Coastal Defense Guns

[bradfordkay]

well, better a hangfire in a 105 than a premature cookoff in a Napoleon...[;)]

[castor troy]

Allied or Japanese, revisionist or not (don´t you have enough of that anytime soon?? [8|])I want to see a book (Morrison or any other book) where a TF conisted of some CA and DDs attacked and duelled with around 100 5,5" and 4,7" guns and didn´t take damage. You probably can´t come up with side xy paragraph ab says.... because that never happened. Come on! Forget to bring up historical facts to say this or that is wrong. Use your BRAIN! Your brain will tell you that 100 guns shooting at some ships may cause damage. Is this historical? No! Would it be realistical? No, to place that many guns! Would the damage be realistical? Yes, if so many guns were in place.

This revisionist sh.. is just so lame... If I´m playing Allied and place 5 CD units at Lunga after taking it and the Japs come in to bombard me with such a TF they get creamed. Again 100 CD guns and a damaged TF. So now come up with Morrison blah blah blah.

It has been said often enough: unhistorical play = unhistorical results. Goes for air, sea and ground combat....

And the "we did win argument" just doesn´t count. Do you think the Afghani were better equipped than the Soviets. Book xy says...

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: Mynok

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.

So the ships would stay within CD range that long? Seems for the ones that survived, that they would change their position within the first hour after seeing that response.

Pardon me for a moment, but i can't help but notice what might just be a coincidence. How did you come up with 3.8 hits? Multiply that by hundred, roughly, and you come up with that 388 figure I saw earlier. Only problem is, that's 388 GUNS, not hits. Those 388 guns only hit 258 times.

[frnfn1]

This does say something for the "historical accuracy" of the game.

On 7/22/44 the Colorado was hit 22 times by 3 150mm guns while bombarding Tinian. Colorado suffered 43 fatalities and was under repair at PH until November, 1944.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

OH SO GLAD THAT YOU SO BRAVELY FACED THEM DEMOSTHENES

Fine with me 1275psi.

I was in the Army as an 11B10 myself. I respect everyone who does their service to their country. I have had my father, uncles, and more distant relatives serve in many wars - and several family memebers were killed in those wars.

I respect El Cids' service to his country - but that does not require me to take his military opinions as gospel. He has posted many things of late that I find outrageous. He has every right in the world to say them, believe them, and post them - and I wouldn't have it any other way.

But that does not mean I can't call him on his opinions either.

Demosthenes

[Mynok]

Pardon me for a moment, but i can't help but notice what might just be a coincidence. How did you come up with 3.8 hits? Multiply that by hundred, roughly, and you come up with that 388 figure I saw earlier. Only problem is, that's 388 GUNS, not hits. Those 388 guns only hit 258 times.

388 shots. There were only 100 guns.

[Sardaukar]

Some battles between Soviet Navy and Finnish coastal fortresses during Winter War can be found here:

Finnish Navy in Winter War

Soviet Baltic Navy never tried to engage 305 mm units protecting Helsinki, though.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: frnfn1

This does say something for the "historical accuracy" of the game.

On 7/22/44 the Colorado was hit 22 times by 3 150mm guns while bombarding Tinian. Colorado suffered 43 fatalities and was under repair at PH until November, 1944.

So if that´s true that´s more than effective to me. Would it been US guns and a Jap BB it would have been also effective to me (before some revisionist or fanboy thing comes up again [8|]).

Only 3 guns and 22 hits? So what when there were 100 guns like in the example of the thread starter. Make them 100 neutral guns and a neutral BB please. I think the biggest problem of the game is that perhaps all guns at a base get a shot at the ships. But I´m not sure about that. If it would have been 50 guns they would have been able to also get a good number of shots out.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: frnfn1

This does say something for the "historical accuracy" of the game.

On 7/22/44 the Colorado was hit 22 times by 3 150mm guns while bombarding Tinian. Colorado suffered 43 fatalities and was under repair at PH until November, 1944.

