How to Attack Ships From Land

[Wolfshanze]

...there were rare instances when the stuka was used as a fighter.. it failed miserably in those instances and was easy prey left undefended....

When was it deployed as and/or used as a Fighter?... and by "fighter" I don't mean a chance encounter where it was caught coming back from or going to it's bombing run and got lucky enough to actually shoot something down with it's MGs.

By "fighter", I mean the actual definition of the word...

A fighter aircraft is a military aircraft designed primarily for attacking other aircraft in air-to-air combat, as opposed to a bomber, which is designed primarily to attack ground targets by dropping bombs. Fighters are comparatively small, fast, and maneuverable. Fighter aircraft are the primary means by which armed forces gain air superiority.

The above definition clearly defines everything the Stuka is not.

Please site instances and list references where the Stuka was ever used as a "fighter"... I'd really like to see this one!

 

[Jerrymander]

I must say that I believe that the Ju87 was never used as a fighter.
According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica:

The German Air Force, or Luftwaffe, was configured primarily to fly in support of ground forces, and, in the Spanish Civil War and the first years of World War II, the Ju-87 Stuka dive-bomber was its principal ground-attack craft. In a typical Stuka attack, several planes would circle above the target, then one plane after another would peel off to dive almost vertically before releasing its bombs, pulling up, and returning to the circle to dive again.

Although the Stukas, refined from time to time, were used throughout the war, their maximum speed was just 210 miles per hour (335 km per hour), and they proved no match for the British combination of early warning by radar and fast fighter planes.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Nice Stuka model, I really like it.
Yeah, stupid me. I should have realized that the Devastator, Vals and Stukas, would be carrier bombers.

Do you have a Messerschmidt 262 model?

Glad you like the Stuka... yes... there is a Me-262 model out there, but I'm not using one in my mod (don't really have a place for it... I don't have a WWII mod, I just have a generic mod with some WWII units in it!).

 

[bestbrian]

Real lack of balance in the game here. A naval force can approach a city, shell it, and face no serious active defense. There really should be a Coastal Fortification unit to address this. In previous versions of Civ (I'm thinking of Civ II) this was a building, but I'm thinking that in the current game mechanics this would work best as a unit. Say, something similar to a MG that can only defend, with no movement, and only against naval units (and later, maybe, air?); this would address the "scale" issue some folks seem to have, as the ships would only face defensive fire when they approached to shell the city.

And the longest hit ever made by coastal artillery against a naval target was something like 15 miles by a US battery in Hawaii under absolutely perfect conditions during a gunnery drill in the late 1930s.

Hey, Wolfshanze: Nice Fairy Swordfish.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Real lack of balance in the game here. A naval force can approach a city, shell it, and face no serious active defense.

Ah... but by the meaning of the word "active defense", there is one, and it should be used, and if you're not using it, you're only unbalancing the game yourself.

The "active defense" to a naval invasion is not coastal batteries, but your own fleet in-being! Don't complain that the enemy fleet is pounding your cities because you didn't build your own fleet to counter his!

That would be like Americans complaining of why the Japanese are bombing California cities left and right in WWII and why there's no coastal forts to stop them... the reason why we didn't need to use coastal forts in California, was because the US Pacific Fleet kept them from ever coming near!

The problem with Civ4 is not the lack of coastal forts, it's the lack of proper naval progression, which is completely abandoned after the age of sail, 100 years of naval development and coal-fired navies are ignored, and you magically go from frigates and ships of the line to WWII-era destroyers and battleships...

...ummm, what happened to 100 years of coal-fired navies?!?!?

I corrected that in my own mod, but everyone else is left with the massive "magic jump" from frigates to destroyers... utterly ridiculous that Firaxis left out 100 years of naval development and history.

There really should be a Coastal Fortification unit to address this.

Not really practical in modern times. The heyday of the coastal fort was in the age of sail, and certainly by WWII coastal forts, even the vaunted "Atlantic Wall" were easily bypassed or blown-away.

Hey, Wolfshanze: Nice Fairy Swordfish.

Thanks... I did my best to put good models into my mod and fill holes that needed filling without "overdoing it".

 

[Wilphe]

Swedes still maintain a very good coastal defence network that is at least in part gun based.

Further back:

And what about Blucher in 1940?


Further still:
Remind me also what it was that stopped the allies forcing the Dardenelles in 1915? It wasn't the Turkish navy.

In the game:
If ships can get close enough to bombard the shore (which they can); then the shore should be able to shoot back.
I'd also like Naval gunfire to be able to damage units rather than just strip defences, but you know.

Not disagreeing with you about CIV4s strange naval tech path though.

 

[Wolfshanze]

And what about Blucher in 1940?

