CMBB: Naval Gunfire (continued)

[Michael Dorosh]

We had a good discussion going at this URL and thought I would post here.

So, Andreas, I was unclear if you meant that the numbers I cited were more on the mark than you (Schiffer?) originally thought?

If anyone has anything else to add about

a) ship to shore communication

effectiveness of Soviet naval gunfire

c) spotting of such

d) similar German practice in the Black Sea

e) hints at how CMBB deals with this

I would be interested

[Andreas]

Michael, I thought your number of 100 naval ships lost was too high, but that may have been a typo on your part.

Are you sure that the named ships you mention are naval, or are they merchants?

Haupt is a fairly decent source I feel. He was an officer in AG North and wrote the book in the 1960s, but seems to have done his homework. Which is more than can be said about the translators and editors at Schiffer.

[Michael Dorosh]

Hmm, I'm at work now, followed by dinner plans - I can check it out in about 8 hours or so. Your source is most likely the most accurate, but is your source describing just one or two smaller engagements, or the entire action off of Talinnin during the evacuation?

[Jotte]

If you gentlmen can wait untill Friday or so I can provide some more info from a book about the naval war in the Baltic and Gulf of Finland.

[Gud]

...and I can be of assistance regarding amphinious assaults on Kerch pennisula.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Jotte:

If you gentlmen can wait untill Friday or so I can provide some more info from a book about the naval war in the Baltic and Gulf of Finland.

Here is a useful URL

http://www.hut.fi/~jaromaa/Navygallery/index.htm

From there

http://www.hut.fi/~jaromaa/Navygallery/index.htm

The evacuation of Tallin

Evacuation of Tallinn

The evacuation of Soviet troops from the Estonian capital Tallinn is probably the largest destruction caused by sea mines in a single operation. Soviet minesweeper force was too weak and managed to clear only a narrow channel through the "Juminda" barrage. In the zone between Juminda Point and Kalbådagrund Light were some 3 000 mines. To prevent minesweepers from sweeping channels in this barrage there was also a 150 mm battery on Point Juminda.

Four convoys had been formed to move the troops. The ships and vessels were to be moored on the roads off Tallinn between the net barrage and boom defence by 22.00 hours on 27 August. The Baltic Red Fleets ships formed three task forces; the main force, covering force and rear guard. The main forces were to protect the first and second transport convoys in the most dangerous section of the route, from Point Juminda to Suursaari island. The covering force was to protect second and third convoys between the islands of Keri and Vaindlo. The rear guard was to protect the third and fourth convoys from the rear. The small submarines M 98 and M 102 were sent to patrol areas south from Helsinki. Navy ships and transport vessels were to travel through a single narrow 150-mile channel. They were heading to Kronstadt under threat of Germans occupying the southern shore of the Gulf of Finland. Light forces threatened the convoys from the north.

Tallinn was evacuated 28.-30.8 in four convoys that sailed in the afternoon of 28.8. A force seven north-east wind delayed the beginning of the operation for more than 12 hours. The submarine chasers, launches, minesweepers and other small vessels could not sail in such weather. As a result, the evacuation fleet had to make its way through the mine barrages in darkness. The first transport convoy sailed at 14.00 hours. It was followed by the second convoy 50 minutes later and after that the third and fourth convoys departed. The main force of Baltic Red Fleet weighed anchor at about 16.00 hours and took the lead with the cruiser Kirov as flagship. The Navy ships and convoys formed a line 15 miles long. The first convoy was off Juminda peninsula at 18.00 hours and sailed directly to the mines. The steamer Ella was first to sink. Then began German air attacks, artillery fire from Finnish coastal batteries and later in the evening torpedo attacks by German Schnellboots and Finnish patrol boats. All this caused confusion, the train of ships stretched and sailing through the 200 m wide sweeped channel became impossible. The sweeping equipment of many sweeper were damaged by explosions and drifting mines cut loose from moorings were great danger. Before midnight the convoys had to anchor in the middle of the barrage. Warships were not giving much protection to merchant ships, as they were fully occupied with drifting mines.

In the morning of 29.8. the ships lifted anchors and continued sailing to east. Dive bombers attacked again and sank several transport ships. Without air cover and anti-aircraft guns and their possibility to manoeuvre limited by mines, they were easy targets. The main naval forces arrived to Kronstadt in the afternoon of 29.8. Out of the 195 ships of Baltic Red Fleet, transport vessels and auxiliaries that left Tallinn, 53 were lost en route. The Baltic Red Fleet had lost five destroyers, two submarines, two corvettes and three smaller units in mines. Of the 29 large merchantmen that had sailed from Tallinn 25 were sunk, three were beached and only one arrived to Leningrad. Of the 38 smaller ships nine were lost and 29 reached their destinations. 18 000 men reached Leningrad and 6 000 were lost.

