|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 1, 2018 20:22:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Aug 1, 2018 20:41:10 GMT -6
]I am not sure of this. For example RN get 1000 tonners from USN and they thought about them quite badly unsuitable for convoy defense at all. I do not expect that this types of sloops could be useful. The British were poor judges of their own efforts until late in the war. It's difficult to see the attacks that didn't happen. If a German wolfpack hunts a convoy guarded by sloops and sinks two or three ships while escaping unscathed, that is demoralizing for the British but it's actually a substantial victory. That was a huge opportunity cost of the wolfpack because it takes a large number of submarines operating for a long period of time to lead to the conditions that allowed that attack. Finding a single convoy in the middle of the ocean and then gathering many submarines for a group attack requires many submarines spending weeks searching and finding nothing. The Germans would have been much, much better off attacking tramp steamers sailing out of convoy but because of the sloops there weren't any such targets available. So statistically we would have expected the British to have lost dozens of ships were it not for that convoy protected by sloops. Then on the offensive side of things, the German submarines operating in wolfpacks need to be using their radios more which makes them much more likely to be sunk, not by the sloops but by other ASW assets. These things aren't obvious at the time; nobody looks at a sinking ship and thinks "Well, the fact that the Germans are here should slightly increase the number of ships that safely cross the Atlantic this month!" Oh Macarthur! While the more I read about King the more he makes sense in the context (even if I probably wouldn't have him around for dinner as a person), the more I read about Macarthur the less his star shines. Unless one was rating his ability to blame others for his mistakes and take credit for others' successes. He did have some wins, but unless PR was the criterion, it's difficult to judge him well. Whatever his failings, his assessment upon arriving in the Philippines seems pretty valid to me.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 1, 2018 21:15:09 GMT -6
Everyone in the US government, Philippine government including General MacArthur were aware that the US could not and would not attempt to save the Philippines in case of an invasion by the Japanese. I am reasonably certain that MacArthur’s attitude was designed to keep the Philippine people’s morale high to be able to get them to fight but he knew there was nothing he could really do. Without naval support, it was just a matter of time. While his attitude has come under scrutiny over the years, what else was he supposed to do, give up? The MacArthur family had a long history in the Philippines and I am certain it was painful, to see the island fall so easily. "I tell you, War is Hell" as Sherman said. P.S. Gents, while this and other side discussions are excellent, we might want to get back on track for RTW2. Big Brother is watching us.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Aug 1, 2018 21:43:40 GMT -6
Yes, the thread has wandered off topic a bit here ;-)
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 1, 2018 23:05:41 GMT -6
Put a question. We have already discuss about sense of aircraft carriers for different powers and go through that they were vital for USA, Japan, RN.
However there is question how it would be in the RTW2. The game could not emulate all historical nuances so questions is could carriers be interesting for France, Italy, Germany too? I think it could be viable option in 40s as their strike power has increased rapidly with monoplane aircrafts and ability to hit targets hundreds of miles far with 250 kg bombs.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 1, 2018 23:22:10 GMT -6
Put a question. We have already discuss about sense of aircraft carriers for different powers and go through that they were vital for USA, Japan, RN. However there is question how it would be in the RTW2. The game could not emulate all historical nuances so questions is could carriers be interesting for France, Italy, Germany too? I think it could be viable option in 40s as their strike power has increased rapidly with monoplane aircrafts and ability to hit targets hundreds of miles far with 250 kg bombs. My first question is very simple, what are carriers for? What is their main purpose? Scouting is one, supporting amphibious operations, attacking and defending trade routes. Those are just some of their purposes that have arisen over the years. The primary purpose of aircraft carriers is to project power? Where? Why? When? Answer these questions then examine the geostrategic situation each of those nations finds themselves in, their economic and social situation. Answer those questions and you will find your answer. Another reason is simple: prestige in the eyes of the other nations. Neither Italy nor Germany had a single reason to build a carrier.... yet they did although they were never completed. Neither of those nations was a maritime power.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 2, 2018 8:13:06 GMT -6
