Rifled Artillery Versus Third System Brick and Masonry Forts

[Comtedemeighan]

A couple of people have argued that the Fortifications in the game are too weak but most of the Coastal Forts were obsolete at the start of the war heres some histories of the forts on the Atlantic Coast that Union Forces captured through arms. Several of the Coastal Forts in the Game were captured without bloodshed because they were abandoned because forces had to be moved to other areas. The Rifled Artillery proved to be the downfall of Third System forts.

Fort Morgan North Carolina - In late March 1862, Major General Ambrose E. Burnside's army advanced on Fort Macon, a third system casemated masonry fort that commanded the channel to Beaufort, 35 miles southeast of New Berne. The Union force invested the fort with siege works and, on April 26, opened an accurate fire on the fort, which soon breached the masonry walls. Within a few hours the fort's scarp began to collapse, and the Confederates hoisted a white flag. This action demonstrated the inadequacy of masonry forts against large-bore, rifled artillery.

Fort Clark - On August 28th, 1861 while the navy bombarded Forts Clark and Hatteras, Union troops came ashore and attacked the rear of the Confederate batteries. On August 29, 1861 Colonel William F. Martin surrendered the Confederate garrison of 670. The Federals lost only one man. Butler returned to Fort Monroe, leaving the captured forts garrisoned

Fort Macon - On April 25, 1862, Parke's Union forces bombarded the fort with heavy siege guns for 11 hours, aided by the fire of four Union gunboats in the ocean offshore and floating batteries in the sound to the east. While the fort easily repulsed the Union gunboat attack, the Union land batteries, utilizing new rifled cannons, hit the fort 560 times. There was such extensive damage that Col. White was forced to surrender the following morning, April 26, with the fort's Confederate garrison being paroled as prisoners of war. This battle was the second time in history new rifled cannons were used against a fort, demonstrating the obsolescence of such fortifications as a way of defense. The Union held Fort Macon for the remainder of the war, while Beaufort Harbor served as an important coaling and repair station for its navy.

Fort Fisher - Unlike older fortifications built of brick and mortar, Fort Fisher was made mostly of earth and sand, which was ideal for absorbing the shock of heavy explosives. The sea face, equipped with 22 guns, consisted of a series of twelve foot high larger batteries bounded on the south side by two larger batteries forty-five and sixty feet high. Of the smaller mounds one served as a telegraph office and another was converted into a hospital bombproof. The land face was equipped with 25 guns distributed among its fifteen mounds. Each mound was 32 feet high with interior rooms used as bombproofs or powder magazines and connected by an underground passageway. Extending across the entire land face was a nine foot high palisade fence. In December 1864, Union Major General Benjamin Butler, together with the Expeditionary Corps of the Army of the James, was detached from the Virginia theater for an amphibious mission to capture Fort Fisher. He was joined by Rear Admiral David Dixon Porter who commanded Union navy already in the region.After being informed about the large Union army heading toward Wilmington, General Lee ordered Major General Robert Hoke's Division to Fort Fisher. Also, Hoke took command of all Confederate forces in the Wilmington area.The Union attack started on December 24, 1864 with a naval bombardment. The firepower of Fort Fisher was temporarily silenced because some of its gun positions exploded. This allowed the Navy to land Union infantry. The landing force was intercepted by the arrival of Hoke's troops. The Union attack was effectively thwarted, and on December 27 Benjamin Butler ordered the withdrawal of his 1,000 soldiers who were still on the beach. This was in disobeyance of Grant's orders, which were to besiege the fort if the assault failed. Because Butler disobeyed his orders, he was relieved of command by Grant.After Butler's removal, he was replaced by Major General Alfred Terry, and the operation was dubbed "Terry's expedition." Admiral Porter was again in charge of the naval attack. They waited until January 12, 1865, for the second attempt.They started with a strong bombardment from 56 ships for two and a half days. This targeted both of Fort Fisher's fronts. On January 15 at 3 p.m., 8,000 Union soldiers landed at the Land Face. While ships shot over the uppermost batteries, the Union troops entered the fortification through Shepherd Battery. Thus, the Confederate soldiers found themselves battling behind their walls, and were forced to retreat.Altogether, the land battle lasted six hours. At nighttime, General Whiting, who had been injured during the battle, surrendered as Commander of the District of Cape Fear. He was then imprisoned, where he died March 10, 1865. The Confederates who had been captured were taken to prisons in New York.The battle was the largest amphibious operation until the Second World War.

