|
Post by Airy W on Oct 22, 2018 14:17:15 GMT -6
I would like to ask a question to move this in a slightly different direction. I think that Mahan has a very interesting discussion of lines of communication vs. raider warfare. Mahan famously comes down on the side of lines of communication. What would be the best naval strategist writer to present the opposing view to Mahan?
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Oct 22, 2018 17:16:38 GMT -6
Good idea with a new direction Airy W, thanks.
To everyone, lets be respectful and polite towards each other and move on, please.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Oct 23, 2018 3:10:13 GMT -6
And I want it to be known I'm not saying anything you've put forward is statistically wrong, if you say you've got a report that says the Allies spent 22 times as much money on convoys as the Germans did on Subs, that's fine, it may well be right, but it didn't work. This argument is basically the same as saying no weapons used by the Germans worked, because they lost the war. Tanks don't work, airplanes don't work, Machine-guns don't work, Bazookas don't work, mines don't work and especially not strategic rockets, jet-fighters or guided missiles ( the last 3 which were almost exclusively used by Germans ). If submarines don't work then why did the cold war at sea become 90% dominated by submarines? If submarines don't work then how was the Americans able to inflict crushing and devastating losses on the Japanese with them during WW2? Hell the Americans even sunk more tonnage of Japanese Carriers with their submarines than with any other weapons. The American submarines cleaned the Pacific so well of Japanese shipping that near the end of the war they had nothing more to sink, because there were no large merchant ships left as targets. "During World War II all submariners (including the rear echelon) accounted for less than two percent of Navy personnel, but accounted for 55 percent of Japan's merchant marine losses.". The US Submarines also in addition to that sunk almost as much warships as their Carrier air did: 1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rvauhb4KyOM/U_4RB4nz2pI/AAAAAAAACaY/9sfVzt-TpKo/s1600/08-27-14%2Bgraph.jpgI think it's more useful to attempt to study the efficiency of weapons in isolation rather than look at if who used that weapons won or lost the war. If Luftwaffe fighters or Heer Tanks destroyed enemy materiel worth twice as much as their own investment, then sure that is a fairly effective weapon, but it's still not anywhere near the 10 - 40 times damage inflicted potential of submarines. The best kill ratio achieved by Fighters AFAIK was 10:1 by American fighters against Japanese near the end of the war ( And that is basically veterans and Aces with vastly technologically superior equipment going up against farm boys who are flying for the first time ). Even during the height of the Luftwaffes power as we already talked about ( Battle of Britain ) the German side lost more pilots and airplanes than the allies did, not a very effective way at all to wage war if your up against enemies more powerful than you. but "tricking" the Allies into building Warships and such is kind of silly, given that the British would probably have spent most of that on ships anyway. Sure, they would build ships, but not warships. Instead they would build thousands more merchant ships which allow vastly larger US and British forces to be built up in Europe for D-Day, or moving forward D-Day to 1943 or even 1942 instead. If Germany doesn't build a single submarine and instead build tanks/planes, they lose the war earlier because each German tank/plane cannot hope to get anywhere near killing 10 allied ones, while each submarine could kill 10 times as much as it's own investment on the allied side. It's as simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 23, 2018 7:46:39 GMT -6
I would like to ask a question to move this in a slightly different direction. I think that Mahan has a very interesting discussion of lines of communication vs. raider warfare. Mahan famously comes down on the side of lines of communication. What would be the best naval strategist writer to present the opposing view to Mahan? Sir Julian Corbett, in my opinion. Both were advocates of the importance of Naval warfare but they did have their differences. I hope these two short pieces are useful. There were others like Sir Henry Richmond, Bradley Fiske, Rear Admiral Henry Eccles. Classical Theories of Sea Warfare.pdf (293.57 KB) Mahan and Corbett.pdf (322.77 KB)
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Oct 23, 2018 18:05:07 GMT -6
Excellent, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Oct 24, 2018 13:02:36 GMT -6
I would like to ask a question to move this in a slightly different direction. I think that Mahan has a very interesting discussion of lines of communication vs. raider warfare. Mahan famously comes down on the side of lines of communication. What would be the best naval strategist writer to present the opposing view to Mahan? Sir Julian Corbett, in my opinion. Both were advocates of the importance of Naval warfare but they did have their differences. I hope these two short pieces are useful. There were others like Sir Henry Richmond, Bradley Fiske, Rear Admiral Henry Eccles. This is a bit tangential but I found this little snippet interesting: It's interesting to me because in my mind there is no doubt that the two prominent American economists of the time period are Irving Fisher and Henry George and neither of them get's mentioned. Part of this is probably just cultural touchstone status (Henry George is for economists what the Velvet Underground is for musicians and Irving Fisher being the american stand in for classic economics in general). But I think the substantial difference is that Fisher and especially George had grand theories of the universe which made them quite memorable for their impact on future works. In my mind this is very much akin to Mahan's work and what I discern of Corbett from the pieces you linked. George and Mahan are birds of a feather in that they had grand theories that would allow for a more systematic and logical evaluation in their professional fields. This is what makes Mahan's work so intriguing to me, it's feels like the academic process of thinking is very modern even if the field itself is immature. These secondary sources seem to suggest that Corbett was similar.
