Coastal Defense Guns

[el cid again]

The rest of the Japanese equipment was pretty old (they never declared anything "obsolete") and the Fire Control was not much better than "open sights" from the gun positions. The largest were the Krupp model 1890 11" Howitzers (which were used in the same manner as the US model 1890 and 1908 12" CD Mortars). Most were 3" to 4.7" pedestal mounts suitable primarily for shooting at Landing Craft.

While there are elements of truth here, essentially false. There were many more marks of weapons and fire control than this, and the most significant are not cited - 5.5 inch, 6 inch, 8 inch and 12 inch rifles. There were also 5 inch dual purpose coast defense mountings, and late in the war, something like 114 4 inch AAA which were the finest of Japanese guns, and which actually have more range than the 5 inch.

[el cid again]

The "key" to successful CD is the "Fire Control and Plotting" systems which direct the guns, and here the Japanese lag behind.

This is a rare statement. It is 100% correct - in the first clause. And it is 100% false in the second. It is true there is little written in English about Japanese fire control which is complimentary - but there is some. That does not make it true to say the "Japanese lag behind." It appears they led - that only in 1945 do we approach their coast defense sophisitcation - in the very last month of the war - and that our almost as good's never were operational at all - although one mounting was proof fired.

[el cid again]

Even in 1945, they were unable to field a successfull Fire Control Radar for their CD units.

Which statement, if it is true (and I don't know that it is true), is grossly misleading because it implies it was somehow different for us. But it is not. US Army materials from major sites I have visited (e.g. Fort Stevens, Oregon, San Francisco, Panama, Manila Bay and Oahu) indicate we ALSO were "unable to field a successful fire control radar for our CD units." I don't see any reason we could not have done, and possibly we did- but we didn't at our big sites which are directly comparable to the major Japanese sites. [We had 16 inch guns at Panama and San Francisco and 14 inch at Fort Drum in Manila Bay. Fort Stevens had nothing bigger than 12 inch, but it had some very late construction, including some never completed.] Only Fort Stevens was engaged by sea - by a submarine! - and lack of radar meant the only way to detect the target was by searchlight. These were ordered turned off - it was feared that firing would reveal the sites of the guns. The evaluation of this action may have eventually led to the end of the coast artillery. Our coast defenses were anything but useless - and involved mines as well as guns - but they were not based on use of radar.

[el cid again]

El Cid, I have never seen any of your posts backed up by the source, page number and quotes like so many of us do. If you don't have time for "scholarly documentation" in your posts don't post stuff which can't be validated.

OK. But I have yet to do that. My information can be validated - and I have already posted the sources on this board. Since you still refuse to be polite, my conditions for reposting are not met - either do a search or not as you please. Either way, my data CAN BE validated and also it HAS BEEN validated - or it would not be in the next CHS. Like it or lump it.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The "key" to successful CD is the "Fire Control and Plotting" systems which direct the guns, and here the Japanese lag behind.

This is a rare statement. It is 100% correct - in the first clause. And it is 100% false in the second. It is true there is little written in English about Japanese fire control which is complimentary - but there is some. That does not make it true to say the "Japanese lag behind." It appears they led - that only in 1945 do we approach their coast defense sophisitcation - in the very last month of the war - and that our almost as good's never were operational at all - although one mounting was proof fired.

CID Both standard Japanese Fire Control Systems (The Type 88 Electrical and the Type 98 Mechanical) was designed to use verticle (or Depression) Range-Finders. There are inherent limits in this type of installation (though it certainly made sense given the terrain of the Japanese coast) as opposed to the "Base End" system used in US installations which could sight and plot targets from a number of points along a coastline thousands of yards apart. The wider the base, and the more numerous the spotting positions, the better the data fed in to the plotting and fire control centers. You would have to mount your "Depression" Range-Finder a mile above sea level to achieve similiar triangulation. The Japanese coast is fairly rugged, but 5,000 foot cliffs along the coast are hard to come by. You keep talking as if only a "turret mounting" is modern because it has a roof and frontal armour. 100 feet of concrete and earth will stop a shell even better than 12 inches of armor. And Japanese AAA stunk, or LeMay wouldn't have been flying B-29s over Japan at 6-9,000 feet.

