Coastal Defense Guns

[adamc6]

Okay, not wanting to open the age-old debate over ships v shore batteries, but I had a bombardment task force w/2 US old BBs (16 inch guns) get pasted by the 5.5 inch pop guns of a Japanese Coastal defense BN at Shortlands. Now, I know that sometimes sh*t happens, but what commander would take his BBs in close enough to get wacked like that? My commander was Wright I think, naval skill pretty high 60s.

Comments? I know, I should just shut up and not complain that a Betty didn't put a torp in the Colorado.

[Mynok]

It shouldn't have been severely hurt from just 5in guns. What does the damage look like?

[moses]

Did you have it set for escorts bombard??? If so you ordered them to get close.[X(]

[Big B]

A further note about Coast defense Guns.

It appears that Minesweepers sweep the hex they are in - and - the adjacent hexes as well.

Given that, KBAD found out that MWSs don't fare well against 15" Coastal Guns (Singapore)....be careful where you sweep[;)]

B

[adamc6]

Moses: correct, not that bad for damage -- but about 15 hits on each. Just don't see how that would be possible given the general range differential (noting that coastal guns can have elevations, etc. that allow greater range than similar weapons on-board ship).

Had escorts bombard off -- for this very reason.

Will make me very careful to note where the SIGINT sees coastal bns from now on!

[rtrapasso]

It appears that Minesweepers sweep the hex they are in - and - the adjacent hexes as well.

Supposedly not - that happens in UV, but we were told it doesn't happen in WITP (by a mod or a dev guy, i disremember which).

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

It appears that Minesweepers sweep the hex they are in - and - the adjacent hexes as well.

Supposedly not - that happens in UV, but we were told it doesn't happen in WITP (by a mod or a dev guy, i disremember which).

Well, KBAD said it happened to him last week (WitP ver1.6)....I dunno?
(I do know we shot the pants off his poor MSWs with our 15"ers[:D])

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: adamc6


Okay, not wanting to open the age-old debate over ships v shore batteries, but I had a bombardment task force w/2 US old BBs (16 inch guns) get pasted by the 5.5 inch pop guns of a Japanese Coastal defense BN at Shortlands. Now, I know that sometimes sh*t happens, but what commander would take his BBs in close enough to get wacked like that? My commander was Wright I think, naval skill pretty high 60s.

Comments? I know, I should just shut up and not complain that a Betty didn't put a torp in the Colorado.

History of United States Naval Operations in World War II, Volume II, page 346.

It was nearly 0100 January 24 [1943] when the six ships swung to a southwesterly course to enter Kula Gulf. O'Bannon probed well ahead, then turned to take picket station at the northwestern entrance close by Kolombangara. Slitting the calm waters behind O'Bannon came destroyer Nicholas followed by flagship Nashville, cruiser Helena, destroyers DeHaven and Radford. Near the mouth fo the Gulf Nicholas (flying Briscoe's pennant) turned west, then north to parallel the coast and scout for seaborne opposition. The two cruisers and the rear destroyers made a sweeping turn to course NNW, and then the fun began.

From 0200 until 0229 the 6-inch guns gave tongue. Nashville and Helena, varying their Munda procedure, fired simultaneously but at different targets so that the Black Cat spotters would have no difficulty identifying salvos. Captain Briscoe's destroyers, penetrating farther into the Gulf and steering close to the western shore, commenced firing when the cruisers had shot off their allowance. In about an hour's time the two light cruiser poured nearly 2000 rounds of 6-inch onto and around the new airstrip, and with the aid of the destroyers added some 1500 rounds of 5-inch. The 6-inch guns behaved magnificently -- no check to the continuous rapid fire, and spectaculat fires were ignited ashore. A few short, puny, and inaccurate salvos from the coastal batteries bothered the Americans not at all. Throughout the war, Japanese coast defense batteries were strangely ineffective.

[Sneer]

neither commander makes bombardment from 30k - it doesn't make any sense it is too far away
if you want to have reasonable results you need to get closer - just in range of medium guns

[Monter_Trismegistos]

adamc6, check if your land commander in the base is not Close-in-Conolly.

EDIT: Ehh, he was an admiral, not land commander. I screw up a joke.

[adamc6]

Okay, lots of good stuff -- so now I will ask it: Are coastal guns overrated in the game? Trying to think of incidents during WWII where they were effective.

Okay, Blucher @ Oslo, although that was a land-launched torpedo that really did her in, not the Krupp 11inchers, right?