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Oct 25, 2018 13:00:56 GMT -6
And I want it to be known I'm not saying anything you've put forward is statistically wrong, if you say you've got a report that says the Allies spent 22 times as much money on convoys as the Germans did on Subs, that's fine, it may well be right, but it didn't work. This argument is basically the same as saying no weapons used by the Germans worked, because they lost the war. Tanks don't work, airplanes don't work, Machine-guns don't work, Bazookas don't work, mines don't work and especially not strategic rockets, jet-fighters or guided missiles ( the last 3 which were almost exclusively used by Germans ). If submarines don't work then why did the cold war at sea become 90% dominated by submarines? If submarines don't work then how was the Americans able to inflict crushing and devastating losses on the Japanese with them during WW2? Hell the Americans even sunk more tonnage of Japanese Carriers with their submarines than with any other weapons. The American submarines cleaned the Pacific so well of Japanese shipping that near the end of the war they had nothing more to sink, because there were no large merchant ships left as targets. "During World War II all submariners (including the rear echelon) accounted for less than two percent of Navy personnel, but accounted for 55 percent of Japan's merchant marine losses.". The US Submarines also in addition to that sunk almost as much warships as their Carrier air did: 1.bp.blogspot.com/-Rvauhb4KyOM/U_4RB4nz2pI/AAAAAAAACaY/9sfVzt-TpKo/s1600/08-27-14%2Bgraph.jpgI think it's more useful to attempt to study the efficiency of weapons in isolation rather than look at if who used that weapons won or lost the war. If Luftwaffe fighters or Heer Tanks destroyed enemy materiel worth twice as much as their own investment, then sure that is a fairly effective weapon, but it's still not anywhere near the 10 - 40 times damage inflicted potential of submarines. The best kill ratio achieved by Fighters AFAIK was 10:1 by American fighters against Japanese near the end of the war ( And that is basically veterans and Aces with vastly technologically superior equipment going up against farm boys who are flying for the first time ). Even during the height of the Luftwaffes power as we already talked about ( Battle of Britain ) the German side lost more pilots and airplanes than the allies did, not a very effective way at all to wage war if your up against enemies more powerful than you. but "tricking" the Allies into building Warships and such is kind of silly, given that the British would probably have spent most of that on ships anyway. Sure, they would build ships, but not warships. Instead they would build thousands more merchant ships which allow vastly larger US and British forces to be built up in Europe for D-Day, or moving forward D-Day to 1943 or even 1942 instead. If Germany doesn't build a single submarine and instead build tanks/planes, they lose the war earlier because each German tank/plane cannot hope to get anywhere near killing 10 allied ones, while each submarine could kill 10 times as much as it's own investment on the allied side. It's as simple as that. No no the Germans didn't use submarines right, my issue is with Uboats and their doctrine, not the submarine as a concept, and saying that cold war submarines prove that WW2 subs were a good idea is a complete non sequitur that I won't even waste my time addressing if you are going to use childish obfuscation tactics. The Yanks proved that using subs could work, against military targets and the much smaller Jap MN. Especially when the Japs weren't great at convoy protection like the RN were. I'm talking in terms of a gameplay meta context where people like you would supposedly have either a blockade by subs or a "most subs wins" because of the sheer number of random events sinking MN that you'd get. I'm arguing against that saying subs need to be physical models alongside MNs so that a nation gets a fair shake at defending itself from them, and so that subs suffer the same problems operationally as they did in the real world. Oh and even without subs sinking RN capital ships we'd've still built more, we really like building capital ships, what finally stopped us was losing almost all our money in 1946.
