|
Post by acefromearth on May 11, 2016 5:51:12 GMT
Ah, defenses! My favorite topic of the era. Taking a historical note from American fortifications following the Spanish-American War and into WWI, homeland fortification was driven by two factors: the wonderfully in depth Endicott Board report, and Congress' refusal to fund the Endicott Board's suggestions. The result was forts that were constructed slowly, but cheaply. Given the pressure of actual invasion, such forts could have been thrown up much more quickly. The main concern driving construction time was due to getting the guns for the forts more than the actual construction time (Some forts were ready two years before their guns arrived). Most forts of the era were built into a hill or mound of earth to save money. Dirt was free and easily shaped. These forts were designed to protect against seaborne attackers, however since the Martians don't have any impact weapons of note, I think this construction method would serve perfectly against heat rays as well. Magazines were dug into pits, then the spare dirt mounded over the front. Concrete slabs were laid for the magazines and frontings where the artillery crews operated. Primary means of defense were the big rifled guns, meant to shoot further and straighter than naval cannons. These were to be used direct-fire. Mortars were also often employed behind the main gun line for the top attack on armored cruisers. Remember that at the time the US had very little in the way of field artillery for the Army, compared with Europeans powers. Later guns were designed on disappearing chassis that would automatically retract below the parapet for reloading, protecting the gun and crew. The gun would pop up and shoot an incredibly accurate direct-fire shell before retracting again. This seems ideal for anti-Martian defense. Firing solutions for the guns were worked up by connected OPs and a plotting room, and a few slide rules. The plotters would then send corrections to the Battery Commander. The whole process was extremely accurate, routinely resulting in 100% scores on trials (the Coast Artillery branch was renown for their professionalism, even if the defenses were never actually used in war). Tl;dr: US era forts were hastily and cheaply built from slab concrete and earth. One can easily imagine a massive project to make hardened control points, or lines of artillery forts on hills or guarding major ports. Most forts could be built in 1-2 years at a slow pace, but finding the guns to arm them would be the biggest challenge.
The concrete back face of coastal forts, built into an existing hill. 2-3 feet of packed dirt and sand was considered equal to about 1 foot of concrete.
Disappearing chassis with 10" rifled gun.
Lighter 3" M1903 battery built into the hillside. The lighter cannons were used against small, fast landing craft and weren't intended to tackle cruisers, so they are mounted on simple pedestals.
File photo of 6"(?) gun on a retractable mount. The idea was to crank the entire piece up and down during reloading to protect the crew. These mounts never really worked very well, however.
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on May 11, 2016 11:39:11 GMT
Yes, I love this era of fortification! Before airplanes became practical and with gunnery still primitive enough that warships had to get very close to their targets and thus were firing on flat trajectories, coast artillery didn't need overhead protection. Disappearing guns are very cool, and as you say, the perfect weapon against tripods. All the aiming is done while the gun is still in the lowered position. When you are ready, release the counterweight and the gun rises up and is on target the instant it comes to the firing position. Then boom! The gun fires, destroys the tripod and the recoil drives the gun back below the parapet for loading. The Martians would only have seconds to fire at it.
In my novels we are going to eventually see a massive battle against the defenses built to protect the Panama Canal. Similar defenses will be constructed around mainland cities.
|
|
|
Post by acefromearth on May 11, 2016 13:50:21 GMT
Yes, I love this era of fortification! Before airplanes became practical and with gunnery still primitive enough that warships had to get very close to their targets and thus were firing on flat trajectories, coast artillery didn't need overhead protection. Disappearing guns are very cool, and as you say, the perfect weapon against tripods. All the aiming is done while the gun is still in the lowered position. When you are ready, release the counterweight and the gun rises up and is on target the instant it comes to the firing position. Then boom! The gun fires, destroys the tripod and the recoil drives the gun back below the parapet for loading. The Martians would only have seconds to fire at it. In my novels we are going to eventually see a massive battle against the defenses built to protect the Panama Canal. Similar defenses will be constructed around mainland cities. In my little fiction this is one of the key methods of defending the western coast (due to lack of heavy artillery or landships) as the Martians move down from the mountains, channeled by rivers and natural passes into predictable points. Lines of defense at natural barriers like major rivers are set up with mobile Army units acting to bait Martians into killzones. I image similar forts would be erected at key points, perhaps with several smaller forts with only 1 or 2 batteries arranged to guard an area. The seacoast defenses were historically intended not to fight off an invasion fleet but to hold them down long enough for naval assets to move up and engage. Commanders were forced to chose between neutralizing the forts from sea, where the rifled guns held advantage, sending landing parties for assault, or blowing past them and have less overall naval strength to deal with at their intended targets. I imagine the Army would use similar tactics, with forts providing a hard-hitting, accurate defense but only intended to slow and channel Martian advances long enough for the armored units and field guns to arrive and outmaneuver the tripods. I game terms I imagine such a battery or fort would work like an immobile land ironclad. I think it could be quite a bit of fun having batteries of super hardened guns, but each can only shoot every other turn due to reloading. Exposed positions such as the Battery Commanders, Observation Posts, and Searchlight Posts could be weak links, and losing them degrades accuracy for the big guns. I've wanted to work up such a scenario, however I just don't have the space to make a nice fortified board full of rifled batteries.
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on May 11, 2016 19:47:30 GMT
The concrete and earth defenses in the photos look like the old battery positions around Halifax harbor, many of which are within parks. More of the old fortifications and remnants of the roads connecting them can be since Hurricane Juan (2003) blew down ~70,000 trees in Pt. Pleasant Park at the seaward end of the city.
