[DesertFox]

In some cases, it seems that shore artillery has the advantage over naval artillery while in other cases it appears as if the warships, especially the battleship, has the advantage.

Is there a clear judgment which has the advantage. I would imagine that hitting a battleship, which can more around, is much more difficult but the shore artillery can in some cases have incredibly heavy armor around them

[RETAC21]

DesertFox, on Sat 18 Apr 2009 1630, said:

In some cases, it seems that shore artillery has the advantage over naval artillery while in other cases it appears as if the warships, especially the battleship, has the advantage.

Is there a clear judgment which has the advantage. I would imagine that hitting a battleship, which can more around, is much more difficult but the shore artillery can in some cases have incredibly heavy armor around them

I would say that for the same caliber, shore wins hands down, specially if supported by mines and mobile batteries.

Shore artillery could be camouflaged, the platform is steady and could use triangulation techniques to determine where the targets is if there's no radar.

This post has been edited by RETAC21: 18 April 2009 - 1214 PM

[Tuccy]

Also if guarding a chokepoint, it can have pre-calculated firing parameters to ensure maximal effect - see coastal batteries in Oslofjord.

[JOE BRENNAN]

It's a truism that for a given weight of fire the shore batteries have a big advantage. The reasonable question is what ratio of superiority the shipboard guns need. In the sail/smoothbore era one rule of thumb was ships needed three times the weight of fire as 'forts', though another was simply not to engage strong forts with ships, a landward attack was always better. From mid 19th century technological changes in guns, ships and forts rendered questionable any rule of thumb. Some matchups like very large and/or rifled guns on armored ships v masonry forts gave hope that even inferior weight of shipboard fire power could prevail, what the USN attempted against Charleston forts in 1863 with ironclads, not a ridiculous idea, though it didn't work. In real cases of 20th century ships actually destroying shore batteries is a timely way, they usually had a weight of broadside advantage far higher than 3:1.

One quick example is the USN's failure to destroy the troublesome French battery at El Hank in the Torch landings in Morrocco in November 1942. Just counting the main batteries of ships mainly firing at El Hank, BB Massachusetts and CA's Wichita and Tuscaloosa, not even counting the other CA's CL's and DD's available to fire, they outweighed El Hank's 4*194mm guns (the 4*138 were hardly fired at by the American ships) by >30:1 per salvo. And their shooting, both at the battery and ships in the harbor at Casablanca, was not bad: they covered the ground around the El Hank lighthouse with craters (locating the 194's right near such an obvious landmark was recognized as flawed by some French artillerists) and sank a number of ships in the harbor besides hitting the main harbor target, stationary BB Jean Bart, 7 times w/ 16". It was just very difficult to land a direct hit on a gun or fire control post of a shore battery, and that's what it took, especially since the 16" were all AP, though the 8" were not all. El Hank suffered 1 KIA, 1 WIA in the bombardments Nov 8, some more personnel casualties but no significant material damage either in carrier plane bombing and strafing attacks that day and the following two. All 8 guns remained ready for action at the armistice. El Hank's own hit rate of three 194mm shells of 229 fired in the main engagement (2 on Massachusetts, 1 on Wichita, with light damage to both and light casualties on Wichita only) was not high either, but the mission of the ship is assumed to be to 'reduce' the fort. If the mission is just to run past a fort, then the equation changes completely.

Joe

This post has been edited by JOE BRENNAN: 18 April 2009 - 1627 PM

[DesertFox]

How about using battleships as protection. Say you have a fortress with only relatively light guns and the enemy tries to move guns in to bombard the fort but you have battleships to support the fort?

[hojutsuka]

DesertFox, on Sat 18 Apr 2009 1829, said:

How about using battleships as protection. Say you have a fortress with only relatively light guns and the enemy tries to move guns in to bombard the fort but you have battleships to support the fort?

If you have to have battleships to protect your fortress, why have the fortress at all? Save money by not building the fortress and depend on your battleships to secure control of the sea around your coast.

Hojutsuka

[Ken Estes]

DesertFox, on Sat 18 Apr 2009 1829, said:

How about using battleships as protection. Say you have a fortress with only relatively light guns and the enemy tries to move guns in to bombard the fort but you have battleships to support the fort?

