🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Article #4019

Re: PzG Navy contra arty (was Re: PzG Norway suggestions????)

#4019
From: Martin Rapier
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 00:00
51 lines
2824 bytes
seu...@nordruth.rchland.ibm.com (Bill Seurer) wrote:
>In article <43u0sb$2...@lsi.lsil.com>, thierry@pfrec42.Paris01 (Thierry Lejealle) writes:
>|> >However:
>|> >1) artillery on the land is easy to hide, ships are very easy to spot
>|> >2) artillery on the land is not a single target, ships are
>|> >3) ships _are_ fragile when it comes to 155mm shells
>|> >     Jukka-Pekka Salmenkaita
>|> 
>|> 	Actually the german lost a heavy cruiser
>|> (deutschland ?) due to artillery fire from one of norway
>|> fort, that wasn't taken by surprise.
>
>Not quite true.  The fort hit it with torpedoes as well.

A 155mm gun would only be the main armament of a light cruiser at best, 
heavy cruisers generally mounted 8" guns, and obviously Battleship 
armaments went up to 18".

In my original reply (many posts ago), I did not argue that coastal 
artillery batteries were useless against ships, they weren't, but that 
Army field artillery was not effective against ships, because of the 
limitations of their carriages, sights and fire control systems. There 
_were_ cases of field artillery and AA units destroying ships, but 
normally at close range with direct fire against unarmoured vessels.

>|> 	I think that allies feared for their ship to
>|> in some occasion, like in D day. Ever saw the film 
>|> about 'guns in navaron' ? (don't know the exact name)
>
>That was in Greece.

It was also a an Alistair Maclean novel (well known for his historical 
accuracy - NOT!)

The Allies were concerned about the effect that properly emplaced coastal 
artillery could have on the D-Day landings, which is why they sent in 
heavy bomber strikes and commando units to neutralise them.

The guns mounted by the defenders on the beaches were remarkably 
inffective against even the attackers landing craft, mainly as they were 
mounted to fire in enfilade down the beach, leaving only mortars and 
field artillery to engage the oncoming LCIs and LCTs (see "Six Armies in 
Normandy" - John Keegan).

Anyway, as I also said many posts ago, if you _really_ want to sink ships 
with artillery in PzG, but the 170mm gun. I've found that Ju88s and 
He177s work better (preumably the latter is the glider-bomb armed variant 
used at Salerno).

Cheers.
Martin.
Technical Details
Message-ID: <448hv1$i3m@hippo.shef.ac.uk>
Path: mbox-mo1.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail
References: <43p9qh$u7s@nntp.hut.fi> <43u0sb$25e@lsi.lsil.com> <446gnk$185q@locutus.rchland.ibm.com>

Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
From: Martin Rapier <M.Ra...@shef.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: PzG Navy contra arty (was Re: PzG Norway suggestions????)
Date: 1995/09/26
Message-ID: <448hv1$i3m@hippo.shef.ac.uk>
X-Deja-AN: 110790270
references: <43p9qh$u7s@nntp.hut.fi> <43u0sb$25e@lsi.lsil.com> <446gnk$185q@locutus.rchland.ibm.com>
organization: AQ, University of Sheffield , UK
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
x-mailer: Mozilla 1.2N (Windows; I; 16bit)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit