Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

74 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

941
[BBICT]
Members
3,352 posts
3,540 battles

Well, I know most of these would not stand up to ships in the game...but most of them have been around a loooong time, and I like them.

 

dPqXjQl.jpg

 

TBzk33Z.jpg

 

noAPa0K.jpg

 

Xqx9jMM.jpg

 

Post'em if you got'em.. 

Edited by Sir_Davos_Seaworth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[JFSOC]
Members
909 posts
2,593 battles

Well, this one would stand up to most, if not all, of the battleships in the game:

 

fort-drum-2.jpg?resize=850,638

This is Fort Drum (aka El Fragile island, aka "the Concrete Battleship") in Manila Bay Philippines.  It has two twin 14"/50 turrets and 4 6"/50 guns along with several 3"/50 AA guns and anti-boat guns.  It's so heavily constructed it's nearly indestructible.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,434
[REVY]
Members
6,014 posts
5,102 battles

Possibly Oscarsborg Fortress could be a candidate.  

NM25Eyw.jpg

I believe it was the same 11" guns that sunk the Blucher that were used in the movie.  The hidden torpedo battery however, would be the biggest danger to Battleships.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
941
[BBICT]
Members
3,352 posts
3,540 battles

Both are great! I love'em! Isn't Fort Drum in the game somewhere? Or was she one of the OP ones they had to remove? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[JFSOC]
Members
909 posts
2,593 battles

I think we should all be glad that US style coast defenses aren't used in the game for scenarios or otherwise.  They'd be really nasty to take on...

seacoastmortars.jpg

12" seacoast mortars you can't hit because they fire at 50 to 70 degrees elevation and everything is a deck penetration if they hit you.

12inch.jpg

10 to 14" disappearing guns that are all but immune to return fire from ships.  Aircraft can deal with them to an extent, but the fortifications they're in are so massive that good luck really taking them out of action.

FortDuvallM191901.jpg

Long range barbette mounts that are hidden from ship's view at sea and hard to knock out with aircraft (yes, you need a direct hit to do anything to these).  Your ship is taking fire and you can't return it because you have no idea where the gun is and even if you did it's probably out of range.

The typical fort for this sort of gun had yards of concrete (Fort Drum was 25 foot thick concrete on top, 26 to 36 foot thick on the sides) with even more dirt and stone rubble in front of that.  You don't knock these out easily.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
941
[BBICT]
Members
3,352 posts
3,540 battles
20 hours ago, Murotsu said:

I think we should all be glad that US style coast defenses aren't used in the game for scenarios or otherwise.  They'd be really nasty to take on...

 

12" seacoast mortars you can't hit because they fire at 50 to 70 degrees elevation and everything is a deck penetration if they hit you.

 

10 to 14" disappearing guns that are all but immune to return fire from ships.  Aircraft can deal with them to an extent, but the fortifications they're in are so massive that good luck really taking them out of action.

 

Long range barbette mounts that are hidden from ship's view at sea and hard to knock out with aircraft (yes, you need a direct hit to do anything to these).  Your ship is taking fire and you can't return it because you have no idea where the gun is and even if you did it's probably out of range.

The typical fort for this sort of gun had yards of concrete (Fort Drum was 25 foot thick concrete on top, 26 to 36 foot thick on the sides) with even more dirt and stone rubble in front of that.  You don't knock these out easily.

 

 

I'm not an expert or anything...but I really think they would have a hard time hitting a ship that can WASD like we can... you could almost see those mortar bombs flying through the air.. Now if they hit? Ouch. 

But your right, if one of these took out "joe player" the salt would fly... 

Hard mode for some operation? Or just random eye candy? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,434
[REVY]
Members
6,014 posts
5,102 battles
2 hours ago, Sir_Davos_Seaworth said:

 

I'm not an expert or anything...but I really think they would have a hard time hitting a ship that can WASD like we can... you could almost see those mortar bombs flying through the air.. Now if they hit? Ouch. 

But your right, if one of these took out "joe player" the salt would fly... 

