|
Post by admiralhood on Dec 28, 2018 16:18:54 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 28, 2018 16:30:25 GMT -6
The RAF used aerial mining (code named "gardening") throughout much of the war.
One thing to note for RTW2 purposes, however, is that aerial minelaying was mostly performed by medium and heavy bombers.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 28, 2018 20:27:48 GMT -6
The RAF used aerial mining (code named "gardening") throughout much of the war. One thing to note for RTW2 purposes, however, is that aerial minelaying was mostly performed by medium and heavy bombers. To follow corsair 's point to the conclusion I think he is making, that would technically make it the purview of the army air corps or independent air forces (e.g. RAF) so not something the Admiralty would have control over. I could see it being added in the background after a certain date. The player could get an event stating that Intelligence has determined that the enemy has begun using aerial mine deployment and that our air forces have retaliated by doing the same. Assuming the system is similar to RTW1, that would cause the strategic mine warfare number to jump in areas with enemy or friendly home areas (major air bases) resulting in an increased number of "damaged/sunk by mine" events and requiring increased emphasis on minesweeper deployment to counter. Perhaps a checkbox could be added to the options similar to reducing flash fires for players who didn't want to deal with it. In my opinion, it's an interesting but low priority idea that could be added to the game in some fashion eventually (even if not like I described above) but not critical to be included in the game's initial release.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Dec 28, 2018 22:24:00 GMT -6
There were mine-laying submarines, so those would fall under naval jurisdiction. Not sure how widespread or effective mines laid by submarine were in comparison to mines laid by surface ship or aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by admiralhood on Dec 28, 2018 23:11:01 GMT -6
The RAF used aerial mining (code named "gardening") throughout much of the war. One thing to note for RTW2 purposes, however, is that aerial minelaying was mostly performed by medium and heavy bombers. To follow corsair 's point to the conclusion I think he is making, that would technically make it the purview of the army air corps or independent air forces (e.g. RAF) so not something the Admiralty would have control over. I could see it being added in the background after a certain date. The player could get an event stating that Intelligence has determined that the enemy has begun using aerial mine deployment and that our air forces have retaliated by doing the same. Assuming the system is similar to RTW1, that would cause the strategic mine warfare number to jump in areas with enemy or friendly home areas (major air bases) resulting in an increased number of "damaged/sunk by mine" events and requiring increased emphasis on minesweeper deployment to counter. Perhaps a checkbox could be added to the options similar to reducing flash fires for players who didn't want to deal with it. In my opinion, it's an interesting but low priority idea that could be added to the game in some fashion eventually (even if not like I described above) but not critical to be included in the game's initial release. There are heavy bombers like PB4Y and long-range flying boat like PBY Catalina that are under the control of the US navy in ww2. I believe that they are capable for such aerial minelaying warfare as well. Also aerial minelaying is not only interesting. It actually cause more damage in terms of cargo tonnage than ”the efforts of all other sources combined” in the last 6 months of the War and is critical to the final collapse of the Japanese empire by nearly shutting down the maritime transportation even within the Japanese inner sea.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Dec 28, 2018 23:14:52 GMT -6
corsair , minelayer submarines are already in RTW1 so no reason to think they won't be carried over. USS Argonaut (SM-1) carried 60 mines. HMS M-3 carried 100. One group of about 160 B-29s laid 1,000 mines in one night at the beginning of Operation Starvation. According to the wikipedia article, Twentieth Air Force dropped roughly 12,000 mines in 1,500 sorties over 46 missions. B-29s aren't cheap but it was only about 6% of XXI Bomber Commands total sorties. After the war, they evaluated Operation Starvation as so effective that if it had been commenced as soon as possible the war would have been significantly shortened. There are heavy bombers like PB4Y and long-range flying boat like PBY Catalina that are under the control of the US navy in ww2. I believe that they are capable for such aerial minelaying warfare as well. Also aerial minelaying is not only interesting. It actually cause more damage in terms of cargo tonnage than ”the efforts of all other sources combined” in the last 6 months of the War and is critical to the final collapse of the Japanese empire by nearly shutting down the maritime transportation even within the Japanese inner sea. True but the major and most effective campaigns were carried out by army or independent air forces, the Luftwaffe, RAF and the USAAF. You could put it under direct player control but I think it's better to do something like I described above. It's more historically consistent and, I believe, it better fits the behind the curtain nature of mine warfare in the RTW series. That's just my take on it.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 28, 2018 23:31:16 GMT -6
It's an interesting idea - mines sunk a similar number of warships as surface gunfire (a bit less, but both were in the 200s, iirc - I can look up as required) in WW2, although I have no idea the relative impact of aerial or ship/sub laid mines. From a military perspective, as well pointed out above, RAF air-laid mines in the Baltic (and during the Channel Dash - iirc (sorry, post-Christmas, my brain is a very unreliable memory unit!) it was air-laid mines based on good intelligence that caused all the serious damage on the German heavy ships) had a growing impact on Germany's capacity to train its submarines and other units as WW2 went on. Similarly, German air-laid mines (supported by sub-laid and some rather daring destroyer-laid mines) caused serious disruption to both military and civilian traffic off Britain's East and South coast, particularly earlier in the war. HMS Belfast is a high-profile ship that had its back broken by (again iirc) an air-laid mine.