What about it? Sunk by torpedoes at point-blank range and completely idiotic to sail up a narrow channel in unknown waters with no room to maneuver and easily in point-blank ambush range from all sides. That's not the brilliance of shore batteries, that's the stupidity of a ship's captain.

I fail to see what a commander absolutely suicidally determined to put his ship in harms way has to do with the genius of a coastal fort.

Further still:
Remind me also what it was that stopped the allies forcing the Dardenelles in 1915? It wasn't the Turkish navy.

That's actually not correct... It was a multi-fold of reasons, and the Turkish Navy was actually the final reason (of many) for why they withdrew... the British were too scared to risk their expensive dreadnoughts in heavily mined waters... mines cost the British more ships then enemy gunfire, and the pre-dreadnoughts they were willing to risk were no-match for the German Battlecruiser Goeben (transfered to the Turks) waiting on the other side of the minefield.

In the game:
If ships can get close enough to bombard the shore (which they can); then the shore should be able to shoot back.
I'd also like Naval gunfire to be able to damage units rather than just strip defences, but you know.

Sure... and the difference, is that in-reality, naval guns were almost always of heavier caliber then the shore batteries on ground... the naval ships could maneuver and the shore batteries were static and easier targets... for every little scrap you can almost sort-of, kind-of almost grab ahold of, I can easily quote 4 or 5 times as many cases where shore batteries were totally irrelevant or completely overwhelmed. If you want to get into a numbers game, give me every case you got, and I'll either blow it out of the water, or offer you a lot more cases where the shore batteries clearly failed.

I think you're giving way too much credence to 17th century thinking on a 20th century battlefield. As a wise man once quoted, "Static fortifications are a testament to the foolishness of men".

Not disagreeing with you about CIV4s strange naval tech path though.

No... it's awful... and that's why I fixed it.

 

[SharpMango]

Dont patronize me wolfshanze.
I said quite clearly 'there were rare instances when it was used as a fighter'
I am sure you are aware of the concept of simile.
I wont patronize you by giving you the dictionary definition of simile, in the same way that you gave me a dictionary definition of 'fighter'. Its interesting that you remove from your own definition, the 'chance' encounter. how this squares with your definition of 'rare' i do not know.

In any case, please do feel free to look up the Schweinfurt mission of October 14th 1943.

 

[GooglyBoogly]

If you are lucky enough to find some ships docked in a city, or taking a fort canal you can beat them with any unit that can attack via land. This also works against aircraft

 

[Wolfshanze]

Dont patronize me wolfshanze.
I said quite clearly 'there were rare instances when it was used as a fighter'

Oh good Lord... you want to defend this "Stuka as a fighter" thing... okay, let's explore...

First, why do I need to "patronize" someone on an issue that is clearly being mislabeled around here... I thought it highly apt to list the definition of a "Fighter" since the Stuka is seemingly repeatedly being misrepresented here. The mere act of one plane shooting down another does not make it a "fighter plane", hence I clarified the definition.

As to my excluding the random occurance of shooting an enemy plane down on it's way to or from a bombing run, I had to clear that out so people don't get confused on the "Fighter Role". Every class of "bomber" will manage to shoot down an enemy aircraft or two in it's service life... that doesn't make it a "fighter", nor does it mean it was used in the "fighter" role... anymore then a kid knocking someone out with a fist to the face in a schoolyard brawl means they are a professional "boxer".

Let's clear this up... you said the Stuka was used as a fighter in "instances" which is plural on an aircraft which is clearly about as specialized a bomber as they come...

In any case, please do feel free to look up the Schweinfurt mission of October 14th 1943.

Yeah... Schweinfurt... there was a Ju-87 training school there and Schweinfurt was bombed... there's not even any concrete evidence the Ju-87 school entered the fray, only rumors there-of on a very confusing day. In fact, everything I read stated it was unlikely that such a specialized aircraft would have even entered that fray (reinforcing my point), and the rumor probably comes from the same source as any in WWII... little knowledge combined with misidentification... every German tank seen by a lot of GI's tended to be called "Tigers" or "Panthers" by the end of the war, even though they weren't either, and I wouldn't put it beyond a panicked bomber crew to see an aircraft in the sky and mistakenly say they were attacked by "Stukas".

In any case, the Ju-87 Stuka wasn't a fighter... it wasn't built as a fighter, it wasn't deployed as a fighter, and it wasn't used as a fighter. This whole discussion came about when I mentioned the use of a bomber called the Stuka, and it was brought up that "technically the Stuka was a fighter"... which I clarified it wasn't, and the originator withdrew his statement... then you come bouncing along and say it was used in "instances" (plural) as a fighter... I challenge you to show me where it's used in "instances" as a fighter, and the best you can do is come up with one unconfirmed report that on several sites (references available) say the report probably isn't even true to begin with... well... I rest my case.