Fort Pulaski - At 8:15 am on April 10, 1862, the batteries opened fire on Fort Pulaski and the Confederate contingent within. Within 30 hours a breach was made, and the troops within the fort surrendered. The secret to the siege was the use of Rifled Artillery by the Union artillery. These new weapons were able to fire their elongated projectiles farther and more accurately than the smoothbore cannons that Fort Pulaski was built to withstand. This one event transformed all the masonry forts built as a part of the Third System of United States Coastal Defense from impenetrable bastions of ingenious engineering to obsolete symbols of American paranoia and excess.

Fort Moultrie – Brick and Earth Fort. Between 1809 and 1860 Fort Moultrie changed little. The parapet was altered and the armament modernized, but the big improvement in Charleston’s defenses during this period was the construction of Fort Sumter at the entrance of the harbor. The forts ringing Charleston Harbor – Moultrie, Sumter, Johnson, and Castle Pinckney – were meant to complement each other, but ironically received their baptism of fire as opponents. In December 1860 South Carolina seceded from the Union, and the Federal garrison abandoned Fort Moultrie for the stronger Sumter. Three and a half months later, Confederate troops shelled Sumter into submission, plunging the nation into civil war. In April 1863, Federal iron-clads and shore batteries began a 20-month bombardment of Sumter and Moultrie, yet Charleston’s defenses held. When the Confederate army evacuated the city in February 1865, Fort Sumter was little more than a pile of rubble and Fort Moultrie lay hidden under the band of sand that protected its walls from Federal shells. The new rifled cannon used during the Civil War had demolished the brick-walled fortifications.

Fort Morgan – Brick and Mortar Fort. Granger's soldiers landed at Pilot Town on August 9 and began moving siege artillery within range. The Union fleet also turned their guns on the fort. For the next two weeks Union forces kept up a heavy and consistent artillery fire. On August 16 the Confederates abandoned two batteries of the outer defenses and Granger moved his siege mortars within 500 yards of the fort and his 30-pounder rifled guns to within 1,200 yards. On August 23 General Page unconditionally surrendered the fort. Indignant, he broke his sword over his knee instead of surrendering his sword to the Federals. Page's situation was further worsened when he was suspected of destroying munitions and works within the fort after he had agreed to surrender. For this he was arrested by the Federal authorities and imprisoned once he personally surrendered.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[aryaman]

In conclusion, as I have always maintained, all the large brick and stone forts were taken by land forces, not a single one destroyed by naval forces alone

[Jarkko]

I have personally not argued for making forts stronger (altough I would *like* it that way). What I, and quite a few others as far as I can understand, have argued against the stupdi situation at the moment: The best way to destroy forts with fleets is to *not* attack them, but to move around them.

@Comtedemeighan: Nice essay you did write there about forts in AACW I think they all prove that the current system in AACW is faulty: In the game you don't need land-troops (ie infantry) to blow up forts, while in reality that was exactly what was needed

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[aryaman]

I have personally not argued for making forts stronger (altough I would *like* it that way). What I, and quite a few others as far as I can understand, have argued against the stupdi situation at the moment: The best way to destroy forts with fleets is to *not* attack them, but to move around them.

@Comtedemeighan: Nice essay you did write there about forts in AACW I think they all prove that the current system in AACW is faulty: In the game you don't need land-troops (ie infantry) to blow up forts, while in reality that was exactly what was needed

You may be interested in a mod I have made of the coastal guns models. I have increased their protection rom 1 to 30. The result is that they are largely invulnerable to naval bombardement, so you are forced to take the forts with land units.

[aryaman]

However, it does point out that they were pretty much easily destroyed by rifled artillery. This leads me to wonder if your MOD making them rather invulnerable to naval bombardment will also affect their vulnerability to land artillery. If such is the case, that particular fix is not much good either. You might test for just such an effect.

edit> Might not matter against land forces since their target is specifically Naval. This leads to another question for Pocus himself. Do the Fort Batteries contribute any fire against naval targets? (They have a target type defined as "NULL"). I'm wondering if that means they can fire at any type of unit no matter what? If so, shouldn't they be restricted to a defined target type of "Land"?

