AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 4, 2019 9:48:17 GMT -6
Actually a 1000 bomber raid, with say each B-29 carrying 20,000 lbs of bombs, is only 1000 x 10 tons = 10kt equivalent, about the same or less than even the smaller of the two bombs dropped.
Just a technical point here, not anything to do with the merits of the war-ending power of nuclear weapons... Eh, what's a factor of 1000 here or there?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 4, 2019 13:54:49 GMT -6
Actually a 1000 bomber raid, with say each B-29 carrying 20,000 lbs of bombs, is only 1000 x 10 tons = 10kt equivalent, about the same or less than even the smaller of the two bombs dropped.
Just a technical point here, not anything to do with the merits of the war-ending power of nuclear weapons... Just another technical note: On 10 March 1945, 334 Bombers (B-29's) took off from Mariana Island bases specifically Tinian and Saipan headed for Tokyo. They flew in at night, at 5000 feet and dropped 1667 tons of napalm-incendiary bombs killing more than 100,000 people. Young babies were wrenched from their mothers arms and into the inferno caused by the fire storm. The Hiroshima bomb killed about 80,000 people however more than 90,000 to 166,000 people died later in a four month period. Needless to say, standard bombings were almost as bad as nuclear weapons except for the long term deaths and extensive damage. Roughly 16 square miles of Tokyo were completely destroyed in the eastern portion of the city by this raid, which was a part of a fire bombing assault begun on November 24,1944 and lasting till 10 August, 1945, five days before Japan quit the war. Curtis LeMay made the following statement " We will bomb them back to the stone age". Eventually, 56 Japanese cities were incinerated.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 5, 2019 2:15:41 GMT -6
I don't personally think nukes should be in the game as either weapons or propulsion systems.
USS Nautilus completely invalidated the contemporary ASW tactics used against it during its first fleet exercises. There is literally no defense (with WW2 tech) against a submarine that never needs to come to the surface and can travel underwater indefinitely at a faster speed than the surface units can move and still be able to track the sub. The only choice is to hide in port behind defensive minefields or get incredibly lucky and have a patrol aircraft just happen to fly over it while the sub is at periscope depth in clear water. How do you simulate that kind of dominance and still make the game fun for the player?
In addition, I really think nuke weapons are beyond the scope of the game. There use was directed by the Commander in Chief which is above the player's paygrade.
I could see a scenario written where you had to order a ship to deliver the components to a forward base and the enemy intelligence knows something (or someone) important is being delivered so they send a force to sink your ship(s). Or vice versa. How you work the success or failure of that mission into the RTW format is a difficult question since there is so much in a conflict of that nature that is just not simulated.
A large part of the effect of nukes is psychological and none of those factors except for a general unrest are accounted for. A neither do they need to be for RTW to fulfill its goal as a naval ship design and combat simulator.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Jan 5, 2019 2:17:42 GMT -6
Yes, but missiles in any meaningful degree also fall outside the 1900-1950 time frame. The first surface-to-air missile-armed ship (a heavy cruiser conversion which still retained its forward 8" guns) didn't enter USN service until 1955.
Anti-aircraft missiles, both air to air and surface to air do fall outside of the time period. Air to surface and surface to surface do not.
Well, that's just it. While at this point RTW 2 has been stated as recreating 1900-1950, it is worth asking if that ending year is optimal, or perhaps there might be value in using a later year. This is not to say the game itself must include years after 1950; if additional tech, research, and designs of later years could be modded in by players, I'd be happy with that.
To my mind, an ending date of about 1960 is more interesting. That is approximate date at which things really switch over in terms of naval technology. The Skipjack is commissioned, being the first (nuclear-powered) submarine with a hull form optimized for high underwater speed, ushering the 'modern' era of submarines; the Enterprise becomes the first nuclear-powered surface ship (and supercarrier); and the Long Beach enters service as the first non-carrier nuclear-powered surface ship. Surface-to-air missiles become the prime anti-aircraft armament, with guns all but disappearing. And air-to-air missiles become the main way aircraft are to fight each other.
Up to the mid-1950s, things are essentially the same as in WWII. Over Korea, for example, aircraft fought just as they did in WW2, maneuvering to use machine guns or cannons to shoot the enemy aircraft down; the difference was that now it was jets rather than piston engines. (And even then, piston-engine aircraft were used in ground attack roles.) Larger caliber guns replaced smaller ones for anti-aircraft defence. It isn't until about the second half of the 1950s that things start transitioning, with the first nuclear-powered submarine, the first (partial) conversion of surface ships to use surface-to-air missiles for air defence; the first supercarriers expressly designed to operate the faster and heavier jets. Then, by the early 1960s, the transition is basically complete, the newer systems are in wider use, and then improved from there.
So, ending with 1960-era technology allows for that transition period to be playable to players (either included or as a mod), and then with an extended finish year option as in RTW, then players could have more time to employ those transitional designs in combat.
That's my take, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Jan 5, 2019 2:27:34 GMT -6
Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for the big gun battleships. Your point about making it hard to research could allow for nuclear technology in the game, but only the US or Britain could get it. In effect, they would become impossible
It was aircraft carriers that put an end to battleships, not atomic (nuclear) weapons. Aircraft carriers were, effectively, a battleship which fired guided shells which could be recovered and launched again.
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Jan 5, 2019 2:53:23 GMT -6
USS Nautilus completely invalidated the contemporary ASW tactics used against it during its first fleet exercises. There is literally no defense (with WW2 tech) against a submarine that never needs to come to the surface and can travel underwater indefinitely at a faster speed than the surface units can move and still be able to track the sub.
Yes, but the expense and complexity of early nuclear-powered subs meant there were very few of them. The USN commissioned just eight nuclear-powered subs from 1954 through 1960, and that includes the Skipjack and Triton (the first ballistic missile submarine). Furthermore, three years passed between the commissioning of the Nautilus and the commissioning of the second nuclear-powered sub, Seawolf. There were basically three years of research using the Nautilus to examine the effects of higher underwater speed and long endurance. The Seawolf as built had a different type of reactor design, but it proved too troublesome and was later replaced with a reactor of the kind used aboard Nautilus.
The first 'production' model of SSN was the Skate class, the lead ship of which was commissioned near the end of 1957. (Three more of the class were commissioned before 1960). It was essentially an improved version of the Tang class used during WWII fitted with nuclear propulsion. Its top speed submerged was only 22 knots.
The first 'modern' nuclear-powered submarine was the Skipjack, commissioned in 1959, which used a revolutionary hull form expressly designed for high underwater speed (it could reach 33 knots submerged).
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jan 5, 2019 6:28:50 GMT -6
Nukes were the final nail in the coffin for the big gun battleships. Your point about making it hard to research could allow for nuclear technology in the game, but only the US or Britain could get it. In effect, they would become impossible
It was aircraft carriers that put an end to battleships, not atomic (nuclear) weapons. Aircraft carriers were, effectively, a battleship which fired guided shells which could be recovered and launched again.
Yes. And they were basically all of the nails in the coffin. The nuke point is a theoretical point. If only the US had nuclear weapons, even aircraft carriers would be obsolete and with them battleships. This actually happened during the late 40s when only the US had nuclear weapons. If there was a war, the enemy fleet could be put out of action as soon as it was in range of a strategic airbase. At this point battleships would have immediately become obsolete.
Due to other countries developing nuclear weapons before another war, the MAD policy prevented any wars like this taking place. The battleships carried on as shore bombardment vessels until the Gulf War (the opening shots were fired by the US battleship Missouri). This was because, for shore targets, a gun was quicker and cheaper to fire than a bomb and cheaper than a missile.
