Coastal Defense Guns

[el cid again]

But then again we're talking about the Americans/Allies being able to do something better than the Japanese so once again that flies in the face of the standards of posting in this thread.

I am growing tired of this "Allies/Americans always have the best" stuff.
I am an American fighting man (the opening words of the Code of Conduct by the way). I am an American technical guy too. But this is getting silly: NO NATION had comparable optical fire control to Imperial Japan during WWII. NO NATION EVER before, during or since WWII had men who were specialists in night optics in the sense Japan had them. They were blindfolded by day, fed special diets, and other measures that we have never considered, much less practiced. The combination of technical optics and trained specialists were often more effective in combat than our radar systems were in 1942, and dangerously competative thereafter. Did you ever notice the gigantic "pagoda" tops of Japnese battleships and cruisers? These gave them a height advantage over other nations. More height = more detection range. The leaders in world optics were German and Japanese - not American - firms. [This has not changed either, although they have merged.] SECURE Americans don't have to think we are always best at everything!

[el cid again]

Funny El Cid. So many other people are willing to post hard facts to back up what they say.

I think it is funny you seem unable to identify a hard fact when stated.
What particular hard fact would impress you? I have yet to make anything up. Japan (as my first US Navy chief said, before I had a clue) had "the finest warships" going into World War II, and the most powerful naval striking force on the planet. Japan trained (and still trains) for night and heavy weather operations like no other navy - including ours. Japan had weapons and weapons control systems that were generally competative and often superior - including the best torpedos - the biggest guns - the best optics - and the worlds first computerized anti-aircraft plotting center. This is a tiny list of hard facts - why are you complaining? And what good would it to to amplify it to a hundred or even a thousand - if you won't accept them?

[el cid again]

If Gibralter was in this game the CDs would obtain a better result than Jutland and Pearl Harbor combined. Cid, i respect your opinions and lots of your ideas and effort have merit but if you think that CDs are underpowered in the game I think I'll pass on RHS because it casts a shadow of suspicion on everything.

You are correct about Gibraltar. You are probably incorrect about CDs in the game - because it is an esoteric subject no longer studied professionally in the free world (PRC has new CD gun systems, but we do not). It is most unlikely any game designers understood how to give CD its due.

I have not played many turns of WITP - although I have played UV since version 1.0 which I regard as essentially similar in this regard. My opinion has no influence over how the code is written or wether CD is too strong as you think, or not strong enough as I think. I think it is odd to allow something like an opinion to color your thinking about a mod! The only thing I did to affect CD was to insure that the right weapons were put in the forts - for both sides - where they were missing. And that data was adopted by Andrew for CHS - because it was popular. Wow - it is almost as if you are saying "If you disagree with me you cannot do any good work, and I am no longer interested in it, in spite of having volunteered to help test it." I regret this is how you feel - but since I have no ability to affect the way the code is written - I could not do what you seem to want even if I wanted to try.

The truth is I do not know if the CD routine works well or badly. And neither do you. We probably will know pretty soon - so why not wait and see what it turnes out to be? I see enough design issues with WITP to think there probably are things wrong with the CD routine. But that does not mean it is not a fair "quick and dirty first pass" routine. It might be.
I have seen many results in UV which seemed quite in the range of possible. And your reports (and your opponents) seem ALSO to be misjudged - the results are NOT in the wrong ball park. But I bet the routine is not perfect and can be made better. When I see the code I will try to make it better in any sense you or anyone can show it is not considering this, or exaggerating that. I prefer to assume things work until data FORCES me to believe it is broken. This is a method - not a conclusion. I am open to the possibility the CD is not right. And I bet it isn't perfect. I just don't think most of the negative opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of real CD guns. There are lots of exceptions in naval history, but Adm Nelsons statement "no sailor but a fool" challenges CD guns remains a valid axiom.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

If Gibralter was in this game the CDs would obtain a better result than Jutland and Pearl Harbor combined. Cid, i respect your opinions and lots of your ideas and effort have merit but if you think that CDs are underpowered in the game I think I'll pass on RHS because it casts a shadow of suspicion on everything.

You are correct about Gibraltar. You are probably incorrect about CDs in the game - because it is an esoteric subject no longer studied professionally in the free world (PRC has new CD gun systems, but we do not). It is most unlikely any game designers understood how to give CD its due.