Hard mode for some operation? Or just random eye candy? 

We really need some tier 8 operations to alleviate that tier 8 MM problems.  "joe player" would welcome forts over tier 10 gameplay.

Edited by Sventex
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[JFSOC]
Members
909 posts
2,593 battles
26 minutes ago, Sir_Davos_Seaworth said:

 

I'm not an expert or anything...but I really think they would have a hard time hitting a ship that can WASD like we can... you could almost see those mortar bombs flying through the air.. Now if they hit? Ouch. 

But your right, if one of these took out "joe player" the salt would fly... 

Hard mode for some operation? Or just random eye candy? 


The guns had directors just like ships do.  They have fire controls that direct and aim them.  The process is a little different, but not much.

DPF_and_Azimuth_Scope.jpg

This is a depression rangefinder (on the left).  It uses the known height above sea level of the device to give the range to a target by trigonometry.  The angle is also measured.   On the right is an azimuth scope.  It gives a precision bearing on the target.  This translates into a range and bearing that is fed to the guns to aim them. 

CRF.jpg

Regular rangefinders were used too.  There is a central plotting station that calculates the movement of the target, its range and bearing, and feeds information to aim the guns.

F93BE19E-155D-4519-3E124BD23AC0F821-larg

The advantage the coast defenses have is that they can have two or more widely spaced stations taking range and bearing data to feed to the plotting station.  So, they can be far more accurate than fire from a moving ship.

baseend.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
941
[BBICT]
Members
3,352 posts
3,540 battles

Huh...oh that nasty math... okay, that might be a bit much for the game.. but for some Tier 8 action we can't make it too easy... some forts you can suppress, and some you can't? That might work... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
941
[BBICT]
Members
3,352 posts
3,540 battles

Here is Fort Alexander in Russia...about to citadel the crap out of that big CA in the background...

n6Mp32l.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
252
[REVY]
Members
936 posts
7,286 battles
On 4/15/2018 at 6:57 PM, Murotsu said:

Well, this one would stand up to most, if not all, of the battleships in the game:

 

fort-drum-2.jpg?resize=850,638

This is Fort Drum (aka El Fragile island, aka "the Concrete Battleship") in Manila Bay Philippines.  It has two twin 14"/50 turrets and 4 6"/50 guns along with several 3"/50 AA guns and anti-boat guns.  It's so heavily constructed it's nearly indestructible.

Doesn't look as good today, but very recognizable.

W1siZiIsInVwbG9hZHMvcGxhY2VfaW1hZ2VzL2My

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,227 posts
6,722 battles

With TLAMs it wouldn’t be difficult, but in the 80s the US actually burnt out a few 5” barrels if I’m not mistaken taking out one or two oil platforms armed with nothing more than RPGs and ZSUs, so one of those sealandia style forts would likely be quite capable messing up any destroyer or cruiser operations in an area.

even in the 80s armed with phalanx and ESSM they’d likely have been fairly useful had they been maintained 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
282
[JFSOC]
Members
909 posts
2,593 battles

This is Fort Sumter when it was built:

fort_sumter_drawing.jpg

Two levels of cannon and a third parapet level above that.

This is the fort today:

Fort_Sumter_opp6228.jpg

The big dark grey thing in the middle is Battery Huger built in 1899 with 2 12" disappearing mount guns.  The US Army razed the fort taking off two levels of it, then filled in the remaining level with the debris and soil to create a thick berm protecting the new battery.  Parts of that in-fill have since been dug out to form the part as it is today.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
252
[REVY]
Members
936 posts
7,286 battles
2 hours ago, Murotsu said:

This is Fort Sumter when it was built:

fort_sumter_drawing.jpg

Two levels of cannon and a third parapet level above that.

This is the fort today:

Fort_Sumter_opp6228.jpg

The big dark grey thing in the middle is Battery Huger built in 1899 with 2 12" disappearing mount guns.  The US Army razed the fort taking off two levels of it, then filled in the remaining level with the debris and soil to create a thick berm protecting the new battery.  Parts of that in-fill have since been dug out to form the part as it is today.