Yes, tests show they perform as before the mod against land units, with that mod the way to go against forts is to disembark a land force and take them by assault.

[aryaman]

As a curiosity, I'd like to know when Naval units might have started using "rifled" guns.

As a curiosity, CSA Ironclads mounted rifled guns.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Redeemer]

I read somewhere that Ironclads weren't much use against forts because in most cases they couldn't elevate their guns enough.

That was a problem at places like Vicksburg where the defenders were on a bluff. The bigger problem for the Union in this case was the defenders could bring fire down on the weaker tops of the Union ships.

However, ironclads could bring about the surrender of forts, for example Fort Henry surrenders after bombardment from Foote with 4 Ironclads, but then the same size force could not make Fort Donelson surrender, so they blockaded it with Grants land forces until it surrendered.

There are a lot of variables that aren't taken into account in the game atm.

Some other things I would like to see:

- Mortar Boats
- Capture of enemy boats after a naval battle lose
- Surrender of forts after they were bypassed/cut off (New Orleans campaign)
- A change in the river blockade rules. Historically if Forts were bypassed, large sections of the MS were controlled by few boats. Right now you would need 72 to 216 combat ships to control the MS. I don't think you can build that many, plus that does not include ships needed for other rivers/branches.
- Field repairs, most repairs were made outside ports during the war with resources on hand. Even sunk ships were put back into service from where they went down.

[Deca]

You may be interested in a mod I have made of the coastal guns models. I have increased their protection rom 1 to 30. The result is that they are largely invulnerable to naval bombardement, so you are forced to take the forts with land units.

Do you have a link to the mod?

[soloswolf]

-snip-
- Surrender of forts after they were bypassed/cut off (New Orleans campaign)
-snip-

I know what you are saying, bu this takes some control out of your opponent's hands. (Both a human and Athena) I say let them make their own decisions.

[Jarkko]

The forts "surrender" now too in the game after a while after their supply-lines are cut. One of the things the game IMO handles nicely

[aryaman]

I read somewhere that Ironclads weren't much use against forts because in most cases they couldn't elevate their guns enough.

The main problem was that rifle guns were pretty ineffective against the large brick and stone forts of the third system when fired from ships

"The Rifled Artillery proved to be the downfall of Third System forts" when used in land siege operations. Guns fierd from fixed emplacements at level ground with thw fort walls and at a range of less than 2.000 yards. Those conditions maximized the virtues of rifle artillery, accuracy and penetration power, because they fired at a tense trajectory (5º elevation or less), so hit after hit could be made in a small section of the wall, achieving a breach very fast.
OTOH firing from ships was a completely different business, forts were built on dominant locations, meaning that guns firing from a ship had to fire at a parabolic trajectory, losing accuracy and penetrative power, furthermore ships were very unstable gun platforms, reducing accuracy additionally. Finally, the large coastale batteries of the third system forts meant that ships had to fire from longer ranges. the net result, in those conditions rifled guns could not open a breach on those forts.

[aryaman]

Do you have a link to the mod?

It is very a very simple modification, just replace the 2 coastal arty models by the 2 provided here, in the ACW/Gamedata/Models folder
You will see that the CP of coastal guns goes up beyond 200, but that is misleading, the fighting power of the unit remains the same, only that it is almost invulnerable to naval bombardements

[Evren]

The main problem was that rifle guns were pretty ineffective against the large brick and stone forts of the third system when fired from ships

"The Rifled Artillery proved to be the downfall of Third System forts" when used in land siege operations. Guns fierd from fixed emplacements at level ground with thw fort walls and at a range of less than 2.000 yards. Those conditions maximized the virtues of rifle artillery, accuracy and penetration power, because they fired at a tense trajectory (5º elevation or less), so hit after hit could be made in a small section of the wall, achieving a breach very fast.
OTOH firing from ships was a completely different business, forts were built on dominant locations, meaning that guns firing from a ship had to fire at a parabolic trajectory, losing accuracy and penetrative power, furthermore ships were very unstable gun platforms, reducing accuracy additionally. Finally, the large coastale batteries of the third system forts meant that ships had to fire from longer ranges. the net result, in those conditions rifled guns could not open a breach on those forts.

I guess opening a breach on the forts was not always the case.

I agree with the engineering side of the ineffectiveness of the swimming artillery. But the battery emplacements in the forts have their downsides, too. The forts were not a 100% construction wonders, thus some were very prone to bombardment from different sides. Artillery has also a side effect which is called "suppression", no matter how inaccurate or ineffective the guns are, which can (and did) lead to the abandoning of the rather isolated forts under fire. Since the game doesn't take these into account, i like the game system as it is now, it is like turning supression into hits, which leads to the destruction of the battery inside the fort.

PS. Nice work Comtedemeighan.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Deca]

It is very a very simple modification, just replace the 2 coastal arty models by the 2 provided here, in the ACW/Gamedata/Models folder
You will see that the CP of coastal guns goes up beyond 200, but that is misleading, the fighting power of the unit remains the same, only that it is almost invulnerable to naval bombardements

ty

I am going to get more familiar with how ship/bombardment/coastal arty all work in vanilla, then convert over to your mod to see how much better i like it as I do not like the idea of ships vaporizing the garrison vs the AI.

[aryaman]

So far the mod is working well in my PBEM test game, one additional advantage is that, since naval guns are not affected by bombardements, they can keep firing on enemy fleets every turn, so that Union player is forced to take the fortsprotecting a port by land assaults if he wants to keep a blockade of the port.

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[aryaman]

Curious, Have you tried different values for this "Protection" adjustment just to see the various effects? This would be really cool to fix this part of the game...

I think I'm close to solutions on 2 other main complaints,

1.) Spamming Militia units to get Conscript Infantry free of WSu charge.
(The conversion rate fix was too restrictive, instead I'm just adding a 1 Wsu charge to all Militia, this stops the human spamming without as much affect on the AI itself).

and here's a biggie

2.) Might have found a cool solution to Deep Cavalry raids... Comte's been helping me test some stuff all night.... more later after we complete the testing.

No, I haven´t, but what would be the desired result? I am happy so far with the results in that the Union player is forced to and to take forts and he has to take them to be able to blockade the ports. Also, the fighting power of the Naval gun is not affected, Daxil was able to take a fort with a half strength division.

Regarding 1), I agree it is the best solution.
Regarding 2) I am intrigued

[Major Tom]

1.) Spamming Militia units to get Conscript Infantry free of WSu charge.
(The conversion rate fix was too restrictive, instead I'm just adding a 1 Wsu charge to all Militia, this stops the human spamming without as much affect on the AI itself).
2.) Might have found a cool solution to Deep Cavalry raids... Comte's been helping me test some stuff all night.... more later after we complete the testing.

Great news, Gray.

#1 would get rid of a pretty big exploit, but I would be most concerned about the effect on CSA, with its much more limited WS. Could offset this a bit by increasing the number of free militia units that arrive by event in 1861, especially in vulnerable border areas.

[soloswolf]

Presently, WS is not a real issue for the CSA. (Not that it is for the USA either...) There is always plenty to go around.

[Coregonas]

Curious, Have you tried different values for this "Protection" adjustment just to see the various effects? This would be really cool to fix this part of the game...

I think I'm close to solutions on 2 other main complaints,

1.) Spamming Militia units to get Conscript Infantry free of WSu charge.
(The conversion rate fix was too restrictive, instead I'm just adding a 1 Wsu charge to all Militia, this stops the human spamming without as much affect on the AI itself).

and here's a biggie

2.) Might have found a cool solution to Deep Cavalry raids... Comte's been helping me test some stuff all night.... more later after we complete the testing.

Some numbers adding more WAR to the question.

Sorry I´m totally against this change about WS militia. Although a contradictory question I believe it is ok as it is.

Militia is very costly in MONEY although free in WS. This is reallistic. Every farmer picks his own rifle & and enroles, so free WS is ok for me.

Upgrading to conscript (IMHO) is more due to TRAINING than getting fantastic new weapons...

I remember you the UPGRADING to CONSCRIPT is not exactly FREE.

Example
A militia (full - 15 hits) costs 7 $ and 7 consc.
Once UPGRADED to Conscript the 5 hits are picked from LINE INFANTRY REPLACEMENT (estimated at 50% cost). 12$/10consc/2 WS

This 5 hits can cost accordingly perhaps around 1,5$/1,25consc and 0,25 WS... NOT exactly FREE.

