@Razor:
@knp7765:
I know that you are right that destroyers often shelled Japanese positions in support of landings.
Yes, one thing is to shell a position, another thing is exactly what did that shelling accomplish ? If it was common during WWII that small gun fire from destroyers whipped out army corps from the surface of earth, then yes let destroyers shore bombard on4 or less. But if they at best killed like 2 or 3 men, of a 50 000 men strong corps, then no. We cant loose touch with the ground. I read about a Romanian destroyer that was in a duel with a Russian tank during the first week of Barbarossa, and the destroyer won. But since this only happened one time during the war, I don’t want to make a house rule that allows destroyers to hit tanks, or tanks to hit destroyers in an adjacent seazone. I also know about a sub that shoot down an airplane, a heavy bomber, with the small gun on deck. This too only happened one time in history, so I don’t want to make a rule where subs can target aircrafts, that would be too much, even for me. end of line, let the destroyer bombardment go.
You have a point.
Was the DD shore bombardment so ineffective?
Were they seldom use for this kind of Infantry/Marines support on shore bombardment?
If that so, clearly it is absurd to give 1 reg Shore B. @1.
A kind of 75% less dangerous than BB.
(However, don’t forget we are talking about around 50 destroyers ships bombarding for days beaches and stronghold.)
Actually, you give me an argument to keep a great difference of scale between CA and BB ShoreBomb vs DD SB.
Giving DD this kind of Shore Bombardment:
The idea is to keep it far less effective than Cruiser and Battleship Shore Bombardment without neglecting this historically accurate point.
For now, it seems to me that it is the simplest and more balance way to do it.
DD is acting as a 1 round +1A support for Infantry like an Artillery unit but without having the capacity to roll for itself as the Artillery unit does (or even SB of Cruiser or BB).
This HR for DD increase the odds of having a same number of casualty without having more of them.
Seems to have that kind of proportion vs 1@4 BB SB attack.
On historical accuracy, I just found this:
Meanwhile, the Navy continued looking ahead. In September 1941, it requested studies for a destroyer with greater anti-aircraft capability. In May 1942, before the first Fletcher was even commissioned, it approved a six-gun ship in which the Fletchers five 5-inch single mounts were replaced with three 5-inch twins the 2,200-ton Allen M. Sumner class, with 20 per cent more firepower on a Fletcher hull widened by 14 inches. By VJ Day, 67 Sumners 55 destroyers and 12 destroyer-minelayer conversions plus 45 ships of a lengthened production variant, initially referred to as the 2,200-ton long hull class and later as the Gearing class. Together, these classes dominated the US Navys destroyer force over the next 25 years.
As the first big ships to appear and because there were so many of them, however, the Fletchers are remembered as the signature US Navy destroyer class of the Pacific war. There, the earliest ones saw action in the nighttime surface battles in the Solomon Islands, many fought at Leyte and all completed in time for fleet screening and shore bombardment assignments and the notorious anti-kamikaze radar picket duty at Okinawa. While 19 were lost and six damaged beyond repair, 44 earned ten or more service stars, 19 were awarded the Navy Unit Commendation and 16 received the Presidential Unit Citation.
http://destroyerhistory.org/fletcherclass/