Not very common, but - taking the cue from Joe - one could point to Dakar and the RN/Free French attack of Sept 1940, where the Vichy shore batteries, BB Richelieu and supporting ships, a/c and subs forced a nominally superior force to break off the attack, also repulsing a landing.

[DesertFox]

hojutsuka, on Sat 18 Apr 2009 1446, said:

If you have to have battleships to protect your fortress, why have the fortress at all? Save money by not building the fortress and depend on your battleships to secure control of the sea around your coast.

Someone coming from Inland?

[Sami Jumppanen]

hojutsuka, on Sat 18 Apr 2009 1846, said:

If you have to have battleships to protect your fortress, why have the fortress at all? Save money by not building the fortress and depend on your battleships to secure control of the sea around your coast.

Hojutsuka

Because BB's aren't there allways?

[DougRichards]

Coastal artillery could take many forms, from field artillery emplaced as emergency batteries to 16in naval guns. Apart from the usual idea of fortress based direct fire abig guns many countries in the early 20th century invested in 'coast mortars', really breech loaded short barrel artillery, which fitted the term of mortar in the original sense. The USA even had a 16in coastal defence howitzer with that specific role in mind.

These were usually mounted in a position to rain shells down on the decks of attacking shipping going through choke points, and were emplaced in positions where a ship's guns simply could not reach with any usual firing solution.

The classic possible WW2 ship vs shore COULD have been Corregidor: but of course it was not to be. The Japanese, instead of risking their heavy naval assets used aircraft and a seige train to reduce the defences.

[Yama]

Battle of Oslofjord in 1940: Germans lost a cruiser and 700+ KIA, Norwegians - after enduring fire from two cruisers and day-long Luftwaffe bombing - suffered 0 (zero) KIA. Engaging shore batteries was always a losers game for ships, unless technological advantage was considerable (which indeed happened several times in 19th Century).

[TonyE]

Tuccy, on Sat 18 Apr 2009 1946, said:

Also if guarding a chokepoint, it can have pre-calculated firing parameters to ensure maximal effect - see coastal batteries in Oslofjord.

The arches of fire was well prepared since before 1900, but when push came to shove in 1940 it was point blank range in the early morning dusk, from both sides of the fjord, and the main fort was well below strength. Infact the "crews" of the guns were gathered and organized on the spot just a few minuttes before opening fire.

[Shortround6]

Coastal fortifications changed as much as ships did over the years.
Civil war era forts could only command an area a couple of thousand yds from the gun muzzles (if that) and needed large numbers of concentrated guns 1. because of the inaccuracy of the mostly smooth bore armament. 2. the small size of most of the guns (hand loaded solid shot) 3. The limited time of engagement if the enemy was trying to "run" the fort.
As forts shifted to breech loading rifles and ranges went up the 'forts' were often moved further out from the harbors/cities they were supposed to protect. With modern (WW II modern) fire control the guns could be several dozens of miles apart. For instance there were guns mounted in Rhode Island and a matching battery on Long Island that were supposed to defend/close off all of Long Island sound, Similar batteries on southern Long Island over laped fields of fire with batteries in New Jersey and further south batteries in southern New Jersey and Delaware closed off all of Delaware bay.
The forts went from Brick/masonary or dirt embankments with guns mounted 20-30 feet apart and in many cases in multipule storied structures to pairs of guns mounted several hundred feet apart with the paired guns mounted miles apart. In fact by the 1890s there really wasn't much for the ships to shoot at in a new fort. Disappearing carriges that lowered the guns below the parapet or the breechloading mortars mention above ment the ships could no longer 'see' the defenders.
The ships were trying to hit a single rather well protected gun mount basicly. And then hit another one and then another one. Near misses do no good, there is no hull or propusion system to damage and a single gun mount is a rather small target compared to an entire ship. Hitting a moving target from a stationary position is also easier than hitting a stationary target form a moving platform. Remember a ship may be pitching, yawing and rolling in addition to it's speed through the water.

