CDSG Forums Forum Index CDSG Forums
A place to discuss all aspects of Coast Artillery
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Oahu defences...
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CDSG Forums Forum Index -> American Coast Defense
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ickysdad



Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:25 pm    Post subject: Oahu defences... Reply with quote

I've provided a link to a debate I'm in about Oahu's defences .However a couple of questions.
1. The 12" railway mortars on Oahu were thier transport cars in bad shape in that they couldn't be used in the firing mode?
2. Could they(12" mortar railway pieces) be transported on the plantation railroads,i.e. are said railways the proper guage & such?
3. The model 1918 240 mm Howitzers ..are they as inaacurate as the poster in the link below says? Ian Hogg in "British & American Artillery of WW2" seems to say they weren't inaccurate. In reading his works it seems the model 1918 didn't take that much longer to install then the 240mm M1 any info on this? I knowthe model 1918 had 2 modes of installation one on a concrete swivel base,the other with it's own base type pedastal.
4. Back to the mobile 12" mortars on 12/7/41 did they even have locomotives to pull them around with another poster says the US didn't even have proper locomotives in place to pull the railway artillery around with. How true is this?
http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/8580/master/1/?page=26
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kaneoheboy



Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Location: Kaneohe, HI

PostPosted: Thu Mar 19, 2009 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. There is no evidence that the 12-inch railway mortars' railway cars were in such a state of disrepair that they could not be be brought back to firing status by the Hawaiian Ordnance Depot.

On Jan. 8, 1942, LTG Delos Emmons, CG Hawn. Dept. directed the department ordnance officer to turn over to the Hawaiian Coast Artillery Comand eight 12-inch railway mortars held in reserve at Schofield Bks. Prior to placing the mortars in selected positions, ordnance was to overhaul the weapons to ensure they were in firing condition. The primary purpose of returning the railway mortars to ready status was "for camouflage as dummies."

For more info, see: John D. Bennett, "Camouflaging Seacoast and Antiaircraft Artillery Batteries on Oahu, T.H. 1941-45," The Coast Defense Journal, Vo. 21, No. 3 (Aug. 2007). Article available on CDR or DVD through the CDSG Website.

2. Probably not, as the plantation railroads used lighter rail than the island's common carrier, "Oahu Railway and Land Company" (OR&L). In general, the plantation railroads used the 36-inch gauge tracks, there were exceptions in which a smaller gauge was used.

3. I am not all that familiar with the characteristics of the M1918 240 mm howitzer. The mortar was normally mounted on the concrete base on Oahu. Smile

4. On Dec. 7, 1941 and thereafter, the OR&L provided the transportation, at minimal cost, to the 41st Coast Artillery (RY) based at Ft. Kamehameha for transporting all railway guns on the island.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ickysdad



Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:22 am    Post subject: Thanks... Reply with quote

Kaneoheboy wrote:
1. There is no evidence that the 12-inch railway mortars' railway cars were in such a state of disrepair that they could not be be brought back to firing status by the Hawaiian Ordnance Depot.


COMMENT: That's great and just about what I thought...

On Jan. 8, 1942, LTG Delos Emmons, CG Hawn. Dept. directed the department ordnance officer to turn over to the Hawaiian Coast Artillery Comand eight 12-inch railway mortars held in reserve at Schofield Bks. Prior to placing the mortars in selected positions, ordnance was to overhaul the weapons to ensure they were in firing condition. The primary purpose of returning the railway mortars to ready status was "for camouflage as dummies."

For more info, see: John D. Bennett, "Camouflaging Seacoast and Antiaircraft Artillery Batteries on Oahu, T.H. 1941-45," The Coast Defense Journal, Vo. 21, No. 3 (Aug. 2007). Article available on CDR or DVD through the CDSG Website.

COMMENT: Ok Mark Berhow told me in an e-mail all guns were up and ready within days, a couple I guess , I assumed he meant the 12" mortars too BUT I may have misundertood him. Seems like if they waited that long to just use them as dummies they didn't feel they were needed that much. Were there any other 12" mortars on the island on railway carriages? Also how long was it before the 8" railway pieces were setup & ready to go?

2. Probably not, as the plantation railroads used lighter rail than the island's common carrier, "Oahu Railway and Land Company" (OR&L). In general, the plantation railroads used the 36-inch gauge tracks, there were exceptions in which a smaller gauge was used.

COMMENT: Ok I know the mortars wieghed around 80 tons I just figured about any raiilway could support that though they may need to be reinforced for firing .That's just what I thought though. BNow could they just be moved about on those plantation railways whereupon they could then could have wheels removed,jacked up braced and then ready to fire?