[ August 25, 2002, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Ted]

The problem of putting naval guns in CMBB, as I see it, is how could they keep it limited to a certain area of the campaign.

In CMBO it is limited to the early months of ’44 when presumably all Allied forces were in range of the big guns.

Not being a Beta tester I’m not sure if they’ve broken down the battles into Northern, Central and Southern fronts. If they did that perhaps you could have naval guns only in the north.

Still you should break down the northern front into coastal and inland battles.

An option would be just to add the guns and put the word “naval” next to the caliber and hopefully no one will use it unless it’s in the right context and in agreement with his or her opponent.

Inevitably though, if that’s the case, you would find Prinz Eugen’s guns ranging up and down the whole Eastern Front and the cry “gamey bastich!” would be heard around the world.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Ted:

The problem of putting naval guns in CMBB, as I see it, is how could they keep it limited to a certain area of the campaign.

In CMBO it is limited to the early months of ’44 when presumably all Allied forces were in range of the big guns.

Not being a Beta tester I’m not sure if they’ve broken down the battles into Northern, Central and Southern fronts. If they did that perhaps you could have naval guns only in the north.

Still you should break down the northern front into coastal and inland battles.

An option would be just to add the guns and put the word “naval” next to the caliber and hopefully no one will use it unless it’s in the right context and in agreement with his or her opponent.

Inevitably though, if that’s the case, you would find Prinz Eugen’s guns ranging up and down the whole Eastern Front and the cry “gamey bastich!” would be heard around the world.

Perhaps the most elegant solution would be to include it in the scenario editor, but not in the QB force selection options.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Ted:

Still you should break down the northern front into coastal and inland battles.

Pertaining the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga sectors:

The Finnish coastal arty did engage land targets. And AFAIK they could do that at the ranges up to and beyond 20km.

An option would be just to add the guns and put the word “naval” next to the caliber and hopefully no one will use it unless it’s in the right context and in agreement with his or her opponent.

That would propably be the best solution.

One rather relevant point is accuracy (or rather the method of firing) of naval/coastal arty. They were equipped and trained to hit a moving point target at extended ranges. Having their fire scatter around in the manner the regular field arty fire now scatters is less than historically realistic.

[Guest Mike]

Plus of course there were hundreds of river and lake craft, and the Black Sea was a fiarly active war zone for small units too.

I wanna see those Armoured Motor Gunboats with T34/76 turrets adn Katyusahs on board!!

I read somewhere that the Russians conducted something like 1500 naval operations during the war, of all sizes, and from the Arctic Circle to the Black Sea, on various lakes and rivers - there was an active little naval war on the lakes around Leningrad for example.

[JasonC]

Another use of "naval" gunfire in CMBB would be to represent the rare but occasional heavy seige guns used in some battles. E.g. the seige of Sevastapol. There were 48 rounds of 800mm fired (the only time "Dora" was used), and also half a dozen 600mm "Karl"s, occasional 420s and (Austrian) 305s of WW I vintage, and a few 355mm howitzers. Sure such things were rare, and realistically one fortified target got half a dozen shells over the course of an entire day, then the beasties moved on. But an occasional "FO" with 1-8 enourmous shells has many obvious scenario uses.

[MrSpkr]

Originally posted by Ted:

Not being a Beta tester I’m not sure if they’ve broken down the battles into Northern, Central and Southern fronts. If they did that perhaps you could have naval guns only in the north.

But what about the Soviet Black Sea fleet, which did use its guns, particularly in support of invasions, throughout the war.

Before the grogs come a swarming, no, I don't know precise places OUTSIDE of the invasion and battles around Novorossisk. Still, no reason they could not have been at other places.

Originally posted by JasonC:

Another use of "naval" gunfire in CMBB would be to represent the rare but occasional heavy seige guns used in some battles. E.g. the seige of Sevastapol. There were 48 rounds of 800mm fired (the only time "Dora" was used), and also half a dozen 600mm "Karl"s, occasional 420s and (Austrian) 305s of WW I vintage, and a few 355mm howitzers. Sure such things were rare, and realistically one fortified target got half a dozen shells over the course of an entire day, then the beasties moved on. But an occasional "FO" with 1-8 enourmous shells has many obvious scenario uses.

You ARE kidding, aren't you?

I can see the scenario now - Someone takes the time to purchase and set up two entire Soviet infantry battalions.

The German sets up his lone kubelwagen and 800mm spotter. He targets the center of the board.

Eight turns later, as the Soviet is advancing across the front, the shells come in, completely destroying one company, maiming another and routing the rest.

The German spotter then piles into the staff car and withdraws off the map edge.

Major German victory.

(Do the words 'Beyond the scope of the game' come to mind?)

Steve