Matrix Games Forums

do regular art such as 155mm fire on ships???

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.

We didn't really engage proper coast defense batteries. We engaged ad hoc, improvised coast defenses using anything available. Actually, IJA built and operated the "most sophisticated coast defense installations of all time" according to Naval Weapons of World War Two. These were formal coast defense brigades, with army-designed turrets (12 inch face armor) mounting surplus Navy guns of 8, 10, 12 and 16 inch calibers. The only thing comparable are two batteries on Oahu never completed during the war (one completed a few days after and was not commissioned) - using guns from USS Arizona. It may be no accident we didn't engage these units - they are listed in a 1943 US intelligence report.

ORIGINAL: wylfsun

do regular art such as 155mm fire on ships???

IRL? The 155mm gun was the the STANDARD gun for US mobile CD units during the war. Placed on a "Kelley" or "Panama" mount and tied into a fire direction center, they were used to cover beachheads from the kind of Japanese activity so prevelant at Guadalcanal.

On the other hand, just plain field artillery wasn't much use for this kind of duty. The guns could shoot out to sea, but without a naval type fire control they couldn't track and engage targets unless they could see them over "open sights".

edit

On the other hand, just plain field artillery wasn't much use for this kind of duty. The guns could shoot out to sea, but without a naval type fire control they couldn't track and engage targets unless they could see them over "open sights".

Boy is this wrong. I have faced 122, 130 and 150 army type land guns rolling around on the decks of junks as well as fired from shore positions. Used ashore they have tricks NO ship can use (aiming stakes for example). And HMAS Hobart was a victim of such guns using passive signal triangulation. It is an ancient principle that "no sailor but a fool" takes a ship in range of shore guns. We sometimes did it - but it was dangerous. [One thing we did was drill what to do if a ship lost steering or propulsion. The following ship would attempt to pass a tow line when the bow passed the stern of the disabled ship. The entire process had to be completed - and the speeds PERFECTLY matched - when the hauser ran out of distance. This is spooky stuff - and just practice is dangerous - never mind trying to do it under fire.]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

On the other hand, just plain field artillery wasn't much use for this kind of duty. The guns could shoot out to sea, but without a naval type fire control they couldn't track and engage targets unless they could see them over "open sights".

Boy is this wrong. I have faced 122, 130 and 150 army type land guns rolling around on the decks of junks as well as fired from shore positions. Used ashore they have tricks NO ship can use (aiming stakes for example). And HMAS Hobart was a victim of such guns using passive signal triangulation. It is an ancient principle that "no sailor but a fool" takes a ship in range of shore guns. We sometimes did it - but it was dangerous. [One thing we did was drill what to do if a ship lost steering or propulsion. The following ship would attempt to pass a tow line when the bow passed the stern of the disabled ship. The entire process had to be completed - and the speeds PERFECTLY matched - when the hauser ran out of distance. This is spooky stuff - and just practice is dangerous - never mind trying to do it under fire.]

Well el cid again, obviously you survived your ordeal of fire by these awsome shore batteries - so they must not have been that effective after all eh?

I'll take Morison's word for shore batteries - thank you very much.

el cid...i'm curious as to what battle you always refer to.....IIRC i think you said it was during Vietnam....didn't know there was a naval battle during that war.....and i would like to read up on it....thanks

Fact is that field type guns and even naval type guns were not (except in the abortive Japanese landing attempt at Wake on Dec 11, 1941) able to inflict serious enough losses on any landing force to jeopardize the landing.

The aborted Japanese landing does illustrate however that the landing must be supported by sufficient naval firepower to suppress the coast defenses. In that instance the initial withholding of fire by the Wake defenders set the IJN up for a sucker punch. At close range the shore guns were able to score on multiple ships at once with the first salvos thereby changing several of the ship captains' concerns immediately from fire suppression to damage control. The relatively lightly armed invasion fleet had no reserve of firepower left after those initial hits to directly engage and suppress the now revealed coastal guns. That exaccerbated the Japanese's problem and led to the decision to abort/withdraw.

In contrast, American/Allied amphibious landings were massively supported by naval gunfire and air bombardment. The firepower brought to these landing appears to have been sufficient to suppress the relatively light weight coast defense artillery at the landing sites in every case (~100-150mm). Though the guns themselves may have survived until overrun by ground forces they were unable by their own fire to seriously impede the landing of those ground forces and supplies. I the only instance I know of wherein the USN engaged a coastal defense fort system (Cherbourg in 44) I believe the USN was unable to suppress the heavy guns therein and took some significant damage to the engaging ships. In that instance(s) no landing was attempted however; the USN/RN ships merely trying to support an advance by friendly forces on the landward side of the fortress.