The Ju-87 Stuka was a bomber, not a fighter.

 

[Jerrymander]

If you are lucky enough to find some ships docked in a city, or taking a fort canal you can beat them with any unit that can attack via land. This also works against aircraft

Yeah, I used to think this was broken, but then I realized that a docked ship or grounded plane isn't exactly in a combat-ready position.

 

[SharpMango]

You're as proud as a peacock.

 

[Wilphe]

I fail to see what a commander absolutely suicidally determined to put his ship in harms way has to do with the genius of a coastal fort.

-> So shore batteries are so awesome only an idiot wouldn't treat them with respect?

That's actually not correct... It was a multi-fold of reasons, and the Turkish Navy was actually the final reason (of many) for why they withdrew... the British were too scared to risk their expensive dreadnoughts in heavily mined waters... mines cost the British more ships then enemy gunfire, and the pre-dreadnoughts they were willing to risk were no-match for the German Battlecruiser Goeben (transfered to the Turks) waiting on the other side of the minefield.

-> Unfortunatly there isn't a way to simulate minefields. You can have the Yavuz Sultan Selim and I'll have an entire fleet of pre-Dreadnaughts and we'll see who wins.

Sure... and the difference, is that in-reality, naval guns were almost always of heavier caliber then the shore batteries on ground... the naval ships could maneuver and the shore batteries were static and easier targets... for every little scrap you can almost sort-of, kind-of almost grab ahold of, I can easily quote 4 or 5 times as many cases where shore batteries were totally irrelevant or completely overwhelmed. If you want to get into a numbers game, give me every case you got, and I'll either blow it out of the water, or offer you a lot more cases where the shore batteries clearly failed.

-> Challenge accepted. I've cited both the Blucher and the Dardenelles campaign as examples of fixed installations doing their job.

You've got to come up with something equivalent; and I won't accept any of the later allied invasions of WWII either in the Atlantic or the Pacific - all those involved considerable preperation and overwhelming firepower at the point of attack.*

* Yes I know you can concentrate fleets and not defenses, that's why my two examples are using choke points.

 

[Scoottr]

I just had my caravel destroyed by a cavalry while it was parked in an friendly civs city. So seems there is a way but have to lure your prey into a city.

 

[bestbrian]

I still say that naval units should be allowed to attack units in the open, and forts, as well as cities. I think forts, and cities with coastal fortifications, should be allowed to shoot back (yes, mostly fruitless and they'll lose, but they should be able to do something; hell, even the marines on Wake Island were able to sink a destroyer). Aircraft (including gunships) should be allowed to attack and sink naval units. So there.

 

[Junuxx]

Maybe coastal bombardment should work more like air bombardment; introduce a chance for a bombarding ship to get 'intercepted' and damaged, to represent the risk they take when they get close to the shore.

 

[bestbrian]

Maybe coastal bombardment should work more like air bombardment; introduce a chance for a bombarding ship to get 'intercepted' and damaged, to represent the risk they take when they get close to the shore.

Capital idea!

 

[Kiwi Tyrant]

Maybe coastal bombardment should work more like air bombardment; introduce a chance for a bombarding ship to get 'intercepted' and damaged, to represent the risk they take when they get.........

.........one tile away from any coastal city that has built a Coastal Fortress upgrade. Maybe?

Then should a ship be able to attack enemy ships inside a port? With a bonus for the attacker, as the enemy ships are idle while healing and/or have minimal manouveurablity? A ship could not take a city etc. as per usual.

 

[TheDS]

I like the bombardment risk idea. I do NOT like making it require a building. Who builds Walls, Castles, Bunkers, and Bomb Shelters? You only build those things if you expect to lose. Instead, build more units to keep the enemy from getting that close to you in the first place. Wolf's quote about fortifications applies here.

OTOH, a Coastal Fortress building that MAGNIFIED the return fire; I'd be amenable to that. The concept could be applied to Castles as improved counter-fire against Cats and Trebs, and perhaps to Walls (or a different defensive building) vs later Siege units. And Bunkers could be modified to provide AAA additional fire.

 

[bestbrian]

I like the bombardment risk idea. I do NOT like making it require a building. Who builds Walls, Castles, Bunkers, and Bomb Shelters? You only build those things if you expect to lose. Instead, build more units to keep the enemy from getting that close to you in the first place. Wolf's quote about fortifications applies here.

OTOH, a Coastal Fortress building that MAGNIFIED the return fire; I'd be amenable to that. The concept could be applied to Castles as improved counter-fire against Cats and Trebs, and perhaps to Walls (or a different defensive building) vs later Siege units. And Bunkers could be modified to provide AAA additional fire.

And yet another splendid idea. Oh, and I build Walls and Castles (I like the trade routes and culture, as well as the slight uptick in the powergraph).