3. I am not all that familiar with the characteristics of the M1918 240 mm howitzer. The mortar was normally mounted on the concrete base on Oahu. Smile

COMMENT: Well I'm just going by Ian Hogg's book ,Mark Berhow said just about what you said though he said the mounting was modified and may need to use the concrete pedastal mount.. Anyways the Howitzers were ready in a few hours according to him( both the 240mm(all 12 of them?) and 155mm,all 50 of them?).

4. On Dec. 7, 1941 and thereafter, the OR&L provided the transportation, at minimal cost, to the 41st Coast Artillery (RY) based at Ft. Kamehameha for transporting all railway guns on the island.


COMMENT: Well Mark said all guns were up and ready in just days after 12/7 so it seems locomotives weren't in as short of supply as the poster on the other forum stated.)

Thanks again for all that info.

Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ickysdad



Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 5:52 am    Post subject: E-mail.. Reply with quote

I hope Mark Berhow doesn't mind me posting this e-mail but I was worried maybe getting what he said wrong so here it is...

Quote...

" Not sure how much help I can be to you on this.
Most of this is a matter of conjecture. My response is to note that when
the Japanese attacked the Philippines they DID NOT try to force Manila Bay
defenses with their Naval forces, but landed elseware. Certainly the
Hawaiian defenses were up and running within days of Dec 7, including the
12 in RY mortars and all the 240 mm howitzers.

Yes the locomotives to move the guns were in limited supply
Prepared positions were required to use the guns. Basically they were
towed to a firing point, then set up (the wheels were removed and the guns
were braced). The range and accuracy of the runs was pretty limited (10
miles or so). Accuracy depended on fire control set up.

The howitzers would have been in place within hours and as I understand it
only in their concrete emplacements. The carriages were modified for these
so that they were no longer true field pieces.

But, I can provide littel for the debate except all these peiece were
deployed throughout 1942 by the Army.
"


...end quote.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kaneoheboy



Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Location: Kaneohe, HI

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

COMMENT #2: Mark Berhow is basically correct in his reply that all guns were up and ready within days. It was your assumption that this included the 12-inch railway mortars as well.

The 12-inch railway mortars were declared obsolete in the mid 1930s, the 8-inch M1888 Railway gun was selected to be its replacement. 8-inch railway guns were shipped to Oahu sometime in 1934, with the last shipment arriving in June 1940.

For further discussion see: William C. Gaines, "Railway Artillery on Oahu 1922-1944, [u]The Coast Defense Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Aug. 2007), pp. 22-58.

Sometime prior to Dec. 7, 1941, the 12-inch railway mortars were kept in ordnance storage at Schofield Barracks. After the attack, authorities proposed returning the 12-inch railway mortars to firing condition, and placed as dummies at different railroad spurs on Oahu. Several key elements were removed from the guns, which could be replaced if they were needed to be returned to firing condition. There was a shortage of coast artillerymen, consequently the dummy gun positions were not able to be manned.

In 1944, two 12-inch railway guns at the Puuiki firing spur were fired for a total of 24 rounds, two towards the sea and 22 at an artillery impact area on the west shore of Oahu.

COMMENT #3: You must factor in the total weight of a 12-inch mortar gun train by including the weight of 88 tons each gun times the number of guns in the battery, plus the supporting train of ammunition cars and flat cars carrying transportable steel fire control towers.

I can not say with any certainty whether a plantation railroad's lighter rail could sustain the load, which may include two locomotives.

Remember that several plantations grew their crops rangng from relatively flat coastal plains to higher elevations where steep grades were involved.

Consider joining the Hawaiian Railroads: Yahoo Groups for further discussion with the membership regarding whether the Oahu plantations were able to accommodate a 12-inch railway gun train.

COMMENT #4: I can not comment on whether all 240 mm howitzers were in place an ready to fire in a few hours, nor whether all 155 mm GPF batteries were also manned and ready. In any event, the GPFs had to be towed by 10 ton tractors that did not move very fast, and a number of 155 mm emplacements were situated on higher elevations which made transporting them a slow process.

Two North Shore 155 mm GPF batteries, Ashley and Kawailoa, were manned by the 11th Field Artillery until being relieved by reinforcements in early 1942; another battery site was not manned until replacements arrived as well, this was Battery Ranch.

Also take into consideration that a number of coast artillery batteries had secondary assignments of manning fixed 3-inch AA guns, which further illustrates the shortage of manpower that existed on Oahu on Dec. 7, 1941. Smile

-John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kaneoheboy



Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Location: Kaneohe, HI

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brian,

In defense of Mark Berhow, I offer the following: Mark is an esteemed member of the Coast Defense Study Group (CDSG), and the publisher of its quarterly journal. He has authored or co-authored several books on coast defenses and other subjects including a scientific discipline.

Mark, and others in the CDSG have probably forgotten more than I will ever learn on the subject of coast artillery history that covers a wide range of subjects.

