Naval Units at Close Range

[umbro]

Just reading about lessons learned from Tarawa.

One was that at too close range the larger Naval units' guns would fire shells at such a low trajectory that they would bounce off the island into the ocean beyond - sort of like skimming stones.

Seems to argue for a 0 effectiveness rating against soft targets out to 8 hexes or so?

Okay, please respond only if you believe that naval units have some role to play in CS. My intent was not to reopen the bathtub navy debate.

Thanks!

umbro

[Von Earlmann]

I liked the naval guns in "A Close Run Thing".....also didn't mind them having 0 defense........if the Axis did manage to hit one it simulated the guided bombs that were used quite well...........not sure about the bathtub navy........I do still have my rubber ducky tho :-)

VE

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Just reading about lessons learned from Tarawa.

One was that at too close range the larger Naval units' guns would fire shells at such a low trajectory that they would bounce off the island into the ocean beyond - sort of like skimming stones.

Seems to argue for a 0 effectiveness rating against soft targets out to 8 hexes or so?

Okay, please respond only if you believe that naval units have some role to play in CS. My intent was not to reopen the bathtub navy debate.

Thanks!

umbro

Why zero only against "soft targets"? If they bounced off the island, that would mean they were not effective against hard targets, close in, too?
Then again, shooting directly against a pillbox was often done? :chin::stir::chin:

I take showers and rubber ducky's scare me! ;)



RR

[K K Rossokolski]

That suggests that 100 % of shells were skimmers, which I doubt. Remember the atolls such as Tarawa are low, flat, and sandy. Very little to stop a low trajectory shell. A rougher landscape would trap most shells . It is a reasonable point, but not IMO of any great importance. The term "larger" is imprecise, presumably meaning ships larger than destroyers.
Naval guns of this era were designed for long range firing against moving targets. Heavy calibre weapons were essentially antisurface. Ranges/bearings were derived from visual, later radar information, adjusted by spotting FOS. Naval gunfire against shore targets became increasingly important, especially in the Pacific, used mostly against area rather than point targets. Larger units would be well offshore. Sailors like searoom.
The chances of taking out a bunker or pillpox with a "direct fire" shot would be very small indeed.

Don't overestimate the effect of the German glide bombs. They were active in the Med around the time of the German surrender, but while spectacularly effective on a few occasions had little overall effect. The guiding aircraft was very vulnerable to AA and fighters.
Most effective aerial guided weapon of the War was the Kamikaze.

Excuse the broad nature of this response..I am away from home and thus my library, currently with very little computer access

[umbro]

Why zero only against "soft targets"? If they bounced off the island, that would mean they were not effective against hard targets, close in, too?
Then again, shooting directly against a pillbox was often done?

They were designed to fire at ships (hard targets) at close ranges and the planners were surprised that when firing at shore targets (soft) many larger calibre shells bounced.

Pillboxes are hard targets , thereby keeping the high attack value, and raised, therefore providing a target that will "stop" a shell.

At least, that what was I was thinking.

umbro

[umbro]

Naval guns of this era were designed for long range firing against moving targets. Heavy calibre weapons were essentially antisurface. Ranges/bearings were derived from visual, later radar information, adjusted by spotting FOS. Naval gunfire against shore targets became increasingly important, especially in the Pacific, used mostly against area rather than point targets. Larger units would be well offshore. Sailors like searoom.
The chances of taking out a bunker or pillpox with a "direct fire" shot would be very small indeed.

Agreed, hence my thought that a good way of modeling this would be to reduce the attack value at close range verses soft targets. As you point out not all shells bounced, so perhaps not all the way to zero.

umbro

[Herr Straße Laufer]

They were designed to fire at ships (hard targets) at close ranges and the planners were surprised that when firing at shore targets (soft) many larger calibre shells bounced.

Pillboxes are hard targets , thereby keeping the high attack value, and raised, therefore providing a target that will "stop" a shell.

At least, that what was I was thinking.

umbro

Understood.
But, from what I read, the larger calibre shells were designed to be most effective while "plunging" down on a target and allowing the armor piercing shell to penetrate through deck armor.
The pillbox fits the description of hard target within the game. It was my thought that the trajectory of the shell would "bounce off" them also because it was not plunging fire.
If the formula change was applied to soft attacks, then the wooden "bunkers" become more effective to "shrug off the shells" than a hard target?
Would it not be in the designer's hands to keep those larger guns far enough away to allow for plunging fire?
Not trying to belabor the point. Just trying to prevent a situation where "unintended consequences" take over, in a place where a good idea started.
Especially if the effect would concern 2% or less of all scenarios?

Ed

[Von Earlmann]

Don't overestimate the effect of the German glide bombs. They were active in the Med around the time of the German surrender, but while spectacularly effective on a few occasions had little overall effect. The guiding aircraft was very vulnerable to AA and fighters.
Most effective aerial guided weapon of the War was the Kamikaze.

Actually A close Thing is a simulation of Salerno and the guided bombs caused a bit of a problem in that one...........since the Germans will not usually have LOS to the naval guns they have to use indirect fire so a lucky hit will take out the guns.....sort of like the few guided bombs that did hit....of course most German players don't bother with it anyway........as thay have plenty of land based targets

Earl

[Mike Abberton]

They were designed to fire at ships (hard targets) at close ranges and the planners were surprised that when firing at shore targets (soft) many larger calibre shells bounced.

Pillboxes are hard targets , thereby keeping the high attack value, and raised, therefore providing a target that will "stop" a shell.

At least, that what was I was thinking.

umbro

Understood.
But, from what I read, the larger calibre shells were designed to be most effective while "plunging" down on a target and allowing the armor piercing shell to penetrate through deck armor.
The pillbox fits the description of hard target within the game. It was my thought that the trajectory of the shell would "bounce off" them also because it was not plunging fire.
If the formula change was applied to soft attacks, then the wooden "bunkers" become more effective to "shrug off the shells" than a hard target?
Would it not be in the designer's hands to keep those larger guns far enough away to allow for plunging fire?
Not trying to belabor the point. Just trying to prevent a situation where "unintended consequences" take over, in a place where a good idea started.
Especially if the effect would concern 2% or less of all scenarios?

Ed

Ed,

I don't think the plunging fire had more effect, it was that deck armor was generally thinner than belt armor. Plunging fire is generally long range fire, and with the size of naval gun shells, there was definitely some velocity loss (i.e. penetrative power loss), but because the deck of a ship is much larger than the exposed belt, you just can't armor it as effectively.

All that would would probably apply differently to land targets. Being much smaller than ships and not requiring the ability to float, you could probably design the tops to be quite thick to resist plunging fire better. Of course the best defenses were on the larger islands where you could use natural caves to hides the guns. A ship either needed a lucky down-the-throat shot (not easy to accomplish) or try to collapse the cave mouth somehow (not as easy as it might sound). In a lot of cases they had to be dug out at close range.

Mike

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Mike,

I understand the workings of ships guns against various targets.
My concern was that the "bouncing at close range" being factored into the game would make other changes that could not be readily perceived at the moment.
Changing close range gunfire for the approximately 1% or 2% of scenarios where it would be a factor, might not be worth the effects from the changes themselves?
I am sure the interaction between ships firing at close range, causing a bounce on the ground, and therefore "no effect", would be similar to the armored piercing shell "going through" the side armor of destroyers and only leaving a hole, without going off?
I know the positive effects that the destroyers off the coast of Normandy provided to the Americans through their direct fire. I also know the lack of effect of the bombardments at Tarawa and Iwo Jima.
How could both be modeled?

Ed