"My first question is very simple, what are carriers for? What is their main purpose? Scouting is one, supporting amphibious operations, attacking and defending trade routes. Those are just some of their purposes that have arisen over the years. The primary purpose of aircraft carriers is to project power? Where? Why? When?" oldpop2000 - a good starting point for our examination of assumptions. I'd add one more: what 'type' of aircraft carrier is actually an aircraft carrier? A CVE, a 'Midway', a 'Shinano' and ( aeson ) a 'Rodney' all carry aircraft, but all are not aircraft carriers nor equal for carrier roles. I'd say an 'aircraft carrier' is a naval vessel that can: 1) operate wheeled aircraft without stopping to launch or retrieve them from the water 2) maintain, fuel and if necessary arm aircraft for missions 3) as its principal function, operate aircraft while underway and on the high seas In my opinion, the primary purpose of aircraft carriers, to venture into Zen, is to operate aircraft. Those aircraft may be used for a series of purposes as outlined above. Attack missions certainly count as projection of power but I think reconnaissance and fighter cover, strictly speaking, do not - they enable power projection or prevent an enemy from projecting power. Then I think an examination of mission types is in order, and I'll try to list them in chronological order that they became possible: 1) reconnaissance 2) aircraft transport 3) aircraft maintanance, repair and fueling 4) fighter cover/protection from enemy reconnaissance 5) high-altitude level bombing 6) torpedo attack 7) dive-bombing attack 8) anti-submarine work 9) you could add night-fighters here, but that feels like nit-picking Not all of those functions requires a 'real' carrier, but a carrier can perform recon, transport, maintenance, defense and attack air missions. In modern times you could add personnel and stores delivery, photography, weather monitoring and fighter control (AWACS) as well as ECM and ECCM, but those pretty much follow-on from the missions listed above. Reconnaissance can be carried out by a variety of platforms, including floatplanes carried on ships that are not 'real' aircraft carriers but which include floatplane carriers and tenders, or ships with catapults. Aircraft transport can be done by many ship types including merchant ships (crated aircraft and parts) but carrying assembled aircraft is usually relegated to escort or light carriers. Maintenance, repair and fueling is necessary if aircraft are going to be routinely operated. Fighter cover requires a long flat deck with no superstructure and funnels, or with same moved to one side and a fighter direction control. Attack missions require all of the above plus more aircraft, larger hangars, shops, gas and munition stores, and more elevators for efficient use, along with operations centers. Not trying to be exact or comprehensive here, just looking at the shape of the problem - responses welcome.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 2, 2018 8:53:59 GMT -6
"My first question is very simple, what are carriers for? What is their main purpose? Scouting is one, supporting amphibious operations, attacking and defending trade routes. Those are just some of their purposes that have arisen over the years. The primary purpose of aircraft carriers is to project power? Where? Why? When?" oldpop2000 - a good starting point for our examination of assumptions. I'd add one more: what 'type' of aircraft carrier is actually an aircraft carrier? A CVE, a 'Midway', a 'Shinano' and ( aeson ) a 'Rodney' all carry aircraft, but all are not aircraft carriers nor equal for carrier roles. I'd say an 'aircraft carrier' is a naval vessel that can: 1) operate wheeled aircraft without stopping to launch or retrieve them from the water 2) maintain, fuel and if necessary arm aircraft for missions 3) as its principal function, operate aircraft while underway and on the high seas In my opinion, the primary purpose of aircraft carriers, to venture into Zen, is to operate aircraft. Those aircraft may be used for a series of purposes as outlined above. Attack missions certainly count as projection of power but I think reconnaissance and fighter cover, strictly speaking, do not - they enable power projection or prevent an enemy from projecting power. Then I think an examination of mission types is in order, and I'll try to list them in chronological order that they became possible: 1) reconnaissance 2) aircraft transport 3) aircraft maintanance, repair and fueling 4) fighter cover/protection from enemy reconnaissance 5) high-altitude level bombing 6) torpedo