CMBB - Naval Guns

[Voxman]

Did either side have Naval Gun support during the war ?

If so, is it expected in CMBB ?

Regards,

Voxman

BTW: M. Dorosh, I know you have been warned to stay off of my threads.....so i do not want to see your strange face around this one !

[ August 25, 2002, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Voxman ]

[History Buff]

Mmmmm, interesting question.

I know Hitler liked his U-Boats rather than his surface fleet doing all the naval duties. I'm assuming the Russians never truely had the need for ships in the majority of there battles.

I honestly can't say though, never heard of any majoy engagement on the eastern front where naval guns had a devastating impact.

Good thing to research.......

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by History Buff:

[snips]

I honestly can't say though, never heard of any major engagement on the eastern front where naval guns had a devastating impact.

Well *I* want to see CM:BB feature the "Skumbria", the rocket-armed fire-support trawler that helped to shoot the landing force into "The Little Land". It's in the counter-mix for Jack Radey's "Black Sea*Black Death" boardgame.

Of course, as it's off-table support, it will be indistinguishable from Katyushas fired off truck bodies, but never mind that.

All the best,

John.

[flamingknives]

I was under the impression that Army Group North had some support from the Baltic fleet, and that the defenders at Leningrad had fire support from battleships moored in the harbour.

Don't know if it will be in CMBB though.

[ParaBellum]

The german heavy cruisersPrinz Eugen (8x20.3cm and 12x10.5cm) and the Lützow (6x28cm and8x15cm) were both used in the baltic sea to support the land forces in late '44 and the first months of 1945.

The Prinz Eugen delivered accurate fire support (and fired more than 2000 rounds) during the desperate battles for Königsberg (january '45) and Danzig/Gotenhafen (march '45).

[flamingknives]

I was under the impression that Army Group North had some support from the Baltic fleet, and that the defenders at Leningrad had fire support from battleships moored in the harbour.

Don't know if it will be in CMBB though.

[Stixx]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

The german heavy cruisersPrinz Eugen (8x20.3cm and 12x10.5cm) and the Lützow (6x28cm and8x15cm) were both used in the baltic sea to support the land forces in late '44 and the first months of 1945.

The Prinz Eugen delivered accurate fire support (and fired more than 2000 rounds) during the desperate battles for Königsberg (january '45) and Danzig/Gotenhafen (march '45).

Damn! Nice info ParaBellum.

As a matter of interest what is your source?

[Andreas]

Prinz Eugen also supported the attempt by GD to re-open the connection between AG North and AG Centre in 1944. Apart from that, light cruisers of the KM supported the German landings on the baltic islands. Finnish gun monitors were used as well I think. ISTR surface vessels were also used to support the 1941 advance along the baltic coast.

The Baltic fleet used moored ships in Leningrad, and supported the re-conquest of the Baltic islands with surface ships.

[ParaBellum]

Some more details about Prinz Eugen from Feldgrau.com:

20-21 Aug 44: In company with 4xDD and 2xTB, deployed against Soviet troops near Tukkums on the Gulf of Riga. Her shore bombardment helps elements of AG North restore land connections with Germany after being cut off by Soviet attacks. This was considered a highly successful mission.

10-15 Oct 44: With Lutzow 3xDD and 4xTB, shells Soviet positions near Memel. She fires 633 rounds of main battery ammunition on the 11th and 12th, another 246 rounds on the 14th and 368 rounds on the 15th.

20-21 Nov 44: With 3xDD and 4xTB expends 514 203mm rounds against Soviet targets on the Sworbe Peninsula, Estonia.

29-31 Jan 45: With 2xDD and 5xTB expends 855 rounds in support of German operations in Samland. After this operation, the lack of 203mm ammunition forced Prinz Eugen into inactivity despite the desperate situation along the Baltic coast.

04 Apr 45: Engages in final shore bombardment. In March and early April she has fired 4,871 rounds of 203mm and 2,500 rounds of 105mm

Stixx: sources are mainly german books and some sites I found via google.

[Voxman]

Hello fellows,

Thank you for your timely and informative posts.

So it seems Naval Guns did participate in the Eastern front along the coast. However, the question is still:

"Did BTS include Naval Guns in CMBB ?"

Cordially,

Voxman

[ August 25, 2002, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Voxman ]

[Andreas]

Does anyone know how spotting was done? My impression is that they were just integrated in the normal artillery net, and did not have special spotters, unlike the RN in Normandy.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Voxman:

Hello fellows,

Thank you for your timely and informative posts.

So it seems Naval Guns did participate in the Eastern front along the coast. However, the question is still:

"Did BTS include Naval Guns in CMBB ?"

Cordially,

Voxman

I believe they are using the monicker BFC now.

The Soviet Naval Infantry was very active during the Second World War, and made several dozen amphibious landings, mostly in the Black Sea. Whether or not they were supported by gunfire is hard to say. Soviet sailors were seriously underemployed, leading to their use as infantry; I was under the understanding the Soviet Navy spent much of its time in port.

The book Project HULA: Soviet-American Cooperation in the War Against Japan,( by Richard A. Russell. No. 4 in The U.S. Navy in the Modern World series. 1997. Paperback, GPO/SN 008-046-00181-2), may have some insight into Soviet ship to shore communication practices, etc.

Good site for a Soviet Naval museum

During the fighting at Tallinn in 1941, Soviet ships and German long range land artillery exchanged fire for the better part of a day; don't know if the Kirov, Leningrad or other ships fired on other front line targets, but a search using the names of those ships might help you answer that one better.

