|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 5, 2018 18:47:05 GMT -6
My research says that the pound sterling in 1940 was equal to about 2600 USD. Twenty Six Hundred Dollars per pound, so 6.4 million pounds would be $16,640,000,000 (16.64 billion dollars). Somehow I don't think that's it. My quick Google check says nineteen hundred and forty pounds equals 2601.93 USD, but that is at today's exchange rate. www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist-graph.htm"From 1940, and through the war, although no longer on the Gold Standard, the £/$ rate had been pegged by the British government at $4.03, and in at the end of the war a world conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, decided on a variation of the Gold Standard." That would make 6.4 million pounds = 25,792,000 USD. Sound better? great, someone good with numbers, love it. Thanks, because it did not make sense.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Jun 5, 2018 18:51:01 GMT -6
Deleted -- someone beat me to the proper exchange rate :-)
|
|
|
Post by wolfpack on Jun 5, 2018 18:58:33 GMT -6
I have been testing a carrier doctrine in the rts Hearts of iron 4, my carrier strategy in that game follows a deployment rule mainly to keep the forces alive rather than have a good striking power could I possibly get a critique of the idea?
taskforces with carriers must have 4 total carriers in them as 1/2 of taskforce carriers are to be loaded in a 70/30 ratio fighters/bombers(torpedo based as I have no intentions of having three different planes for each carrier) the remaining 1/2 of the carrier force will do the opposite 70/30 bomber/fighter loadout
I have a few more doctrinal rules but this is the only strictly carrier based one (the other rules are more Hitler pleasing moves like must have 4 battlecruisers to each carrier (this idea has mostly been applied to German naval power ~1936 and seems to work against the UK far too well to be luck thus I post it here to get torn apart by my more knowledgeable peers)
|
|
alant
Full Member
Posts: 125
|
Post by alant on Jun 5, 2018 19:14:16 GMT -6
I have been testing a carrier doctrine in the rts Hearts of iron 4, my carrier strategy in that game follows a deployment rule mainly to keep the forces alive rather than have a good striking power could I possibly get a critique of the idea? taskforces with carriers must have 4 total carriers in them as 1/2 of taskforce carriers are to be loaded in a 70/30 ratio fighters/bombers(torpedo based as I have no intentions of having three different planes for each carrier) the remaining 1/2 of the carrier force will do the opposite 70/30 bomber/fighter loadout I have a few more doctrinal rules but this is the only strictly carrier based one (the other rules are more Hitler pleasing moves like must have 4 battlecruisers to each carrier (this idea has mostly been applied to German naval power ~1936 and seems to work against the UK far too well to be luck thus I post it here to get torn apart by my more knowledgeable peers) My playing of RtW1 indicates that no nation will have the budget to build anything close to the USN's number of fleet carriers of 1944-45. They would have to start building them in early 1942. Having played Arsenal of Democracy (~ HoI 3.something) I would not base my builds in this game on what worked in that game.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 5, 2018 21:32:13 GMT -6
I'd be inclined to consider WWII and the immediate period around it as something of an exceptional circumstance, at least compared to the kinds of situations which typically arise within the game. Being unable to replicate the USN's WWII period construction programs on a regular basis within the game strikes me as reasonable.
I will add that I have on rare occasion had the budget to have about a dozen ~40,000t battleships or battlecruisers building simultaneously as the USA late in the game in RtW. It wouldn't surprise me if it were possible - under the right circumstances - for a wealthy power to build fifteen or twenty CVs and a dozen or so CVLs in the space of two or three years. It also wouldn't surprise me if such circumstances are exceptional rather than typical. So did the USN. Arguably, it started earlier - the Two-Ocean Navy Act passed in 1940 authorized the construction of 18 aircraft carriers, 7 battleships, 6 Alaska-class large cruisers, and 185 other vessels.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 5, 2018 22:57:02 GMT -6
While the two Ocean Navy act authorized 18 aircraft carriers and 7 battleships, there was a valid reason. Congress approved ship types by tonnage and carriers were lighter. Carriers were less costly to build; Iowa's cost $125 million dollars per unit, Essex class carriers cost $65 million dollars per unit. With Congress, it is usually economics that wins the day. Battleship construction was very involved as opposed to carriers. BB's had to have rolling mills for their armor plate, gun pits etc. Battleships take more time to build. Carriers could be built faster. No battleships started by a nation in the war, was finished and participated in the war.