Earlier in WW2, and in WW1, the vast majority of mines were laid by ships or subs, and then as the war went on aircraft (usually non-naval, although at the very least the British used carrier aircraft to lay minefields in the sheltered Norwegian channels used to bring iron ore from Narvik own the Norwegian Coast, safe from submarines and surface vessels - I can't recall how effective and whether any naval vessels were damaged by these fields) became ever more important, acccounting for the vast majority of British and US minelaying by the end of the war.
Operation Starvation was very important, but by the stage it was launched, the IJN was running low on both ships and fuel, so (again iirc) its main impact was on Japan's coastal traffic, which was devastating (some people in appropriate positions, again I can look up, rated the coastal mining campaign as more damaging to Japan than any other element that lead to its surrender (ie, the A-Bombs, and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria) - these were just opinions of Japanese officers at the time, but there's no doubt it was economically devastating).
Like BCoop says, it might be a 'nice' thing to have in the game, perhaps with the option of turning off (although I'm not as strong on this - mines were a big thing, and if we're going to turn off aerial mines then we should probably turn off all mines). Maybe if there was a 'base' level of offensive aerial minelaying, based on air tech level and relative air power available over a particular area, and then if there were events a bit like the 'Army wants resources for a ground offensive' but instead were 'Army wants resources for an aerial minelaying offensive' a player could sacrifice some resources for a more focussed campaign? Mine warfare isn't the 'core' of the RtW experience though (and too many mine events might start feeling like a lot of randomised pain - if mine warfare become historically important, it would probably need a whole new approach and UI system, which would be a lot of work), so I'm not strongly for focussing too much on this.
|
|
|
Post by jeb94 on Dec 29, 2018 1:14:14 GMT -6
It could be implemented as simply as the Army requesting extra funds event that we have in RTW1 now. The Army/Air Force requests extra funds and/or procurement of mines for an aerial mine-laying campaign off some port or coast. The number of mines in that area increase depending on how many mines and aircraft/funds the Army/Air Force has available. This results in greater risk of ships hitting a mine when traveling the area. Of course, once laid, mines are neither friendly or neutral to any ship. They don't care what flag is being flown and will detonate quite happily against a friendly or neutral hull just as well as an enemy hull.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 29, 2018 15:38:39 GMT -6
Of course, once laid, mines are neither friendly or neutral to any ship. They don't care what flag is being flown and will detonate quite happily against a friendly or neutral hull just as well as an enemy hull. Well, there is a useful distinction between friendly and enemy mines in that you know where you put the friendly mines, so you can evade them. However, there are cases where mines aren't removed after a conflict, because minesweeping takes time and money, and by the time the force that laid the mines gets around to removing a particular batch, the records saying where that batch is have been lost or overlooked (or, records may have been destroyed in aerial bombardment of a capital or lost when a government fell, etc). That would make for an interesting peacetime tension generating event: "A ship from $NATION1 has struck a mine layed during our war with $NATION2. $NATION1 is demanding compensation."
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 29, 2018 16:04:52 GMT -6
Most offensive minelaying in WW 2 was anti-commerce in nature. I'm having a hard time thinking of any capital ship from any nation that was lost to mines. Cruisers and destroyers (and smaller), sure. But I think most navies were able to manage the risk to capital ships. Thus, my own (unofficial) opinion is that most minelaying can be abstracted.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 29, 2018 16:19:24 GMT -6
Most offensive minelaying in WW 2 was anti-commerce in nature. I'm having a hard time thinking of any capital ship from any nation that was lost to mines. Cruisers and destroyers (and smaller), sure. But I think most navies were able to manage the risk to capital ships. Thus, my own (unofficial) opinion is that most minelaying can be abstracted. Well, the British lost the HMS Blanche, HMS Gallant to mines and aircraft, Acheron, Jupiter, Kandahar, Exmoor, Hurworth, Southwold, Quail, Swift, Grenville, Hyperion. In total, mines caused the losses of 54 warships including two cruisers, 26 destroyers and 26 submarines. The United States lost the Halligan, Meredith, Perry, Tucker, Rich, Albacore, Possibly the Capelin, Flier, Escolar, Robalo, PGM-18, Cythera. That is a total of 66 ships lost to mines by both the Royal Navy and the US Navy. Total Allied and Neutral ships sunk during war by mines was 534 for 1.406 million tons. These would be merchant losses. Total losses due to mines in World War 1 were 497. www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsMineWarfare1.htm
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 29, 2018 16:58:23 GMT -6