Since I'm still in the purely defensive stage in my PBEMs as Allied and haven't even messed via the AI with the latter stages of engaging Japanese CDs I've not formed an real opinion about the effectiveness of coastal defenses. Most coastal defense units in the DEI are pretty pathetic (2-4 120-150mm guns) so the Japanese have little to fear from CD units. But they seem to have a plethora of CD units which in the AARs sure seem to inflict serious damage on Allied landing attempts.

The problem I see with coastal guns is much the same as with surface combat. The defender seems to be able to respond to EACH assailant, regardless of number, simultaneous nature of the attacks, and operations limits. So, instead of simply using the number of defending guns, they have used the number of defending guns multiplied by number of attacking ships!!! Who designed this, Jackie Chan? Bruce Lee?[8|][:D]

Unless this gets fixed, I can only see slapping more armour on ships, landing craft.

Examples:

Naval bombardment of Palmyra, at 110,90 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

264 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
DD Usugumo, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Hagikaze, Shell hits 16, on fire, heavy damage
DD Arashi, Shell hits 8, on fire, heavy damage
CL Kitakami, Shell hits 16
CL Kinu, Shell hits 12
CA Kumano, Shell hits 10
CA Suzuya, Shell hits 12
CA Mikuma, Shell hits 9
CA Mogami, Shell hits 14
CA Chokai, Shell hits 11
BB Yamashiro
BB Fuso, Shell hits 2
BB Hyuga
BB Ise

Allied ground losses:
255 casualties reported
Guns lost 6
Vehicles lost 2
Runway hits 1
Port supply hits 1

----------------------

42 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

MSW Tomozono Maru #3, Shell hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Wa 10, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
AP Yamafuku Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire
DD Amatsukaze, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
Japanese ground losses:
18 casualties reported


-----------------

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 114
1603 Coastal gun shots fired in defense. Japanese Ships
AP Taiho Maru, Shell hits 2
DD Hayashio, Shell hits 18, on fire
CL Nagara, Shell hits 18
AP Sanfuku Maru, Shell hits 8
AP Otake Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Kidokawa Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire
AP Kashiwa Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Daitei Maru, Shell hits 8
AP Anrugu Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Teiryu Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
AP Horai Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Tango Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Hakone Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire
Japanese ground losses:
726 casualties reported
Guns lost 20

Allied ground losses:
46 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


--------------

TF 114 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90) - Coastal Guns Fire
Back!

TF 114 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90
91 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
MSW Tomozono Maru #3, Shell hits 23, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Wa 10, Shell hits 24, on fire, heavy damage
DD Hayashio
AP Kembu Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire
DD Amatsukaze, on fire, heavy damage
AP Shinwa Maru, Mine hits 1
Japanese ground losses:
35 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 114
655 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
AP Yamafuku Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
DD Hayashio, Shell hits 1, on fire
AP Ryoyu Maru #21, Shell hits 18, on fire, heavy damage
CL Nagara, Shell hits 4
AP Kasuga Maru #2, Shell hits 4, on fire
Japanese ground losses:
934 casualties reported
Guns lost 10

Allied ground losses:
13 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 114 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90)

TF 114 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90

Japanese Ships
AP Daitei Maru, Mine hits 1
AP Tatsujin Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 114
254 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
AP Yamafuku Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage
AP Otake Maru, Shell hits 15, on fire
AP Shikano Maru, Shell hits 2
AP Kyuma Maru, Shell hits 6
Japanese ground losses:
40 casualties reported



-----------

TF 18 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90)

TF 18 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90

Japanese Ships
AP Toko Maru #2, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Michishio
Japanese ground losses:
8 casualties reported

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 18 935 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
AP Ryotaku Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire
DD Asashio, Shell hits 4
AP Kaedesan Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Toko Maru #2, Shell hits 11, on fire, heavy damage
DD Michishio, Shell hits 6
DD Oshio, Shell hits 3
AP Konron Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire
AP Kiyoshima Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Baikal Maru, Shell hits 4
DD Arashio

Japanese ground losses:
504 casualties reported
Guns lost 7
Allied ground losses:
40 casualties reported
Guns lost 3


----------

TF 18 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90)

TF 18 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90

Japanese Ships
DD Arashio
DD Oshio
DD Michishio

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 18
603 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
DD Asashio, Shell hits 6
AP Kaedesan Maru, Shell hits 21, on fire
DD Arashio
AP Tanba Maru, Shell hits 6
DD Michishio
DD Oshio, Shell hits 10
AP La Plata Maru, Shell hits 16

Japanese ground losses:
240 casualties reported
Guns lost 2

Allied ground losses:
24 casualties reported


---------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 18 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90)

TF 18 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90

Japanese Ships
DD Arashio
DD Oshio
DD Michishio

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 18
285 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
AP Toko Maru, Shell hits 8, on fire
AP Ryotaku Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Michishio
AP La Plata Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
28 casualties reported


--------

TF 18 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90)

TF 18 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90

Japanese Ships
DD Oshio, on fire, heavy damage
DD Asashio
DD Michishio

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 18
57 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied ground losses:
10 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 63 encounters mine field at Palmyra (110,90) - Coastal Guns Fire
Back!