[el cid again]

And Japanese AAA stunk, or LeMay wouldn't have been flying B-29s over Japan at 6-9,000 feet.

According to USAAF data, even on the occasions the Japanese mounted effective fighter defenses against B-29s (see Genda's Blade for example, using recon planes to permit distant intercept, or the JAAF's "last technical surprise of the war" when a patrol line from Kyushu to mid Honshu brought down B-29s in numbers, impressing their crews) - we lost more B-29s to AAA than to fighters. The worlds only computerized air defense plotting center was in Tokyo. Nothing comparable existed in London or any other place. And there was never an Allied AAA simulator comparable to what Japan used - permitting training in all light conditions without using any ammunition against targets that could be made to appear to be any enemy (or friendly) aircraft. Now you don't have to like this information. But it is accurate information. Japan also may have introduced the AAW plot at sea - a room behind the bridge on its AA destroyers - something I saw in the USN of the 1960s - but have not yet found a reference to in WWII.

[el cid again]

CID Both standard Japanese Fire Control Systems (The Type 88 Electrical and the Type 98 Mechanical) was designed to use verticle (or Depression) Range-Finders. There are inherent limits in this type of installation (though it certainly made sense given the terrain of the Japanese coast) as opposed to the "Base End" system used in US installations which could sight and plot targets from a number of points along a coastline thousands of yards apart. The wider the base, and the more numerous the spotting positions, the better the data fed in to the plotting and fire control centers. You would have to mount your "Depression" Range-Finder a mile above sea level to achieve similiar triangulation. The Japanese coast is fairly rugged, but 5,000 foot cliffs along the coast are hard to come by. You keep talking as if only a "turret mounting" is modern because it has a roof and frontal armour. 100 feet of concrete and earth will stop a shell even better than 12 inches of armor. And Japanese AAA stunk, or LeMay wouldn't have been flying B-29s over Japan at 6-9,000 feet.

As usual, your information is correct - but incomplete. You began by talking about the defenses at Tsushima Straits. Why are you now disregarding the fire control used there? The sites were connected, by undersea cables, and they used something very similar to our system on Oahu - except that they could direct fire from any of the batteries from any of the guns - there was not just one FDC - and the FDCs were able to replace each other. The word for the fire control computer does not translate, but we had nothing like it.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

No El Cid, if you're going to say something like that you POST the data and sources to back up your assumptions.

I have posted sources on this before - more than once. I do not have time to do scholarly documentation in every comment - and I don't see this being done by others very often. If you elect to believe it isn't true - go ahead and believe it. But it IS verified and it WILL BE in the next version of CHS as well as RHS. I am a bit of a serious student of coast defenses - and have visited many of the major sites and collected literature on them. You are not required to believe me - but that does not mean it is not worthwhile to post quick and dirty for the sake of any who know I have a clue. There is a thread where it was said that my even-handed handling of this subject might result in reforms of a major oversite - and indeed it did in terms of getting a consensus in the CHS team. Ron is completely wrong - coast defense in the game is UNDERSTATED - not overstated. USN taught as late as Viet Nam not to tangle with coast defenses as a general concept. Guns ashore inherantly outrank ships. Only USS New Jersey could more or less ignore the NVA guns, and even she could get hurt in the sense of having people get killed. I have no clue what your attitude is based on - but this is a discussion board. It is a place to debate ideas. If you really want the sources - search in this board for the several places they are posted. Or ask politely.

Funny, I've been reading about military history since I could sit on the toilet and I can't come up with historical examples to match anything near what is going on in the game that does not predate ironclad ships. I'd like to see your examples that prove me "completely wrong".

[Demosthenes]

I don't know how this thread got this far - but the original complaint below was about USN 16"gun BBs getting shot up by 5.5" CD Guns in Shortlands, not Japan, not Truk,.....
It was about the over-effectiveness of these far lighter mobile CD guns...

discuss...

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.

[2ndACR]

The original poster never told us what the damage level of the BB was. I know that 5.5 inch will not penetrate a BB in the game.

The other firestorm was created when Ron posted the results of my ambush against the CA's. The light armored CA took a beating from 40 5.5 inch guns and 60 4.7 inch guns. Give or take 5-10 of each. As did the accompanying DD's and CL's.

We really need further info on the damage state of the BB. If it was at 70 sys or something, then I would agree. But I would bet that it was around 20 with lots of topside hits (destroyed guns etc) maybe some fire damage too.

Hits mean nothing if no real damage is being done. I hit a Dutch CL around 90 times with 4.7 inch guns and barely scratched the paint in a surface battle.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

The original poster never told us what the damage level of the BB was. I know that 5.5 inch will not penetrate a BB in the game.

The other firestorm was created when Ron posted the results of my ambush against the CA's. The light armored CA took a beating from 40 5.5 inch guns and 60 4.7 inch guns. Give or take 5-10 of each. As did the accompanying DD's and CL's.

We really need further info on the damage state of the BB. If it was at 70 sys or something, then I would agree. But I would bet that it was around 20 with lots of topside hits (destroyed guns etc) maybe some fire damage too.

Hits mean nothing if no real damage is being done. I hit a Dutch CL around 90 times with 4.7 inch guns and barely scratched the paint in a surface battle.

But the problem is the sheer volume and accuracy of the fire...don't you see a problem with a CL getting hit 90 times!!!? What of the other vessels? Bet you they were all smoked to vary degrees as well.

[2ndACR]

let me see..........9 DD's versus 2 CL's...........both firing like crazy at 4,000 meters..........the DD's pound away (super aggressive leader) and the Dutch stayed and fought (and won) because I was just chipping the paint on that CL. Lost 3 DD's to that battle.

I have seen very aggressive leaders stick around when they should have cut and run and have paid the price for it (caught by airpower at day break) and I have seen not so aggressive leaders cut and run after the first sign of resistance. I have seen leaders reported as competent stick around longer than aggressive leaders in a fight.

Maybe it is a dice roll. But that is the way the ball bounces. Take your chances. I setup the perfect ambush and he got caught by it. I was actually expecting DD's and maybe a CL or 2 to show up and take a pasting. Had the CV's lurking in the backfield in case he showed up with his BB's and to chase down any cripples.

The only CA that took a pounding had a belt armor rating of 25. As did the DD's.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Dont forget that bombardment TF to be succesfull must see what is aiming for. It is far harder to spot camouflaged CD guns than to see a ship in open waters. Actual leser maximum range of 6 inch CD guns than those 16 inch put on BB doesn't matter, as land based guns have greater effective (I mean range of seing results of its own fire) range of fire while aiming at ships, than ships aiming at land targets.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The rest of the Japanese equipment was pretty old (they never declared anything "obsolete") and the Fire Control was not much better than "open sights" from the gun positions. The largest were the Krupp model 1890 11" Howitzers (which were used in the same manner as the US model 1890 and 1908 12" CD Mortars). Most were 3" to 4.7" pedestal mounts suitable primarily for shooting at Landing Craft.

While there are elements of truth here, essentially false. There were many more marks of weapons and fire control than this, and the most significant are not cited - 5.5 inch, 6 inch, 8 inch and 12 inch rifles. There were also 5 inch dual purpose coast defense mountings, and late in the war, something like 114 4 inch AAA which were the finest of Japanese guns, and which actually have more range than the 5 inch.

Japan diodn't have any 4" AAA guns. They had a fairly effective 3.9" (100mm) AAA gun with a good reach and Rate of Fire, but poor Fire Direction compared to the US (who were mounting Radar Fire Control on their 40mm mounts by late in the war)

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

And Japanese AAA stunk, or LeMay wouldn't have been flying B-29s over Japan at 6-9,000 feet.

According to USAAF data, even on the occasions the Japanese mounted effective fighter defenses against B-29s (see Genda's Blade for example, using recon planes to permit distant intercept, or the JAAF's "last technical surprise of the war" when a patrol line from Kyushu to mid Honshu brought down B-29s in numbers, impressing their crews) - we lost more B-29s to AAA than to fighters. The worlds only computerized air defense plotting center was in Tokyo. Nothing comparable existed in London or any other place. And there was never an Allied AAA simulator comparable to what Japan used - permitting training in all light conditions without using any ammunition against targets that could be made to appear to be any enemy (or friendly) aircraft. Now you don't have to like this information. But it is accurate information. Japan also may have introduced the AAW plot at sea - a room behind the bridge on its AA destroyers - something I saw in the USN of the 1960s - but have not yet found a reference to in WWII.

