Artillery vs. Warships

[Amadeus]

I watch the Forum but nobody write about it. Is it right that Artillery Units may attack Ships but there is no effect to the marine unit. I mean no Readiness loss to the defender appears thru artillery.

[jon_j_rambo]

ah, never noticed. You mean Marine unit that is at sea?

[Amadeus]

Yes rare situation. Artillery vs. Warships at sea.

[Baron]

Why can't warships return fire like land arty can when an adjacent land unit is under attack? They certainly had larger caliber guns and since the ship units represent squadrons of ships then it stands to reason they probably had as many if not more guns to return fire with.

[Bill101]

One major reason would be the reaction times involved and the need for the land forces to call on the navy for help.

The land forces wouldn't always want to do this, and even if they did, there would then be the inevitable delay between the unit being attacked and the navy stepping in. I think this is better reflected in the way the game currently works, where unless ordered otherwise, your naval units main focus is on events at sea.

[jon_j_rambo]

It's called shore bombardment, and it's rather effective.

[Baron]

So when do the ships fire in defense of a friendly land unit on the beach getting attacked by an opposing land unit? I suppose that is called shore bombardment but it is totally lacking in the SC series. Land arty units can do it, fighters can intercept incoming planes but a flotilla of ships sitting off the coast (I presume they are there to escort and do shore bombardment) just sit by as the friendly ground unit they are next to is attacked by opposing land units.

I guess ships guns only work on the offense???

[Baron]

One major reason would be the reaction times involved and the need for the land forces to call on the navy for help.

The land forces wouldn't always want to do this, and even if they did, there would then be the inevitable delay between the unit being attacked and the navy stepping in. I think this is better reflected in the way the game currently works, where unless ordered otherwise, your naval units main focus is on events at sea.

I suppose Sicily, every island battle in the PTO, and Normandy didn't have spotters? They did and performed in every US amphibious invasion of war. Those funny airplanes that the CA's and BB's carried are called spotting aircraft. They had observers who were specifically trained to call in naval gunfire. The USMC has an entire MOS devoted to this specific task. The HG Panzer Division was shot to pieces by defensive naval gunfire to list just one example. In other invasions the allies had air superiority - I forget how many sorties the LW had on D Day 1944 but I believe it was under 200 so there is no reason why it isn't reflected in the game.

With properly trained spotters the time delay for naval gunfire is no different than that of land based arty fire. I will point out that it was mostly small ships DD's a CL's that provided direct gun support on the beaches because they could get closer to the beach and in some instances fire in the direct fire role. Still, the guns on a DD are as big as the Corps/Army level guns that are in the series already.

[jon_j_rambo]

How much Ammo did a warship have? Meaning, yeah, it's safe for the USS Missouri to sit 40 miles off shore & bomb away, but what is realistic & effective?

Perfect example would be Iwo Jima. USN & USAAF pounded away for 48 hours or something? Could they have sat there for a full month shelling? How much Ammo & overheating of the guns can be done?

[Baron]

Since supply is handled indirectly in this game one could presume that the fleet supply train (convoys of ships that resupplied warships) would keep the ships supplied. As far as ammo load the amount of shells they carried was pretty impressive. I think a more limiting factor might be the life of the gun barrels. I know that they did wear out and had to be replaced. The maximum range of most BB’s guns was 20 miles or so although I believe the HMS Warspite (15” guns) achieved a hit at 23 miles once.

However, like I alluded to earlier, the most effective seaborne bombardments were carried out by DD's and CA/CL's. This means 5" to 6/8" guns. The amount of ammo would be a non factor given the scale of the game considering that ship units are considered to be a task force of various types of these ships. A New Jersey class BB alone had 20 5" guns. This is the equivalent to 3 Panzer Divisions (1 battery each of 6 Hummel's plus ammo carrier) compliment of Hummel’s, which is the largest SP arty the Germans employed during the war. A single DD had the equivalent firepower to a battery of Hummels and many times the ammo (a Hummel could carry 18 rounds so a battery would have 108 plus what the ammo carrier carried). Think about the US ships that used 5" guns in the AA role, I don't think ammo was an issue.