To my knowledge none of the gun batteries had 'disappearing' guns so they'd be more vulnerable to heat rays.
|
|
|
Post by acefromearth on May 11, 2016 21:04:46 GMT
The concrete and earth defenses in the photos look like the old battery positions around Halifax harbor, many of which are within parks. More of the old fortifications and remnants of the roads connecting them can be since Hurricane Juan (2003) blew down ~70,000 trees in Pt. Pleasant Park at the seaward end of the city. To my knowledge none of the gun batteries had 'disappearing' guns so they'd be more vulnerable to heat rays. I know less about the Canadian defenses, but there was a program about the same time that followed the US coastal defenses. In the west it seems the US and Britain actually cooperated on building their defenses of the Puget Sound and Vancouver, which is funny because the US partially intended to protect against British invasion. Victoria has wonderful bunkers but I haven't managed time off work to go see them. It seems that the Canadian weapons weren't as advanced in the intended role, rather being repurposed naval guns.
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on May 11, 2016 21:26:11 GMT
Oh, and I wanted to respond to your statement about the high accuracy of the Coast Defense Artillery. In general you are correct, but there were a few exceptions. The boys manning the guns at Fort Delaware (just down the river from me) were notorious for their sloppy gunnery. To this day there is a 12" practice round on display in the town square of Salem, New Jersey where the shell landed during firing practice
|
|
|
Post by hardlec on May 12, 2016 8:50:52 GMT
I had forgotten about disappearing mounts, which would be very useful against the Martians.
The disappearing gun might be well placed in a Martello Tower. A Martello Tower would be cylindrical, about 20 feet tall and 40 to 50 feet in diameter. The first story was often a thick wall with no opening. The second story had a door and retractable ladder. The top was open, with heavy guns on turntables. The older Vauban style forts would also work.
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on May 12, 2016 10:00:08 GMT
We have both types of British designed Martello towers in this area - I made a 15mm scale model of one for Napoleonic war gaming years ago but gave it away.
One of the narrower, taller type in my home town of Saint John, New Brunswick was converted into a director tower for coastal artillery in WWII.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on May 12, 2016 10:43:48 GMT
Well, love the whole general 'pop-up' guns of this thread!! And the discussion is as usual top rate. Jealous of you folks living so close to the history of this thread - though there's lots to see at the Smithsonian here in Wash.DC., (even in Virginia they have a hanger full of WW1 planes!), I'm not aware if there are any of the coastal batteries left within easy driving distance. I'm hoping that Old Glory does at least one of these cool beasts in their forthcoming coastal artillery line, but no indication as to when this will be available or what form they'll be doing. For major cities in praticular, this would definately be a favored method of defense. Do any of you have information on the size of the guns used?? I figure minimun of 6", probably 8" at least and up to 12" at best (based on the railroad arty of the time).
|
|
|
Post by Quendil on May 12, 2016 10:53:37 GMT
I do love those pop up guns, wouldn't want to work one though
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on May 12, 2016 10:54:09 GMT
Fascinating about the Salem, NJ shell Scott - now get back to writing !! LOL
|
|
|
Post by scottwashburn on May 12, 2016 13:19:06 GMT
I think 12" were about the biggest disappearing guns you will find (although I could easily be wrong). They were effective because at the time they were developed, naval gun ranges were quite short (not because the guns couldn't fire farther, but because the methods of aiming them were still pretty primitive). And firing at close range their trajectories were very flat (not unlike a heat ray) so the shells did not go high in the air and then plunge downward. A gun that 'disappeared' behind a parapet would be pretty safe as the enemy shells would either hit the walls in front or fly overhead and land far to the rear. But in the years just before WWI naval gunnery got a lot better and firing from long range shells would be much more likely to come down in a steep arc, which would negate much of the advantage of a disappearing mount. Add in the threat of bombs dropped from aircraft and later coast defenses were mounted in casemates with concrete overhead as well as in front. With the only Martian 'indirect fire' from Grenadiers, disappearing mounts would still be very effective.
|
|
|
Post by terrance on May 12, 2016 18:22:40 GMT
The concrete and earth defenses in the photos look like the old battery positions around Halifax harbor, many of which are within parks. More of the old fortifications and remnants of the roads connecting them can be since Hurricane Juan (2003) blew down ~70,000 trees in Pt. Pleasant Park at the seaward end of the city. To my knowledge none of the gun batteries had 'disappearing' guns so they'd be more vulnerable to heat rays. I know less about the Canadian defenses, but there was a program about the same time that followed the US coastal defenses. In the west it seems the US and Britain actually cooperated on building their defenses of the Puget Sound and Vancouver, which is funny because the US partially intended to protect against British invasion. Victoria has wonderful bunkers but I haven't managed time off work to go see them. It seems that the Canadian weapons weren't as advanced in the intended role, rather being repurposed naval guns. acefromearth, is that Victoria, Washington or Victoria BC? If Washington I may have to arrange a side trip on my next drive to the Enfilade! convention.
|
|
|
Post by loyalist on May 12, 2016 19:29:47 GMT
In the late 1960s our parents often took us to Maine for summer camping. One year we visited a large coastal fort that was well preserved - might have seen it during a day trip to New Hampshire, though I suspect it was most likely Fort Knox at the mouth of the Penobscot river. The main things I remember are some unusually large glossy black cannons on metal mounts and yellow and black signs for fallout shelters within the fort.
|
|
|
Post by madmorgan on May 13, 2016 12:02:47 GMT
Ah, I see theres more 'gold' available than that at Ft. Knox, KY.
|
|