I have not played many turns of WITP - although I have played UV since version 1.0 which I regard as essentially similar in this regard. My opinion has no influence over how the code is written or wether CD is too strong as you think, or not strong enough as I think. I think it is odd to allow something like an opinion to color your thinking about a mod! The only thing I did to affect CD was to insure that the right weapons were put in the forts - for both sides - where they were missing. And that data was adopted by Andrew for CHS - because it was popular. Wow - it is almost as if you are saying "If you disagree with me you cannot do any good work, and I am no longer interested in it, in spite of having volunteered to help test it." I regret this is how you feel - but since I have no ability to affect the way the code is written - I could not do what you seem to want even if I wanted to try.

The truth is I do not know if the CD routine works well or badly. And neither do you. We probably will know pretty soon - so why not wait and see what it turnes out to be? I see enough design issues with WITP to think there probably are things wrong with the CD routine. But that does not mean it is not a fair "quick and dirty first pass" routine. It might be.
I have seen many results in UV which seemed quite in the range of possible. And your reports (and your opponents) seem ALSO to be misjudged - the results are NOT in the wrong ball park. But I bet the routine is not perfect and can be made better. When I see the code I will try to make it better in any sense you or anyone can show it is not considering this, or exaggerating that. I prefer to assume things work until data FORCES me to believe it is broken. This is a method - not a conclusion. I am open to the possibility the CD is not right. And I bet it isn't perfect. I just don't think most of the negative opinion is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of real CD guns. There are lots of exceptions in naval history, but Adm Nelsons statement "no sailor but a fool" challenges CD guns remains a valid axiom.

My only point here is that if you seriously believe that CD defences are not overly effective (especially when you are all about correct data etc yet ignore the historical examples of CD vs warship exchanges and embrace pure conjecture regarding how CD systems would have faired, and painting al CDs with the same brush that your CD systems are), this causes one to suspect some of your other assumptions. Frankly, I can't believe your are ignoring facts and relying on what ifs.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

My only point here is that if you seriously believe that CD defences are not overly effective (especially when you are all about correct data etc yet ignore the historical examples of CD vs warship exchanges and embrace pure conjecture regarding how CD systems would have faired, and painting al CDs with the same brush that your CD systems are), this causes one to suspect some of your other assumptions. Frankly, I can't believe your are ignoring facts and relying on what ifs.

The Major problem here is that the game makes no worthwhile differentiation between Integrated Pre-War Coastal Defense Systems and the kind of Artillery placed during the war to defend a coastal position. You just can't compare such things. Oahu or Manilla Bay or Singapore or Tsushima Straits or Vladavostok were all created ass integrated systems over years. They had heavy calibre guns in well-sighted and protected positions interlinked with multiple fire control and spotting positions and controlled minefields supplied with tidal tables and total surveys of the area. Within the area they protected they could bring down very accurate fire very quickly. And whether they were defended in a turret or behind great banks of earth and concrete or simply by being located behind a hill, they were very difficult to spot and engage with any effectiveness. These were VERY tough nuts to crack, and all were delt with by avoiding them or approaching them from overland.

During the war, numbers of medium and light calibre guns were emplaced for Coast Defense purposes. These could discourage light naval forces and provide some protection against landings in the immediate
area. About the BEST result such installations could hope for was achieved at Wake. Light Japanese Naval forces tried to land an invasion force and were beaten off with some loss and a lot of humiliation.
When they came back with better support they were able to achieve their goal. Most of the Japanese held Islands that were invaded had some CD guns of some sort. At no time did they really effect the outcome.
Sometimes these guns (or just artillery that happened to sight it) would open fire on passing ships. Rarely is there any report of success..., though they sometimes caused the ships to give them a wider berth. In test results, the most successfull would probably have been the mid to late war USMC Coast Defense Bns with their improved fire control..., but since by that time the Japanese were in no position to "test" them, no actual results exist. Overall, you could say that these installations were usefull for discouraging light invasions and bombardments, but not for preventing a major efforts by heavy forces.
The best defended area by this type of installation was probably at Normandy, where the landing was made between the heavily defended areas at Cherbourg and Le Havre. The CD artillery caused problems, but didn't stop anything. The guns that were felt to be the greatest threat (the 5 French 155 mm that were supposedly emplaced at Pont du Hoc) turned out to be something of a joke found parked in an orchard with their crews nowhere to be found. Later when US BB's tried to support the attack on Cherbourg they were driven off rather quickly by the Coast Defense System that the Germans had inherited from the French and improved somewhat.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Mike Scholl:

You are generally treating field guns prepared to fire against landing forces as a coast defence guns. There is much difference between them. Coast defence guns of medium calliber had enough power to endanger even the biggest ships.