Mers-el-Kebir, nope, they did hit the BBs, but no damage.

Casablanca, nope.

Normandy, nope.

Med amphib landings, nope.

Hmmmm.....

Granted, the threat of the guns kept ships at bay sometimes.......

Thoughts?

[Feinder]

In WitP, CD guns are EASILY reduced.

a. Air attacks vs. Port.
b. Bombard without escorts.

Also, the more supplies they have, the more they seem to fire. Reduce their supplies, and you'll get nary a peep from them.

Historically, sometimes they were effective, and sometimes not; and it depends on what they're shooting at, and what is considered "effective". One thing quickly learned was that invasions were generally forgone conclusions due to quantity; however that doesn't mean that that the CD guns didn't damage/sink anything. Did the CD guns STOP the invasions? Nope. Even at Wake Round #1, Japan got ashore. Did they damage/sink other vessels? Sure. But were they effective in stopping the invasion? No. Effective in damaging/sinking enemy vessels. Yep.

It's a dead horse about CD guns, or bombardments for that matter.

-F-

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: adamc6


Okay, lots of good stuff -- so now I will ask it: Are coastal guns overrated in the game? Trying to think of incidents during WWII where they were effective.

Here I would like to quote Ian Hogg but I can't find the reference and I don't remember the exact words. So, in paraphrase, "coastal guns were effective in WW II because no surface ship ever went within range unless they were desperate or present in overwhelming force". Of course he then discussed the guns at Cape Griz Nez (sp??) firing at and missing coastal shipping.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Hel Pennisula battery during September 1939 - 4 x 152mm Guns.

2 times won the battle against 2 German predrednaughts Schlezwig-Holstein and Schlesien both times damaging them only lightly but forcing them to retreat with only damage to well camouflaged battery were lost of observation tower which was quickly substituted by field-maded one.

Also earlier, 3 Sept 1939 battery with support of ships immobilized in Hel harbour: DD Wicher (4x130) and ML Gryf (6x120) defeated and very heavily damaged 2 german destroyers: Leberecht Maas and other of same type(both 5x127).

But mentioned actions werent actually during the invasions. Also note that Germas were scared about mine threat, but there wasnt any significant number of mines in area to worry about.

Note also that during Norway campaign, in Kristiansand, coast defence batterry of 210mm guns 2 times forced German invasion force (CL Karlsruhe, 2 TB) to abort their plans. City was captured at 3rd attempt because of misidentification of German ships - coas guns were not firing at them.

[Mike Scholl]

The game totally fails to differentiate between Coast Defense SYSTEMS and artillery facing the coast. NOBODY (except for the failed German Attempt in Norway) screwed around with Coast Defense Systems during the war. The Japanese made no attempt to attack or invade Singapore or Manilla Bay from the sea. The Allies didn't try to land at Le Havre or Cherbourg. A Coast Defense System is capable of dominating the sea in it's location with pinpoint accuracy.
Just putting guns on the coast doesn't make a Coast Defense System. This was the situation during almost all invasions. Yes, there were guns that could shoot out to sea and onto the beaches. They might even have naval-type range-finders. But they aren't tied together into a "system" with pre-figured range tables, multiple spotting and fire direction centers, tidal charts, etc. They are just guns shooting at naval targets.

The only viable explanation for your BB's being shot at by some Japanese 5.5" coastal guns is that they were trying to knock out those guns. Unless or until those guns open fire, they are virtually invisable. So you would have to close the range trying to encourage them to fire so they could be spotted and engaged. But the game is pretty lame in this whole area. You really have little control over the situation. On one hand, you get to shoot at everything instead of engaging one target like you would in real life. And you can engage and run past CD Systems far too easily. On the other hand, you get "pin-pricked" by every artillery piece at any target you engage. Overall, the advantage is to the Japanese, who had a lot of Coastal Guns in the Pacific, but virtually no CD Systems outside of the Home Islands. And while Allied Mobile CD Units soon included Radar Fire Direction and became much more effective, the Japanese were still having trouble with their Fire Direction Radar in 1945, and were dependent on the mark one eyeball to the end.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: adamc6


Okay, lots of good stuff -- so now I will ask it: Are coastal guns overrated in the game? Trying to think of incidents during WWII where they were effective.

Here I would like to quote Ian Hogg but I can't find the reference and I don't remember the exact words. So, in paraphrase, "coastal guns were effective in WW II because no surface ship ever went within range unless they were desperate or present in overwhelming force". Of course he then discussed the guns at Cape Griz Nez (sp??) firing at and missing coastal shipping.