Tallinn was evacuated by sea; it is probably likely that the ships of the Baltic Fleet covered the withdrawal - the voyage from Tallinn to Kronstadt was hazardous and the Soviet Navy lost 88 percent of their ships (more than 100, plus 34 civilian ships out of 67) and some 18,000 personnel.

[Michael Dorosh]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/ACB.htm

This seems to be a great article on how Soviet amphibious operations were conducted in World War Two.

The stages of an amphibious operation, as delineated by Isakov, generally follow those of the PERMA sequence (Planning, Embarkation, Rehearsal, Movement, Assault) with two exceptions. Rehearsals are not a separate stage. The final stage involves fulfilling the mission ashore. The first stage, called preparation instead of planning, involves development of the plan, collecting intelligence on the enemy and the landing sites, and rehearsals for troops, naval and air forces and all equipment. The embarkation phase is next, followed by movement, and then to the assault

onto the shore with naval gunfire and aviation support and consolidation of the landing ashore.

[ August 25, 2002, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Michael Dorosh]

By the end of 1943, with the experience of previous landings, the planners for the operations refined earlier areas of weaknesses in procedures for aviation support, communications and logistics, and especially in coastal artilley and rocket fire support.

From the previous source, as well as:

The first sizable amphibious assault in the Black Sea occurred on 22 September 1941, in an attempt to relieve a sector of the Odessa Defense Area that two Romanian divisions had sealed off from the land approaches. Prior to

the German invasion, Soviet commanders in charge of the defense of Odessa stressed repulsing an enemy attack from the seal the possibility of attacks from the land or the rear were basically ignored. The purpose of the assault was to land forces to eliminate artillery positions threatening Odessa. A tactical landing in the early morning hours of darkness inserted 1920 men of the newly organized 3d Marine Regiment of the Black Sea Fleet onto the shores near the town of Grigorevka, 25 kilometers east of Odessa.

On 21 September the regiment embarked on two cruisers at Sevastopol and disembarked shortly after 0100 onto 19 motor craft and 10 barges used as landing craft. and were all ashore in three and a half hours. A nine minute naval gunfire barrage preceded the assault, which came ashore in two waves.

[ August 25, 2002, 09:13 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Does anyone know how spotting was done? My impression is that they were just integrated in the normal artillery net, and did not have special spotters, unlike the RN in Normandy.

According to a chapter in "Gotterdammerung 1945",

by Russ Schneider relating actions on the Baltic coast, the pocket battleships Lutzow and Amd. Scheer supported the GD division and the rest of the 4th Army with 11in guns "expertly pinpointed by forward observers stationed on shore" One can assume either naval officers or FOs trained to work in concert with the navy were integrated in Heer units fighting along the Baltic.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

During the fighting at Tallinn in 1941, Soviet ships and German long range land artillery exchanged fire for the better part of a day; don't know if the Kirov, Leningrad or other ships fired on other front line targets, but a search using the names of those ships might help you answer that one better.

Tallinn was evacuated by sea; it is probably likely that the ships of the Baltic Fleet covered the withdrawal - the voyage from Tallinn to Kronstadt was hazardous and the Soviet Navy lost 88 percent of their ships (more than 100, plus 34 civilian ships out of 67) and some 18,000 personnel.

Michael, the number for naval ships seems far too high. Haupt names the navy ships lost when they ran into the Juminda blockade as:

Destroyers

Sverdlov

Artem

Volodarskiy

Skoriy

Kalinin

Escor ship 'Sneg'

Submarines

S-5

SC-301

SC-324

Mine sweeper T-202

Training ship 'Zeleznorodosnik'

plus 35 merchant ships.

The cruiser 'Kirov' was damaged but limped home.

he quotes a passage from another book saying that Soviet ships engaged ground targets during the assault on Reval.

During the initial attacks on Narva, August 8th-15th Soviet destroyers also engaged ground targets, until the German 502nd Coastal Battery brought 'some relief'.

[Michael Dorosh]

Interesing, Andreas, I was quoting from THE UNKNOWN WAR - they mention 10 WARSHIPS going down, but also include the transports. Would this account for the difference?

You mention Soviet warships, and merchant ships - but not transports belonging to the Soviet Navy (if such a thing exists)?

My source is a large compilation and I believe a companion to a TV series, so you know where the salt is by now (not you, John).

They mention Ivan Papanain, Votraya Pytiletka, and Balkhash, Tobol, and Luga as the largest losses.

[ August 25, 2002, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Andreas]

Hmm, Haupt has the following figures (annd did I mention that I hate Schiffer translations?)

1st Convoy (Adm. Tribuc on Kirov in command)

Kirov

18 Destroyers

6 torpedo boats

28 Mine Sweepers

6 submarines

one tanker

25 merchant ships

2nd Convoy (Konteradmiral Panteleev on DD Minsk in command)

Destroyer Minsk

6 Mine Sweepers

12 Escorts

60 steamers

The desaster was exacerbated by two incidents. First the Germans had laid the blockade between August 8th and 24th, when DD Engels went down as its first victim. Despite this, the Soviet command was unaware of it. to make matters worse, it seems Tribuc's convoys did not approach it in formation, because they had been scattered by a raid executed by 7 Ju-88 of 2. KG77.

[Madmatt]

VOxman, Dorosh has every right to post as long as he is not inflammatory. YOU are the one that started it this time, not he.

You asked a question and he provided a knowledgable response. What I warned you BOTH about was inciting the other. Now YOU Vox are doing so by demanding he not reply and also discussing private issues in public. Now YOU are being warned, flat out. You post another message where you tell someone not to reply and I will ban you. Don't you EVER tell me what I did or didnt warn someone about.

Guys, I am tired of this ****. GROW UP or LEAVE. It's that simple.

Madmatt