Not more time now to debate...

[Major Tom]

Presently, WS is not a real issue for the CSA. (Not that it is for the USA either...) There is always plenty to go around.

I'm far from being an expert, so maybe there's something about WS production I haven't figured out yet. I find that as CSA I have no trouble raising money and conscripts, but am always short of WS. I end up maxing out on militia not as a strategy decision, but because I don't have much WS relative to money and conscripts.

The only way I know to increase WS is to build a lot of brigs to put into the blockade boxes, and to do some industrialization. You can get quick results with industrialization, but it's so costly that there's a long payback time on your investment. With brigs, there's a pretty big outlay in WS up front and it takes several turns to get them built and into the bockade boxes.

I find myself always short of WS, especially in the first year. I'm trying to build brigs and artillery, upgrade my rail, and enable division command, all of which costs a lot of WS. In the first several turns, I spend more WS on brigs than anything else -- maybe that's my problem?

I'd love to know the secret of making WS "not a real issue for the CSA." (and please don't read a sarcastic tone into this, becasue none is intended).

[Coregonas]

Ok a bit more numbers

A militia costs 7$ - 7c. for 750 men

A conscript costs 8$ -10c- 1WS but... for 1000 men!!!

If a 750 men militia is going to cost 7$-7c-1WS it is going to be a lot more costly than the conscript, once upgraded and fully replaced it could cost

8,5 $ - 8,25c - 1,25WS

This is not a logic final result sorry, even halving replacement costs.

[aryaman]

If Coregonas numbers are correct I think we should reconsider the question.
I myself like to recruit militia not just because they are cheap (or look cheap at least, not so sure after looking into the numbers) but because they are quickly recruited and provide more flexibility to form units that those already set and rather unhistorical brigades. In particular I like the posibility to create real infantry divisions, without cavalry elements.

[soloswolf]

I'm far from being an expert, so maybe there's something about WS production I haven't figured out yet. I find that as CSA I have no trouble raising money and conscripts, but am always short of WS. I end up maxing out on militia not as a strategy decision, but because I don't have much WS relative to money and conscripts.

The only way I know to increase WS is to build a lot of brigs to put into the blockade boxes, and to do some industrialization. You can get quick results with industrialization, but it's so costly that there's a long payback time on your investment. With brigs, there's a pretty big outlay in WS up front and it takes several turns to get them built and into the bockade boxes.

I find myself always short of WS, especially in the first year. I'm trying to build brigs and artillery, upgrade my rail, and enable division command, all of which costs a lot of WS. In the first several turns, I spend more WS on brigs than anything else -- maybe that's my problem?

I'd love to know the secret of making WS "not a real issue for the CSA." (and please don't read a sarcastic tone into this, becasue none is intended).

Money and men come a little easy to the South due to their (usually) high VP and NM scores. I always run short of men and money sooner than WS though.

I am not a crazy militia builder. I certainly build my fair share, but I always work towards full brigades once things get moving. I don't build a ton of separate artillery when I can avoid it. Most of the artillery I build is used to fill out divisions.

I will get a few brigs, but not a ton there either. It is extremely rare that I will industrialize when playing the CSA. I feel that if you are alive long enough to reap the rewards from it, you should already be holding some productive Federal cities and thus will have wasted that money/WS.

It all comes down to making smart purchases and play style. What's smart and fun for you, may not be smart and fun for me. If you are playing through slim resources and still winning, who cares? Now, if you are having trouble executing what you want to accomplish, that's another story. I personally buy more replacements than most. I have fewer men in the field, but as long as I martial them well, I will always have a high number of effectives. This suits both my play style and fighting on your own ground, near your supply lines.

I feel like I didn't say very much in all of that... Let me know if I should elaborate or further detail anything.

[Major Tom]

I feel like I didn't say very much in all of that... Let me know if I should elaborate or further detail anything.

I appreciate the different perspective. I just still can't imagine running out of men and money before WS as the CSA, and maybe it's because I'm overly aggressive with my conscription and money-raising efforts. I tend to take the higher level mobilisation and tax options because I figure early on, VP is there to spend. Add in voluntary conscription and war bonds, and I'm rolling in money and conscripts. Maybe my problem is not that I have too little WS but that I'm raising too many conscripts and too much money, and I need to slow it down.

Threadjack over: we now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.