|
Post by axe99 on Aug 4, 2018 0:22:15 GMT -6
Hahahaha, love it .
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 4, 2018 0:23:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by director on Aug 4, 2018 6:43:06 GMT -6
jwsmith26 - perhaps my definition of 'major' is different, but I'd class both Java Sea and Komandorski Islands as cases where one side or the other could have used spotters, but did not. The Japanese were good at using reconnaissance aircraft to keep Allied warships under constant surveillance, but not at using aerial spotting. Even after battleship transfers from the Atlantic and after the first of the refits came back to the fleet, the US did not deploy the old 'standard' battleships to war zones. Lack of tankers was the reason - the old ships were notorious fuel-hogs and a choice had to be made between fueling carriers or old 21-knot BBs. Strategically, Nimitz might say that the Pacific war held no surprises, but I'd say that operationally and tactically it was a 'fruit-basket-turnover', not just in the development of new technologies and methods but in the invalidation of the old. A lot of admirals had to un-learn old doctrine while absorbing new; some managed it better than others.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 4, 2018 7:05:09 GMT -6
British used spotting extensively.
If I remember (if not , correct me please), Italians were amazed about british reports on spotting and envy how ahead they are.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 4, 2018 9:15:38 GMT -6
I want to point out that when daylight breaks, cruisers and battleships will launch their scouting aircraft to fly their missions. Generally depending on the maximum range of the bird, they will fly out to say 100 miles, fly a diagonal path of maybe fifty miles then fly home. If they contact the enemy, they will quickly radio the position and then continue to fly around the enemy fleet sending in scouting reports till they reach bingo fuel, then it is time to come home. Many times the ship or fleet commander will send out replacement aircraft to continue to monitor the situation and enemy fleets disposition and heading. Those same aircraft will become spotting aircraft, once the friendly fleet has made contact. The issue in WW2 was the presence of carrier aircraft and land based air. Now the scouts have to contend with aerial opposition. Scouts are not fast or well armed, so they might be toast to AAA fire or enemy fighter opposition. When you read AAR, you will see entries stating that X number of floatplanes were launched for scouting missions but you can assume that it will also spot for the ships gunnery. A scouts radio report, however, is a two edged sword. Once the enemy as seen it, it now knows that your fleet is in the area and will now monitor radio transmissions, if it isn't already doing that. It can lead to your fleet's discovery very quickly. Generally once launched the fleet will move to another location and that location will have already been determined and given to the scouting pilots. One procedure you can do is to examine the float planes of each nation and check their maximum range, this will give you some vital information as to how far its scouting and spotting missions will go.
It is difficult to get AAR information on whether a launch was actually taken place, the USN was good at AAR compilation, but the Japanese records generally went down with the ships. So you will have to just make a judgment on your own. Remember also that in the SW Pacific you have land bases which have fighter squadrons in place so any naval battle in the waters nearby will have land based air support which can hamper scouting until it is at night.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 4, 2018 11:16:42 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 4, 2018 11:31:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 7, 2018 22:16:41 GMT -6
There is a term in aircraft performance that is oft quoted. That term is “Combat Radius of Action” or just “Combat Radius”. Here are some actual figures for example: F4F-4- 105 NMI with no external fuel tanks; A6M2 Zero 300 NMI from a carrier and 500 miles from a land base. From a carrier, you are using full throttle to get off the deck and to climb up, on a land base, you have a longer runway and do not have to climb at a steep angle and you can use less power. You should use this performance figure in your comparisons of aircraft but be aware that in combat, it is prudent to leave a large margin of error in fuel usage because one does not know what combat has in store for you and what the weather might be like to get home. Combat radius has some variables that are not included in the figure. Throttle settings, fuel mixture control, altitude, but mechanical state of the engine and fuel system along with fuel gauges can also affect radius. Combat will double your fuel usage, very easily. All these factors can affect the range for an aircraft and one mistake and you are floating in the water, hoping someone saw you land in the water. Many pilots were lost because no one heard them despite a mayday call. The next question is the use of external fuel tanks. Yes, they were nice to have, however, as soon as you are jumped by the enemy, they must be jettisoned and now you are back to square one. The problem can get worse if the tank or tanks do not jettison, now you must get your butt out of the fight preferably by diving and hope the dive and maneuvering will release the tank. If it does not, you fly to the carrier and land in the water, and the destroyers will pick you up. These destroyers are called plane guards and your hope is that they can see and find you. I don’t know if the new game will represent this, but I hope it does, it is a variable that can change the climate of action very quickly. Check up on the fate of the Hornet air wing, and learn the lesson.