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Oct 25, 2018 14:20:45 GMT -6
The Yanks proved that using subs could work, against military targets and the much smaller Jap MN. Especially when the Japs weren't great at convoy protection like the RN were. I'm talking in terms of a gameplay meta context where people like you would supposedly have either a blockade by subs or a "most subs wins" because of the sheer number of random events sinking MN that you'd get. I'm arguing against that saying subs need to be physical models alongside MNs so that a nation gets a fair shake at defending itself from them, and so that subs suffer the same problems operationally as they did in the real world. I agree with you 100% that subs can work that is all I ever claimed as well, and my stance on submarines in game is similar as yours, that subs should have strengths and weaknesses similar to how they did in the real world. About their in game balance my opinion is the exact opposite of what you speculate above. My feelings is that submarines need to be made much worse in the game compared to reality in order for the game to be balanced, otherwise submarines would be greatly overpowered and the entire point of building Carriers or Battleships and enjoying all the strengths and awesome parts of the game meaningless. This isn't a submarine game, submarines are a side-show and I think it's best they remain that way. However it would be neat if they can be at least made strong enough that you can't get away with totally ignoring ASW research and escort ships costs without risk.
|
|
|
Post by britishball on Oct 25, 2018 15:16:19 GMT -6
The Yanks proved that using subs could work, against military targets and the much smaller Jap MN. Especially when the Japs weren't great at convoy protection like the RN were. I'm talking in terms of a gameplay meta context where people like you would supposedly have either a blockade by subs or a "most subs wins" because of the sheer number of random events sinking MN that you'd get. I'm arguing against that saying subs need to be physical models alongside MNs so that a nation gets a fair shake at defending itself from them, and so that subs suffer the same problems operationally as they did in the real world. I agree with you 100% that subs can work that is all I ever claimed as well, and my stance on submarines in game is similar as yours, that subs should have strengths and weaknesses similar to how they did in the real world. About their in game balance my opinion is the exact opposite of what you speculate above. My feelings is that submarines need to be made much worse in the game compared to reality in order for the game to be balanced, otherwise submarines would be greatly overpowered and the entire point of building Carriers or Battleships and enjoying all the strengths and awesome parts of the game meaningless. This isn't a submarine game, submarines are a side-show and I think it's best they remain that way. However it would be neat if they can be at least made strong enough that you can't get away with totally ignoring ASW research and escort ships costs without risk. You seriously think that having realistic parameters for subs in 1900-1950 would make Carriers obsolescent? Why do you think we have anything but subs in the real world? Decoration? To make it fair if we ever do go to war? You build a fleet that is 90% subs and someone else will build a fleet that is 90% anti-subs and then you won't have a fleet any more lol. Most of the RN capital ships sunk by subs were at anchor where they thought they couldn't be attacked, that isn't the brilliance of subs at work that's hubris damning the RN, if the sub that got into Scapa Flow had been in a week early or a week late it may have missed the major targets if they'd left and when it attacked whatever was in harbour we'd have worked out that they could get in. Same for when they sunk Ark Royal, hubris, (woops guess we shouldn't leave carriers so unprotected and should occasionally change course and speed even when we don't think any subs are around) I'm not even going to go into the number of times subs failed to sink capital targets, especially as post 1940 when Britain gets its **** together it'd become one of those meme lists from USMARINERIFLEMAN0311 or whatever he is called; where pretty much every instance of a Uboat sighting becomes a "failed attack" on a capital ship. But post 1940 when Britain starts taking the Uboats a bit more seriously you see an immediate decline in the losses of capital ships to the point where when the Battle of the Denmark Strait happens the Uboats are totally secondary concern and only an issue once the Bismark is sunk. No I'm sorry Submarines are a sideshow; next to useless if your enemy has something like WATU working for them, the capacity to build ships (unlike Japan lol) and they are mostly useless in actual combat once SONAR is invented, they work well against defenceless, anchored ships, god knows the RN found that out at Scapa and used it against the IJN and Regia Marina with their midget subs. Until Submarines get city destroying ICBM's they aren't much of a threat, then they have that quantum leap and become pretty much the single largest threat, I'll give you that...
