Fort Hayden & Camp Haden

[el cid again]

Setting out to examine larger CD sites for technical modification and testing, I decided to look up Fort Hayden, which was inherited from CHS, and combined (Andrew also combined forts at about the same time) with other forts in the Victoria area.

RHS has this unit wrongly identified as CA (Canadian Army). It is US Army - it is on the other side of the Sound - and COVERS Vancouver.

RHS and CHS also have the Fort starting the war. It was not completed until May, 1945. It should be shown with two 16 inch and two 6 inch guns. The RHS convention for big protected guns is 3x forts per mounting - and these are separate mountings - plus 1x forts per mounting for the small guns - and there are two mountings = so the total number of forts in this rating scheme should be 8. The big guns have 105 mm armor, and the smaller ones might have 76 mm (still working on that).

In an official US Army Coast Artillery technical manual, I found this mounting had "an average of 5.5 inches" (that is, 140 mm) of armor - "weighing 39 tons" - which is to say there was a thicker shield for the 6 inch guns (which were concealed from sea view but not overhead) than for the 16 inch guns (which were concealed from overhead observation). There are lovely photographs of both 16 inch and one 6 inch (the all are scrapped) on page 120 of Seacoast Fortifications of the United States.

[m10bob]

Any help?

http://www.cdsg.org/home.htm



http://www.cdsg.org/reprint%20PDFs/CACOrg4.pdf

[ChezDaJez]

it is on the other side of the Sound - and COVERS Vancouver.

Actually covers a small part of Vancouver Island, not Vancouver city. It may offer some coverage of Victoria.

Chez

[el cid again]

Correct - I miswrote Vancouver - it is Victoria that is covered and stated that way in the references. But I go to Vancouver more often - and both start with V - and I wrote it wrong. This unit is in the Victoria hex - but is it a US Army unit. A separate Canadian Army unit is in the same hex - with smaller guns - but it is there when the war begins - where as this unit is not operational until almost the end of the war.

[akdreemer]

The 6" emplacements were completed in 1943 and the 16" in 1944. Technically it should be referred to as Camp Hayden. Fort Hayden was to be built at Cape Flaherty and would have been 4 16" and 4 6".

[el cid again]

Hmmm - the book cited above - with photographs of the batteries - says the 16 inch were completed in "May 1945" -

so I need to know what source says 1944? The book does not give a date for the 6 inch batteries.

Several books call it Fort Hayden - which is not to say they have it right. We can call it Camp Hayden if you have

something good saying so. But if Fort Hayden was to be armed as you say - when was that supposed to complete?

Were they building lots of things for 1946? [Seems so. Two batteries on Oahu - former battleship turrets with 14 inch -

were not completed in time for the war. One was proof fired but never operational. The other was not even completed.]

[akdreemer]

http://www.cdsg.org/pacific.htm

CAMP HAYDEN / Striped Peak /county park/state land /KK
#131/2/16"/CBC/1944-1948
#249/2/ 6"/SBC/1945-

FORT HAYDEN (Cape Flattery Military Res.) /Makah Indian Res /X
#132/2/16"/CBC/NB
#133/2/16"/CBC/NB
#250/2/ 6"/SBC/NB
#251/2/ 6"/SBC/NB

http://www.northamericanforts.com/West/wa.html

¤ HARBOR DEFENSES of CAPE FLATTERY

¤ Fort Hayden (Cape Flattery Military Reservation)
(Makah Indian Reservation)
(1941 - 1943), Cape Flattery, near Neah Bay
Batteries planned here were Battery 132, Battery 133, Battery 250 on Kaitlah Point, and Battery 251. Construction was started on all of them, but was canceled early. The HDCP/HECP is near the Battery 251 site. A trail leads to the Battery 132 site. A USAF radar is located on Bahokus Peak, and a USCG radar is located near the Battery 132 site. One or two completed fire-control towers may still exist south along the coast within Olympic National Park.

¤¤ HARBOR DEFENSES of JUAN de FUCA STRAIT

¤¤ Camp Hayden (Striped Peak Military Reservation)
(Salt Creek Recreation Area)
(1944 - 1948), Cresent Beach PHOTO GALLERY
Located on Striped Peak are Battery 131 (proposed name Battery Whistler) (1944 - 1948), and Battery 249 (proposed name Battery Peace) (1945 - 1948). A fire-control tower is nearby. Also here were once an SCR-296A and SCR-682 radars, and a Harbor Entrance Control Post (HECP). To the east of here, at Angeles Point (Lower Elwha Indian Res.), was a four-gun 155mm battery (1942 - 1944) on Panama mounts, now buried. That site was originally called Camp Angeles.
Located in Port Angeles were two 8-inch railway guns (1942 - 1944), at the west end of 6th Street. Located at Ediz Hook and White Creek were 37mm AMTB batteries.

¤¤ NOTE: Additional fire-control towers associated with this defense are still located at Pillar Point, Twin, Majestic (two radar towers were also here), Gettysburg (private property), Agate Rock, and Angeles Point (two, one now gone). This Harbor Defense was not a seperate entity, but a sub-group of Harbor Defenses of Puget Sound. It operated as a joint U.S.-Canadian command, which also included Coast Artillery Defences, Victoria-Esquimalt Harbours in British Columbia.

Again here is the data, interpret as you wish. I guess the 16" were completed in 1945 at Camp Hayden. Construction of Fort Hayden never progressed further than some blockhouses.

[el cid again]

Yeah - I am reading it like you do now - that the 16 inch completed in 1945. But it seems we should add four 155s to the location. The rail guns are in - the unit is in RHS - and you can send it legitimately to any hex with a RR in it. Only I didn't know this area had a RR - and while I put in a LOC - it is highway 101 - a road. The rail guns seem to really have been based at Fort Ord - but that is not on our map - so I put them at Fort Lewis (ie Tacoma).

