Talk:Coastal artillery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.


Effectiveness of coastal guns[edit]

The United States Naval Academy textbook Sea Power by E. B. Potter and Chester W. Nimitz (Prentice-Hall 1960) states on page 252: "Traditionally, one gun in a fort was reckoned 'equal' to four or five guns of similar caliber afloat in a sailing vessel." Thewellman (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Traditionally"?! What does that supposed to mean? Silly thing to say because coastal guns are rarely shipped around the World. In fact that entire sentence makes no sense unless there is a larger context--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 11:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoah... down boy. That's not Thewellman talking, that's Potter and Nimitz. See here (look down to the right). If you want to shake someone down then it's these dead dudes, and they are a pretty respectable source. Also coastal guns were shipped, not that rarely, around the world, and particularly in the British commonwealth such as in this article. "Traditionally?" - surely you know what that means. The issue is not about the points you raised, but whether or not the statement is actually true. It is basically a technical issue. How much more effective were coastal guns, in what sense, and why, and can it really be quantified with such accuracy...? Was there ever any real research on this matter, or is it just a matter of conjecture, anecdote and opinion? --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The context of the quote was specific reference to the age of sail, and the extent to which mid-19th century technology might alter that ratio. The factors alluded to included the increased maneuverability of steam-ships in comparison to sailing vessels, the relatively increased vulnerability of wooden ships (in comparison to earth and masonry fortifications) to exploding shells, and the aiming flexibility of centerline turrets in comparison to fixed broadside guns. I was actually searching for a citation for the 1:3 ratio within the article (because I, too, remember that ratio) and was surprised to find the quote. As an amusing aside, I found an account of a single fortified shore gun successfully withstanding the attention of two ships mounting over 100 guns. Emanuel Raymond Lewis, in Seacoast Fortifications of the United States, avoids quantification by the statement: "In the entire history of warfare, few principles have been as durable or as nearly absolute as the one concerning the superiority of guns ashore over guns afloat." Thewellman (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, This ratio thing is even older then that. Has to do with the ability to aim guns. Aiming on a rolling gun-deck of a ship-of-the-line was far from an easy task, particularly close to shore where wave action was often different to open sea, while the coastal battery, mounting essentially same weapons in terms of technology, had a solid foundation to fire from. Because, on top of the firing by sections that was required from the naval gunners to execute when firing onto a stationary target unlike another ship, requiring a lot of experience from the gun-deck officers, the coastal artillery often won the day. On the other hand coastal gun batteries could pump out three times as many cannonballs by merely slightly adjusting the traverse of their ordnance. That's all there is to it. Usually what happened was that a particularly gifted ship's gunner would be used to try and snipe at the coastal battery in the attempt to silence it.
Once turreted shell-firing vessels appeared, the coastal batteries begun to decline because the precision and the delivered charge were often enough to destroy a battery even with a close hit. By the time of Second World War the battery fortifications were small fortresses requiring a direct embrasure penetration which was too expensive for most nations, hence the idea of mobile coastal batteries, but their construction proved to be as expensive as that reinforced concrete positions--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 23:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of the term Coastal Artillery vs Coast Artillery for United States[edit]

In the United States, using "Coastal Artillery" was only but for a very short term. During most of the time that this branch existed in the United States, the units and the branch was "Coast Artillery." Shouldn't this be reflected? Also, shouldn't there be a history of the branch in each country? I could do something about United States Coast Artillery. Flyer333555 (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that for much of the development of the branch until WWII the name was Seacoast or Sea Coast Defence. However the branch Journal was called Coast Artillery. This article has a redirect for it. It is I think intended to be a general article on the concept and design of artillery used to defend coastal areas and important sea passages that are choke points for would be naval threats. You can certainly improve the article on the US artillery which has but one citation!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♣ 21:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

In the United Kingdom it is certainly "Coast Artillery" and "Coast Battery". "Coastal defences" is often used as a general descriptive term but this is not ideal since it is also a phrase used to describe defences against erosion. Indeed, the author and former Royal Artillery officer Ian V. Hogg uses "Coast defence". (see Coast Defences of England and Wales, 1856-1956, Ian V. Hogg, 1974 ISBN 0715363530). Individual batteries are referred to with their number as a prefix, for example "141 Coast Battery". Fine Hid (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Beleive a Coast ArtilleryIn Us a Stae/National Park site[edit]

Beieve a Coast Artillery unit near Monatuak.Long Island USA is a State of New York or National US Park? It was protected by armor shielding Did not have dissapering carriage As did other US Coast Artillery Guns.Great article Fascianting subjectANDREMOI (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)