attack 7) dive-bombing attack 8) anti-submarine work 9) you could add night-fighters here, but that feels like nit-picking Not all of those functions requires a 'real' carrier, but a carrier can perform recon, transport, maintenance, defense and attack air missions. In modern times you could add personnel and stores delivery, photography, weather monitoring and fighter control (AWACS) as well as ECM and ECCM, but those pretty much follow-on from the missions listed above. Reconnaissance can be carried out by a variety of platforms, including floatplanes carried on ships that are not 'real' aircraft carriers but which include floatplane carriers and tenders, or ships with catapults. Aircraft transport can be done by many ship types including merchant ships (crated aircraft and parts) but carrying assembled aircraft is usually relegated to escort or light carriers. Maintenance, repair and fueling is necessary if aircraft are going to be routinely operated. Fighter cover requires a long flat deck with no superstructure and funnels, or with same moved to one side and a fighter direction control. Attack missions require all of the above plus more aircraft, larger hangars, shops, gas and munition stores, and more elevators for efficient use, along with operations centers. Not trying to be exact or comprehensive here, just looking at the shape of the problem - responses welcome. We must drill down into the problem, moving from simple(my post) to the complex (your post). This is the way you do it. Good post. Let's see what the others come up with. Just a side note: we could build sidewheel carriers like the USS Wolverine. She was a training ship on the great lakes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wolverine_(IX-64)
|
|
|
Post by tbr on Aug 2, 2018 11:24:19 GMT -6
USS Wolverine and USS Sable had no hangars and were too slow for flight operations in calm conditions...
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Aug 2, 2018 11:28:13 GMT -6
"My first question is very simple, what are carriers for? What is their main purpose? Scouting is one, supporting amphibious operations, attacking and defending trade routes. Those are just some of their purposes that have arisen over the years. The primary purpose of aircraft carriers is to project power? Where? Why? When?" oldpop2000 - a good starting point for our examination of assumptions. I'd add one more: what 'type' of aircraft carrier is actually an aircraft carrier? A CVE, a 'Midway', a 'Shinano' and ( aeson ) a 'Rodney' all carry aircraft, but all are not aircraft carriers nor equal for carrier roles. I'd say an 'aircraft carrier' is a naval vessel that can: 1) operate wheeled aircraft without stopping to launch or retrieve them from the water 2) maintain, fuel and if necessary arm aircraft for missions 3) as its principal function, operate aircraft while underway and on the high seas In my opinion, the primary purpose of aircraft carriers, to venture into Zen, is to operate aircraft. Those aircraft may be used for a series of purposes as outlined above. Attack missions certainly count as projection of power but I think reconnaissance and fighter cover, strictly speaking, do not - they enable power projection or prevent an enemy from projecting power. Then I think an examination of mission types is in order, and I'll try to list them in chronological order that they became possible: 1) reconnaissance 2) aircraft transport 3) aircraft maintanance, repair and fueling 4) fighter cover/protection from enemy reconnaissance 5) high-altitude level bombing 6) torpedo attack 7) dive-bombing attack 8) anti-submarine work 9) you could add night-fighters here, but that feels like nit-picking Not all of those functions requires a 'real' carrier, but a carrier can perform recon, transport, maintenance, defense and attack air missions. In modern times you could add personnel and stores delivery, photography, weather monitoring and fighter control (AWACS) as well as ECM and ECCM, but those pretty much follow-on from the missions listed above. Reconnaissance can be carried out by a variety of platforms, including floatplanes carried on ships that are not 'real' aircraft carriers but which include floatplane carriers and tenders, or ships with catapults. Aircraft transport can be done by many ship types including merchant ships (crated aircraft and parts) but carrying assembled aircraft is usually relegated to escort or light carriers. Maintenance, repair and fueling is necessary if aircraft are going to be routinely operated. Fighter cover requires a long flat deck with no superstructure and funnels, or with same moved to one side and a fighter direction control. Attack missions require all of the above plus more aircraft, larger hangars, shops, gas and munition stores, and more elevators for efficient use, along with operations centers. Not trying to be exact or comprehensive here, just looking at the shape of the problem - responses welcome. Good