Just a note; the Two Ocean Navy Act actually had three names: The Two Ocean Navy Act, The Seventy-Percent Act and the Vinson-Walsh Act.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Jun 6, 2018 0:57:19 GMT -6
No battleships started by a nation in the war, was finished and participated in the war. Yamato and Musashi could count, if you consider the Pacific War to have started with the Second Sino-Japanese War or the various 'incidents' between China and Japan earlier in the '30s rather than with the Japanese attacks on US, British, and Dutch holdings and on Thailand in December 1941.
|
|
|
Post by wolfpack on Jun 6, 2018 2:43:40 GMT -6
My playing of RtW1 indicates that no nation will have the budget to build anything close to the USN's number of fleet carriers of 1944-45. They would have to start building them in early 1942. Having played Arsenal of Democracy (~ HoI 3.something) I would not base my builds in this game on what worked in that game. I used the doctrine as a German start in 1936 I only had time to field one maybe two battle fleets of 4 carriers with battleships and lighter craft nothing insane but a safe sized fleet i know a nation with a lot of land to cover could not afford this kind of building to their scaled need but 8 truthfully light carriers are well within German naval budget in the pre war era (not wimer republic era though) Honestly i hadnt considered the costs i was mainly worried about comabat viability and any holes in the idea
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 6, 2018 14:18:38 GMT -6
One factor in providing land-based fighter cover for a naval force is the distance the naval force is from the airfield. Given travel time to-and-from, the loiter time (time the airplanes can spend overhead) is sharply reduced. To maintain a constant presence overhead you need a steady stream of planes coming and going, and not many are going to be overhead providing cover. Also, the airplanes provide a giant airborne arrow pointing at your navy... but the biggest issue, as I understand it, is that land-based air units did not want to be covering naval forces and would not provide continuous cover. Rather, planes would be scrambled when enemy planes were reported, and given the travel time to the naval force were generally not needed once they arrived.
None of the European powers built carriers except Britain, and the Royal Navy used them singly until their late-war operations in the Pacific. There is probably a reason for that, and I think it has to do with a couple of factors. One is the conservative/experimental nature of naval officers. Given the relatively poor quality of aircraft in the 1920s and 30s the only countries that invested were those that had the money (US), were willing to embrace radical opportunities (Japan) or saw the advantages for scouting and sea control (RN). France, Russia, Italy and Germany didn't have the money, had very conservative officer corps and had plenty of land-based airfields.
German army officers used the defeat in WW1 as a spur to develop new tactics with artillery, tanks and aircraft. German naval officers would have needed a Guderian-like figure to lead them into naval aviation, and they would have needed a decade or so to work out the kinks in carrier operations. They also would have had to contend with the assumption that the proper naval weapon for Germany was 'of course' the U-boat... but IF Germany had pushed for carrier aviation in the 20s and IF Goering had permitted an independent air arm, then carriers could have provided crucial scouting, spotting and air cover for the heavier fleet elements.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2018 14:41:52 GMT -6
One factor in providing land-based fighter cover for a naval force is the distance the naval force is from the airfield. Given travel time to-and-from, the loiter time (time the airplanes can spend overhead) is sharply reduced. To maintain a constant presence overhead you need a steady stream of planes coming and going, and not many are going to be overhead providing cover. Also, the airplanes provide a giant airborne arrow pointing at your navy... but the biggest issue, as I understand it, is that land-based air units did not want to be covering naval forces and would not provide continuous cover. Rather, planes would be scrambled when enemy planes were reported, and given the travel time to the naval force were generally not needed once they arrived. None of the European powers built carriers except Britain, and the Royal Navy used them singly until their late-war operations in the Pacific. There is probably a reason for that, and I think it has to do with a couple of factors. One is the conservative/experimental nature of naval officers. Given the relatively poor quality of aircraft in the 1920s and 30s the only countries that invested were those that had the money (US), were willing to embrace radical opportunities (Japan) or saw the advantages for scouting and sea control (RN). France, Russia, Italy and Germany didn't have the money, had very conservative officer corps and had plenty of land-based airfields. German army officers used the defeat in WW1 as a spur to develop new tactics with artillery, tanks and aircraft. German naval officers would have needed a Guderian-like figure to lead them into naval aviation, and they would have needed a decade or so to work out the kinks in carrier operations. They also would have had to contend with the assumption that the proper naval weapon for Germany was 'of course' the U-boat... but IF Germany had pushed for carrier aviation in the 20s and IF Goering had permitted an independent air arm, then carriers could have provided crucial scouting, spotting and air cover for the heavier fleet elements. I am in complete agreement with your conclusions. The only thing I will add is that geography is the guiding factor along with economics. The four nations you listed did not really have a good geostrategic need for a tremendous expansion of their fleets. The French problem was the Mediterranean, Far East and the North Sea. However, in fact, a modest fleet could easily protect her trade lanes. Her main opponent, Germany was across the Rhine River and she needed good land based aircraft and an air doctrine which she did not have. Their land based air was more than adequate to protect the most important areas of their country. Italy had the Straits of Sicily which she could cover more than adequately with land based air from Sicily and North Africa. The rest you have covered. I stress the geography is the overall factor in who builds a carrier. We cannot escape reality.