Addendum: As you increase altitude, the air is less dense and consequently drag decreases, this means that you can lean out the mixture and save fuel. This works for automobiles also, the higher you are, the less fuel you will use.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 8, 2018 15:14:53 GMT -6
You have three basic radius's of action: Ferry Range - Maximum range with full fuel and no ordnance Combat Range - Ferry range with ordnance Combat Radius - The maximum distance(along a predefined route) an aircraft can fly from its home base with ordnance, carry out a mission and return without refueling. Notice that combat radius is essentially determined by the mission. For an escort mission for fighters, take-off at full power might take 2-5 minutes. Time to climb to cruising or rendezvous altitude might take anywhere from 2-15 minutes depending on whether it is done at combat power or high speed cruise. Now, for an escort mission you will perform a high speed cruise to meet up with the rest of the escorts and the bombers. Now you will reduce your speed to economical cruising speed, generally less than 60 percent of power but it depends on the range of the mission and speed of the bombers. The speed of the fleet is at the speed of the slowest ship. Once at the target area, it now depends on the enemy's response. You might cruise at high speed cruise waiting for the bombers to complete their mission or engage the enemy at full power or combat power. Afterwards, you return to economical cruise back to the base or carrier. If it is a carrier, you will have to circle until given permission to land, then full flaps, wheels down, engine to full power because if you bolter, you must have full power to continue off of the deck and go around again. This is what has to calculated in the mission briefings before you take off. Sound simple? It ain't trust me. BTW, you will need a 20% reserve to get home especially if the carrier is going to move to the recovery point and you need to find them. That will be fun. For an F6F, take-off will be with propeller at full increase, mixture control auto-rich, supercharger to neutral, max manifold pressure all this means full power. For the high power climb, you will have one set of pilot instructions, and another for cruising climb. You will have another set of instructions for level flight, maximum range and decent, diving. Here are some vid's for you to examine - www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1oWZwV7Gk0www.youtube.com/watch?v=gId18EYl2kU
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 20, 2018 0:56:26 GMT -6
We have spoken a lot about carriers, we know that naval aviation will dominate last decade of the game however when does this domination start?
Would be it completely end of battleships or in some areas as North Sea and North Atlantic will battleships live longer as being more weather resistant?
When the naval aviation will become basic power protection and take prominent role from battleships? Would it take longer in case mammoth battleships in RTW2 vs. reality where there were limitation of 35.000 tons.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 20, 2018 7:43:23 GMT -6
We have spoken a lot about carriers, we know that naval aviation will dominate last decade of the game however when does this domination start? Would be it completely end of battleships or in some areas as North Sea and North Atlantic will battleships live longer as being more weather resistant? When the naval aviation will become basic power protection and take prominent role from battleships? Would it take longer in case mammoth battleships in RTW2 vs. reality where there were limitation of 35.000 tons. The answer to your questions lie with the game mechanics and we don't really have enough information. However, if we use history and geography as a our guide, then the North Sea, Mediterranean will be dominated by land based aircraft. Use of carriers in narrow or enclosed seas and littoral zones is always dangerous and should be avoided. History show us this. Now, the questions are simply: what nations will exist in their original form. This will affect the answers to your question. What kind of capital ships can we or will we develop based on technology and finance. History might not be able to help us. Will our battleships have extensive AA weapons like 20mm, 40mm, 5 inch type weapons with high angles of attack and high rates of fire? We might follow the "path not taken" since we might not have a Washington or London Naval Treaty to allow naval aviation to flourish. Again, the game mechanics will control this and our own decisions. So, it really depends on each of us and our decisions about technology and strategy during the game.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 20, 2018 8:07:42 GMT -6