analysis director but I think you're forgetting one main carrier mission that prevailed through the 20s and 30s and even into the 40s (for ground support) that largely explains why carriers were tied to the battleline for much of this period - that mission was to provide spotting for surface ship gunfire and deny the same to the enemy. Aerial spotting greatly improved the accuracy of long-range fire (in some accounts from this period it improved accuracy by 100% *) and was considered critical to the success of the battleline. Sure, by the 20s most ships above a destroyer in size were equipped with float planes and could provide their own spotters, but without a carrier along for the ride it was impossible to prevent the enemy from doing the same. Even when carriers had very little ability to seriously damage enemy warships it was this spotting process, and specifically the ability to deny it to the enemy, that made their presence so important. * I know that 100% improvement in accuracy almost certainly would not have prevailed in actual battle conditions but even an improvement of 20% could very well prove decisive.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 2, 2018 12:03:24 GMT -6
"My first question is very simple, what are carriers for? What is their main purpose? Scouting is one, supporting amphibious operations, attacking and defending trade routes. Those are just some of their purposes that have arisen over the years. The primary purpose of aircraft carriers is to project power? Where? Why? When?" oldpop2000 - a good starting point for our examination of assumptions. I'd add one more: what 'type' of aircraft carrier is actually an aircraft carrier? A CVE, a 'Midway', a 'Shinano' and ( aeson ) a 'Rodney' all carry aircraft, but all are not aircraft carriers nor equal for carrier roles. I'd say an 'aircraft carrier' is a naval vessel that can: 1) operate wheeled aircraft without stopping to launch or retrieve them from the water 2) maintain, fuel and if necessary arm aircraft for missions 3) as its principal function, operate aircraft while underway and on the high seas In my opinion, the primary purpose of aircraft carriers, to venture into Zen, is to operate aircraft. Those aircraft may be used for a series of purposes as outlined above. Attack missions certainly count as projection of power but I think reconnaissance and fighter cover, strictly speaking, do not - they enable power projection or prevent an enemy from projecting power. Then I think an examination of mission types is in order, and I'll try to list them in chronological order that they became possible: 1) reconnaissance 2) aircraft transport 3) aircraft maintanance, repair and fueling 4) fighter cover/protection from enemy reconnaissance 5) high-altitude level bombing 6) torpedo attack 7) dive-bombing attack 8) anti-submarine work 9) you could add night-fighters here, but that feels like nit-picking Not all of those functions requires a 'real' carrier, but a carrier can perform recon, transport, maintenance, defense and attack air missions. In modern times you could add personnel and stores delivery, photography, weather monitoring and fighter control (AWACS) as well as ECM and ECCM, but those pretty much follow-on from the missions listed above. Reconnaissance can be carried out by a variety of platforms, including floatplanes carried on ships that are not 'real' aircraft carriers but which include floatplane carriers and tenders, or ships with catapults. Aircraft transport can be done by many ship types including merchant ships (crated aircraft and parts) but carrying assembled aircraft is usually relegated to escort or light carriers. Maintenance, repair and fueling is necessary if aircraft are going to be routinely operated. Fighter cover requires a long flat deck with no superstructure and funnels, or with same moved to one side and a fighter direction control. Attack missions require all of the above plus more aircraft, larger hangars, shops, gas and munition stores, and more elevators for efficient use, along with operations centers. Not trying to be exact or comprehensive here, just looking at the shape of the problem - responses welcome. Good analysis director but I think you're forgetting one main carrier mission that prevailed through the 20s and 30s and even into the 40s (for ground support) that largely explains why carriers were tied to the battleline for much of this period - that mission was to provide spotting for surface ship gunfire and deny the same to the enemy. Aerial spotting greatly improved the accuracy of long-range fire (in some accounts from this period it improved accuracy by 100% *) and was considered critical to the success of the battleline. Sure, by the 20s most ships above a destroyer in size were equipped with float planes and could provide their own spotters, but without a carrier along for the ride it was impossible to prevent the enemy from doing the same. Even when carriers had