IMHO,

The problem with CD is that it appears the complete unit gets to fire.

On an island hex, the guns would be distributed around the island, so as to cover all approaches but they all get to fire at a TF which (I assume) gets to chose its approach. On a Coast hex , 60 miles long, they equally seem to be heli-lifted to the exact spot. While they would be protecting the major facilities, I would land my troops away from those areas.

I think the CD unit should get to fire only a percentage of its weapons, the hard thing is to chose what figure[:(]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: pompack

ORIGINAL: adamc6


Okay, lots of good stuff -- so now I will ask it: Are coastal guns overrated in the game? Trying to think of incidents during WWII where they were effective.

So you are just bombarding random pieces of coastline? Or are you targeting the port with the airfield where the CD Guns are located? You might have a point with an invasion effort---though an invasion has to land on a beach, and only certain portions of a coastline qualify. But a Bombardment has to be where the targets are..., and that's also where the defense will be.

Here I would like to quote Ian Hogg but I can't find the reference and I don't remember the exact words. So, in paraphrase, "coastal guns were effective in WW II because no surface ship ever went within range unless they were desperate or present in overwhelming force". Of course he then discussed the guns at Cape Griz Nez (sp??) firing at and missing coastal shipping.

IMHO,

The problem with CD is that it appears the complete unit gets to fire.

On an island hex, the guns would be distributed around the island, so as to cover all approaches but they all get to fire at a TF which (I assume) gets to chose its approach. On a Coast hex , 60 miles long, they equally seem to be heli-lifted to the exact spot. While they would be protecting the major facilities, I would land my troops away from those areas.

I think the CD unit should get to fire only a percentage of its weapons, the hard thing is to chose what figure[:(]

[Mike Scholl]

IN REPLY TO JEFFK. i DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ABOVE
[[/quote]

So you are just bombarding random pieces of coastline? Or are you targeting the port with the airfield where the CD Guns are located? You might have a point with an invasion effort---though an invasion has to land on a beach, and only certain portions of a coastline qualify. But a Bombardment has to be where the targets are..., and that's also where the defense will be.

Here I would like to quote Ian Hogg but I can't find the reference and I don't remember the exact words. So, in paraphrase, "coastal guns were effective in WW II because no surface ship ever went within range unless they were desperate or present in overwhelming force". Of course he then discussed the guns at Cape Griz Nez (sp??) firing at and missing coastal shipping.
[/quote]

[Feinder]

The proplem with "a percentage" is that...

1. You don't equally disperse a battery around an island. You would put them at places that took into consideration
a. Maximum arcs of fire.
b. Likelihood of an attack sector
c. Among other things.

True, you probably couldn't get ALL your guns to bear on a location. But, depending on what/where you were defending, you could probably get bring "a high percentage" to bear.

I like the discussion on CD "SYSTEMS". They were -very- formidable. I just checked the DB, I think it's an interesting oversight that, the accuracy rating of the larger CD guns (8"+), which are undoubtly a part of these CD systems, actually have fairly low accuracy ratings, esp compared to the CD guns 5" and smaller. However, the smaller CD guns, with their higher accuracy rating, maybe a fudge for a higher rate of fire. I don't know how it's figured tho.

-F-

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

IN REPLY TO JEFFK. i DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED ABOVE
[

So you are just bombarding random pieces of coastline? Or are you targeting the port with the airfield where the CD Guns are located? You might have a point with an invasion effort---though an invasion has to land on a beach, and only certain portions of a coastline qualify. But a Bombardment has to be where the targets are..., and that's also where the defense will be.

Here I would like to quote Ian Hogg but I can't find the reference and I don't remember the exact words. So, in paraphrase, "coastal guns were effective in WW II because no surface ship ever went within range unless they were desperate or present in overwhelming force". Of course he then discussed the guns at Cape Griz Nez (sp??) firing at and missing coastal shipping.
[/quote]


[/quote]

No, I am chosing the best areas, and on an island like Guadalcanal there might be 3-4 targets to hit. I plan to limit counterfire by careful tactical planning. The defender has to cover a number of points as best they can, ports, landing beaches, airfields and ground troops. While they do the best they can to cover evreything, only few would get 100% coverage. But some of these could be onl the other side of the island

Currently WITP assumes perfection on the part of the Coastal defense, and assumes the Attacker uses the "Indians Circling the Wagon" tactic.