TF 63 troops unloading over beach at Palmyra, 110,90
112 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
MSW Tama Maru #2, Shell hits 26, on fire, heavy damage
MSW Tama Maru, Shell hits 22, on fire, heavy damage
PG Seikai Maru
PG Kyo Maru #10
PG Choan Maru #2
PG Shoei Maru
PG Kyo Maru #8, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage

Coastal Guns at Palmyra, 110,90, firing at TF 63
313 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
PG Kyo Maru #10
AP Kaijo Maru #2
AP Daihachikyo Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire
PG Shoei Maru, Shell hits 12, on fire
AP Chichibu Maru, Shell hits 10

Japanese ground losses:
352 casualties reported

ORIGINAL: el cid again
And HMAS Hobart was a victim of such guns using passive signal triangulation.

I am interested to know what are you referring to here?

"In contrast, American/Allied amphibious landings were massively supported by naval gunfire and air bombardment. The firepower brought to these landing appears to have been sufficient to suppress the relatively light weight coast defense artillery at the landing sites in every case (~100-150mm). Though the guns themselves may have survived until overrun by ground forces they were unable by their own fire to seriously impede the landing of those ground forces and supplies. I the only instance I know of wherein the USN engaged a coastal defense fort system (Cherbourg in 44) I believe the USN was unable to suppress the heavy guns therein and took some significant damage to the engaging ships. In that instance(s) no landing was attempted however; the USN/RN ships merely trying to support an advance by friendly forces on the landward side of the fortress."


At the Normandy landings, the sheer size of the allied invasion overwhelmed the coastal defenses. IIRC, there were several allied ships (not to mention landing craft) sunk on June 6 and many damaged. The Cherbourg example was another case of a coastal defense system performing quite well. They can cause significant damage to invasion fleets, and if the fleet is small enough they should be able to defeat it (Wake Is).

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"In contrast, American/Allied amphibious landings were massively supported by naval gunfire and air bombardment. The firepower brought to these landing appears to have been sufficient to suppress the relatively light weight coast defense artillery at the landing sites in every case (~100-150mm). Though the guns themselves may have survived until overrun by ground forces they were unable by their own fire to seriously impede the landing of those ground forces and supplies. I the only instance I know of wherein the USN engaged a coastal defense fort system (Cherbourg in 44) I believe the USN was unable to suppress the heavy guns therein and took some significant damage to the engaging ships. In that instance(s) no landing was attempted however; the USN/RN ships merely trying to support an advance by friendly forces on the landward side of the fortress."


At the Normandy landings, the sheer size of the allied invasion overwhelmed the coastal defenses. IIRC, there were several allied ships (not to mention landing craft) sunk on June 6 and many damaged. The Cherbourg example was another case of a coastal defense system performing quite well. They can cause significant damage to invasion fleets, and if the fleet is small enough they should be able to defeat it (Wake Is).

Size will only adversely distort the situation in the game...the more ships in the invasion TF the merrier for the CD guns as they fire on each enemy ship. Having multiple TFs simply exascerbates this further, as this just provides more ships to shoot at. CD guns don't have ops maximums it seems. A CD gun can potentially do as much damage to 1 thousand ships as it can do to one. Seems amazing how designs like this can make it into release.

This has long been a problem with computer grand strategy games. Every unit in a battle fights every other unit. It's a tendency I hated at first and have since grown to begrudgingly accept. I'm waiting for someone to break the mold...

Size will only adversely distort the situation in the game...the more ships in the invasion TF the merrier for the CD guns as they fire on each enemy ship. Having multiple TFs simply exascerbates this further, as this just provides more ships to shoot at. CD guns don't have ops maximums it seems. A CD gun can potentially do as much damage to 1 thousand ships as it can do to one. Seems amazing how designs like this can make it into release.

I respectfully submit I do not think this is true. It is not my experience. I often am disappointed in CD performance. In stock I saw Manila and Singapore fall in a day or two - with minimal damage to my ships - in spite of 14 inch (Manila) and 15 inch (Singapore) CD guns. Certainly this is not my experience in UV. It is quite normal for action not to involve any but a tiny fraction of potential target ships. At least if you go in at night.