Also you are comparing three batteries at Wake (will be 12 guns?) to situation where 100 guns fired in game. That is completely wrong.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Mike Scholl:

You are generally treating field guns prepared to fire against landing forces as a coast defence guns. There is much difference between them. Coast defence guns of medium calliber had enough power to endanger even the biggest ships.

Also you are comparing three batteries at Wake (will be 12 guns?) to situation where 100 guns fired in game. That is completely wrong.

What is wrong is treating mortars and infantry guns as dedicated CD guns. Just because the game makes no differentation between the two is no reason to assume all guns are like dedicated CDs. This is frankly ridiculous. If everything is going to be like the Guns of Navarone, their had better be a Gregerory Peck led invulnerable shock unit to counter them.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: el cid again


I am growing tired of this "Allies/Americans always have the best" stuff.

And a LOT of other people HAVE grown tired of YOUR constant Japanese are superior to anything the Allies had. Before you pull that line El Cid you may want to read all of your posts.

We admit the Japanese had things better than the Allies but what YOU won't admit (and will post your regular dozen rebuttals to per post) is that the Japanese may NOT have been superior in everything.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Funny El Cid. So many other people are willing to post hard facts to back up what they say.

I think it is funny you seem unable to identify a hard fact when stated.
What particular hard fact would impress you? I have yet to make anything up. Japan (as my first US Navy chief said, before I had a clue) had "the finest warships" going into World War II, and the most powerful naval striking force on the planet. Japan trained (and still trains) for night and heavy weather operations like no other navy - including ours. Japan had weapons and weapons control systems that were generally competative and often superior - including the best torpedos - the biggest guns - the best optics - and the worlds first computerized anti-aircraft plotting center. This is a tiny list of hard facts - why are you complaining? And what good would it to to amplify it to a hundred or even a thousand - if you won't accept them?

We (or I) won't accept it because you don't post any of your facts. When someone asks for you to do so we get a response like this which is nothing more than rhetoric implying that you know what you're talking about and we should just accept it. That's not going to fly El Cid.

If you're going to make all these claims about how superior Japan was in World War II (I could care less about present day because that's immaterial to the WWII discussion) then BACK IT UP WITH FACTS INSTEAD OF YOUR RHETORIC.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Mike Scholl:

You are generally treating field guns prepared to fire against landing forces as a coast defence guns. There is much difference between them. Coast defence guns of medium calliber had enough power to endanger even the biggest ships.

Also you are comparing three batteries at Wake (will be 12 guns?) to situation where 100 guns fired in game. That is completely wrong.

You need to check your facts. There were 4 5"/51 Naval guns at Wake. Coast Defense guns of Medium Calibre were usually 6" (or 152mm) 6.1" (or 155mm) or 8" (203 mm). Obviously able to engage cruisers, but a bit small for threatening BB's. The only difference between a Field Gun and a Naval Gun is the Mounting and the Fire Control. Look at French Light Cruisers of the period..., they all mount 6.1" Guns,
The same as their 155mm field guns. I think you are confusing "guns" with "howitzers". A field howitzer was seldom used in the CD role because of the lower muzzle velocity and penetraiting power. Though the larger ones (240 mm and up) were used as CD artillery in the same matter as heavy CD Mortars.

[el cid again]

My only point here is that if you seriously believe that CD defences are not overly effective (especially when you are all about correct data etc yet ignore the historical examples of CD vs warship exchanges and embrace pure conjecture regarding how CD systems would have faired, and painting al CDs with the same brush that your CD systems are), this causes one to suspect some of your other assumptions. Frankly, I can't believe your are ignoring facts and relying on what ifs.