 

Civil War didn't help it either

Fort-Sumter.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,434
[REVY]
Members
6,014 posts
5,102 battles
47 minutes ago, Sir_Davos_Seaworth said:

I like this one...

tWBfC7h.jpg

A 2 gun fort?  I don't think she could even repel USS Constitution, and she's only got one functional gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
941
[BBICT]
Members
3,352 posts
3,540 battles
22 minutes ago, Sventex said:

A 2 gun fort?  I don't think she could even repel USS Constitution, and she's only got one functional gun.

 

I'm sure it had more when it was active, LOL... I just like the look of it... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,227 posts
6,722 battles

I wonder if a modern sea fort would be at all viable. 

Modern land attack missiles would make it hard, but it might be doable.

it might be difficult to call them sea forts, but in the 80’s the US used barges tied together as floating special operations FoBs in the Arabian gulf. As far as I recall they sustained no serious damage during the conflict with Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,434
[REVY]
Members
6,014 posts
5,102 battles
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

I wonder if a modern sea fort would be at all viable. 

Modern land attack missiles would make it hard, but it might be doable.

it might be difficult to call them sea forts, but in the 80’s the US used barges tied together as floating special operations FoBs in the Arabian gulf. As far as I recall they sustained no serious damage during the conflict with Iran.

I would imagine that an underwater fortification with torpedo countermeasures could be difficult to damage.  Or just digging into a small island mountain like Iwo Jima could still be effective.  But for as sticking metal boxes onto the ocean, I can't see how they'd be any more effective/safer then an actual ship which is also just a metal box.

Edited by Sventex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,227 posts
6,722 battles
1 hour ago, Sventex said:

I would imagine that an underwater fortification with torpedo countermeasures could be difficult to damage.  Or just digging into a small island mountain like Iwo Jima could still be effective.  But for as sticking metal boxes onto the ocean, I can't see how they'd be any more effective/safer then an actual ship which is also just a metal box.

In the same vein as the floating FoBs I’d think, just design the various structures with stealth in mind. 

Think about the SCS situation, I forget which nation, but someone ran an old ship aground to maintain their claim and have it garrisoned by like 5 marines.

 

obviously that’s not particularly effective, but for a smaller nation, I’d imagine smaller crew requirements and cutting out the engines and the associated fuel and maintenance costs would be an option.

mostly just thinking out loud.

i guess if war comes to the SCS we’ll find out since those basically are modern sea forts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
293
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,983 posts

With modern counter measures and missile interception technology along with not having to worry about floating (And ships not having BB guns anymore.), Coastal Forts would be a pain in the ar/se to remove from the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,434
[REVY]
Members
6,014 posts
5,102 battles
8 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

With modern counter measures and missile interception technology along with not having to worry about floating (And ships not having BB guns anymore.), Coastal Forts would be a pain in the ar/se to remove from the board.

I'm guessing a Stealth Bomber could just hit the thing with a gravity bomb and knock out it's counter measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
293
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,983 posts
26 minutes ago, Sventex said:

I'm guessing a Stealth Bomber could just hit the thing with a gravity bomb and knock out it's counter measures.

The plane may be stealth, but the bombs certainly wouldn't be and the C-RAM has proven itself extremely capable of shooting large mortars and iron bombs out of the sky. It would either take old fashioned counter bombardment by BB caliber guns or carpet bombing by strategic bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,434
[REVY]
Members
6,014 posts
5,102 battles
22 minutes ago, TornadoADV said:

The plane may be stealth, but the bombs certainly wouldn't be and the C-RAM has proven itself extremely capable of shooting large mortars and iron bombs out of the sky. It would either take old fashioned counter bombardment by BB caliber guns or carpet bombing by strategic bombers.

According to wikipedia, the only ones operating C-RAM are the US, UK, Australia, Israel, Germany and Italy.  Things would have to get pretty bad for US stealth bombers to begin bombing any of those countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×