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Jun 6, 2018 16:42:37 GMT -6
None of the European powers built carriers except Britain, and the Royal Navy used them singly until their late-war operations in the Pacific. There is probably a reason for that, and I think it has to do with a couple of factors. One is the conservative/experimental nature of naval officers. Given the relatively poor quality of aircraft in the 1920s and 30s the only countries that invested were those that had the money (US), were willing to embrace radical opportunities (Japan) or saw the advantages for scouting and sea control (RN). France, Russia, Italy and Germany didn't have the money, had very conservative officer corps and had plenty of land-based airfields The RN carried out multiple-carrier exercises in the interwar period, and carried out multiple-carrier operations off Norway on a few occasions (they carried out a coordinated strike from two carriers against German positions in Norway before Pearl Harbour, although at a much smaller scale than the Japanese strikes) - the main reason for RN using carriers singly most of the time was lots of theatres and not enough carriers to go around. Also worth keeping in mind France did have a carrier (Bearn) and was building two more when war broke out, and Germany had two on the way as well. The Soviets had a number of ideas, but their navy was a mess, and under army control for much of the interwar period, so it's not surprising they weren't able to get any of their plans off the ground.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2018 17:09:23 GMT -6
None of the European powers built carriers except Britain, and the Royal Navy used them singly until their late-war operations in the Pacific. There is probably a reason for that, and I think it has to do with a couple of factors. One is the conservative/experimental nature of naval officers. Given the relatively poor quality of aircraft in the 1920s and 30s the only countries that invested were those that had the money (US), were willing to embrace radical opportunities (Japan) or saw the advantages for scouting and sea control (RN). France, Russia, Italy and Germany didn't have the money, had very conservative officer corps and had plenty of land-based airfields The RN carried out multiple-carrier exercises in the interwar period, and carried out multiple-carrier operations off Norway on a few occasions (they carried out a coordinated strike from two carriers against German positions in Norway before Pearl Harbour, although at a much smaller scale than the Japanese strikes) - the main reason for RN using carriers singly most of the time was lots of theatres and not enough carriers to go around. Also worth keeping in mind France did have a carrier (Bearn) and was building two more when war broke out, and Germany had two on the way as well. The Soviets had a number of ideas, but their navy was a mess, and under army control for much of the interwar period, so it's not surprising they weren't able to get any of their plans off the ground. The French Bearn was a late 1920's design and was more experimental than anything. She did go to the US for refit and did contribute but it was never a serious attempt to build a large group of Fleet carriers. The others would never have made it into the water once the war started. I stand by my contention that the US, Japan and Great Britain were only three nations, all maritime powers, that built a fleet of large carriers and used them in combat.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 6, 2018 19:43:35 GMT -6
The French geostrategic problem was solved in the same way that they protected their overseas trade: they worked out their colonial issues with Britain and recruited their help against Germany.
Germany didn't need carriers to dominate the Baltic and had no reasonable expectation of exercising control over any other body. The main purposes of their fleet in WW2 were commerce raiding (undone by airpower except perhaps in the extreme north), control of the Baltic and being a fleet-in-being. Using carriers for commerce-raiding is not likely to be useful as they consume absolutely enormous quantities of POL, spare parts, ammunition, stores and so forth, and they are hard to hide - they are for sea-control, not sea-denial. Carriers are not required for control of the Baltic, and they are a waste of resources as a fleet-in-being. Unless Germany had built a real blue-water navy (and the British had stood still and not continued to build capital ships), carrier aviation was as useful to them as gold toilets on a U-boat.
Italy was a slightly different case in that she desperately needed to run convoys to Africa and prevent the British from doing the same to their possessions. I don't believe they could have gotten much use from a carrier; in my opinion they needed good planes and a large naval-controlled, land-based air arm. And of course the POL to operate the ships and planes...