I guess the similarity of the names - and the general use of the term "fort" for US Army CD locations - has caused "Fort Hayden" to be used where "Camp Hayden" should be used. But it is delightful chrome - and I am happy to use it.

I am interpreting Fort Hayden as four 16 inch and four 6 inch - so the combined unit becomes six guns of each type - plus the 155s.

[el cid again]

How about this:

In EOS (and its clone AIO) we do NOT cancel construction of Fort Hayden - and we put both it and Camp Hayden in under the name Fort Hayden. But in the CVO and BBO scenario groups, we use the strictly historical Camp Hayden - which are as they now are - but have four 155s added to the mix.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

How about this:

In EOS (and its clone AIO) we do NOT cancel construction of Fort Hayden - and we put both it and Camp Hayden in under the name Fort Hayden. But in the CVO and BBO scenario groups, we use the strictly historical Camp Hayden - which are as they now are - but have four 155s added to the mix.

Actually Fort Hayden should be located in the hex west Victoria/Port Angeles/Camp Hayden. Ft. Hayden was in the vicinity Cape Flattery/Neah Bay(~60 air miles W/NW of Port Angeles) at the southern entrance to Strait of Juan de Fuca. This is the reasoning behind Ft Hayden/Camp Hayden being distinct entities, and would be historically inaccurate to lump them together.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Yeah - I am reading it like you do now - that the 16 inch completed in 1945. But it seems we should add four 155s to the location. The rail guns are in - the unit is in RHS - and you can send it legitimately to any hex with a RR in it. Only I didn't know this area had a RR - and while I put in a LOC - it is highway 101 - a road. The rail guns seem to really have been based at Fort Ord - but that is not on our map - so I put them at Fort Lewis (ie Tacoma).

I guess the similarity of the names - and the general use of the term "fort" for US Army CD locations - has caused "Fort Hayden" to be used where "Camp Hayden" should be used. But it is delightful chrome - and I am happy to use it.

I am interpreting Fort Hayden as four 16 inch and four 6 inch - so the combined unit becomes six guns of each type - plus the 155s.

http://www.historylink.org/essays/outpu ... le_id=8210

Three more developments celebrated at a February 1914 banquet -- construction of a large sawmill and arrival of a railroad and hydropower -- were key to solidifying Port Angeles's position as the industrial center where products from the surrounding forests were processed. Hydroelectric power from a dam on the Elwha River, the brainchild of real-estate developer Thomas T. Aldwell (1868-1954), who spent 20 years acquiring the land and arranging for financing and construction of the dam, first arrived in Port Angeles in December 1913.

[akdreemer]

Pic.. isn't Google Earth great!?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

How about this:

In EOS (and its clone AIO) we do NOT cancel construction of Fort Hayden - and we put both it and Camp Hayden in under the name Fort Hayden. But in the CVO and BBO scenario groups, we use the strictly historical Camp Hayden - which are as they now are - but have four 155s added to the mix.

Actually Fort Hayden should be located in the hex west Victoria/Port Angeles/Camp Hayden. Ft. Hayden was in the vicinity Cape Flattery/Neah Bay(~60 air miles W/NW of Port Angeles) at the southern entrance to Strait of Juan de Fuca. This is the reasoning behind Ft Hayden/Camp Hayden being distinct entities, and would be historically inaccurate to lump them together.

This is not an option for us. The scale is wrong - and for technical reasons - the hex to the west has blocked hex sides to the South. It would appear to users to be entirely Canadian territory - of course so does the Victoria hex. But the unblocked hex sides make it appear there is some sort of communication with the US - and art makes it look like both countries are in the hex - which indeed is the case.


Another technical problem is there are no slots to do this. We either leave EOS the same as the other scenarios - no Fort Hayden - or we can put in a combined unit - in the same hex as Camp Hayden - and both cases block the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

How about this:

In EOS (and its clone AIO) we do NOT cancel construction of Fort Hayden - and we put both it and Camp Hayden in under the name Fort Hayden. But in the CVO and BBO scenario groups, we use the strictly historical Camp Hayden - which are as they now are - but have four 155s added to the mix.

Actually Fort Hayden should be located in the hex west Victoria/Port Angeles/Camp Hayden. Ft. Hayden was in the vicinity Cape Flattery/Neah Bay(~60 air miles W/NW of Port Angeles) at the southern entrance to Strait of Juan de Fuca. This is the reasoning behind Ft Hayden/Camp Hayden being distinct entities, and would be historically inaccurate to lump them together.

This is not an option for us. The scale is wrong - and for technical reasons - the hex to the west has blocked hex sides to the South. It would appear to users to be entirely Canadian territory - of course so does the Victoria hex. But the unblocked hex sides make it appear there is some sort of communication with the US - and art makes it look like both countries are in the hex - which indeed is the case.


Another technical problem is there are no slots to do this. We either leave EOS the same as the other scenarios - no Fort Hayden - or we can put in a combined unit - in the same hex as Camp Hayden - and both cases block the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Ahhh, forgot RHS is using a radically modified map, since I was referring to Andrews extended modified maps. The I guess your choice seems the best option.

[el cid again]

It is not so much the art which is different - we use Andrew's extended map system - as it is the pwhex under the art. I don't like land units crossing the Strait of Juan de Fuca - or naval units crossing the Olympic Penninsula - so I blocked the hex sides. If we can figure out a way around that - we could put a Fort Hyden in the outer hex - IF we ALSO could find a slot for it. Hard but possible. Will think about it. It is probably too much to do for a 1945 unit. Is Japan going to invade the area in 1945?? I don't think so!