Some of your questions regarding Oahu's (coast) defenses are a matter of conjecture to paraphrase Mark's reply to you, whereas in actuality there were other factors to take into consideration, such as the 12-inch railway mortars being held in reserve in an inoperable condition on Dec. 7, 1941; and the 240 mm howitzers and some of the 155 mm GPFs kept in gun parks, which contributed to their being emplaced as fast as their batteries were mobilized, and only as fast as their motor transport was able to move them to the prepared concrete emplacements.

Another major factor to consider is the avaiability of the required manpower needed to man all the 240 mm and 155 mm batteries, plus the secondary assignments of some batteries to man fixed 3-inch AA guns. Smile

-John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ickysdad



Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:36 pm    Post subject: Well some background... Reply with quote

John,
I really appreciate all the info Mark & You have given me. It's really good info. This whole debate I started here has to do with a debate over on warships1.com whereupon a gentleman named robdab is postulating the IJN conduct it's raid per historical BUT also there would be something like 8 IJN BB's tagging along to bombard Schofield Barracks, & the airfileds & coastal gun emplacements while at the same time the air raid is going on to mess up the US mobilising it's troops which might interfere with a landing on that same day(12/7/1941) at Kanoehe Bay . The Japanese invasion force has just 3 troopships ,don't know for sure how many troops that involves. Now Kido Butai is also trying to destroy the US fleet,suppress US Coastal Defences and detroy the USAAF on Oahu. Yeah right!!!!!!
Anyways some of us on that board were of the opinion that enough 155mm & 240mm would survive and be setup or had been setup to play absolute hell with any landing in Kanoehe Bay. The poster in question said the 12" & 16" coastal batteris couldn't interdict the landings because of the intervening mountains but in my research those mountains were at their tallest only around 3,000' now I'm thinking that a 12" or 16" gun's trazectory would enable it to shoot over the mountains but that's just MHO because I don't know if from the batteris in question if a so-called naval rifle could lob shells over the mountains or if you need a howitzer/mortar. I'm also thinking that charges in the Coastal Defence guns can be adjusted just for that reason,i.e. lob shells over a relatively close target but one which has intervening obstructions just don't know for sure.
Anyways that's some of the background of why I'm wanting some info. However what I've gotten here so far has shown it's not so bad as what the other poster is saying nor is it as good as I hoped for!!! LOL !!!!

Brian
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kaneoheboy



Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Location: Kaneohe, HI

PostPosted: Fri Mar 20, 2009 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Smile Brian,

I am familiar with robdab's various scenarios dealing with a second attack or invasion of Oahu via Kaneohe Bay, and other means of attack including the use of Fr. Frigate Shoals. I offered him a number of what ifs, and I have found that he is capable of creating counter measures to any proposal that you may come up with. Robdab is intellectually stimulating and very creative and resourceful.

When it comes to the CDSG, we deal with the historical facts as recorded and archived as well as any other means of communication available. We are basically not wargamers nor are we armchair Admirals and Generals, merely students of military history.

I welcome your inquiiries to this forum.

-John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kaneoheboy



Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Location: Kaneohe, HI

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 12:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Again Brian,

It is my understanding that the 16-inch battery at Ft. Weaver (Battery Williston) had the capability of covering almost all of Oahu's shoreline with its pair of 16-inch M1919 long range rifles mounted on M1919 Barbette carriages. Williston's guns were able to be elevated from -7 degrees to plus 65 degrees (Source: "American Seacoast Defenses; A Reference Guide edited by Mark Berhow. p. 172).

The other pair of 16-inch Mk II Mod1 Naval guns were located at nearby Ft. Barrette (Btry. Hatch), which were capable of elevating the same as those of Battery Hatch; these guns had a shorter maximum range at 45,150 yds. vs. 49,100 yds for Battery Williston's guns. (Source" TM 4-210 Seacoast Artillery Weapons, 15 Oct. 1944, Appendix I (page 2).

The 240 mm howitzer was emplaced at higher elevations on Oahu, which added to their capability of providing plunging fire on Oahu's beaches. The 12-inch railway mortar was capable of elevating from minus 5 degrees to plus 60 degrees, (source: Amer. Seacoast Defenses p. 156), and was usually emplaced at railroad sidings near the coast. Howitzers and mortars by their very nature are high trajectory weapons with shorter ranges.

Mount Kaala on the Waianae Mt. Range is the tallest peak on Oahu at some 4,000 ft. in elevation, most of the other peaks in both the Waianae and Koolau Mt. Ranges run from 2,000+ to 3,000 ft on average. Smile

-John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ickysdad



Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:05 am    Post subject: Ok sounds good thanks for the info.. Reply with quote

In "Defenses of Pearl Harbor & Oahu 1907-1950" I noticed Fort Ruger & Fort 2-12" Long Range(on barbette mountings???), 20-12" mortars and 2- 8" pedastal mounted RW guns which MAYBE(????) could reach Kanoehe Bay???? However even if those 20-12" mortars couldn't reach that bay they certainly could restrict any penetration into the interior just MHO though. Now on the mountain's tallest peak well I went by wikpedia!!!! LOL!!!
Any thoughts???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kaneoheboy



Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Location: Kaneohe, HI

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brian,

You fail to provide any page number with regards to your citing "Defenses of Pearl Harbor 1907-50" by Glen Williford & Terrance McGovern. I refrain from any comment on the book and refer the matter to both co-authors.

FYI, Battery Randolph at Ft. DeRussy was equipped with two 14-inch disappearing carriage (DC) guns with a relatively flat trajectory; Battery Closson at Ft. Kamehameha was equipped with two 12-inch barbette carriage rifles which could be elevated from 0 to plus 35-degrees; the other 12-inch battery at Ft. Kamehameha was armed with two DC guns, also with a relatively flat trajectory. You must remember that the 12-inch railway mortars were inoperable until sometime in early 1942 when they were moved to dummy positions, none of which were located in proximity of Kaneohe Bay. As to the two 12-inch mortar batteries (Harlow and Birkhimer) at Ft. Ruger, they may have been capable of providing plunging fire on Kaneohe Bay, I am not sure about the remaining 12-inch mortar battery (Hasbrouck) at Ft. Kamehameha being able to cover Kaneohe Bay. Perhaps someone more familiar with the characteristics of those mortar batteries could answer the question. To my knowledge there were no pedestal mounted 8-inch railway guns on Oahu; Battery Granger Adams at the Black Pt. Mil. Reservation was equipped with two M-1888 8-inch barbette carriage (BC) guns.

-John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ickysdad



Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 3:08 am    Post subject: Ok... Reply with quote

John ,
I was looking at maps on pages 10 &20 and charts on pages 59,60,and 61. Also another map on page 51. On the 8" railway pedastal mounting at Fort Ruger I was referring to Battery Granger Adams but it was actually a barbette mounting..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kaneoheboy



Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 43
Location: Kaneohe, HI

PostPosted: Sat Mar 21, 2009 7:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brian,

Both 8-inch M1888 BC guns of Battery Granger Adams had enough range to reach a point in Kaneohe Bay some 2,895 yd (1.64 mi.) NW of Kealohi Pt. and some 1.85 mi. due west of Pyramid Rock on the Mokapu Peninsula, which was on the Naval Air Station Kaneohe Bay Naval Reservation. the 8-inch former railway guns were mounted in concrete emplacements and could be elevated from 0 to plus 42-degrees, wiith a max. range of 24,900 yd.

The pair of M1895 12-inch BC guns of Battery Closson at Ft. Kamehameha had sufficient range to cover Kaneohe Bay at a max. range of 29,300 yd; the BC enabled the guns to be elevated from 0 to plus 35-degrees.

Source: Technical Manual TM 4-210, "Seacoast Artillery Weapons," Appendix I, pp. 2,5.

-John
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
robdab



Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 22
Location: Toronto, Canada

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:20 am    Post subject: Oahu's Coastal Artilley on Dec.7'41 Reply with quote

John,

Many thanks for the kind words.

I write to ask if you can confirm my belief that the DC 2x14" of Battery Randolph and the DC 2x12" of Battery Selfridge were not capable of 360 degree fire and thus could not bear on Kaneohe Bay ?

Also, on an only related topic, do you know if the battleships of the US Pacific Fleet were at all tied in to the US Army's Coastal Artillery spotting grid when moored inside of Pearl Harbor ? My readings have indicated that this was not the case but I wondered if you had any further information on the matter ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ickysdad



Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 13

PostPosted: Tue Mar 24, 2009 4:31 am    Post subject: Re: Oahu's Coastal Artilley on Dec.7'41 Reply with quote

robdab wrote:
John,

Many thanks for the kind words.

I write to ask if you can confirm my belief that the DC 2x14" of Battery Randolph and the DC 2x12" of Battery Selfridge were not capable of 360 degree fire and thus could not bear on Kaneohe Bay ?

Also, on an only related topic, do you know if the battleships of the US Pacific Fleet were at all tied in to the US Army's Coastal Artillery spotting grid when moored inside of Pearl Harbor ? My readings have indicated that this was not the case but I wondered if you had any further information on the matter ?


According to my previous source no the 14"of Battery Randolph on disappearing carriages couldn't bear and niether could the 12" Battery Selfridge on disappearing carriages . As far as the naval ships firing on Kanoehe Bay as long as they somehow can communicate with spotters who have a view of Kanoehe Bay then they can conduct a shoot. Howevet JMHO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    CDSG Forums Forum Index -> American Coast Defense All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group