|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 2, 2018 19:58:03 GMT -6
So now the question about RTW2, will you play the carrier as a search and destroy weapon, or a defensive weapon or mix depending on the tactical and strategical situation.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jun 2, 2018 20:11:01 GMT -6
The Japanese agreed fully with you and always prioritized destruction of the enemy Carriers over protection of their own, so if this truly always was "the best strategy", then clearly they should have won at least one Carrier battle with the US Navy decisively or at the very least did a hell of alot better in terms of exchange of Carriers vs USA then they did historically. Especially considering the Japanese started out with a pretty big numerical advantage in Carriers. If you look into how many US Carriers that were sunk by Japanese Carrier air I only come down to 2.5 or so.
The Japanese also had the range and the torpedo technology to be able to pull it off, so why couldn't they?
If you read about the early Carrier battles it's pretty clear that things like damage control, radar and fighter direction as well as AA ( basically defense ) even in their primitive form in 1942 turned out to be more important then range and offensive striking capability ( where Japan outclassed the US severely ). The Japanese thought that their Carrier bombers had sunk the Enterprise 4 times unless I am mistaken but sinking a Japanese Carrier more often than not only required one attempt.
If look objectively at the strengths and weaknesses of the US and Japanese Carrier forces in 1942 when their pilot and airplane quality was comparable then USA was vastly stronger on the defense while Japan was vastly stronger on the offense, yet the defender managed to win... This tells me offense was not everything.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 2, 2018 20:32:58 GMT -6
The Japanese agreed fully with you and always prioritized destruction of the enemy Carriers over protection of their own, so if this truly always was "the best strategy", then clearly they should have won at least one Carrier battle with the US Navy decisively or at the very least did a hell of alot better in terms of exchange of Carriers vs USA then they did historically. Especially considering the Japanese started out with a pretty big numerical advantage in Carriers. If you look into how many US Carriers that were sunk by Japanese Carrier air I only come down to 2.5 or so. The Japanese also had the range and the torpedo technology to be able to pull it off, so why couldn't they? If you read about the early Carrier battles it's pretty clear that things like damage control, radar and fighter direction as well as AA ( basically defense ) even in their primitive form in 1942 turned out to be more important then range and offensive striking capability ( where Japan outclassed the US severely ). The Japanese thought that their Carrier bombers had sunk the Enterprise 4 times unless I am mistaken but sinking a Japanese Carrier more often than not only required one attempt. If look objectively at the strengths and weaknesses of the US and Japanese Carrier forces in 1942 when their pilot and airplane quality was comparable then USA was vastly stronger on the defense while Japan was vastly stronger on the offense, yet the defender managed to win... This tells me offense was not everything. You cannot leave out the deciding factor and that was signal intelligence. By February 1942 we were reading JN25-B the Japanese Operational Naval Code. It wasn't perfect, but with time our intelligence could tell the fleet where and when the Japanese might strike. As to winning one carrier battle, I think we can give them the Battle of Santa Cruz although most historians consider it a draw. I agree that they had a lot of factors in their favor. As to the number of carriers, they had six and we also had six. We just did not have them in the Pacific yet. We had Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet, Saratoga, Lexington and Wasp. Yorktown was in the east and Wasp was delivering aircraft to Malta. At Midway, we had almost the same number of aircraft on three carriers as they did on four. When you examine the first four Carrier battles, the side that struck first, won the battle. At Santa Cruz, due the CinC of the carrier task forces delay, it was a tie, but we lost Hornet and they had both Shokaku and Zuikaku heavily damaged all this due to not striking first when we had the information available and the aircraft sitting on the decks ready to launch. In all fairness, historians and Naval personnel at the War College have never completely understood how the Japanese could have lost those first four battles with their experienced pilots, better aircraft etc. Was it superior training at the mid and high levels of command, the freedom that our commanders had to conduct their missions the way they felt or just dumb luck. I believe it was a collection of factors. We did not win Coral Sea or Santa Cruz tactically, but we won strategically. I have enjoyed this discussion because it is one of my most important subject in military history and I have enjoyed your comments because you appear to have studied the subject. Let's keep this going but use this information and our knowledge in RTW2.
