CrapGame Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Last night I played a qb assault versus the AI, and I chose the Allies. Unrestricted everything, computer picked forces for the AI and I picked mine. I took a 14" spotter. Never having used one in the past, I thought it would be fun. So, I set up, and run my spotter to a good position, keeping the rest of my forces hidden(1 company + 1 platoon infantry, 1 daimler, 1 firefly, 2 greyhounds, 1 crocodile and 1 avre) except for 1 platoon split into teams as a recon screen. After the spotter gets into position, I sprint the Daimler out towards one of the flanks, and mine field signs start appearing, as well as a "SP Gun?" and a "Tiger?" and some "Gun?"s as well. I have the spotter target the area around the tiger and wait the two minutes as the Daimler gets picked off. The sptting round levels a building near the target, and the next 4 shells impact near my target point. THe Tiger and SP Gun? are listed as abandoned, and the craters are HUGE! I take the spotter and move target point towards the other bigger victory flag area and let it rip. 2 minutes later, the area is on fire and covered with craters. I sprint the greyhounds forward, followed by the Croc and AVRE. THe Croc takes out a few guns as it advances (How come I can't get the AVRE to fire?), and then there is silence. I start to advance the infantry company with the Firefly in overwatch. They advance running into practically no resistance until the far edge of the map, where they run into the remains of some broken infantry squads. It turns out that the Tiger was a Tiger, and the SP Gun? was actually 2 StuG IIIG's, and there were also 3 half tracks behind the Tiger hidden from my view, and they were all KO'd by the naval fire. The devastation from 10 shells was unbelievable. Has anyone faced the naval bombardment and still been able to fight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Ron Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Not faced naval fire but the AVRE gun has very short range. have a look at its details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 LOL - 14" shells! Now you're talking. I want some. I suppose when you bear in mind that a 14" salvo from one battleship (EG King George V Class which carried 10(?) was capable of wiping out anything up to a heavy cruiser, and seriously inconveniencing another battleship it's not surprising that a tank of any kind, even a Tiger would be unable to withstand that kind of onslaught. Still, it must have looked cool. I'm going to have a go. ------------------ "Woof!Woof!" That's my other dog impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 German 300mm Nebelwerfer artillery ain't no pickic either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 i'd much much much rather take a 300mm rocket barrage on a TRP to a company than face a 14 inch barrage. o, tip for using. Use the two spotters rounds, then retarget somewhere else. They fall in a fairly tight pattern, and if you haven't killed everyhing in the area with two shells, more isn't going to help. A salvo of 5 lots of two shells will flatten a city. The blast seems to kill -everything- within about 50-80m of the impact point. It is good. PeterNZ ------------------ "What do I care, I got laid last week" - Chupacabra "Bjorn again are really quite good!" - Germanboy - Official owner of the sig files of Dalem and Croda - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ace Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 I tried a similar scenario a while back with a 5000 pt attack on a large map and took all heavy arty (including two 14 inchers) and armor - no infantry, and played against a combined force in a village landscape. Now, if I sent my armor into the village, the infantry would have them for lunch. To make a long story short, my 14" guns were able to wipe out the entire village and ended up knocking out 10-11 HTs, 4 or 5 Stugs and a Tiger that were waiting for me. My armor just rolled in and dealt with the cowering remains , losing only one or two out of thirty tanks to the rest of the enemy tanks, guns, and infantry. I agree with the earlier post re: spotting rounds. If you have a larger area to cover, just keep on moving the target after the spotting rounds land. It's too bad you only use these bad-boys during the first two months Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Wasn't it Rommel who said that operations were nearly impossible while within range of the battleship guns? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrapGame Posted February 28, 2001 Author Share Posted February 28, 2001 I knew they were powerful, but Damn!, the Germans I ran into at the far side of the map were regular quality men (at the start), and they were reduced to quivering bowls of jello. I have a bit of respect for anyone who had to take that kind of fire in reality - it must be as close to the Circles of Hell as one can get without walking in. Me thinks I'll try it again tonight, but in a more urban approach. What is the range of the AVRE? - Or am I better off using a sexton or priest or Sherm 105? Thanks ------------------ CrapGame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LimShady Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: Wasn't it Rommel who said that operations were nearly impossible while within range of the battleship guns? Jeff Heidman From what I read in Ambrose's D-Day, Guderian and Schweppenberg (sp?) thought Rommel was insane for