I see. I understand too. While for the average person looking at history may be a good way to get a sense of what is possible, it is not the ideal way. As a technical guy it was my job to understand the physics (and organization and tactics) in order to make things better IRL. This same habit of thinking allows me to be able to understand what would happen in a situation that really did not occur. More than that, however, you are failing to use what didn't happen as POSITIVE EVIDENCE. It was certainly possible to challenge CD units over a span of decades - and years of actual major war. The fact that admirals elected NOT to try is direct evidence of their opinion about what the outcome would be. I spent years working in the aerospace industry - where ALL designs are simulated for years before they really cut metal. We have learned how to understand things so well we never design planes that won't fly any more - something which once was common. It isn't that we don't get it wrong - it is that theory allows us to figure it out before we build it. It may be we can only estimate the top speed in a simulator - and we need a real world test to know it exactly - but our estimate is going to be very close. You seem uncomfortable with going the route of theory - but this is well understood - and it produces real knowledge and useful truth. Your discomfort with this approach does not mean it is a bad one - or that any analysis based on a comprehensive understanding of the science is wrong.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

My only point here is that if you seriously believe that CD defences are not overly effective (especially when you are all about correct data etc yet ignore the historical examples of CD vs warship exchanges and embrace pure conjecture regarding how CD systems would have faired, and painting al CDs with the same brush that your CD systems are), this causes one to suspect some of your other assumptions. Frankly, I can't believe your are ignoring facts and relying on what ifs.

I see. I understand too. While for the average person looking at history may be a good way to get a sense of what is possible, it is not the ideal way. As a technical guy it was my job to understand the physics (and organization and tactics) in order to make things better IRL. This same habit of thinking allows me to be able to understand what would happen in a situation that really did not occur. More than that, however, you are failing to use what didn't happen as POSITIVE EVIDENCE. It was certainly possible to challenge CD units over a span of decades - and years of actual major war. The fact that admirals elected NOT to try is direct evidence of their opinion about what the outcome would be. I spent years working in the aerospace industry - where ALL designs are simulated for years before they really cut metal. We have learned how to understand things so well we never design planes that won't fly any more - something which once was common. It isn't that we don't get it wrong - it is that theory allows us to figure it out before we build it. It may be we can only estimate the top speed in a simulator - and we need a real world test to know it exactly - but our estimate is going to be very close. You seem uncomfortable with going the route of theory - but this is well understood - and it produces real knowledge and useful truth. Your discomfort with this approach does not mean it is a bad one - or that any analysis based on a comprehensive understanding of the science is wrong.

Theory is fine in the absence of fact, but the reality is there is lots of fact which illustrates that crediting non sepecialized CD guns with specialized capability is in error. Correcting this should be paramount before applying theory and conjecture.

Also, earlier I said that I could not find one example of CDs bitch slapping ships as in the original posts since the onset of iron clad warships, and still can't. Why have you been using references to Nelson etc when clearly we have passed the period of heated shot and wooden ships?

[el cid again]

The Major problem here is that the game makes no worthwhile differentiation between Integrated Pre-War Coastal Defense Systems and the kind of Artillery placed during the war to defend a coastal position. You just can't compare such things. Oahu or Manilla Bay or Singapore or Tsushima Straits or Vladavostok were all created ass integrated systems over years. They had heavy calibre guns in well-sighted and protected positions interlinked with multiple fire control and spotting positions and controlled minefields supplied with tidal tables and total surveys of the area. Within the area they protected they could bring down very accurate fire very quickly. And whether they were defended in a turret or behind great banks of earth and concrete or simply by being located behind a hill, they were very difficult to spot and engage with any effectiveness. These were VERY tough nuts to crack, and all were delt with by avoiding them or approaching them from overland.

During the war, numbers of medium and light calibre guns were emplaced for Coast Defense purposes. These could discourage light naval forces and provide some protection against landings in the immediate
area. About the BEST result such installations could hope for was achieved at Wake. Light Japanese Naval forces tried to land an invasion force and were beaten off with some loss and a lot of humiliation.
When they came back with better support they were able to achieve their goal. Most of the Japanese held Islands that were invaded had some CD guns of some sort. At no time did they really effect the outcome.
Sometimes these guns (or just artillery that happened to sight it) would open fire on passing ships. Rarely is there any report of success..., though they sometimes caused the ships to give them a wider berth. In test results, the most successfull would probably have been the mid to late war USMC Coast Defense Bns with their improved fire control..., but since by that time the Japanese were in no position to "test" them, no actual results exist. Overall, you could say that these installations were usefull for discouraging light invasions and bombardments, but not for preventing a major efforts by heavy forces.
The best defended area by this type of installation was probably at Normandy, where the landing was made between the heavily defended areas at Cherbourg and Le Havre. The CD artillery caused problems, but didn't stop anything. The guns that were felt to be the greatest threat (the 5 French 155 mm that were supposedly emplaced at Pont du Hoc) turned out to be something of a joke found parked in an orchard with their crews nowhere to be found. Later when US BB's tried to support the attack on Cherbourg they were driven off rather quickly by the Coast Defense System that the Germans had inherited from the French and improved somewhat.

This is a good post. I agree with you about 90%. I am not sure, however, that anything you say justifies your conclusion. It appears that the game system models the guns properly for anti-ship combat - the database is flawed with respect to land targets if only because it is inconsistent - often rating weapons with zero values that are fictional.
It appears that, within the limits it is good for sea gun combat, the CD is modeled properly for weapon effects. You are probably right - it probably does not model the fire control advantages of the major forts - I was shocked to kill Fort Drum in a day in the first week of the war! But note that IF this criticism is valid, I am right, and CD is not effective enough - the opposite of Ron's charge it is too effective! The code probably treats CD guns as "land based ships" with no special advantage. But IF we change that, CD will (for some locations) become MORE effective - not less. Nothing about this idea (that the game does not model the big forts to full advantage) indicates there is a fundamental problem with ordinary CD guns.

My own concerns in real world operations have been entirely with the use of 122, 130, 152 and 155mm weapons - there are no big guns any more.
And these are surely all deadly weapons - albiet much more so to unarmored ships than to armored ones. But the game does appear to allow "hits" with no significant damage on armored ships - so it is not clear the system is broken.

[el cid again]

What is wrong is treating mortars and infantry guns as dedicated CD guns. Just because the game makes no differentation between the two is no reason to assume all guns are like dedicated CDs. This is frankly ridiculous. If everything is going to be like the Guns of Navarone, their had better be a Gregerory Peck led invulnerable shock unit to counter them.

How do we know how the game treats these things? How do we know that there is a problem here? I can see how it might be a problem - but not seeing the algorithms - I do not see how we know it is.

[el cid again]

We admit the Japanese had things better than the Allies but what YOU won't admit (and will post your regular dozen rebuttals to per post) is that the Japanese may NOT have been superior in everything.

Wow. Boy are you confused. You may search in vein for a single statement by me that "the Japanese are superior in everything." They clearly were not. Further, it is my view that the Japanese were "overspecialized" - that they built doctrines and machines to fulfill them that only worked if the enemy "cooperated" (behaved as expected). Once these were understood, it became possible to render them ineffective, and the over-specialized stuff was ill suited to be used in some other way (with some exceptions).

I think you are confusing debating skill with an overall evaluation. Just because I defend an idea - or attack an idea - with strong words, facts and logic does not tell you ANYTHING about my OVERALL evaluation of the Japanese - reread the above to get a sense of that. I am NOT a JFB in the terms of this board - and I will go on as long as you like on any subject - good or bad - on either side. I am a nit picker and I don't like things that are misstated - so I attack things which are incomplete or wrong in my view. But do not think I cannot similarly criticize systems or concepts of Japan or any other nation. You are jumping to wholly unwarranted conclusions to think I believe, or ever even one time said, Japan is always best. It was not. It just is a whole LOT better than uninformed American opinion had it at the time, and somewhat better than semi-informed American opinion has it at this time. Lots of esoteric information indicates we really still underrate what we faced. If you think about it, that only means we did even better than we thought we did - it is not really a criticism of us we beat people with better stuff than we understand!

[el cid again]

We (or I) won't accept it because you don't post any of your facts.

Go study English. To make a statement that is true is to post a fact. You are NOT saying I don't post any facts - you are saying I didn't give you sources for them. That is different entirely. And it also is false. You will find that I have cited books, and in a few cases stated that I am the source, being an eyewitness to this or that. You are either completely ignoring this, or you wish to have some sort of scholarly citation - which is not really appropriate to a general discussion board. I am doing other things - and I don't have time to look up every thing to scholarly standards - and will not do so for someone who is disrecpectful and not going to believe it anyway. You already "know" I am wrong - what is the point trying to impress you. You also won't believe anything I may have seen on a physical site, in a physical form in a museum, or in Japanese - since you won't trust my translation. [This latter is slightly justified: Japanese is HARD to read - it was NEVER properly read even in the era it was written - and it is IMPOSSIBLE to know now what terms of art meant when no living person can explain them. A typical sentence in Japanese only implies a subject - the reader must make assumptions and guess - fill in the blank if you prefer. The idea that boards of experts actually understood the documents in front of them is ludicrous - they didn't understand much at all. I am associated with one of only seven Japanese language immersion schools in all of North America - a school entirely staffed with native Japanese speakers who are also linguists with masters degrees. NOT ONE of these could translate the title of a book I have on I 400 properly - it took me over a year to figure it out. They rendered a word intended to mean "hypothetical" as "etherial" in English. I would not be offended if you felt my translation was wrong in the sense that NO ONE has a comprehensive grasp of these old documents. But I AM offended because you "know" I MUST be wrong in concluding we grossly underrate the technology we face - in spite of the fact I am probably right more than 9 times in 10.) I see no point in trying to deal with your attitude. ONLY IF you are actually interested in how one can know what is not widely known - and that probably includes learning some Japanese - is there any point in getting really specific about how we know what we know. If you begin by knowing we can't know that- you will only accept my saying "yeah - you are right - and I don't know anything." But, as you can guess, I won't say that.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

We (or I) won't accept it because you don't post any of your facts.

Go study English. To make a statement that is true is to post a fact. You are NOT saying I don't post any facts - you are saying I didn't give you sources for them. That is different entirely. And it also is false. You will find that I have cited books, and in a few cases stated that I am the source, being an eyewitness to this or that. You are either completely ignoring this, or you wish to have some sort of scholarly citation - which is not really appropriate to a general discussion board. I am doing other things - and I don't have time to look up every thing to scholarly standards - and will not do so for someone who is disrecpectful and not going to believe it anyway. You already "know" I am wrong - what is the point trying to impress you. You also won't believe anything I may have seen on a physical site, in a physical form in a museum, or in Japanese - since you won't trust my translation. [This latter is slightly justified: Japanese is HARD to read - it was NEVER properly read even in the era it was written - and it is IMPOSSIBLE to know now what terms of art meant when no living person can explain them. A typical sentence in Japanese only implies a subject - the reader must make assumptions and guess - fill in the blank if you prefer. The idea that boards of experts actually understood the documents in front of them is ludicrous - they didn't understand much at all. I am associated with one of only seven Japanese language immersion schools in all of North America - a school entirely staffed with native Japanese speakers who are also linguists with masters degrees. NOT ONE of these could translate the title of a book I have on I 400 properly - it took me over a year to figure it out. They rendered a word intended to mean "hypothetical" as "etherial" in English. I would not be offended if you felt my translation was wrong in the sense that NO ONE has a comprehensive grasp of these old documents. But I AM offended because you "know" I MUST be wrong in concluding we grossly underrate the technology we face - in spite of the fact I am probably right more than 9 times in 10.) I see no point in trying to deal with your attitude. ONLY IF you are actually interested in how one can know what is not widely known - and that probably includes learning some Japanese - is there any point in getting really specific about how we know what we know. If you begin by knowing we can't know that- you will only accept my saying "yeah - you are right - and I don't know anything." But, as you can guess, I won't say that.

I don't need to study English El Cid. You post rhetoric you CLAIM are facts and never post your sources so people can determine for themselves whether they are in fact sources or just your beliefs. You have never posted your sources the way other people have and when people ask for your sources your standard response is you don't have time.

[el cid again]

You need to check your facts. There were 4 5"/51 Naval guns at Wake. Coast Defense guns of Medium Calibre were usually 6" (or 152mm) 6.1" (or 155mm) or 8" (203 mm). Obviously able to engage cruisers, but a bit small for threatening BB's. The only difference between a Field Gun and a Naval Gun is the Mounting and the Fire Control. Look at French Light Cruisers of the period..., they all mount 6.1" Guns,
The same as their 155mm field guns. I think you are confusing "guns" with "howitzers". A field howitzer was seldom used in the CD role because of the lower muzzle velocity and penetraiting power. Though the larger ones (240 mm and up) were used as CD artillery in the same matter as heavy CD Mortars.

