Reflecting Upon RTH -- SPOILER THREAD

Mil-tech bard wrote:
Howard,

You didn't think the implications of this passage through --

The Coast Artillery in estimating the effectiveness of a harbor defense has always drawn circles on its maps at maximum range of the guns and mortars. Overlapping circles in certain areas showed an effective defense.

As it..."How long has America had coast defense?"


See links --

Seacoast defense in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seacoast_ ... ted_States

United States Army Coast Artillery Corps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... lery_Corps

Coast Defense Study Group Forums
http://www.cdsg.org/forums/


The CDSG is where I got the following history --

Harbor Defenses of the United States of America


It has been a basic military policy of most nations to secure their borders against possible attack through the construction of defensive fortifications. Except for an attack from Canada or Mexico, all American adversaries would have to come from overseas. The United States sought security against an attack through fortification of her maritime frontiers. Fortifications were viewed both by the U.S. Congress and the American public as a way to avoid foreign entanglements and war, and to avoid the dangers of a standing army. This thinking had a strong influence on American national defense policy and during certain periods fortification construction was nearly a substitute for any other form of military policy.

Seacoast fortification was attractive to the United States government. Few military principles were as enduring as the superiority of guns ashore over those afloat. The United States had a long shoreline, a weak navy (at least until the early 20th century), and a concern about foreign attack. The use of seacoast fortifications also complied with another long standing American military tradition – reliance on militia forces. Seacoast fortifications, once constructed of masonry or concrete, could be maintained by a caretaker force.

The American government invested large sums of money in several major peacetime coastal defense construction programs: the “First System” (1794-1800), the “Second System” (1804-1812), the “Third System” (1816-1867), construction after the Civil War (1870-1875), the “early modern programs” (Also known as the “Endicott Board”, “Taft Board”, and “post-WWI” programs) (1890-1920s), and the Harbor Defense Modernization Programs of WW2 (1940-1945). Manning the coastal defenses was a major mission of the U.S. Army for over 150 years. After 1907, the army had a branch of service that was specifically dedicated to operate these complicated weapons: the Coast Artillery Corps (C.A.C.).

American naval dominance made coast artillery nearly pointless by the end of WW2. The C.A.C. increasingly concentrated on the antiaircraft role, and by 1950 the U.S. Army had dismantled all its fixed harbor defenses.

The idea of threat analysis and over lapping circles of harbor defense guns/forts for engaging enemy fleets is older than America, and was a formative part of the American military tradition.

Mil-tech bard wrote:

A perfectly accurate gun, such as a raygun,
would not need to work together with other guns.

That is my thinking so far.

Arcanian Lightning dragons -- field and living -- are anti-aircraft weapons.

Their siting and placement for defensive arrays in fortified positions would be as much of a formative military experience for the Arcanian Armed Forces as harbor defenses were for the fledgling American Republic.

How fire ball weapons would be deployed -- as they are more destructive -- would be keyed to ground troop and surface ship threats.

so, the Arcanians would have threat analysis and engagement diagrams. Theirs would be 3D in nature due to the aerial threat. An aerial threat that included lethal gas weapons of mass destruction.

PeterZ wrote:
The Honorverse is winding down. Safehold approaches its rendezvous with the Gbaba. Bahzell and Leeana are set to reverse the fall Kontovar. All told that's maybe 10 books to wrap up those series. That's 4-6 years worth of RFC paced writing. Between David and Joelle, they can manage shepherding the multiverse along to a much more satisfying conclusion in 5-10 more books.

These Assesments are being done by the Artillerymen,
the Defenders.

cnrd22 wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
The Honorverse is winding down. Safehold approaches its rendezvous with the Gbaba. Bahzell and Leeana are set to reverse the fall Kontovar. All told that's maybe 10 books to wrap up those series. That's 4-6 years worth of RFC paced writing. Between David and Joelle, they can manage shepherding the multiverse along to a much more satisfying conclusion in 5-10 more books.

I agree about the Multiverse but it is a matter of money like the YA adult series (which is on hold for now as it didn't sell as expected); the long delay between books 2 and 3 put Multiverse in a delicate position and DW clearly felt compelled to finish for us the fans the arc started in HG even at the cost of loss of income but if books 3 and 4 don't sell enough (whatever that is), the series will stop so that's why the arc is planned to have a good ending point in book 4; if book 3 does really well, I am sure plans can be changed, otherwise we have to see what decision is taken

I disagree a bit about the Honorverse ending - sure, the arc started in 1993 and having Honor as main lead will end in 2 books, but I am convinced the series will continue with a few decades jump as DW planned originally; same with Safehold, easily 1 + at least 3 more there as long as the sales are good (which they seem to be afaik), so those two would have at least 9-10 more books for us, plus the side series, possible more short story collections, the House of Lies etc

Mil-tech bard wrote:

These Assesments are being done by the Artillerymen,
the Defenders.

The biggest expert on Harbor defenses of that ear was the British Royal Navy.

AKA the attacker.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:I don't know that the RN attacked harbors often.
I can think of Zeebrugee in WW1, Dieppe and Taranto in WW2.
Respectively success, failure, and air attack success.
Can you find any others, as far back as 1850?

HTM

AKA the attacker.

The Royal Navy: A History from the Earliest Times to the Present, Volume 7

By Sir William Laird Clowes, Sir Clements Robert Markham, Alfred Thayer Mahan, Herbert Wrigley Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Leonard George Carr Laughton

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ax9EA ... ns&f=false

Since the 1860s, the navy had provided its landing parties(2) with either 9-prs or 12-prs. In 1899, the standard gun was the 12-pr 8-cwt QF, but it was no better than the guns with which the army was equipped.

Without further ado, Scott decided to provide a gun with a greater range than that available to the army and which could deal with the Boer guns. Possibilities were guns held in the various depots ashore and guns mounted in the ships of the Cape Squadron - none of which was normally considered for use ashore.

Scott’s first choice was the 12-pr 12-cwt QF. This gun was specially designed for use against torpedo boats. With a range of 8 000 yds (7 385 m) for common shell and 4 500 yds (4 154 m) for shrapnel, it would be able to hold its own against Boer field artillery.

Scott bought a pair of Cape wagon wheels, and an axletree. The carpenter, shipwrights and blacksmiths worked around the clock and in 24 hours the first gun was ready. Although the result looked amateurish, it worked, and some trial rounds were fired to ensure that all was well. In the face of some official obstruction, Scott produced four guns by 25 October. Longer in the barrel (and in range) than the army’s 12-prs, these guns were soon to be known as ‘Long 12s’.

Later Scott said that had he been asked, fifty of these guns could have been prepared for field service in a week. Hitched to the tail of Cape wagons which could serve as ammunition limbers, they would be able to go anywhere. Events were to prove this claim right.

"From 1917 several Mk X guns were deployed ashore on the section of the Belgian coast still held by the Allies, near Nieuport. They were part of the "Royal Naval Siege Guns" under the command of Admiral Sir Reginald Bacon, and were used for attacking German heavy gun batteries."

"M15-class monitors M15, M16, M17, M18 from 1915"

"Mk X gun on Mk II "straight-back" truck

In 1916 Elswick adapted a small number of Mk X guns, 2 Mk X variants originally intended for coast defence in Australia, and 4 45-calibre Vickers export guns (under the designation 9.2 inch gun Mk XIV) and mounted them on Mk 3 railway truck mountings for service on the Western Front in France and Belgium.[16]

Belgian coast[edit]

From 1917 several Mk X guns were deployed ashore on the section of the Belgian coast still held by the Allies, near Nieuport. They were part of the "Royal Naval siege guns" under the command of Admiral Sir Reginald Bacon, and were used for attacking German heavy gun batteries."

"The following comments are by Nathan Okun:

The British Coast Defense Gun 9.2" APC shell weighed 380 lb and had a 3.4% filler (12.9 lb) for all versions made during World War I and World War II. The last version, the 9.2" Mark XIIA APC, had two versions, one made in Britain and one made in the US during World War II by Crucible Steel Company.

The US version was identical to the British version as to the body shape, base plug, weight, and windscreen, but the nose of the shell was the US Navy early World War II very blunt point and it used a US-style early World War II AP cap and, I believe, the US Sheath Hardening Pattern, not the British more deformable World War II APC hardness pattern. Under test the US design satisfied all ballistic test specifications, though the base plug was exposed more by base slap breakage at oblique impact as it penetrated than the British softer lower body was. The British cup-shaped Patent Relief Base Plug worked though and both the US and British designs were still effective ("fit to burst") after penetrating the armor.

The post-World War I designs all used Shellite fillers, though those during World War I were much like their contemporaries and used Lyddite prior to 1918 and Shellite afterwards (there was a Greenboy version of this projectile, too).

I would have thought that with this large cavity, which was exactly the same as in World War I, the 9.2" Mark XIIA APC would have had problems with projectile breakup against thick armor at moderate obliquity (circa 1-caliber-thick plate at around 30 degrees obliquity). However, this was not the case. In fact, these projectiles -- both the US and British designs -- are, from the tests I have seen, THE BEST BRITISH APC PROJECTILES EVER MADE!! They penetrate armor better and remain in one piece under more extreme impact conditions (I even gave them a separate entry in FACEHARD's British projectile table). I have no idea why they were so good. Obviously there are "sweet spots" for every kind of mechanical design and this shell happens to be right on top of one."