Possibly.., but we lost far more B-29's to mechanical failures than to the Japanese---which certainly wasn't the case in Europe where the German's actually had effective AAA and Fighters. And you can say what you like about Tokyo's "computerized air defense plotting center", but IRL Tokyo was burned to the ground by low flying B-29's and unable to do much of anything about it. Japanese Fire Control certainly doesn't seem to have impressed the US Seacoast Artillery Research Board that analyzed it after the War.
"Obsolescent" is the most prevelant word in their study of the subject. They are much kinder than the board studying Japanese military electronics, who described it as being composed of the kind of materials that anyone could have bought in a radio shop in the States in the 30's.

[spence]

Allied battleships bombarded several ports and other installations in the Japanese Home Islands in July/August 45. I haven't found much more than sketchy descriptions of the bombardments other than that they were credited with inflicting some damage to steel mills and oil installations. In what I've seen there was no mention whatever of being engaged by any coastal defenses. The Allies were not apparently intimidated by whatever coastal defenses may have been present.

[adamc6]

Original poster here.....a bit amazed at the state of the thread.

Anyway -- when I posted I had not checked the BBs....and I restarted soon after due to learning curve.

From memory, one BB was hit 17 times and the other 18. Now, I'm not complaining that my 16' guns should have taken out the guns, I am asking how the hell those pop guns could it me, with the range advantage, that many times. I am not a technical guru like some of you, but a Coastal Artillery BN that has been in place for maybe a month (this does not make me think of a sophisticated system) can pull that off? Just seems like a stretch. (and no, for those who did not read the whole thread, I did not have escorts set to bombard).

I don't mind someone setting me straight, but do it with some panache and not just a "yeah, it could happen."

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: adamc6

Original poster here.....a bit amazed at the state of the thread.

Anyway -- when I posted I had not checked the BBs....and I restarted soon after due to learning curve.

From memory, one BB was hit 17 times and the other 18. Now, I'm not complaining that my 16' guns should have taken out the guns, I am asking how the hell those pop guns could it me, with the range advantage, that many times. I am not a technical guru like some of you, but a Coastal Artillery BN that has been in place for maybe a month (this does not make me think of a sophisticated system) can pull that off? Just seems like a stretch. (and no, for those who did not read the whole thread, I did not have escorts set to bombard).

I don't mind someone setting me straight, but do it with some panache and not just a "yeah, it could happen."

In this game, you are almost always making a night bombardment. How far you can shoot is much less of a question than how close you had to get to identify your targets. If you are asking "Is the game's bombardment routine screwed up?" the answer is yes. If you are asking "Are Japanese CD guns overly effective?" the answer is yes. If you are asking "how can a one hour bombardment attack the airfield, the port, the ground troops, and any ships in the hex, but an air strike must pick only one target?" it's a question many others have asked as well. It's what we're stuck with until or unless someone can fix it.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: adamc6
I am asking how he hell those pop guns could it me, with the range advantage, that many times.

There is no chance to hit something (with exception of hitting "forest") at maximum range of BB's! You must came closer to watch effects of your firing. And then range of 6 inch guns is enough. While bombardment there is no such thing as range advantage. This is the reason why some nations ever bother to create CD guns.

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Mynok

388 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

It appears we take different meaning from this line. You are saying that means there were 388 guns whereas I take it to mean there were 388 shots.

Since 2ndACR already told us there were 100 guns, I'm sticking with my interpretation. [;)]

yes, definetely there were 100 guns and 388 shots fired from these guns

Okay, I didn't see the word 'shots' for some reason. Save for the counting in a reload capacity, that could've been any number of guns untold. Considering how this game is geared, it just seems a bit odd to me that it doesn't tell you how many guns there were in the report. Not that it's a bad thing, but just that how this game is geared usually it seems out of place. I would have thought it would have told you, that, instead of how many shots were fired. I don't think I've seen shots accounted for anywhere else.