Shore Batteries?

[john martino]

Guys how can I best supress shore batteries during a landing? I am landing (as US player) at Shortlands and my transports are getting rocked by shore Batteries. Any suggestions?????

[Clipper1968]

The best way is to take some preventive measures against these coastal guns.
First try to make a blockade of Shortlands preveting this base from receiving any supplies which should put some CD out of order.
Then send several bombardement TF in order to inflict a maximum damage to the base force which provide support to LCU so they will suffer from a lack of support.
Launch your LBA in a long bombing campaign which consists in airfield and port attacks; the CD will suffer a very high level of fatigue and disruption reducing their efficiency and you will be able to destroy some.
Finally you could operate the troops landing without any threat caused by these CD.

[AmiralLaurent]

Assaulting Shortlands is basically a siege. You should destroy every ship trying top bring supplies with LBA, and use heavy bombers to bomb airfield and port to rubble, also destroying supplies and CD guns (among other troops) in the process.

Then send bombardment TF with BB and CA to avoid much damage and MSW TF to sweep minefields. If the MSW are on their own, they will not be fired at by CD guns (in UV, it was changed in WITP as it should be).

Then when you land, put several cruisers and a lot of DD in your transport TF to suppress the remaining CD guns. You should land several divisions on the same turn or a banzai charge will probably destroy the landed troops.

Shortlands is so a hard nut to crack and I never found it was worth it to take. It's a far better idea to pound it to rubbles and land in the following island, where you can build also size 4 airfields and then be in range of Rabaul. Let's the Shortlands garnison die of hunger and malaria without comitting your troops. They will be more useful in Rabaul or Kavieng, that are worth a lot more points and are not harder to take.

[Scona]

My experience with coast defence fire has changed my approach to making opposed landings. Out of 14 AP's commited to landing 1 Division at Lunga in support of a ground assault being done by 3 others, a single CD bn damaged 4 of those ships; 2 so badley that they sank while leaving the hex. Now, in early 43 I am looking at another opposed landing, this time using the new landing ships that arrive at this time (LST, LCI, LCM and LCVP). My theory is that many smaller troop carrierers will result in a lower potential losses for the assault units if they hit a "hot" beach.

[marky]

im playing scen 17 and i jus took shortland

its already coming in handy

im also going to build a base at buka

its going to be a fighter and patrol plane base

in fact, because of the cats at shortland, by the time enemy ships r 150 miles outside truk, ive already seen them


buka and shortland are going to support an invasion of lae, and then of kavieng, and finally, of rabaul

i didnt take that many losses either

i DID take 20000 japs prisoner tho [:D]


i then put them on leaky, sinking transports and sentthem into the middle of the coral sea [:D]


see how THEY like prisoner mistreatment [8D][:D]

[crsutton]

Two rules for dealing with shore batteries.

1. Bomb the heck out of the base, using port attack, to ensure that there is no supply left. Once you think the base is out of supply, bomb some more just to make sure[:-]

2 Include cruisers in your invasion TF to suppress shore batteries. The game will not allow old BBs in invasions TFs-I don;t know why so it has to be CAs and CLs

[2ndACR]

Playing WITP since it came out and I wish for UV's CD guns.[X(] I used to think UV had brutal coastal defense guns, it is 10X worse in WITP. There is no more "take the losses and force your way in".

Everybody above pretty much covered the advise. Cut it off and let it die on the vine.