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on Jun 3, 2018 1:46:43 GMT -6
okay, here's what we should do with these newfangled aircraft. let's assume battleships are the decisive arm, and always will be the decisive arm. i mean these aerocrafts can barely even carry a bomb right, much less an AP shell, much less actually place it accurately on the first (only) try. so fundamentally the aeroplane mothership is a support element for scouting, patrol, and harassing, and using its anti-aircraft aeroplanes (AAA) to deny the same capabilities to the enemy. if the aerocraft mothership is fundamentally a support element then we do not necessarily need a capital-class hull in order to utilize it. while the benefits (space, mostly) are notable, what steel we put into a 30,000T oceangoing aerodrome we could instead put into a more proven, more reliable, more prestigious 30,000T battleship. thus, capital-class carriers should be conversions of older, obsolete hulls. these conversions ought to leave some of the main battery and all of the secondaries intact so that it may contribute on the battle line. ideally they would be fit with launch catapults on short decks to launch and retrieve light aircraft and/or seaplanes. the marvelous imperial japanese aviation battleships are excellent examples of this proposal and i look forward to using them in my fleets and advocating their splendor the world over. this is it, gentlemen. this is the future of naval aviation. you can't prove me wrong.
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on Jun 3, 2018 1:55:28 GMT -6
let's further refine this concept. the ise-class is obviously flawed, suffering from being built out of an obsolete slownaught fightybarge. while the aviation element allows it to pick its battles and the guns will see off any cruisers, it's helpless against a modern battlecruiser or fast battleship.
the solution is obviously a battlecruiser. 30 to 45 kilotons, triple 16" guns in AB turrets, with the rear devoted to aircraft handling instead of a rear battery. fast battleship speed, so 30-35 knots, sacrificing armour to make it fit because, as the Gospel of Saint Fisher does reveal, Speed Is Armour.
aircraft complement is reconnaissance floatplanes, no less than six, more probably a dozen, maybe two. the concept being that the superior intelligence gathering of the warship allows it to locate the best possible target, and its superior speed and firepower allow it to dictate the terms of any engagement.
edit: am i still spouting bad ideas? i can't tell anymore.
|
|
|
Post by HolyDragoon on Jun 3, 2018 6:05:22 GMT -6
Triple 16''? Please. Quadruple at the very least. Instead of Badnoughts, we shall have Badcarriers!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 3, 2018 7:36:05 GMT -6
okay, here's what we should do with these newfangled aircraft. let's assume battleships are the decisive arm, and always will be the decisive arm. i mean these aerocrafts can barely even carry a bomb right, much less an AP shell, much less actually place it accurately on the first (only) try. so fundamentally the aeroplane mothership is a support element for scouting, patrol, and harassing, and using its anti-aircraft aeroplanes (AAA) to deny the same capabilities to the enemy. if the aerocraft mothership is fundamentally a support element then we do not necessarily need a capital-class hull in order to utilize it. while the benefits (space, mostly) are notable, what steel we put into a 30,000T oceangoing aerodrome we could instead put into a more proven, more reliable, more prestigious 30,000T battleship. thus, capital-class carriers should be conversions of older, obsolete hulls. these conversions ought to leave some of the main battery and all of the secondaries intact so that it may contribute on the battle line. ideally they would be fit with launch catapults on short decks to launch and retrieve light aircraft and/or seaplanes. the marvelous imperial japanese aviation battleships are excellent examples of this proposal and i look forward to using them in my fleets and advocating their splendor the world over. this is it, gentlemen. this is the future of naval aviation. you can't prove me wrong. Well, to each his own choice but the Ise class of hybrid battleship/carriers were a desperate move after losing four carriers at Midway and one carrier at Coral Sea. It might have been better to have saved the money and time building a couple of smaller carriers or one large carrier. The flight decks were too short for any effective air operations. Personally, if I were playing a country like Italy, I would invest in a flight deck cruiser like this one. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/s-file/s511-09.jpgor maybe this one. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/s-file/s511-05.jpgHere is the link to the whole page of such actual designs - www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/albums/s511-cv.htmHere is the link to the whole page from the 1920's carrier proposals - www.shipscribe.com/styles/S-584/albums/s584-cv.htm
|
|
|
Post by stratos on Jun 3, 2018 10:39:38 GMT -6
Let me ask this question; Will the game start with all metal structure or wood and fabric cover with nitrocellulose dope coating? Will it depend on the nation?
Starting aero tech is pretty much typical pre/early-WWI stuff - development will depend upon how much effort you put into the tech, national characteristics, and prob a bit of luck
oooooh yes!!!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 3, 2018 13:30:39 GMT -6
Now if we want to get innovative:
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on Jun 3, 2018 13:50:06 GMT -6
Now if we want to get innovative: It needs more high-calibre guns. Rip off half the flight deck and replace it with quintuple 12" turrets. Shitposting aside, consider that the carrier is basically a floating airfield. That is, that a carrier provides nothing that an airfield does not also provide, so if you always have an airfield nearby you don't really need a carrier. Assuming we can build airfields, then if you intend to fight near land (ex. Northern Europe and Mediterannian sea zones), a carrier might not even be necessary if you can adequately coordinate between land-based aircraft and fleets. Otherwise, you might be able to do something like fighter-only carriers and just use it to negate enemy aircraft and allow a battle fleet to operate unmolested. If I was going to go full battleship wank, that's what I'd do.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 3, 2018 13:55:18 GMT -6
Now if we want to get innovative: It needs more high-calibre guns. Rip off half the flight deck and replace it with quintuple 12" turrets. I never mix large caliber guns with my aircraft carriers; its either a dreadnought or an aircraft carrier and never the twain shall meet.