wanting to fight behind concrete because and Allied fleet would smother an armored counterattack as was learned at Salerno and Sicily. Rommel countered with the fact that moving the panzer units would not be possible under Allied air cover. LimShady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted February 28, 2001 Share Posted February 28, 2001 Naval guns were the deciding factor in whether Normandy was a success or not, also kept the Sicily landings from being driven into the sea, and kept the Allied foothold at Anzio alive. From what I remember in the real life scenario that 'Saving Private Ryan' was based on the German counterattack was actually foiled by the guns of the navy. I'd say it turned out to be the only thing that battleships were still really good for. The Germans themselves made heavy use of their remaining surface fleet in '45 keeping German pockets on the shores of the Baltic alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
109 Gustav Posted March 1, 2001 Share Posted March 1, 2001 About the AVRE: It's useful for busting bunkers, nothing more. However, it is very, very good at that. One hit on a pillbox from any direction, and it's KO'd. The AVRE isn't a good infantry support tank because it only has hollowcharge rounds, which are great for armor penetration, but aren't much on soft targets. If you're going after infantry, get a priest or two, or a sherm 105. Nothing roots out dug in infantry faster than these bad boys. Some people like the AVRE's incredible armor penetration for antitank work, but IMHO their accuracy is so bad that you're better off with a conventional TD. ------------------ Well my skiff's a twenty dollar boat, And I hope to God she stays afloat. But if somehow my skiff goes down, I'll freeze to death before I drown. And pray my body will be found, Alaska salmon fishing, boys, Alaska salmon fishing. The Last Defense- Mods, Scenarios, and more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trooper Posted March 3, 2001 Share Posted March 3, 2001 Don't forget about those Iraqis that surrendered to an Iowa's RPV... NTM ------------------ The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted March 3, 2001 Share Posted March 3, 2001 Well, 16 inch guns didn't seem to phase the Japanese too much. Of course, they were also hunkered down in almost impregnable bunkers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Londoner Posted March 3, 2001 Share Posted March 3, 2001 Good point m8. ------------------ In military operations timing is everything. Wellington 1800. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russellmz Posted March 3, 2001 Share Posted March 3, 2001 yeah how come 16" guns aren't shown? even a little listing with identical price and effect just a name change. i wanna see the modern us battleships in action...massachusetts had 16" right? im not sure about texas, nevada, etc. ------------------ russellmz, Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ. "They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush "They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VanZant Posted March 3, 2001 Share Posted March 3, 2001 I am in Houston and have been to the Texas before. IIRC it had 14" guns as it was a WWI battleship. I seem to remember reading a blurb that it served as the flagship of the USN in both WWI and WWII. Maybe it was only the atlantic fleet though... I know for a fact that it ws at Normandy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted March 3, 2001 Share Posted March 3, 2001 IIRC the biggest guns in Normandy were 15" on a monitor. Honestly I think the difference is academic. How much more dead than dead can OPFOR be. Naval fire broke off the German counter-attack on the Anzio beachhead and was the only thing rescuing that venture. The references to Rommel here refer to different points in time. Rommel first intended to immediately throw the Allies back into the sea with his tank divisions before they could get settled, because he knew that Allied air superiority was so great that movement would be impossible. While this may have worked, Hitler did not give the permission for the tank divisions to move. Rundstedt wanted to fight a maneuver warfare inland, probably based on his experience in France 1940 and early in Russia. Hitler did not want this either, so he insisted on a 'no retreats' policy. This forced Rommel to fight in the worst of both worlds. With an established, well-supplied and superior enemy that ruled the air, in the range of naval gun-fire, and unable to use maneuver to get out of the gridlock. As to the prevalence of naval gunfire - I read somewhere that in the four-week period following D-Day, only about 700 rounds were fired by the large guns. I would be interested whether this low figure is correct. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karch Posted March 3, 2001 Share Posted March 3, 2001 My guess as to why there weren't 16" guns at Normandy was because all the newer BBs with 16" guns were all in the Pacific fighting the Japanese. There was a better chance of running into ships to fight against the Japanese and the 16" guns would be better, so the Pacific theater got all the newer BBs. Europe probably got older BBs with 14s just for shore bombardments. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark IV Posted March 3, 2001 Share Posted March 3, 2001 Having been the recipient of PeterNZer's 14" naval experiment, I can say it is no fun. My troops were fairly well dispersed across a medium map. Several shells missed my forces altogether. Probably only 4-5 rounds had any real impact on the troops, other than causing panic. One early round took out a nicely-placed Pak; inconvenient, but no biggie. The other 3 or 4 that mattered eliminated multiple whole units, even with near misses. The craters are huge, but even worse, the blast radius extends well beyond the visible damage. Troops (some Vets) 200m from the impact were panicked and useless for several turns. ACs were immobilised, guns destroyed, and one of my own arty spotter's got whacked, or died of sheer envy. I once used 300mm rockets on the AI, and the blasts were awesome. However, you don't have much control over where they go. I believe I would rather face them, than more 14" shells. Peter is correct about using the spotting rounds only; the misses were because there were no troops at those impact areas at all. Wherever two land together, there is no need to follow up with any more. You can walk the spotting rounds across likely areas of the OPFOR side of the map, and be reasonably certain that the enemy defense is severely disrupted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 In reply to karch's statement - if I remember correctly, battleships were not widely deployed in the Pacific and in particular rarely played a major role in the engagements - there were at least 2 BBvsBB conflicts around Henderson (Washington vs (?)Kongo was one) but most of the Jap BB's survived until Leyte Gulf - purely because they were so vulnerable to air attack so the Japanese held them back until they had no choice but to deploy them. Some of the really ancient (1910) US battleships had 13" guns - they were used in the Atlantic early in the war - but I couldn't tell you about US atlantic naval deployment in 44/45. Could the 14" bombardment have come from King George V class ships? They carried 10x14" IIRC. Shame the Nelson or Rodney weren't available. hohohoho ------------------ "Woof!Woof!" That's my other dog impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by Germanboy: As to the prevalence of naval gunfire - I read somewhere that in the four-week period following D-Day, only about 700 rounds were fired by the large guns. I would be interested whether this low figure is correct. IIRC, in Chester Wilmonts' Crusade in Europe there is a discussion on NGS (It could also have been Max Hastings' Overlord - I don't have my sources handy at the moment) This gist of it was that firing shore bombardments for the troops ashore was no picnic for the ships involved either. The constant concussive blasts were shaking the ships apart, breaking anything that wasn't tied down, and causing severe fatigue (due to the repeated concussions) on the crew members. Perhaps the weirdest effect was that the repeated firing of these big guns was that it stetched and forced the rifling out of the end of the barrels. As for the ships involved: anyone who has HPS' Normandy '44 will be able to give you a detailed list of the ships 'who were there' Be cool Jon ------------------ ******* Quo fas et vino de femme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Karch, you are close. Nearly all the 16" US BBs were assigned to the Pacific because they could keep up with the Carriers, which were mostly based on battlecruiser hulls. The older BBs were worthless in Naval Operations in the PTO. Very few pre WW2 US BBs had 16" guns only the Colorado comes to mind. Question, what where the Nelson and the Rodney up to at this time? They sported 16 inch guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agua Perdido Posted March 5, 2001 Share Posted March 5, 2001 Originally posted by Wilhammer: Nearly all the 16" US BBs were assigned to the Pacific because they could keep up with the Carriers, which were mostly based on battlecruiser hulls. The older BBs were worthless in Naval Operations in the PTO. The "old" BBs weren't completely useless in the PTO--they did the majority of the shore bombardment. Jesse Oldendorf's TF of Pearl Harbor survivors was regarded as better at the job than Willis Lee's new "fast" BBs, which spent most of their time chasing around with the CVs. Plus, the "old" BBs blasted the heck out of a smaller Japanese force at Surigao Strait, slow or not. Agua Perdido ------------------ Feel the pain of outlaw cinema! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted March 6, 2001 Share Posted March 6, 2001 It would be interesting if a future version of CM allowed us to play ground engagements in the Pacific theatre - US/Japanese/Chinese/Australian/Dutch/British.I think you would then see a real opportunity to deploy naval bombardments from a variety of ships and with a wide disparity in effectiveness. In particular, I wouldn't want to call in naval bombardments at night Surigao Straight was the Leyte Gulf scrap, wasn't it? Fuso/Yamashiro/Ise/Hyuga/etc vs. the PH survivors. A fine example of how NOT to deploy BB's, by the Jap commander. ------------------ "Woof!Woof!" That's my other dog impression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
massimorocca Posted March 6, 2001 Share Posted March 6, 2001 More or less the impact of a round of 14" is like a one ton aircraft bomb, or a strip of closed 500 lbr. And if you read what happened to the Panzer during the big carpet bombing near Caen, with Tigers capsized from blast and "superhuman" SS went crazy, yes what you seen in your scenario is perfectly adequate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts