their keep. BUT, I do not want to get "gamey" with my floating artillery. What is a reasonable window for using a BB before I voluntarily withdraw the unit? Who is the ordinance expert here????
+1
In addition such actions do expose the bombarding vessels. There are countermeasures one can employ to discourage such activity.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
-
BattleMoose
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:16 am
RE: shore bombardment
I am largely just supposing but my expectation with worn BB barrels would largely just be diminished accuracy. Maybe there is a safety concern? Diminished accuracy would be a big deal in a SAG engagement but for bombardment, meh, especially at night, when you don't really know what you are shooting at anyway. Oh, my shell landed on the island, somewhere, maybe it hit something expensive! Lets do that again, and again, and again!
RE: shore bombardment
ORIGINAL: BattleMoose
I am largely just supposing but my expectation with worn BB barrels would largely just be diminished accuracy. Maybe there is a safety concern? Diminished accuracy would be a big deal in a SAG engagement but for bombardment, meh, especially at night, when you don't really know what you are shooting at anyway. Oh, my shell landed on the island, somewhere, maybe it hit something expensive! Lets do that again, and again, and again!
[:D]
I know it may seem that way, but I don't think its all just blind firing. FP's spot with illumination from star shells and flares. Henderson was pretty busted up when it was hit.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
-
BattleMoose
- Posts: 232
- Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:16 am
RE: shore bombardment
Oh I am sure they tried their damnedest to get the best accuracy out of their guns. Even if you are firing specifically at Henderson airfield and miss by a fair margin, there is still a chance you could damage/destroy something expensive. And if you don't then you have just wasted a shell. Which isn't such a bad scenario.
In a SAG fight, a miss is a miss and every time you miss your enemy has more time to get shots on you.
I think the point I am making is a worn barrel in a SAG fight is a very bad thing. While having a worn barrel in a shore bombardment group, really is much less of an issue.
In a SAG fight, a miss is a miss and every time you miss your enemy has more time to get shots on you.
I think the point I am making is a worn barrel in a SAG fight is a very bad thing. While having a worn barrel in a shore bombardment group, really is much less of an issue.
RE: shore bombardment
In a saturation bombardment a worn barrel is not a big issue. Much worse to be an doughboy requesting supporting fire from a ship with worn barrel - you either had to withdraw back MUCH more or risk a few more shells falling around you... And you certainly do not want a couple of 16" pointing your way! [:-]
RE: shore bombardment
My mother's cousin was killed on Iwo Jima when a battleship bombardment fell short.
Bill
Bill
SCW Development Team
RE: shore bombardment
Just in case anybody wants a source for barrel life for various guns:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_14-45_t41.htm
Just happens to be a bunch of stats on Kongo Class 14 inchers but data on pretty much any current or historical naval gun can be found at the site.
IRL the IJN pulled off exactly one "hit and run" bombardment during the war that accomplished much of anything. They also managed to distinguish themselves by getting one of their invasion TFs spanked by CDs (Wake Is). The game and all the IJ apologists say that the latter is the fluke but the former is the standard.
Not really convinced of that assessment of reality.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_14-45_t41.htm
Just happens to be a bunch of stats on Kongo Class 14 inchers but data on pretty much any current or historical naval gun can be found at the site.
IRL the IJN pulled off exactly one "hit and run" bombardment during the war that accomplished much of anything. They also managed to distinguish themselves by getting one of their invasion TFs spanked by CDs (Wake Is). The game and all the IJ apologists say that the latter is the fluke but the former is the standard.
Not really convinced of that assessment of reality.