|
|
|
Post by psyentific on Jun 3, 2018 13:58:04 GMT -6
It needs more high-calibre guns. Rip off half the flight deck and replace it with quintuple 12" turrets. I never mix large caliber guns with my aircraft carriers; its either a dreadnought or an aircraft carrier and never the twain shall meet. www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI
|
|
|
Post by HolyDragoon on Jun 3, 2018 14:36:00 GMT -6
It needs more high-calibre guns. Rip off half the flight deck and replace it with quintuple 12" turrets. I never mix large caliber guns with my aircraft carriers; its either a dreadnought or an aircraft carrier and never the twain shall meet. "The secretary of the navy recently read a book extolling the virtues of hybrid battleship/carriers. He requires you build 5 ships of that type..." Probably never going to happen, but I would laugh a lot if this kind of event had a chance to show up.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jun 3, 2018 15:22:36 GMT -6
okay, here's what we should do with these newfangled aircraft. let's assume battleships are the decisive arm, and always will be the decisive arm. i mean these aerocrafts can barely even carry a bomb right, much less an AP shell, much less actually place it accurately on the first (only) try. so fundamentally the aeroplane mothership is a support element for scouting, patrol, and harassing, and using its anti-aircraft aeroplanes (AAA) to deny the same capabilities to the enemy. if the aerocraft mothership is fundamentally a support element then we do not necessarily need a capital-class hull in order to utilize it. while the benefits (space, mostly) are notable, what steel we put into a 30,000T oceangoing aerodrome we could instead put into a more proven, more reliable, more prestigious 30,000T battleship. thus, capital-class carriers should be conversions of older, obsolete hulls. these conversions ought to leave some of the main battery and all of the secondaries intact so that it may contribute on the battle line. ideally they would be fit with launch catapults on short decks to launch and retrieve light aircraft and/or seaplanes. the marvelous imperial japanese aviation battleships are excellent examples of this proposal and i look forward to using them in my fleets and advocating their splendor the world over. this is it, gentlemen. this is the future of naval aviation. you can't prove me wrong. Personally, I don't think that's the way to go. In any case where you'll be using your carrier capabilities your battleship half is going to be pointless and vice versa. Floatplanes are going to be outmatched in any real A2A engagement, so they won't work very well as a defensive screen, nor can they carry enough munitions to make strikes against enemy ships viable. I understand the idea of going full recon with them, but it seems to me you're going to have to sacrifice part of your 'battleship' strengths to get it. So instead of having a battleship that could stand toe-to-toe with anything the enemy can field, you've got a one-armed hybrid that has a really good capability to know when it needs to run away where it's flight deck-less alternate self could have fought.
Simply put, I fail to see any major advantage by having a partial flight deck as opposed to just strapping a couple catapult launched floatplanes on the superstructure like was customary. Or maybe do what the Brits did with their CAM ships and put one-way Hurricanes on anything that could carry it.
"We do not need that many, but perhaps we could build half that number?" "Must have 4 BCV in construction"
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 3, 2018 15:48:13 GMT -6
Whether you build full size carriers, flight deck cruisers, or just convert hulls of merchants, tankers and other ship types to carriers is of course the players individual choice. But keep in mind that most nations will have limited dockyard space. This was the problem for Japan, she could not build new ships, repair damaged ships and modify older ships all at the same time. She did not have enough Auxiliary Repair Ships and did not have floating dry docks. This meant that most damaged ship were patched in Truk then sailed home for major repairs. Even the British had to use US dockyards to repair some of their ships like the HMS Formidable, the HMS Liverpool and Orion, HMS Manchester. She did not have the room to perform the repairs.
The key then is whether your nation is really in need of aircraft carriers no matter what type and do you have sufficient yard space to maintain them along with other ships. There are advantages and disadvantages of flight deck cruisers and seaplane carriers. In most cases, they are a stopgap measure until new carriers can be built.
This is and will be the fun of the game. You get to experiment with different building strategies and discover which one has the most advantages.
One last note: Catamaran's are noted for their stability in the roll direction and that is absolutely critical when launching and recovering aircraft so don't be so quick to laugh at the concept. Catamaran hull also do not generally sink, which is a nice factor for maintenance of the ship. They are harder to dock but that can be tolerated.
|
|