Most offensive minelaying in WW 2 was anti-commerce in nature. I'm having a hard time thinking of any capital ship from any nation that was lost to mines. Cruisers and destroyers (and smaller), sure. But I think most navies were able to manage the risk to capital ships. Thus, my own (unofficial) opinion is that most minelaying can be abstracted. Well, the British lost the HMS Blanche, HMS Gallant to mines and aircraft, Acheron, Jupiter, Kandahar, Exmoor, Hurworth, Southwold, Quail, Swift, Grenville, Hyperion. In total, mines caused the losses of 54 warships including two cruisers, 26 destroyers and 26 submarines. The United States lost the Halligan, Meredith, Perry, Tucker, Rich, Albacore, Possibly the Capelin, Flier, Escolar, Robalo, PGM-18, Cythera. That is a total of 66 ships lost to mines by both the Royal Navy and the US Navy. Total Allied and Neutral ships sunk during war by mines was 534 for 1.406 million tons. These would be merchant losses. Total losses due to mines in World War 1 were 497. www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsMineWarfare1.htmWas this meant as a rebuttal or confirmation? I said I can't think of any CAPITAL ships lost to mines, and acknowledged that mines took a toll of smaller vessels.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Dec 29, 2018 18:15:58 GMT -6
There weren't any capital ships *lost* to mines, but mine damage to Seydlitz delayed the Jutland operation, resulting in most of the German submarine force deployed for the operation having been forced off-station by the beginning of the operation.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Dec 29, 2018 18:27:58 GMT -6
Well, the British lost the HMS Blanche, HMS Gallant to mines and aircraft, Acheron, Jupiter, Kandahar, Exmoor, Hurworth, Southwold, Quail, Swift, Grenville, Hyperion. In total, mines caused the losses of 54 warships including two cruisers, 26 destroyers and 26 submarines. The United States lost the Halligan, Meredith, Perry, Tucker, Rich, Albacore, Possibly the Capelin, Flier, Escolar, Robalo, PGM-18, Cythera. That is a total of 66 ships lost to mines by both the Royal Navy and the US Navy. Total Allied and Neutral ships sunk during war by mines was 534 for 1.406 million tons. These would be merchant losses. Total losses due to mines in World War 1 were 497. www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsMineWarfare1.htmWas this meant as a rebuttal or confirmation? I said I can't think of any CAPITAL ships lost to mines, and acknowledged that mines took a toll of smaller vessels. It was just informational, I am not that concerned about mines myself. The smaller vessels are always the ones that will take the brunt along with the merchants, in mine warfare. However, these smaller vessels and merchants are very important to the conduct of the war and especially naval warfare. However, on 27 October 1914, HMS Audacious struck a mine and eventually sank at 20:45 Hrs. She was the last of the KG V class dreadnought battleships.
|
|
|
Post by axe99 on Dec 29, 2018 18:48:22 GMT -6
Most offensive minelaying in WW 2 was anti-commerce in nature. I'm having a hard time thinking of any capital ship from any nation that was lost to mines. Cruisers and destroyers (and smaller), sure. But I think most navies were able to manage the risk to capital ships. Thus, my own (unofficial) opinion is that most minelaying can be abstracted. As best I understand it, by WW2, most capital ships were large enough with appropriate construction that they could survive a mine hit - but a number were hit and seriously damaged by mines, putting them out of commission for significant amounts of time. One could make the same argument about carrier dive bombers in relation to battleships (I may have forgotten one, but I don't think a single battleship was sunk outright by carrier dive bombers) - but that didn't mean that dive bombers weren't a threat or didn't do serious damage to battleships. I'd go a step further to argue that the implication in the statement (that a weapon needs to be significant relative to a capital ship in WW2 to merit inclusion in a game that revolves around naval warfare that includes the WW2 'technology' period) isn't necessarily sound (cruisers, destroyers and submarines were all key elements of the war at sea in WW1 and WW2, and mines were very much a threat to all three in both time periods and would have been in any hypothetical conflict between them). Mines are often the 'forgotten weapons' of naval warfare in both world wars, getting little attention in most histories, even many with a naval focus - but mines accounted for the sinking of 200 warships in WW2, compared with 263 to surface actions (which I have no doubt no-one is suggested should be abstracted ), and did substantial damage without sinking to many other warships. They were far more important to the naval warfare of the period than MTBs, for example - an element that is included in the original RtW. That said, as per my above post, I'd fully agree that the structure of RtW (and presumably RtW2) as a game doesn't lend itself well to the inclusion of mines to their historic extent without them being a fairly 'random-number heavy' (even if it wasn't random, it would appear random to the player) element that could lead to a lot of frustration, as per the frustration that popped up in relation to similar mine (and submarine) events in the original RtW. With a few notable exceptions (the Channel Dash and the blockading of Tallinn are the only two I can think of) mines were a strategic weapon, used to grind down the enemy's navy and commerce, and RtW's gameplay structure isn't well suited to integrating this kind of warfare without substantial changes (or substantial 'apparently random' frustration for players). As suc, I wouldn't argue strongly for the inclusion of more fleshed out mine warfare in RtW2, but I'll take 12 lashes with a cat o'nine tails before I'd suggest that mines weren't important historically .
|
|