I would say that geography cuts two ways - it determines who needs a carrier force AND it determines where that force can be deployed with acceptable risk. The Royal Navy proved to my satisfaction that, while you could perhaps operate a small group of carriers in the Med from 1939 to 1944, you probably should not do so unless from dire necessity. Only the wide waters - the North Sea, the Atlantic, the Indian, the Pacific - are suitable unless you bring a whopping great number of carriers and planes.
I do agree with your point about 'Bearn' - she was an attempt to make an experimental carrier out of a battleship hull that would otherwise have been broken up, but at 21 knots she was far too slow to be useful. I thought she served as a floatplane tender in the years leading up to WW2, so I didn't count her. I didn't know that she even was active during the war.
Britain never built large numbers of fleet carriers until the late stages of the war because they didn't need carrier task forces. They needed, and built, escort carriers and convoy escorts.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jun 6, 2018 20:15:32 GMT -6
The French geostrategic problem was solved in the same way that they protected their overseas trade: they worked out their colonial issues with Britain and recruited their help against Germany. Germany didn't need carriers to dominate the Baltic and had no reasonable expectation of exercising control over any other body. The main purposes of their fleet in WW2 were commerce raiding (undone by airpower except perhaps in the extreme north), control of the Baltic and being a fleet-in-being. Using carriers for commerce-raiding is not likely to be useful as they consume absolutely enormous quantities of POL, spare parts, ammunition, stores and so forth, and they are hard to hide - they are for sea-control, not sea-denial. Carriers are not required for control of the Baltic, and they are a waste of resources as a fleet-in-being. Unless Germany had built a real blue-water navy (and the British had stood still and not continued to build capital ships), carrier aviation was as useful to them as gold toilets on a U-boat. Italy was a slightly different case in that she desperately needed to run convoys to Africa and prevent the British from doing the same to their possessions. I don't believe they could have gotten much use from a carrier; in my opinion they needed good planes and a large naval-controlled, land-based air arm. And of course the POL to operate the ships and planes... I would say that geography cuts two ways - it determines who needs a carrier force AND it determines where that force can be deployed with acceptable risk. The Royal Navy proved to my satisfaction that, while you could perhaps operate a small group of carriers in the Med from 1939 to 1944, you probably should not do so unless from dire necessity. Only the wide waters - the North Sea, the Atlantic, the Indian, the Pacific - are suitable unless you bring a whopping great number of carriers and planes. …. Geography is the controlling factor in history. As we both have said, there are places you don't want to send a carrier force unless it is well protected. Its hard to get people to understand that if you are going to study history.... get a map and Google Earth.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jun 7, 2018 0:18:23 GMT -6
None of the European powers built carriers except Britain, and the Royal Navy used them singly until their late-war operations in the Pacific. There is probably a reason for that, and I think it has to do with a couple of factors. One is the conservative/experimental nature of naval officers. Given the relatively poor quality of aircraft in the 1920s and 30s the only countries that invested were those that had the money (US), were willing to embrace radical opportunities (Japan) or saw the advantages for scouting and sea control (RN). France, Russia, Italy and Germany didn't have the money, had very conservative officer corps and had plenty of land-based airfields The RN carried out multiple-carrier exercises in the interwar period, and carried out multiple-carrier operations off Norway on a few occasions (they carried out a coordinated strike from two carriers against German positions in Norway before Pearl Harbour, although at a much smaller scale than the Japanese strikes) - the main reason for RN using carriers singly most of the time was lots of theatres and not enough carriers to go around. Also worth keeping in mind France did have a carrier (Bearn) and was building two more when war broke out, and Germany had two on the way as well. The Soviets had a number of ideas, but their navy was a mess, and under army control for much of the interwar period, so it's not surprising they weren't able to get any of their plans off the ground. You are completely correct about RN need to control more theatres than they have carriers. All old carriers pre Ark Royal was not best suited for Medditerranean and was used as suplementary carriers. They need at least one modern carrier for North sea, east and west Medditerranean. I read report from ABC after evacuation of Crete, where Formidable was damaged, where he stated that he need 2 carriers for full local air supperiority. For RN carriers were vital for Medditerranean as without them they would loss Malta, Egypt, oil fields prolonging war quite a lot. However due to Battle of Brittain the main issue for RN was not enough aircraft and pilots, this is the main reason RN did not use deck parks. During evacuation of Crete Formidable went on mission without full complement of aircrafts. Same with multicarrier operations, RN was ahead USA defending the carriers however they have not carriers in one place used this doctrine exercised before the war. USA started war with a lot of war knowledge from RN, they had liason officer on British ship in Medditerranean and as USN resources was vastly superior they were able to implement all this by large scale.
|
|