Whilst I admit that in historical reality it was the aircraft carrier that finished off the battleships, in an alternate history game like RTW, the advent of a nuke would do the same thing, albeit much quicker, given the number of wars likely to take place after one nation had researched it.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Jan 5, 2019 8:26:09 GMT -6
Yes, but the expense and complexity of early nuclear-powered subs meant there were very few of them. The USN commissioned just eight nuclear-powered subs from 1954 through 1960, and that includes the Skipjack and Triton (the first ballistic missile submarine). Furthermore, three years passed between the commissioning of the Nautilus and the commissioning of the second nuclear-powered sub, Seawolf. There were basically three years of research using the Nautilus to examine the effects of higher underwater speed and long endurance. The Seawolf as built had a different type of reactor design, but it proved too troublesome and was later replaced with a reactor of the kind used aboard Nautilus. The first 'production' model of SSN was the Skate class, the lead ship of which was commissioned near the end of 1957. (Three more of the class were commissioned before 1960). It was essentially an improved version of the Tang class used during WWII fitted with nuclear propulsion. Its top speed submerged was only 22 knots. The first 'modern' nuclear-powered submarine was the Skipjack, commissioned in 1959, which used a revolutionary hull form expressly designed for high underwater speed (it could reach 33 knots submerged). That could have had to due with peacetime budgets rather than complexity. U-235 enriched uranium is another bottleneck but Nautilus's second core (1957) already had double the percentage of enrichment as the first core (40% vs. 20% in the original) so access to highly enriched uranium was relatively quickly solved. Regardless, you don't need more than two or three to shutdown the enemy's operation of their main fleet. You just park them at a forward base and then when you get a sighting report of the main enemy fleet from conventional submarines or aircraft, they zip out at flank speed (23 knots top speed is 283 nm/day) and within a couple of days they go to work. Look at the damage that two pairs of conventional submarines achieved during the battles of the Philippine Sea and Leyte Gulf. Now replace them with nuke boats that the Japanese fleet can't just outrun to escape from. It would look something like the movie Predator (without the hero winning in the end) where Arnold's people got picked off one by one without ever really seeing where the kill shot was coming from until it was too late. Surface ships are faster than 23 knots but that can't hear at that speed (the line from the movie Hunt for Red October where the American CVN captain tells Ryan that the Russians were moving so fast and noisy they could run over his daughter's stereo and not hear it) and they are going to need to slow down to refuel their destroyers or abandon them to their fate and the capital ships aren't going to be steaming out again until those escorts are replaced (if they can be). Nuke boats are just too OP, particularly if submarines are abstracted like they were in RTW1. A sharply increased arbitrary and random pain (losing ships in events) for the player that they have no recourse for. Or if the player has the nukes, you start sinking all of the AI's ships a few at a time with every click of the turn button which isn't very satisfying either.
|
|
|
Post by noshurviverse on Jan 5, 2019 10:53:37 GMT -6
It was aircraft carriers that put an end to battleships, not atomic (nuclear) weapons. Aircraft carriers were, effectively, a battleship which fired guided shells which could be recovered and launched again.
While it's a commonly held idea, I'd actually contest the belief that it was the carrier itself that put an end to battleships. Even in WWI carriers, both seaplane and conventional, were being used to launch attacks against both land and sea targets. Of course, the aircraft of the time were largely incapable of carrying the types of payloads that would truly threaten the dreadnoughts. It was the advancement of aircraft payload, range, ect that really sunk the battleship. Of course, you might feel I'm splitting hair here. What would have happened during the interwar period with battleships and carriers would have been very interesting to see, but of course the WNT put a stop to that. I also find it interesting that the mainland European navies didn't invest much into carriers, relying instead upon their battleships and land-based aircraft most likely due to the geographic layout.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 5, 2019 11:34:40 GMT -6
It was aircraft carriers that put an end to battleships, not atomic (nuclear) weapons. Aircraft carriers were, effectively, a battleship which fired guided shells which could be recovered and launched again.