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Oct 25, 2018 15:38:13 GMT -6
You seriously think that having realistic parameters for subs in 1900-1950 would make Carriers obsolescent? No, but I think it would make for an exceptionally boring and frustrating game experience if your Carriers keep getting sunk by submarines despite your nation being top 1 or 2 worldwide in both amount of destroyers to escort your fleet, and in ASW technology. Historical examples from UK: HMS Courageous in 1939, HMS Ark Royal in 1941, HMS Audacity in 1941, HMS Avenger in 1942, HMS Eagle in 1942 ( I wonder how many of those are "post 1940" when you claimed "pretty much every instance of a Uboat sighting becomes a "failed attack" ) Historical examples from USA: HMS Wasp in 1942, HMS Yorktown in 1942, HMS Liscome Bay in 1943, HMS Block Island in 1944 Most of the RN capital ships sunk by subs were at anchor where they thought they couldn't be attacked A single capital ship sunk is not "Most". I will end our discussion about the historical battle for the Atlantic here with saying it's very clear that you need to do alot reading up about the facts on the Battle of the Atlantic more than a quick skim through of the wikipedia article, because you keep getting most of the facts wrong consistently and the above quote proves it.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Oct 25, 2018 23:06:52 GMT -6
britishball and alexbrunius : It is rather obvious that neither of you are going to 'win over' the other one in this discussion. Also, since your conversation has wavered into the territory of personal attacks at times, I do believe this particular conversation between the two of you should now end.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Oct 26, 2018 16:35:56 GMT -6
For something a bit different, I don't think these should necessarily be in RtW, but at least three countries in WW2 had extensive midget sub/'manned' torpedo programs. I've just read an interesting article in Warship Vol 4 about the German models, which start out as very simple (an electric torpedo with the warhead removed and a plexiglass lid bolted on top, with an actual torpedo attached underneath for firing at targets) to plans for a Walter-turbine driven 'Schwertal' which could do 30 knots underwater and was, in part, a submarine hunter. They did have some success with the Type XVIIB5 'Seehund', which between Feb and May 1945 in the North Sea, sunk 19 freighters, totalling 18,451tons GRT, with only 10 per cent of sortieing boats lost. They had a couple of fairly 'out there' schemes for their Biber midget sub, one of which involved drilling into the Pluto pipeline beneath the channel and pumping something into the fuel that would damage engines that used it, and another was to drop one into the Suez canal to torpedo a ship and block it. Then there's the well-known example of the Italian manned torpedoes in Alexandria. The German's even built a prototype for an amphibious midget sub, the Seeteufel, which while it couldn't march could crawl after a fashion (cue new thread, 'The Crawl of Midget Submarines ). I wouldn't in a blue moon suggest having separate midget subs in the game, but something that might work could be a technology (or two), that gave a minor buff to sub performance and opened the potential for Queen Elizabeth/Valiant type effects? Obviously a _long_ way from essential, just mentioning in case it sounded interesting. Also, because I couldn't remember the French Guerre de Course theorist, or I would have replied more directly to Airy W's interesting question .
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Oct 26, 2018 18:04:14 GMT -6
Axe99 - don't forget the Japanese midget subs that "may" have some some damage at Pearl harbor or could have just as easily ruined the surprise had things gone somewhat differently. Not much success with them (Sidney harbor comes to mind) but they do potentially allow ships in harbors to not sleep quite so soundly in the Pacific/Indian Ocean along with the Med. & Atlantic. I would think that RTW2 has to draw the line somewhere. Since midget subs did do some major damage though, I'd expect someone will consider what/how/if they are included.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Oct 26, 2018 23:56:21 GMT -6
I feel like midget submarines are more or less outside the realm of Rule the Waves. Rule the Waves is very much a game about the more-or-less conventional fleets and their operations - Mahanian battle fleet-based sea control, Jeune Ecole cruiser-based sea denial, and (eventually and optionally) submarine-based sea denial, maybe some oddball fleets that nevertheless still focus on sea control or sea denial - whereas midget submarine operations strike me as being much more in the vein of special operations, similar to for example commando raids.
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Oct 27, 2018 1:11:36 GMT -6
Axe99 - don't forget the Japanese midget subs that "may" have some some damage at Pearl harbor or could have just as easily ruined the surprise had things gone somewhat differently. Not much success with them (Sidney harbor comes to mind) but they do potentially allow ships in harbors to not sleep quite so soundly in the Pacific/Indian Ocean along with the Med. & Atlantic. I would think that RTW2 has to draw the line somewhere. Since midget subs did do some major damage though, I'd expect someone will consider what/how/if they are included. Don't forget, the first shots in the Pacific War was the old DD USS Ward firing her guns at a Japanese midget sub trying to sneak into Pearl Harbor. She killed it too.
|
|