WesWorld

Hi folks,

is there any good source about coastal fortifications in general, or any good book?

When I browse through some WesWorld posts I get the impression large, powerful and well armored batteries are standard. There are batteries with 9x14" and even some using guns of 420mm caliber. Reading this, I can´t fight the feeling that having literally douzands of 15", 14" or 12" guns in concrete berthings/casemats or battlehsip turrets is stressing things a little bit. Yes, at least in WW2 there were large guns in the so-called Atlantikwall or on the other side of the Channel in Dover and yes, there also were large guns in Singapor (just that they pointed into the wrong direction). But we´re talking the 1920s here and I can´t help but think lots of 12+" guns as coastal fortifications are a waste of material which could not be afforded by some nations.

However, I could be wrong as I have no idea in detail if and to what extend large caliber guns (those of 20+cm) were used in the first 30 years of the XX. century. So that´s why I´m asking if there is anything reliable around where one can read more.

Many thanks,

HoOmAn

PS: And no, no "The Guns of Navarone" please....

"Fortress Europe, European fortifications of WW2" by J.E. Kaufman and Robert M. Jurga is a good book. Admiral K. and Red Admiral also have this book and have nothing but praise for it.

... you guys are using a book about European fortifications of WW2 for fortifications of the mid 1920s...
... maybe I should do that as well...

Somewhere I've got a map of Finnish coastal fortifications, mostly inherited from Imperial Russia. The coverage of the coast with overlapping fields of fire was quite extensive. Battery Maxim Gorkii II near Sevastopol, which I used as my model for the installations on Big Diomede Island, was begun in 1917. Kaufmann's "Fortress Europe" takes almost a full page to describe the artillery defenses of Kronshtadt, with literally dozens of capital ship caliber guns installed from around the 1880s onward. Paul Halpern's "A Naval History of World War I" Naval Institute Press 1994, has a chapter on the naval war in the Baltic, and notes the powerful Russian coast artillery, with guns up to 356mm. And the 1920s were the high point of US Coast Artillery, with a good number of installations mounting 406mm guns.

So yes, some countries, like the US and Russia, were definitely into lots of powerful coast artillery. Italy also had some powerful installations, up to 381mm. The Brits had extensive coastal forts. Ian Hogg's "Fortress" even notes that Japan had some 410mm guns in twin turrets defending Tokyo Bay in the 1920s. And then there's Fort Drum, the "Concrete Battleship" in Manila Bay built by the US, in the 1920s IIRC.

In my case, most of the guns/turrets used in new installations come from scrapped ships. I've built a pair of 420mm twin turrets, using warship materials, and have another pair under construction.

Hmmm, probably I should try to get that book...

How did nations handle their fortifications at their coasts regarding controll? Where they controlled by the army or navy?

In the US, the Coast Artillery was a branch of the Army. I don't know how other nations organized it, but I can see valid arguments for either.

Quoted

And then there's Fort Drum, the "Concrete Battleship" in Manila Bay built by the US, in the 1920s IIRC.

Ah yes, El Fraile (aka Fort Drum). :-) Built, historcially, over the period 1909-1919; the island razed clear down to the waterline and replaced with reinforced concrete. Armament of 2x2 14" battleship turrets, and four single-mounted 6" guns (and various smaller guns). Even fitted with a cagemast!

In the WW Philippines, I'm aiming for my own Concrete Battleship:
built 1914-1926
Armament 2x2 12" (in "slightly used" turrets), "fowards"
1x3 155mm (in a new-built turret, paid for with warship materials), "aft"
8 x ???mm (casemated guns, caliber TBD)
2 x 57mm guns (paid for etc.) for AA

And fitted with a Filipino-standard pole mast. :-)

Check this page out: http://www.cdsg.org/home.htm
It also includes Philippine defenses.

Coastal defences haven't really proven to be that useful in history. Big guns weren't that effective really. The only real case of usefulness would be when 13.5" guns in Dover were supporting troops assaulting Calais. I cannot remember a single ship sunk in the Pas-de-Calais by either English or German guns during the war.

My idea is basically sound, stick to what was there historically.

Try this out for info.....
http://a.webring.com/hub?ring=fortressring

As for the effectiveness of coastal artillery, I see it mainly as a form of "area denial", giving you a bit of free water outside your harbours where you can manouver in relative safety but your enemy can't!

Indeed, I don't expect my Bering Sea or Vladivostok, or Baltic defenses ever to fire a round in anger. No one sane person would venture their fleet near such a powerful concentration of precise and lethal guns.

Quoted

Coastal defences haven't really proven to be that useful in history. Big guns weren't that effective really.

Check out the battle of the Irben Strait, in the Baltic, August 1915. Two German dreadnoughts with escorting cruisers, against the Russian predread Slava. Despite the German dreads having five times Slava's gun power, those mine and shore equalizers made it slow going.

Then in 1917, the Germans made an even bigger effort, with Moltke, Third Squadron - Konig, Bayern, Grosser Kurfurst, Markgraf - and Fourth Squadron - Friedrich der Grosse, Konig Albert, Kaiser, Kaiserin, and Prinzregent Luitpold - against the Russian predreads Slava and Tsarevich. That's 10 German dreadnoughts against two Russian predreads, coast artillery, and mines. Slava was eventually sunk, after a prolonged game of hide-and-seek among the islands and mines, but given the disparity in force, it was a respectable performance.

Ask the French and British if Coastal artillary works, with their experience at the Dardanelle's campaign. Married with mines coastal artillary can be very effective.

Bouvet, Irresistable and Ocean all were sunk by mines, but the main reason they were there was to suppress the overwhelming fire that swamped the mine sweepers attepting to clear the way. Inflexible was also damaged.

The Greeks plan for forcing the Dardanelles if nessassary will be very costly, win or lose.

Quoted

The Greeks plan for forcing the Dardanelles if nessassary will be very costly, win or lose

It was a circle. The strait was mined...use minewseepers...the guns could sink the minesweepers...battleships could destroy the guns...except for the mines.

Nobody considered using fast minesweepers - specially modified destroyers.

Cheers.

But all those occasions are in confined waters. Its a bit different if you are assaulting a hugely more open port.