While it's a commonly held idea, I'd actually contest the belief that it was the carrier itself that put an end to battleships. Even in WWI carriers, both seaplane and conventional, were being used to launch attacks against both land and sea targets. Of course, the aircraft of the time were largely incapable of carrying the types of payloads that would truly threaten the dreadnoughts. It was the advancement of aircraft payload, range, ect that really sunk the battleship. Of course, you might feel I'm splitting hair here. What would have happened during the interwar period with battleships and carriers would have been very interesting to see, but of course the WNT put a stop to that. I also find it interesting that the mainland European navies didn't invest much into carriers, relying instead upon their battleships and land-based aircraft most likely due to the geographic layout. I completely agree and have said as much before. The carrier is a mobile aircraft landing strip, nothing more. It was the advent of the aircraft over time, with improvements in engines, structures, weapons etc. that curtailed the use of the battleships. It was also a shift in geopolitics with the rise of the Imperial Japanese Navy and that nations aggressive attitude. This focused more attention on the Pacific and with it wide expanses. From the Hawaiian Island to Japan is about 4060 miles with little land that is usable in between except some island which would require carrier based aircraft to support a landing. If we move to Europe, we see a different story as aircraft ranges increased, Britain, France Germany, Russia and Italy all had bases within reach of the Eastern Atlantic, North Sea, Baltic and the Mediterranean. Except for the support of Malta, there were British bases in the Near East that could support aircraft. In the Far East, the story was about the same except for the Indian Ocean. The Allies had Australia, New Caledonia, New Zealand and New Guinea specifically Port Moresby to support aircraft deployment. This does not diminish the importance of the carrier, but it does put it into perspective with respect to the dimished importance of the battleship.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 5, 2019 13:44:24 GMT -6
One thing in the favor of carriers is that as the scale increases, they allow the concentration of force anywhere. Even on land, supporting an airgroup does require a substantial investment. For instance a fighter airgroup of about 120 planes would need about 1000 men overall (including the pilots). Being able to combine 8 carriers and have 600 planes anywhere they can sail to is an ability that it would be cost prohibitive to do with land based aircraft in more then a few locations. If there weren't any carriers then aircraft could banish battleships from strongholds but a strong fleet could have too much AA cover to be overwhelmed as long as they stayed out of these areas. Thus battleships could continue to serve their role of securing lines of communication.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 5, 2019 13:57:22 GMT -6
One thing in the favor of carriers is that as the scale increases, they allow the concentration of force anywhere. Even on land, supporting an airgroup does require a substantial investment. For instance a fighter airgroup of about 120 planes would need about 1000 men overall (including the pilots). Being able to combine 8 carriers and have 600 planes anywhere they can sail to is an ability that it would be cost prohibitive to do with land based aircraft in more then a few locations. If there weren't any carriers then aircraft could banish battleships from strongholds but a strong fleet could have too much AA cover to be overwhelmed as long as they stayed out of these areas. Thus battleships could continue to serve their role of securing lines of communication. I agree that land bases are time consuming to build and take a good portion of logistics to keep in service. However, that said, a good construction crew can build an airfield very quickly. Henderson was completed from 7 August to 21 August 1942. It was ready in about two weeks even though the Japanese had started it. The carrier however has its limitation like fuel, aircraft and ordnance. Even with UNREP, a carrier cannot stay at sea for a very long period of time. You can refuel it, provide avgas and ordnance but they are complex weapons and require maintenance. Maintenance that has to be done, many times in a ship yard. Land bases are much more resilient to damage, and can be repaired quickly. But both land and sea based aircraft attrite over time. It wasn't until we build Jeep carriers and provided replacement pilots and planes that the carriers could stay at sea longer. That is a very large investment in hulls and all the attendant requirements for a carrier.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Jan 5, 2019 14:01:15 GMT -6
It was aircraft carriers that put an end to battleships, not atomic (nuclear) weapons. Aircraft carriers were, effectively, a battleship which fired guided shells which could be recovered and launched again.
While it's a commonly held idea, I'd actually contest the belief that it was the carrier itself that put an end to battleships. Even in WWI carriers, both seaplane and conventional, were being used to launch attacks against both land and sea targets. Of course, the aircraft of the time were largely incapable of carrying the types of payloads that would truly threaten the dreadnoughts. It was the advancement of aircraft payload, range, ect that really sunk the battleship. Of course, you might feel I'm splitting hair here. What would have happened during the interwar period with battleships and carriers would have been very interesting to see, but of course the WNT put a stop to that. I also find it interesting that the mainland European navies didn't invest much into carriers, relying instead upon their battleships and land-based aircraft most likely due to the geographic layout.
Agreed, but it's not only that. IMHO it's not only aircraft that made BBs obsolete, but a range of changes in naval warfare. In part it was due to aircraft, in part to subs and even in part due to BBs themselves. Simply because weapons finally won the war with armour somewhere between the end of WW1 and start of WW2. And then the ships lost armour in the same way as the troops did during XIXth century.