The cost benifits of ships vrs forts have been debated as long as there have been ships and forts. While it is true that the fort is useful if the 'home" fleet isn't there it is also true that all the money spent on forts is wasted if the enemy doesn't come to them. Well maybe they scared the enemy into not coming so they did provide benifit for maney spent;) but a fort in Maine does you no good if the enemy attacks Georgia.

While the WW II forts were not cheap the long range of their guns ment in many cases that a few batteries could defend hundreds of miles of coast or multipule cities, unlike Civil War era forts were each sea coast city or town needed at least one fort/battery if not several.

[DougRichards]

I am sure that there are various forts around the world where it is good that they simply were not tested. An example about 10k from my home is Bare Island, built in the 1880s to fend off a Russian invasion of Sydney via 'the back door) of Botany Bay. It was built of substandard materials, and whilst 'heavily armed' with light QF and ML guns the heaviest muzzle loader could only get off one round ever five minutes or so, giving a flotilla plenty of time to close to a range where the ships guns would have been fired point blank into the embrasures.

The area around Middle Head in Sydney Harbour is honeycombed with tunnels, sea level installations, and a quite intact array of fortifications, the guns however are long since gone. The guns were intended, in association with mines, to close off the entrance to Sydney Harbour. Would have been effective, but never tested.

The idea of coastal defences alone being good defence was not accepted as long ago as Henry VIII, who maintained a coastal fortress chain, with a fleet and an army, all of which played their role in the defence of the realm.

[John Dudek]

The US Marines on Wake Island did a very good job at driving off the first Japanese invasion attempt with their 5" and 3" gun batteries, plus supporting aircraft. They suckered-in the Japanese bombardment ships to practically point blank range before opening counterbattery fire, sinking or damaging several warships. The IJN lost alot of "face" that day.

[RETAC21]

For what is worth, the Spanish Army only decommissioned the heaviest guns (381mm) a few years ago, when the survability of the batteries was compromised by the widespread presence of PGMs.

[DesertFox]

One time frame I am most interested in is the World War II Time frame.
I am thinking of a case where the allies might have a beachhead which is defended by battleships offshore.
The enemies are trying to assault the beachhead with mobile artillery. There is no real rail network left I am assuming so none of the really heavy artillery pieces which are railroad type can be used. If I understand, the largest practical mobile artillery is around 8 inch compared to 12, 14, 15, and 16 inch for battleship main guns.
Would that not likely give the advantage to the naval support?

[Shortround6]

Advatage to the Navy in this case.

But then you are comparing the equivelent of almost divisons of artillery against a few batteries.

Most countries (including the US) had very few 8in rifles as apposed to 8in howitzers. The 8in rifles were a bear to transport and usually took hours if not a couple of days to set up. Or take down.

2-3 heavy cruisers armed with 8in guns have more guns than the Entire German army had of mobile 21cm guns in WW II or more guns than the Americans/British had in the Italian Campaign.

[Simon Tan]

Dedicated coastal artillery in protected positions and equipped with competitive fire control have an advantage against naval guns. Field artillery in open positions trying to trade fire with cruisers just get slaughtered as per Normandy.

There is a reason why coastal batteries are located in restricted waters, ships are unable to manouevre and you can pre-register.

The most useful fires come not from big BB calibers but CL and CAs, 6" & 8". They have a good ROF, decent range and enough bang to wreck anything they hit.

Simon

[DougRichards]

Simon Tan, on Sun 19 Apr 2009 1204, said:

Dedicated coastal artillery in protected positions and equipped with competitive fire control have an advantage against naval guns. Field artillery in open positions trying to trade fire with cruisers just get slaughtered as per Normandy.

There is a reason why coastal batteries are located in restricted waters, ships are unable to manouevre and you can pre-register.

The most useful fires come not from big BB calibers but CL and CAs, 6" & 8". They have a good ROF, decent range and enough bang to wreck anything they hit.

Simon

The stand British countr-bombardment guns for about 70 years were 9.2in, larger guns were used in certain applications, but the 9.2 was used across the Empire. It fired a 380lb shell at 2,700ft/sec, to various ranges depending on the mounting. The Railway 9.2in gun fired a shell of the same weight with roughly the same performance.

Enough to deter a BB and certainly enough to ruin a cruiser's day.