AGEOD Forums

There is certainly a problem with ships and forts in the game, historically no fort was destroyed during the war by ship bombardement, instead they were taken by disembarked troops after a bombardement by siege arty (hvy mortars proved to be very effective), while OTOH the standard Columbiad 10" coastal gun was also ineffective against ironclads, the only ironclad sunk by a CSA coastal battery (USS Keokuk in april 1863) was by a Brooke rifled gun, developed during the war.
Ideally, the armoured ability, should solve the situation, the results should be.
1) Non armoured ships would be very vulnerable to coastal artillery, while armoured ships would be invulnerable (maybe another type of unit could be included for coastal rifled artillery?)
2) Forts should be very very tough to destroy by fleets. The Union player should find easier the historical method, disembark a land force with siege artillery to bombard it before launching an assault on the fort.

deleted

aryaman wrote:historically no fort was destroyed during the war by ship bombardement

SIGH.

Fort Walker
Fort Hindman
Fort Clark
Fort Henry

Of course, troops were available to accept the surrender of several of those. That doesn't mean they made any significant contribution to reducing those forts.

Jabberwock wrote:SIGH.

Fort Walker
Fort Hindman
Fort Clark
Fort Henry

Of course, troops were available to accept the surrender of several of those. That doesn't mean they made any significant contribution to reducing those forts.

Wasn't Ft. Sumter 'reduced to a useless pile of rubble'?

lodilefty wrote:Wasn't Ft. Sumter 'reduced to a useless pile of rubble'?

I avoid using that one in debate. It was smashed by shore batteries ... The rebs kept a garrison there till almost the end of the war ... And they even used the rubble to repel an amphibious assault, so I wouldn't call it entirely useless.

Jabberwock wrote:SIGH.

Fort Walker
Fort Hindman
Fort Clark
Fort Henry

Of course, troops were available to accept the surrender of several of those. That doesn't mean they made any significant contribution to reducing those forts.

Ok, I should have been more precise about what I meant by a fort, I meant a coastal fortification made of brick or stone with a large battery of coastal guns, significantly different from the modest forts built during the war you cite. Fort Walker, for instance, had a single 10" columbiad gun in its battery and Fort Clark just 32pdrs, while Ft Hindman and Ft Henry were earthen structures.

Jabberwock wrote:SIGH.

Fort Walker
Fort Hindman
Fort Clark
Fort Henry

Of course, troops were available to accept the surrender of several of those. That doesn't mean they made any significant contribution to reducing those forts.

Fort Henry - was attacked at flood stage. the water were commin in over the embankments. Was a nasty place to defend so they pulled out and went to donelson. I did a bit of research on this battle because my GG Grandfather participated in it for the CSA. also at donelson prior to battle there was a measles outbreak so over half of 2 brigades were out of action from the start. The surrender was really due to no ammo nor food left and the chain of command broke down.

aryaman wrote:Ok, I should have been more precise about what I meant by a fort, I meant a coastal fortification made of brick or stone with a large battery of coastal guns, significantly different from the modest forts built during the war you cite. Fort Walker, for instance, had a single 10" columbiad gun in its battery and Fort Clark just 32pdrs, while Ft Hindman and Ft Henry were earthen structures.

You should be lobbying to have Ft. Clark removed from the game ... as it doesn't fit your definition in any respect.

The ironclad casemates at Ft. Hindman were built on the same principles as the ironclad ships that destroyed them.

Earthen forts and brick/stone forts filled with earth, had a significant advantage against seige mortars. That is why Forts Wagner, Jackson, and St. Phillip (along with Vicksburg and the Petersburg entrenchments) resisted that type of bombardment so successfully. Seige rifles, OTOH, were very successful against brick & stone walls. Rifled shells were able to significantly penetrate before exploding.

The reason so few coastal forts were destroyed by naval gunfire is that General Lee himself recognized the futility of trying to hold most forts (including the brick/stone ones) against naval gunfire - with the resources he had available, and so he ordered quite a few of them to be abandoned after the reduction of Ft Walker. However, the rebel commander is not allowed to do the same thing in the game.

There are some modest forts included in the game, and some significantly immodest forts left out. Forts and the strategies used to take them during the ACW are complex issues, and simplifying those issues for "ease of debate" has given us the situation we are currently facing.

Jabberwock wrote:
The reason so few coastal forts were destroyed by naval gunfire is that General Lee himself recognized the futility of trying to hold most forts (including the brick/stone ones) against naval gunfire - with the resources he had available, and so he ordered quite a few of them to be abandoned after the reduction of Ft Walker. However, the rebel commander is not allowed to do the same thing in the game.

.

I don´t agree, the reason IMO is that Union ironclads carried only smoothbores that did little damage to the forts, that is why forts were taken by bombardement of siege batteries that included both heavy mortars a 30lbrs Parrot rifled guns.

The Atlantic Coast by Daniel Amman

Fort Clinch - p. 48, note 1; pp. 49-53

Summaries of campaign - pp. 54 & 59

Fort Marion - p. 55

mortars vs. rifles at Ft. Pulaski - p. 62

Legareville & Stono Inlet (near Charleston) - p. 67 & 72-73

Fort McAllister - pp. 84-88

ironclad armament - bottom of p. 88, pp. 113-116

Jabberwock wrote:The Atlantic Coast by Daniel Amman

Fort Clinch - p. 48, note 1; pp. 49-53

Summaries of campaign - pp. 54 & 59

Fort Marion - p. 55

mortars vs. rifles at Ft. Pulaski - p. 62

Legareville & Stono Inlet (near Charleston) - p. 67 & 72-73

Fort McAllister - pp. 84-88

ironclad armament - bottom of p. 88, pp. 113-116

I am not versed in searching books through google, sorry I can´t check those pages. To my understanding the main armament of Union monitors were 15 in and 11 in Dalghren Smoothbore guns, isn´t that correct?

Yes, AFAIK, of all the coastal monitors, only the Patapsco and Lehigh had 150 lb rifles before 1864. The rest were armed with XV and XI inch Dahlgren shell-guns.