Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Antw: Re: [wifdiscussion] Shore Bombardment

Expand Messages
  • Herbert Gratz
    No, I would class this as a ground STRIKE in WiF terms. There is a better case to allow naval groung STRIKES IMO. Except for the fact that they would then be
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      No, I would class this as a 'ground STRIKE' in WiF terms. There is a better case to allow naval groung STRIKES IMO. Except for the fact that they would then be used all over the place irrespective of any friendly operations nearby.
      Another good reason why there wasn't such a plethora of naval bombardements was that the tubes wore out fairly quickly! They were expensive and time consuming to replace. Also you might need them in a naval action so couldn't afford to use them day-in-day-out for bombardment until the were worn-out.
      Of course, the more BBs you had the more you could afford to use them on inessentials (like bombardements). Not an option for the Brits.

      >>> teknojeff@... 06/29 6:32 >>>
      <<< I need to find a source for the Japanese bombardment of Guadalcanal
      (since I'm
      under the impression that the BC's targetted Henderson more than the troop
      positions), >>>

      Yes, they targeted Henderson field. There are several other examples of big
      ships firing at airbases, city centers and other large targets.

      I suspect that Bob is being very strict in his definition of Shore
      Bombardment. If you believe that SB represents some dude with a radio trying
      to blast an attacking tank, then BB were very rarely used. I suggest that
      Shore Bombardment is the employment of naval gunfire in support of tactical
      ground operations, and the shelling of airfields, known fortifications,
      reserves and so on qualifies.

      After all, some piece of heavy artillery would be employed to do the job, and
      it makes sense that with all the disadvantages that Bob correctly points out
      that naval gunfire would be given the least complicated task.

      <<< Thanks Jeff. Except for the "Bob is incorrect" and "Bob is wrong" parts
      of the
      message, you've summed up my feelings. >>>

      No, thank YOU Bob for being a gentleman throughout all your discussions.

      Jeff







      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


      Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@egroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • lgb42
      ... a better case to allow naval groung STRIKES IMO. Except for the fact that they would then be used all over the place irrespective of any friendly
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In wifdiscussion@y..., "Herbert Gratz" <herbert.gratz@o...> wrote:
        > No, I would class this as a 'ground STRIKE' in WiF terms. There is
        a better case to allow naval groung STRIKES IMO. Except for the fact
        that they would then be used all over the place irrespective of any
        friendly operations nearby.
        > Another good reason why there wasn't such a plethora of naval
        bombardements was that the tubes wore out fairly quickly! They were
        expensive and time consuming to replace. Also you might need them in
        a naval action so couldn't afford to use them day-in-day-out for
        bombardment until the were worn-out.
        > Of course, the more BBs you had the more you could afford to use
        them on inessentials (like bombardements). Not an option for the
        Brits.


        Actually bombardment did occur throughout the war and at a larger
        scale then I think you might imagine. When SiF first came out there
        was an optional rule allowing ships to ground strike- it's gone for a
        reason. It was just too powerfull. The problem here is that often
        ships bombarded a fixed object like an airfield or installation as
        opposed to an area bombardment strong enough to flip a corp- this to
        my knowledge never happened. Many things that happened in WWII can
        not be recreated in a strategic level game like WiF.

        Lastly while it's true artillery barrels wear out the biggest reason
        for limited use of bombardment in many circumstances was ammo. If
        there was some reasonable chance of meeting the enemy one would not
        fire off all the ammo at shore targets- unless you were the USN and
        had a strong covering force and an ability to resupply at sea nobody
        else really had.

        Lane
      • Herbert Gratz
        I doubt very much if the scale of ANY WWII operation would surprise me. I know that this war was HUGE. On the other hand, a lot of these operations are below
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I doubt very much if the scale of ANY WWII operation would surprise me. I know that this war was HUGE.
          On the other hand, a lot of these operations are below the scale of WiF. Either they were conducted by ships which aren't represented explicitedly (DDs) or they were not 'focused on the prime action'. WiF, after all, doesn't purport to represent ALL activitities in WWII. Rather, the main actions which the players decide. Bombarding supply dumps in the Cyrenaica by squadrons of destroyers or even the weatherstation at Spitzbergen by the Tirpitz are excluded as being outside the 'scale' of the game.
          If DSB works for you, great!
          I might add that I am using RWA CRT not the D20 table. And I play the Allies more often than the Germans. (But that might change...)

          >>> lgb42@... 07/01 9:55 >>>
          --- In wifdiscussion@y..., "Herbert Gratz" <herbert.gratz@o...> wrote:
          > No, I would class this as a 'ground STRIKE' in WiF terms. There is
          a better case to allow naval groung STRIKES IMO. Except for the fact
          that they would then be used all over the place irrespective of any
          friendly operations nearby.
          > Another good reason why there wasn't such a plethora of naval
          bombardements was that the tubes wore out fairly quickly! They were
          expensive and time consuming to replace. Also you might need them in
          a naval action so couldn't afford to use them day-in-day-out for
          bombardment until the were worn-out.
          > Of course, the more BBs you had the more you could afford to use
          them on inessentials (like bombardements). Not an option for the
          Brits.


          Actually bombardment did occur throughout the war and at a larger
          scale then I think you might imagine. When SiF first came out there
          was an optional rule allowing ships to ground strike- it's gone for a
          reason. It was just too powerfull. The problem here is that often
          ships bombarded a fixed object like an airfield or installation as
          opposed to an area bombardment strong enough to flip a corp- this to
          my knowledge never happened. Many things that happened in WWII can
          not be recreated in a strategic level game like WiF.

          Lastly while it's true artillery barrels wear out the biggest reason
          for limited use of bombardment in many circumstances was ammo. If
          there was some reasonable chance of meeting the enemy one would not
          fire off all the ammo at shore targets- unless you were the USN and
          had a strong covering force and an ability to resupply at sea nobody
          else really had.

          Lane


          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          wifdiscussion-unsubscribe@egroups.com



          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.