ORIGINAL: Roman Jr.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Size will only adversely distort the situation in the game...the more ships in the invasion TF the merrier for the CD guns as they fire on each enemy ship. Having multiple TFs simply exascerbates this further, as this just provides more ships to shoot at. CD guns don't have ops maximums it seems. A CD gun can potentially do as much damage to 1 thousand ships as it can do to one. Seems amazing how designs like this can make it into release.

I have some evidence that may indicate that this is not the case, or at least not as extreme as you portray it. My CD guns bombarded 2 TFs, and the 2nd TF received much less fire than the first (I had 3 units with CD/Field guns):

Coastal Guns at Naga, 44,54, firing at TF 33
TF 33 troops unloading over beach at Naga, 44,54


325 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese Ships
DD Yugumo, Shell hits 3, on fire
PG Seisho Maru, Shell hits 1
AP Osaka Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Niitaka Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Heian Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
AP Gokoku Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire

Japanese ground losses:
1282 casualties reported
Guns lost 5

Allied ground losses:
30 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Guns at Naga, 44,54, firing at TF 74
TF 74 troops unloading over beach at Naga, 44,54


8 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Japanese ground losses:
138 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1

It may be a little more complicated than sheer number of ships. The number of guns firing at the ships may also have something to do with the amount of squads being unloaded during the unload phase. In your case, all were loaded so a large portion of the 325 guns fired were directed at the troops in the landing craft (in lieu of this at the APs). In the second round most of the troops were off the APs (perhaps only a small percentage of APs now had troops to unload and only small amount) so volume of fire was mathematically reduced.

Here is another example of complete nonsense courtesy of 2ndACRs PBEM. I don't care if this was an Alastair MacLean novel, this is ridiculous. I picked this colour because it is as annoying as this game can be. What gets me is that the majority just accept it. No wonder games never improve.

Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 67,97 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

388 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
DD Le Triomphant, Shell hits 39, on fire, heavy damage SUNK
DD Voyager, Shell hits 46, on fire, heavy damage SUNK
DD Stuart, Shell hits 39, on fire, heavy damage SUNK
CL Perth, Shell hits 27
CL Achilles, Shell hits 15
CL Leander, Shell hits 42, on fire
CA Canberra, Shell hits 34, on fire, heavy damage WIll SINK .. 86/80 damage
CA Australia, Shell hits 16

Japanese ground losses:
69 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

Ron, just so everyone knows...............I packed that base and set a trap, because everyone try's to bombard Lunga when it is captured.

I placed a CD gun equipped base force, and 2 CD gun units. All had upgraded and had not a single 3 inch gun left. I also packed 15,000 supply into that base. I based a Mavis unit there also.

He faced roughly 100 coastal defense guns and they knew he was coming. Spotted the previous day by air recon about 3 hexes out.

I was hoping that they would fire alot more shots, but that was good enough for me. Also the smallest CD gun there was a 4.7 DP gun. each CD unit had 34 of these IIRC.

edited because of typo, should have been 3 inch gun and not a 2 inch gun.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Here is another example of complete nonsense courtesy of 2ndACRs PBEM. I don't care if this was an Alastair MacLean novel, this is ridiculous. I picked this colour because it is as annoying as this game can be. What gets me is that the majority just accept it. No wonder games never improve.

Naval bombardment of Lunga, at 67,97 - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

388 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.
Allied Ships
DD Le Triomphant, Shell hits 39, on fire, heavy damage SUNK
DD Voyager, Shell hits 46, on fire, heavy damage SUNK
DD Stuart, Shell hits 39, on fire, heavy damage SUNK
CL Perth, Shell hits 27
CL Achilles, Shell hits 15
CL Leander, Shell hits 42, on fire
CA Canberra, Shell hits 34, on fire, heavy damage WIll SINK .. 86/80 damage
CA Australia, Shell hits 16

Japanese ground losses:
69 casualties reported
Guns lost 3

AND despite the statement in Morrison's History of United States Naval Operations in World War II where he states that Japanese coastal defense guns were ineffective throughout the war. I guess historical facts don't have a place in this game (especially when there are SO many Japanese revisionists here who want their delusions rather than historical fact despite their claims and cries for historical accuracy).

From my own "obserational evidence" (therefor subjective), supply is the critical element with CD guns. The more supply, the more they shoot. If you've got 20k supply at a base, you're gonna get a lot of pounding by the CD guns. With "normal" supply, they shoot a lot less. With no supply, you don't get much out of them at all.

I'm not saying that's correct. I'm just saying that's what I see.

-F-

He faced roughly 100 coastal defense guns and they knew he was coming. Spotted the previous day by air recon about 3 hexes out.

100 guns........3.8 shots per gun over a 12 hour period? Seems a little low to me .... [:D]

Seriously, perhaps it is the to-hit percentage that is too high, because that number of shots doesn't seem unreasonable for the time period in question.