[jon_j_rambo]

Another question: How long could have the Jap Army survived from naval blockades? How much food did those dudes have? Could a 6-month starve out saved American lives on Iwo Jima?

[Baron]

Sort of - The last Japanese soldier did not surrender until the 1970's (I think it was in the Philippines). A blockade would have made the airfield on Iwo Jima irrelevant as long as the island was pounded from time to time (this is exactly what we did to Wake Island).

The real value of Iwo Jima was the lives it saved in our bombing against Japan. Once captured we based P-51's on the island and they escorted the B-29's to Japan and back. The number of crews that were saved because they had an emergency field to land on (Iwo Jima) exceeded the total casualties it took to take the island. Incidentally the Iwo Jima battle was the only island battle in the war where we took more losses (including wounded) than we inflicted. The blood bath on Iwo Jima and Okinawa were a big reason why we dropped the atom bombs on Japan.

Operation Olympic the proposed allied invasion of Southern Japan would have involved the following forces: Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyūshū, was to begin on "X-Day", which was scheduled for November 1, 1945. The combined Allied naval armada would have been the largest ever assembled, including forty-two aircraft carriers, twenty-four battleships, and four hundred destroyers and destroyer escorts. Fourteen U.S. divisions were scheduled to take part in the initial landings. The estimated casualties were almost 500,000 with over 100,000 Allied soldiers killed. This does not take into account the Japanese casualties. It is no wonder Truman choose to drop the bombs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Olympic good article on the planned invasion of Japan

[jon_j_rambo]

Iwo Jima was never used as an Air Base, bunch of dudes got blasted for nothing, IMO. If I was commander, just bypass, starve them out. Yeah, one guy surrendered in 1970, but that's one dude, not an Army. One dude can eat fish. 20,000 dudes need grub.

I've never understood the American strategy in the Pacific. Dropping guys off in rubber boats at Tarawa to get blasted, for what? A newspaper clipping of a victory, that has no significance in my opinion....all political. As a commander, there's no way, I'm sitting my troops on a beach called Iwo Jima, Tarawa, whatever. Same goes for D-Day. I'd just sit back and bomb civilians. Save my own troops. Same goes for Iraq or whatever. Air Force is king....super weapons....focus.

Once naval superiority was established (and it was quickly) in the Pacific, don't drop troops off on worthless islands. Just starve them out, where they going? Why do you need the island? Is an a rock in the middle of a vast ocean have any value? Not in my opinion. Drop some mustard gas on Iwo Jima......kick back on the USS Missouri, drink coffee, wait a few months. Those Japs would starve......if the people at home disagreed because they are impatient, then ask them if they want their sons to live or not.

The Enola Gay flew from Trinian, Marianna Islands, I thought.

Nuke 'em, "it is finished".

[Baron]

If you overlook the 2400 damaged B-29’s that made emergency landings on the island’s two airfields after the island was captured I might agree. The US took 25k casualties taking the island (7k killed), by doing so they saved the lives of 26400 aircrew of the damaged B-29’s (late during the war some of the gunners were not on the B 29’s to save weight so 26400 crewman is bound to be high). I’d say losing 7K KIA to save 26K KIA was probably worth it. As for why we took Iwo Jima we needed the airfields and the island gave Japan a 2 hrs notice of incoming American bombers from the Marianas (Yes, the Enola Gay flew from Tinian) so taking that Iwo Jima was well worth the cost.

Betio (not Tarawa) really changed the way we fought war. After Betio we really did bypass and let non essential islands starve Rabaul and Truk being two that most would recognize. A strong argument could be made that returning to the Philippines was a mistake and Peliueu certainly was. Both were assaulted due to the vanity of a particular Gen who was later fired in Korea. As far as naval superiority being established I’d argue it wasn’t until we won the Marianas “Turkey Shoot” which was fought in June of 1944, 2 ½ years after Pearl Harbor that we could assure naval superiority. It wasn’t like we could do as we pleased when we wanted.