very little ability to seriously damage enemy warships it was this spotting process, and specifically the ability to deny it to the enemy, that made their presence so important. * I know that 100% improvement in accuracy almost certainly would not have prevailed in actual battle conditions but even an improvement of 20% could very well prove decisive. Good point. I think this was strategy of RN with her large battle line. RN was aware of strike power as raid on Taranto (this type of mission) was prepared before WW2. However with limited resources RN cannot think about force projection which scale IJN, USN thought about on and realized till later.. There was quite short time between planes were able inflict serious damage and sink capital ships. RN find out that their AA was quite uneffective in war but not before.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 2, 2018 13:49:04 GMT -6
I mentioned in my lead up to this line of discussion, supporting amphibious operations and this, has become a major task for carriers even today. The air wing composition for the modern carrier is made up of close air support aircraft except for the E2 Hawkeyes. This hasn't changed since the invasion of Guadalcanal on August 1942. Close air support requires precision bombing, not area bombing. In the European invasions, the heavy bombers were used to bomb supply dumps, road and rail lines plus marshalling yards etc. They were also turned loose on deep missions behind to cut off supplies moving from the rear areas.
Air support for amphibious landings on islands are a little different from attacking major land masses. The precision is necessary to remove major obstacles but not hit your own troops who are storming ashore. It is a touching method and friendly fire incidents happened many times. Carpet bombing of islands is not precision unless it is just being used to eliminate the islands usefulness to enemy operations.
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 2, 2018 14:15:31 GMT -6
In my mind, I included ground support in level and dive bombing. Does ground attack need to be a separate mission from naval attack? I'd be interested in hearing why. oldpop2000 - good point. I think the Marines developed dive bombing in order to avoid hitting friendly units. I also was counting shell spotting under reconnaissance - again, if that needs to be separate, why? No strong opinion here either way, just keeping the discussion going.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 2, 2018 15:34:48 GMT -6
In my mind, I included ground support in level and dive bombing. Does ground attack need to be a separate mission from naval attack? I'd be interested in hearing why. oldpop2000 - good point. I think the Marines developed dive bombing in order to avoid hitting friendly units. I also was counting shell spotting under reconnaissance - again, if that needs to be separate, why? No strong opinion here either way, just keeping the discussion going. Generally, and this applies to Europe also, you have close air support in which the fighter-bombers are controlled by an on-scene controller moving with the troops. He is in contact with the available fighter-bombers and directs them against targets designated by the troops. A second mission is interdiction missions, which are further behind the front, designed to hit specific targets like troop concentrations, road networks, possibly command and control centers, and supply centers close to the front. You can also have armed reconnaissance missions which are free-ranging missions detailed find enemy concentrations wherever they are and attacking them, but radioing their position for further attacks possibly by bombers. Now, in the Pacific environment, you have similar breakdown. Before attacking an island, you try to cut it off from any outside assistance, isolating it. Attacking airfields, command and control centers, harbors, supply dumps etc. The carriers will attack any naval force attempting to stop the invasion force. Now once the amphibious landing starts, you are essentially in the close air support mission area but interdiction is still important to keep reinforcements from arriving at the beach and near the inland areas of our forces. All of activity is in the hands of the carriers, they also have the job of monitoring enemy naval forces while the invasion is occurring. If you are in the South Pacific area like the Solomon's you can place heavy and medium bomber squadrons from the Army, to provide more ground support.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Aug 2, 2018 15:35:09 GMT -6
Machine gun strafing also belongs on the list of important things. The way you'd drive a truck if you know enemy fighters are out there is very different from the way you'd drive if you know friendly fighters are out there. Putting a forward observation post on the highest hill is great if your side has air superiority, not so much if the other side will buzz you.
|
|