How many times were all the other ships in the same TF as Colorado hit? See where we are going? This, like many other combat models, is like a bad Kung Fu movie, where the defender gets to fight each assailant one at a time, so basically can get as many punches and kicks in as the entire horde of attackers.

[Mynok]

There are definitely areas where that is a problem, but I'm not at all sure this is one of them. We are talking about a 12 hour period in which ships are entering and leaving the range of 100 undisrupted CD guns. And you are saying that you don't think each gun could have gotten off 3.8 shots within that time frame? [&:]

Now the to-hit numbers might be worth discussing, but I'm not seeing excessiveness in the shot count at all.

[treespider]

I think before we can discuss the historical accuracy of the combat reported in the game we need to find a historical example that the game emulates. My thinking is that is not going to happen.

I agree with dereck in the sense that in the Solomons the Jap coastal guns were not effective.

On the other hand can someone find out if the Japs massed there CD guns like the game combat? And then find out if those massed guns were engaged at close range by escort ships without days or weeks or preparatory air bombardment.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I think before we can discuss the historical accuracy of the combat reported in the game we need to find a historical example that the game emulates. My thinking is that is not going to happen.

I agree with dereck in the sense that in the Solomons the Jap coastal guns were not effective.

On the other hand can someone find out if the Japs massed there CD guns like the game combat? And then find out if those massed guns were engaged at close range by escort ships without days or weeks or preparatory air bombardment.

I could not find one historical example that even comes close to the extreme nature of the bloodbaths the game produces when this became apparent before release. I suspect you are right in that nobody will find any.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Of course the bombardment routine might be broken. Ships are more likely to being sunk than island, this is the reason that ships are more likely to retreat when recieving minor damage. This is not represented in the game.

So derreck. So if Morrison talks about many bombardment missions by DD in Salomons (where major reason of ineffectivenes of CD was its "nonexistanceness")... why do you compare action posted in 1st post (which ressembles more of bombarding of Rabaul or Truk) to shooting at defensles Japs in Solomons?

To counter your argument that US win the war. Yes, but you forget that they did it in 1945... not 1944 neither 1943... and definitely not in 1942.

[Speedysteve]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I could not find one historical example that even comes close to the extreme nature of the bloodbaths the game produces when this became apparent before release. I suspect you are right in that nobody will find any.

An example of what I mean Ron. Constructive?

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Of course the bombardment routine might be broken. Ships are more likely to being sunk than island, this is the reason that ships are more likely to retreat when recieving minor damage. This is not represented in the game.

So derreck. So if Morrison talks about many bombardment missions by DD in Salomons (where major reason of ineffectivenes of CD was its "nonexistanceness")... why do you compare action posted in 1st post (which ressembles more of bombarding of Rabaul or Truk) to shooting at defensles Japs in Solomons?

To counter your argument that US win the war. Yes, but you forget that they did it in 1945... not 1944 neither 1943... and definitely not in 1942.

The very first message in this thread said:

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.

Once again, you imply I said stuff I didn't. Please don't do that. The Shortlands are in the Solomon Islands Monter_trismegistos. I never once mentioned Rabaul or Truk except in response to your posts to bring that to people's attention.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I could not find one historical example that even comes close to the extreme nature of the bloodbaths the game produces when this became apparent before release. I suspect you are right in that nobody will find any.

An example of what I mean Ron. Constructive?

Ok so now people can ask other people to find examples of things? Speedy you're trying to stiffle people who don't agree with certain beliefs. Ron has every right to ask what he said and whether you think it's constructive or not is very subjective -- and I certainly have doubts you would find anything constructive which doesn't agree with your approved thoughts.

[el cid again]

I agree with dereck in the sense that in the Solomons the Jap coastal guns were not effective.

On the other hand can someone find out if the Japs massed there CD guns like the game combat? And then find out if those massed guns were engaged at close range by escort ships without days or weeks or preparatory air bombardment.