The main idea behind battleships was creation of a ship that can deliver damage while being able to take hits and continue fighting. Like Monitor and Virginia, able to murder any ship afloat but incapable to seriously damage each other. It worked until Ist world war, but by late thirties, it was no longer true. Weapons started to win the race against the armour, inflating the costs of battleships to the point where even the largest fleet could barely afford new ones, and then only a few. What's more, the changes in ship construction placed all the expensive equipment that allowed battleships to fight in areas that were not protected by armour. Before you had to protect engine, guns and command spaces but by late 1930s it was not enough. Power cables, rangefinders, radio, radar, AA - all that was impossible to protect, but vital to ship operations.
So the new question appeared - if it takes one BB calibre hit, one torpedo or a few bombs to make the ship non-operational, then are they worth the cost? Maybe all that armour is superfluous?
Bismarck was super hard to sink, but after first few hits it was completely incapable of fighting back, making it's entire costly armour scheme completely moot. PoW was sunk by poor damage control (restarting damaged shaft) as her TPS held while bombs KOd the ship but were not enough to sink it. South Dakota was knocked out by own guns firing or a single hit. Scharnhorst lost it's radar to random shell cutting the mast and was no longer able to dodge pursuers with active radars.
Battleships became too expensive while not bringing anything of value in return. Too costly to fight cruisers, too fragile vs battleships, merely a target against aircraft. They lost the prime reason for their construction.
In the same way, by the end of WW2 radar assisted gunnery and rapid firing 5in guns made cruisers obsolete - f.ex. Taffy3 defence where 2k ton DEs shown that 5in shells, if they are accurate enough, are deadly against 14k ton CAs.
And then nukes, being ultimate weapon, made all targets worthy a nuke completely obsolete, while ASMs gave the smallest ships ability to mission kill even the largest ships afloat.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 5, 2019 14:40:06 GMT -6
While it's a commonly held idea, I'd actually contest the belief that it was the carrier itself that put an end to battleships. Even in WWI carriers, both seaplane and conventional, were being used to launch attacks against both land and sea targets. Of course, the aircraft of the time were largely incapable of carrying the types of payloads that would truly threaten the dreadnoughts. It was the advancement of aircraft payload, range, ect that really sunk the battleship. Of course, you might feel I'm splitting hair here. What would have happened during the interwar period with battleships and carriers would have been very interesting to see, but of course the WNT put a stop to that. I also find it interesting that the mainland European navies didn't invest much into carriers, relying instead upon their battleships and land-based aircraft most likely due to the geographic layout.
…….
And then nukes, being ultimate weapon, made all targets worthy a nuke completely obsolete, while ASMs gave the smallest ships ability to mission kill even the largest ships afloat.
I can attest to the fact that nukes can ruin a ships day. I have an original Operation Crossroads book signed by Admiral Blandy and scientists, for Bikini. The damage to those ships was something to see. Independence was crushed, my dad's carrier, the Saratoga had her keel split and it sank before they could beach her, and I have a photo, original, of the mushroom cloud with a dark spot on the side. The dark spot was the USS Arkansas. My dad stated that the underwater explosion simple crushed the hulls of the ships. The Nevada was very badly damaged but salvageable. Most of the ships had to be washed extensively to board, when he took the scientists into the Lagoon. What a sight!
|
|
|
Post by corsair on Jan 5, 2019 16:07:24 GMT -6
It was aircraft carriers that put an end to battleships, not atomic (nuclear) weapons. Aircraft carriers were, effectively, a battleship which fired guided shells which could be recovered and launched again.
Yes. And they were basically all of the nails in the coffin. The nuke point is a theoretical point. If only the US had nuclear weapons, even aircraft carriers would be obsolete and with them battleships. This actually happened during the late 40s when only the US had nuclear weapons. If there was a war, the enemy fleet could be put out of action as soon as it was in range of a strategic airbase. At this point battleships would have immediately become obsolete.
Except that atomic (nuclear) weapons quickly fell under political jurisdiction rather than military jurisdiction.
|
|