In a way, both of you are correct. Mike is right - most CD guns are not specialist weapons - they are remounted field guns or naval guns. Monter is right, the way they are used is threatening even to protected ships. But Mike is right that a 5 inch gun (4.7 or 5.5) is not going to penetrate the side armor of a battleship. Penetration for a high velocity rifle (in the range 27,000 to 30,000 fps) at short range is 1.75 times caliber - that corresponds to 210 mm for a 120 mm gun, 228 mm for a 130, and 245 mm for a 140 mm gun (which are, respetively, 4.7 inch, 5.1 inch and 5.5 inch guns for those who don't speak metric). That should not matter much to a battleship with 12 inches (305 mm) of armor - if matter means sinking. But it DOES matter in terms of wreaking the fire control systems, starting fires, killing lots of people, etc - even for a battleship. Anyone on deck, manning a gun tub, is in trouble if a 5 inch battery opens up in effective range. So are the officers and lookouts and signalmen on the bridge wing. As I say - both of you are right.

[el cid again]

Theory is fine in the absence of fact, but the reality is there is lots of fact which illustrates that crediting non sepecialized CD guns with specialized capability is in error. Correcting this should be paramount before applying theory and conjecture.

These "facts" are false. Simply false. Talk to a regular artilleryman. My best friend and mentor (of 4 decades) served in US Army on 105s.
My present regiment is commanded by a group of ex-artillerymen - and they proudly maintain a battery of guns for us even though we are nominally light infantry. I don't know why you think ordinary artillery is not effective in a coast defense role, but give any competent artilleryman a realistic number of hours to set up observation posts, survey the firing sites, and fully establish an FDC - it is no longer safe to sail in range.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

We admit the Japanese had things better than the Allies but what YOU won't admit (and will post your regular dozen rebuttals to per post) is that the Japanese may NOT have been superior in everything.

Wow. Boy are you confused. You may search in vein for a single statement by me that "the Japanese are superior in everything." They clearly were not. Further, it is my view that the Japanese were "overspecialized" - that they built doctrines and machines to fulfill them that only worked if the enemy "cooperated" (behaved as expected). Once these were understood, it became possible to render them ineffective, and the over-specialized stuff was ill suited to be used in some other way (with some exceptions).

I think you are confusing debating skill with an overall evaluation. Just because I defend an idea - or attack an idea - with strong words, facts and logic does not tell you ANYTHING about my OVERALL evaluation of the Japanese - reread the above to get a sense of that. I am NOT a JFB in the terms of this board - and I will go on as long as you like on any subject - good or bad - on either side. I am a nit picker and I don't like things that are misstated - so I attack things which are incomplete or wrong in my view. But do not think I cannot similarly criticize systems or concepts of Japan or any other nation. You are jumping to wholly unwarranted conclusions to think I believe, or ever even one time said, Japan is always best. It was not. It just is a whole LOT better than uninformed American opinion had it at the time, and somewhat better than semi-informed American opinion has it at this time. Lots of esoteric information indicates we really still underrate what we faced. If you think about it, that only means we did even better than we thought we did - it is not really a criticism of us we beat people with better stuff than we understand!

I'm not confusing debating skill with overall evaluation El Cid. I'm pointing out the fact that your posts have ALWAYS been pro-Japanese biased and have NEVER been what people could honestly called objective. According to your posts the Japanese can do EVERYTHING better than the allies and when anybody disagrees with you you resort to your long multiple posts in attempts to bombard people into submission.

I'm surprised and astonished that you only posted a mere TWO posts to my one as you usually tend to get more rebuttal posts out of what other people post.

And as far as I am concerned, and others who have been in touch with me, you are one of the premier JFBs El Cid.

You are not a nitpicker El Cid ... you just can't seem to bear that people disagree with you especially when that disagreement seems to mean that the Japanese weren't as superior as you imagine they were.

I'm not asking anybody to be an Allied Fan Boy or a Jap Fan Boy but just be objective and realistic. When you post something that is objective and can -- and WILL -- back it up with your sources instead of all your rhetoric then you can shed yourself of the label of JFB.

The easiest way to shut us people up El Cid is, instead of posting your multiple rebuttal posts, is to simply post one citing and quoting the source for the point you're trying to make. THAT is something you have never done and until you do whatever you post will always be questionable by quite a lot of people here.