Japan had the most formidable coast defense guns ever built. Only Oahu was more defended - in sheer numbers - but only in August 1945 did it approach the sophistication of the Japanese major CD units (when the first of two ex-battleship turrets came into service). We never challenged this sort of installation - unlike ours the Japanese guns were not vulnerable to air attack. You may take this either way - that there is no data and believe whatever you like - or the data is it was too difficult to be worth dealing with. Even Rabaul and Truck were not challenged - both had major defenses if not first line by Japanese standards. But the really big installations guarded the major straits to access the Sea of Japan.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I agree with dereck in the sense that in the Solomons the Jap coastal guns were not effective.

On the other hand can someone find out if the Japs massed there CD guns like the game combat? And then find out if those massed guns were engaged at close range by escort ships without days or weeks or preparatory air bombardment.

Japan had the most formidable coast defense guns ever built. Only Oahu was more defended - in sheer numbers - but only in August 1945 did it approach the sophistication of the Japanese major CD units (when the first of two ex-battleship turrets came into service). We never challenged this sort of installation - unlike ours the Japanese guns were not vulnerable to air attack. You may take this either way - that there is no data and believe whatever you like - or the data is it was too difficult to be worth dealing with. Even Rabaul and Truck were not challenged - both had major defenses if not first line by Japanese standards. But the really big installations guarded the major straits to access the Sea of Japan.

No El Cid, if you're going to say something like that you POST the data and sources to back up your assumptions. I backed up what I said by a documented source with the page and volume and book of what I used so anybody could go there and check for themselves. I'm not taking your word that something exists either because there is no documentation or you think it is too difficult for other people to understand. Either back up your claims or don't bother posting.

[Demosthenes]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I agree with dereck in the sense that in the Solomons the Jap coastal guns were not effective.

On the other hand can someone find out if the Japs massed there CD guns like the game combat? And then find out if those massed guns were engaged at close range by escort ships without days or weeks or preparatory air bombardment.

Japan had the most formidable coast defense guns ever built. Only Oahu was more defended - in sheer numbers - but only in August 1945 did it approach the sophistication of the Japanese major CD units (when the first of two ex-battleship turrets came into service). We never challenged this sort of installation - unlike ours the Japanese guns were not vulnerable to air attack. You may take this either way - that there is no data and believe whatever you like - or the data is it was too difficult to be worth dealing with. Even Rabaul and Truck were not challenged - both had major defenses if not first line by Japanese standards. But the really big installations guarded the major straits to access the Sea of Japan.

What size guns were they? 12"L40s off of obsolete Battleships?

All in all it does not not sound more impressive than Corrigadore or Ft Drum, or some of the harbor defenses here in California.

But I think the real point of the topic was mobile cd guns - not permanent national fortresses.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos
So derreck. So if Morrison talks about many bombardment missions by DD in Salomons (where major reason of ineffectivenes of CD was its "nonexistanceness")... why do you compare action posted in 1st post (which ressembles more of bombarding of Rabaul or Truk) to shooting at defensles Japs in Solomons?
To counter your argument that US win the war. Yes, but you forget that they did it in 1945... not 1944 neither 1943... and definitely not in 1942.

Once again, you imply I said stuff I didn't. Please don't do that. The Shortlands are in the Solomon Islands Monter_trismegistos. I never once mentioned Rabaul or Truk except in response to your posts to bring that to people's attention.

Once again you imply that i'm implying something I didn't. Don't do that, OK? The one who mentioned Truk and Rabaul was me and only me - as a example of good defended place. Now to the point. I want you simply to show me (or others because i have no Morisson book) where Morrison writes about shelling HEAVY DEFENDED place with only cruisers and destroyers. Salomons? No,I said HEAVY DEFENDED. Maybe Truk? No definetely no, Truk was too heavy defended and a smal pack of CAs & DDs would be simply blown from water.