Dealing with mines

[Feinder]

Quick clarification, here I am talking about the device (weapon) type. Not the LCU type. But what types of weapons can attack what...



Naval Guns = attack Inf and Ships. Most CD guns (and guns on ships) are of type "naval gun".

DP Guns = attack Inf, Ships, and aircraft. Many 5" guns on ships are like this. Some of the 70mm - 90mm AAA are like this.

AAA Guns = attact aircraft, -might- attack ships and infantry. I believe they do, but I haven't tested it. But by observation, it appears that AAA type weapons (again, I'm not talking about the LCU type), will also attack ships and troops.

Infantry Guns = attack Inf only. These are what most of the artillery pieces are in Inf and Art units.


How do you know if that 88mm AAA gun is of type DP or AAA? To be sure, you really have to look it up in the DB editor.

-F-

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: String

With 6-7k mines one can really really wreak havoc amongst the invasion forces.

With 6-7k mines i would just park my invasion fleet of the coast and let my troops use the mines as stepping stones to the coast. It's about as realistic.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Drex

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

It would be interesting to see some historical numbers for mines. I'm curious how many were typically used around a port.

I rarely play as the Japanese although I am starting a game against the AI. It seems to me that the Japanese have a lot of MLs and that they make decent gunboats and escorts for supply TF.

Morrison reports in his Naval Operations history that two MLs laid over a 1000 mines in one evening. Large mine fields are not gamey.

Yes, but did they lay more than 1,000 mines? Was this an active port of theirs, i.e. did they have a lot of their own ships moving back and forth through a mined harbor? How often did this happen?

I'm not trying to be critical. I'd really like to know. My limited historical knowledge indicates that this is really rare.

[Sneer]

during russo-japenase war both sides put few thousand mines in sth what can be 1 hex in Port Artur
and yes - there were sewere losses on both sides

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Drex

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

It would be interesting to see some historical numbers for mines. I'm curious how many were typically used around a port.

I rarely play as the Japanese although I am starting a game against the AI. It seems to me that the Japanese have a lot of MLs and that they make decent gunboats and escorts for supply TF.

Morrison reports in his Naval Operations history that two MLs laid over a 1000 mines in one evening. Large mine fields are not gamey.

Yes, but did they lay more than 1,000 mines? Was this an active port of theirs, i.e. did they have a lot of their own ships moving back and forth through a mined harbor? How often did this happen?

I'm not trying to be critical. I'd really like to know. My limited historical knowledge indicates that this is really rare.

At least in the Atlantic, i think tens of thousands of mines were put into minefields, but they were extensive "barrier" minefields, i.e. - across the English channel, etc.

i haven't yet found how many mines were placed around large ports. But, the mines would probably would have been (a) much more effective and (b) extremely hard to sweep. Many of them were electronically controlled and planted on the bottom, so that paravane sweeping operations would have been pretty ineffective. They were controlled by "galvanic loops" - large loops of wire laid in the harbor bottom would pick up a large chunk of iron or steel moving over them. The mines would be activated and "boom" - the mine would explode under the ship, generally with fatal results.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Sneer

during russo-japenase war both sides put few thousand mines in sth what can be 1 hex in Port Artur
and yes - there were sewere losses on both sides

Sounds about right. Diruing the early 1900's mines were used extensively by world powers. The problem was that mines don't tend to stay where they are supposed to and they don't care what ships they blow holes in. They also are tough to deal with after the war is over. For those reasons, most countries dramatically decreased their use of mines by WWII.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

ORIGINAL: Sneer

during russo-japenase war both sides put few thousand mines in sth what can be 1 hex in Port Artur
and yes - there were sewere losses on both sides

Sounds about right. Diruing the early 1900's mines were used extensively by world powers. The problem was that mines don't tend to stay where they are supposed to and they don't care what ships they blow holes in. They also are tough to deal with after the war is over. For those reasons, most countries dramatically decreased their use of mines by WWII.

This may be why they went to electronically controlled "bottom" mines for port defense. They would float off somewhere and kill some friendly transport or something. Of course, WITP doesn't model these...

EDIT: I should add that not ALL mines around major ports were like this. At least one of the IJN subs supporting the PH attack in Dec 1941 ran into a tethered mine. It failed to go off, and the sub dragged off with an entire line of mines (linked by heavy chain). The USN minetender crews were sorely puzzled by the disappearance of these (until after the war, at least, when the IJN records became available).

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

This may be why they went to electronically controlled "bottom" mines for port defense. They would float off somewhere and kill some friendly transport or something. Of course, WITP doesn't model these...

I think maybe WitP does model these mines to a point. Since mines pretty much never damage a friendly ship. Of course, MSW seem to work about as well no matter what, so that part isn't modeled as well.

[rtrapasso]

I think maybe WitP does model these mines to a point. Since mines pretty much never damage a friendly ship. Of course, MSW seem to work about as well no matter what, so that part isn't modeled as well.

Well, the part about "never" damaging a friendly is pretty much true (i *think* it might have happened to me once). And the MSW sweeping part is true also. But the NUMBER of mines deployed in this fashion was way lower than in WITP. The one source i read said it would take a small minelayer with shore crew 4 hours to lay 19 mines in this fashion. Of course, the effectiveness of the mines was probably vastly increased also - although i don't think this was ever really severely tested.

[niceguy2005]

This is why I have a general rule of thumb for myself that says 1000 mines or fewer at ports, with 500 being average. That seems to strike a good balancing point for realism. I don't use a house rule about mines because I think there may be justifiable cases where an opponent might really drop 6,000 mines at a port, but I would probably cry foul if every port had thousands of mines also.

All things being equal though, I would rather go up against a whole mess of mines than a well supplied well defended CD fort. In my grand campaign against the AI, I watched the AI impale itself on Corrigador. It was a bloody mess for the AI.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

This is why I have a general rule of thumb for myself that says 1000 mines or fewer at ports, with 500 being average. That seems to strike a good balancing point for realism. I don't use a house rule about mines because I think there may be justifiable cases where an opponent might really drop 6,000 mines at a port, but I would probably cry foul if every port had thousands of mines also.

All things being equal though, I would rather go up against a whole mess of mines than a well supplied well defended CD fort. In my grand campaign against the AI, I watched the AI impale itself on Corrigador. It was a bloody mess for the AI.

Well, i won't start arguing about historical accuracy in the game here... [;)]

However, ideally, you back up a large minefield with one of more CDs - and the results can be absolutely devastating in some cases (i.e. - attempted surprise landing...) My opponent tried this in my PBEM, and it was one of the most amazing turns i've ever seen in WITP[X(][X(][X(]

[niceguy2005]

Don't u just love a good surprise?
[:D][:D][:D]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Don't u just love a good surprise?
[:D][:D][:D]

Well, i'll admit i like it when i'm the one with the pitchfork. Not so happy when i'm the guy getting surprised, but it still is entertaining...

[Nikademus]

Minefields aren't nearly so powerful as they were in UV. Thats a good thing

[Mynok]

Ugh. That brings back evil memories. [:(]

[RUPD3658]

It seems that if one ship in the TF hits a mine that same ship is very likley to hit additional mines. Same thing happened in UV.

As for hitting your own mines, I have had it happen a few times. [:@]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

It seems that if one ship in the TF hits a mine that same ship is very likley to hit additional mines. Same thing happened in UV.

As for hitting your own mines, I have had it happen a few times. [:@]

Shoulda made better use of your minesweepers...[:'(]

[mickbeau1]

Thanks for your help all