We have spoken a lot about carriers, we know that naval aviation will dominate last decade of the game however when does this domination start? Would be it completely end of battleships or in some areas as North Sea and North Atlantic will battleships live longer as being more weather resistant? When the naval aviation will become basic power protection and take prominent role from battleships? Would it take longer in case mammoth battleships in RTW2 vs. reality where there were limitation of 35.000 tons. The answer to your questions lie with the game mechanics and we don't really have enough information. However, if we use history and geography as a our guide, then the North Sea, Mediterranean will be dominated by land based aircraft. Use of carriers in narrow or enclosed seas and littoral zones is always dangerous and should be avoided. History show us this. Now, the questions are simply: what nations will exist in their original form. This will affect the answers to your question. What kind of capital ships can we or will we develop based on technology and finance. History might not be able to help us. Will our battleships have extensive AA weapons like 20mm, 40mm, 5 inch type weapons with high angles of attack and high rates of fire? We might follow the "path not taken" since we might not have a Washington or London Naval Treaty to allow naval aviation to flourish. Again, the game mechanics will control this and our own decisions. So, it really depends on each of us and our decisions about technology and strategy during the game. However you need to operate in enclosed waters as Mediterranean, you need to supply your armed forces by convoys and history showed us that land based aircraft could have advantage by numbers and quality attacking ships but have limiting value protecting ships against air threats. So carrier force is needed even in these dangerous waters. Yes, you are right that questions of nations is important and existence of naval limitation treaty. We know that it can be possible starting as RTW and going to 1950, in this case there could be no naval arms limitation hence capital ships around 50.000 tons can become reality in 20s. In this came naval arms race could force capital ships going to 70.000 tons similar to Yamatos. These ships could not be easily sunk by airpower (reality show it was not difficult however if you can look at number of aircrafts needed to sink this colossus ship, you will find out that in case of some air opposition damage them could be easy done, sink them very difficult. Especially if we have hindsight and thus we can install on these beasts more AA guns. And these beast could be still useful at some theatres of operation where you can have days with very limited availability of naval aviation. May be capital ships could rule the sea a little longer than history show us. Last thing would be how RTW would simulate technology progress during war. After Great war technology progress was slower, but especially most technology advances were comming from air power as the force projection from 1 carrier in 1939 and carrier in 1945 was completely different.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 20, 2018 9:56:47 GMT -6
The answer to your questions lie with the game mechanics and we don't really have enough information. However, if we use history and geography as a our guide, then the North Sea, Mediterranean will be dominated by land based aircraft. Use of carriers in narrow or enclosed seas and littoral zones is always dangerous and should be avoided. History show us this. Now, the questions are simply: what nations will exist in their original form. This will affect the answers to your question. What kind of capital ships can we or will we develop based on technology and finance. History might not be able to help us. Will our battleships have extensive AA weapons like 20mm, 40mm, 5 inch type weapons with high angles of attack and high rates of fire? We might follow the "path not taken" since we might not have a Washington or London Naval Treaty to allow naval aviation to flourish. Again, the game mechanics will control this and our own decisions. So, it really depends on each of us and our decisions about technology and strategy during the game. However you need to operate in enclosed waters as Mediterranean, you need to supply your armed forces by convoys and history showed us that land based aircraft could have advantage by numbers and quality attacking ships but have limiting value protecting ships against air threats. So carrier force is needed even in these dangerous waters. Yes, you are right that questions of nations is important and existence of naval limitation treaty. We know that it can be possible starting as RTW and going to 1950, in this case there could be no naval arms limitation hence capital ships around 50.000 tons can become reality in 20s. In this came naval arms race could force capital ships going to 70.000 tons similar to Yamatos. These ships could not be easily sunk by airpower (reality show it was not difficult however if you can look at number of aircrafts needed to sink this colossus ship, you will find out that in case of some air opposition damage them could be easy done, sink them very difficult. Especially if we have hindsight and thus we can install on these beasts more AA guns. And these beast could be still useful at some theatres of operation where you can have days with very limited availability of naval aviation. May be capital ships could rule the sea a little longer than history show us. Last thing would be how RTW would simulate technology progress during war. After Great war technology progress was slower, but especially most technology advances were comming from air power as the force projection from 1 carrier in 1939 and carrier in 1945 was completely