As far as Air Power being king you are spot on and as far as limiting casualties you won’t get any arguments from me. We have the ability today with smart technology to really win wars with airpower. In the 1940’s we didn’t thus the millions of civilians killed around the globe from the strategic use of airpower.

[jon_j_rambo]

I agree with you, if (and only if) the point of view is "overall guarantee of victory". I prefer to see things as an individual, thru the glasses I wear.....no way am I hitting the beach like cannon fodder into a bore sighted mined beach with barbed wire. Let Eisenhower charge with the bangelow torpedo while I make charts & such. Same goes for today, feel bad for these dudes on road side guard duty in Iraq. Just nuke 'em & save your own ppl.

-Rambo

[Bill101]

I suppose Sicily, every island battle in the PTO, and Normandy didn't have spotters? They did and performed in every US amphibious invasion of war. Those funny airplanes that the CA's and BB's carried are called spotting aircraft. They had observers who were specifically trained to call in naval gunfire. The USMC has an entire MOS devoted to this specific task. The HG Panzer Division was shot to pieces by defensive naval gunfire to list just one example. In other invasions the allies had air superiority - I forget how many sorties the LW had on D Day 1944 but I believe it was under 200 so there is no reason why it isn't reflected in the game.

With properly trained spotters the time delay for naval gunfire is no different than that of land based arty fire. I will point out that it was mostly small ships DD's a CL's that provided direct gun support on the beaches because they could get closer to the beach and in some instances fire in the direct fire role. Still, the guns on a DD are as big as the Corps/Army level guns that are in the series already.

I don't disagree with you here at all, but the important thing to note about amphibious operations where the navy plays a direct role in supporting the landing is that the attack was normally preceded by long periods of discussions and negotiations at a very high level to determine what each of the services would do in the attack.

This is very different from a situation where a naval unit is sailing by while carrying out its own orders (e.g. sub hunting, or protecting coastal trade) and just decides off its own back to interfere in a land battle that is going on 10-15 miles away. It just wouldn't be likely to happen without prior agreement, and the navy wouldn't really understand the ground situation without being directly informed. This all takes time and normally has to go through higher levels.

Obviously this doesn't cater to every single situation that could arise, but it's never really been the done thing for the navy to interfere in the army's business unless the army actually asks for help, and calling on the navy for help won't always be a general's first action when attacked. Imagine the embarrassment if the enemy's attack turned out to be a feint and the general had called on the navy for help? He'd be the laughing stock, and the joke about him would become "oh look, an enemy patrol, we'd better call up the navy!".

Thus I think that, by and large, the game has it covered - you can use naval units for shore bombardments to represent their involvement in major amphibious operations and other situations where necessary, but they won't interfere in land battles without direct orders to do so (i.e. when you click on them to do this in your turn).

[Baron]

Bill101,

I will agree to disagree. If you do a little research you can find the maps that had each individual ships sector of fire on assigned beaches during landings. Those ships were there specifically to give direct fire support to the troops on ground. They could and did give fire support when requested. As far as being embarrassed for calling on support it wasn't the Generals (and their egos) that would request the fire support. It would be a Lt in a fox hole under fire who would be calling for the fire support. I doubt he would feel embarrassed at all for calling on fire support from anywhere he could find it.

My argument would be that the ship, which is adjacent to the beach, is there for the specific reason of supporting the landing (very much like the artillery piece behind that enemy Corps). The rest of your fleet (those not adjacent) to the beach would have had the job of interdicting any enemy naval activity. You have a point in that the further inland you go the more difficult it would be to apply indirect fire effectively. That is why there are specific MOS's that specialize in calling in fire. The US had by far the best training and system for doing this and it was quite a nasty surprise for the German troops when they confronted the Americans.

Having agreed to disagree let me thank you for the work that goes on behind the scenes of the SC series. It is what makes this game second to none.

[jon_j_rambo]

"it's politics" --- Full Metal Jacket