different. Historically, the two greatest threats to naval power in the Mediterranean were land based air and submarines. Both German and Italian submarines along with both air forces did cause great damage to the British. This might happen in the game. In RTW, my only two real enemies for Italy were AH and France. Infrequently, I tangle with the British, but I have always had an easy time winning. I don’t know how things will progress in RTW2. The key is whether there will be a North African campaign in RTW2 because that was the reason for convoy’s moving through the Mediterranean, both to provide supplies and troops to the Eighth Army and Malta. Will the British want to support the Far East with supplies via the Suez Canal which is faster or try to use the trip around Africa which might be longer but safer? We have much to consider and we will have to wait for the game, but I think we can continue to discuss the possible avenues that we might take.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Aug 20, 2018 10:30:55 GMT -6
I just want to point out some historical factors about action in the Mediterranean during WW2 which may or may not have any bearing on the game. The British faced a difficult choice in the Mediterranean after Italy declared war and more importantly, the French collapsed which eliminated the French Navy. The agreement with the French was that they would handle the Italian Navy in the Mediterranean from their North African bases and Toulon. Now the British were alone in trying to get supplies to the Suez. The distance around the Cape from the Clyde to the Suez was 12,860 miles. For a convoy to reach the Suez and return required well over 20,000 miles longer than the trip through the Mediterranean. This also required more naval escorts and faster cargo and liners to bring the troops and supplies to the Suez. The trip to India was even farther to support operations in that region and any supplies to Australia required about 1500 more miles. While they did have Malta, they had neglected its defenses. Economics and their reliance on the French changed the British attitude. The British Royal Air force abandoned Malta for Alexandria. This harbor was not very well developed and not very suitable for ship repair and unloading of supplies.
This story gets much more complex, but these are the essential reasons for what happened in the Med. Will this happen in the game? Only if the same sequence of actions take place. So, in using history as a guide, be aware of the variables that caused the British problems in the Med. These variables might not occur in the game.
Source: In Passage Perilous: Malta and the Convoy Battles of June 1942 by Vince O’Hara
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Aug 20, 2018 12:13:56 GMT -6
I just want to point out some historical factors about action in the Mediterranean during WW2 which may or may not have any bearing on the game. The British faced a difficult choice in the Mediterranean after Italy declared war and more importantly, the French collapsed which eliminated the French Navy. The agreement with the French was that they would handle the Italian Navy in the Mediterranean from their North African bases and Toulon. Now the British were alone in trying to get supplies to the Suez. The distance around the Cape from the Clyde to the Suez was 12,860 miles. For a convoy to reach the Suez and return required well over 20,000 miles longer than the trip through the Mediterranean. This also required more naval escorts and faster cargo and liners to bring the troops and supplies to the Suez. The trip to India was even farther to support operations in that region and any supplies to Australia required about 1500 more miles. While they did have Malta, they had neglected its defenses. Economics and their reliance on the French changed the British attitude. The British Royal Air force abandoned Malta for Alexandria. This harbor was not very well developed and not very suitable for ship repair and unloading of supplies. This story gets much more complex, but these are the essential reasons for what happened in the Med. Will this happen in the game? Only if the same sequence of actions take place. So, in using history as a guide, be aware of the variables that caused the British problems in the Med. These variables might not occur in the game. Source: In Passage Perilous: Malta and the Convoy Battles of June 1942 by Vince O’Hara You are right. British and Germans quickly realize importance of Malta supporting convoys and attack Italians convoys (Italians had quite a lot of lost due to FAA operations from Malta). They know that if Malta falls, North Africa can fall opening way to oil fields which could have global effects. However invading Malta was something completely out of possibility for Italy and Germany till complete naval superiority in the Mediterranean. British knows it well and put a lot of efforts to supply Malta. Resulting carriers battles were completely different from carriers battles in Pacific however fierce and scale of air attacks were something that Allies did not face earlier and even after till attacks on Japanese islands. However this is quite difficult to simulate if you not put whole strategy of war so I expect that in case of RTW there can be more convoys battles in the Med.
|
|