|
|
Post by generalvikus on Jan 24, 2019 8:01:22 GMT -6
Plenty of time has been spent here on discussing the advance of various systems used in naval warfare, but it has just occurred to me that we ought to have a thread for discussing how all of those areas of technological progress relate to one another and together inform tactical and strategic naval doctrine.
In the instances in which we will fight wars during the 1914 - 18 and 39 - 45 periods, we may be able (in a game with historical settings) to 'correct' the failings in historical doctrine with the power of many decades of compounded hindsight. However, I think one of the most interesting parts of Rule the Waves 2 will be wars which are fought in the inter-war years, when it will be necessary to separate instances where the technologies of the time were not yet properly understood from those instances when theorists of the time got things right. For example, just how early could the carrier have been adopted as the fleet's primary weapon, and how early could battleship construction be stopped? How would a war fought in 1935 differ from the real war, and in what ways would it be similar? How about 1930, 1925, and so on?
Beyond all of this, we must also consider how the 'natural' development of technology in the absence of any treaty restrictions might have different from history? Would the age of the carrier come sooner or later? How might cruisers have developed if they had not been so constrained? And so on.
So, to be clear, this thread is not intended necessarily for discussions of historical doctrine alone - though of course that will play an important part - but for the formulation of (and hopefully debate between) our own schools of thought on how wars will be fought and won at various stages of the game. In this endeavour, I expect that it may be useful to attempt to divide the timeline of the game into distinct eras, so that it will then be possible to compare the characteristics of hypothetical wars in each of those periods. Further discussion of 'generations' of ship classes may also be fruitful. I think such a model, if it can be devised, will provide a solid theoretical foundation for further discussions.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jan 24, 2019 8:43:48 GMT -6
Beyond all of this, we must also consider how the 'natural' development of technology in the absence of any treaty restrictions might have different from history? Would the age of the carrier come sooner or later? How might cruisers have developed if they had not been so constrained? And so on. This is an excellent question. I think many would say that Carrier doctrine development was kick-started by all the largest Navalpowers agreeing to either scrap their newest Battleships/Battlecruisers in construction or convert a few of them to Carriers instead. As such all of them got large Carriers with long flightdecks available for experimentation and developing doctrines. At the same time development of guns caliber 10-12 inches and large raiders / cruiser killers & battlecruisers was pretty much made irrelevant and stopped by the treaties concluding that no other ships than the limited BB/BC/CV could be over 10000 ton ( and later 8 inches guns ). It could make the game very interesting if doctrine development is properly connected to what ships you have available and what treaties are in effect, and having different naval treaties could lead into different directions of development. If the Naval treaty had not limited Carriers but Battleships for example that could have speeded up development of Carriers even more than historical, or if everyone sends Battleship adherents to negotiate a treaty maybe it ends up not limiting Battleships in a meaningful way at all. I would also love to see major wars ( 2 vs 2 for example ) and AI vs AI wars have a part of the game, with options to learn and adapt lessons and doctrines from the side your on most friendly terms or allied with. |
|
|
|
Post by abclark on Jan 24, 2019 9:47:02 GMT -6
At the same time development of guns caliber 10-12 inches and large raiders / cruiser killers & battlecruisers was pretty much made irrelevant and stopped by the treaties concluding that no other ships than the limited BB/BC/CV could be over 10000 ton ( and later 8 inches guns ). I actually have a lot of success with an upscaled Baltimore design in the 1930s. They’re about a halfway point between a Baltimore and an Alaska. I imagine that’s what heavy cruisers would’ve evolved towards. Fast, ~10” guns, decent protection. If the Naval treaty had not limited Carriers but Battleships for example that could have speeded up development of Carriers even more than historical, or if everyone sends Battleship adherents to negotiate a treaty maybe it ends up not limiting Battleships in a meaningful way at all. It would’ve been quite ridiculous to see a treaty that didn’t limit battleships at all, but stopped carrier construction even though virtually none had been built. I imagine the UK would’ve bankrupted itself trying to keep up with the US. |
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 24, 2019 11:34:37 GMT -6
The US desire to out build Britain only lasted as long as the Wilson administration.
|
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 24, 2019 15:00:03 GMT -6
Plenty of time has been spent here on discussing the advance of various systems used in naval warfare, but it has just occurred to me that we ought to have a thread for discussing how all of those areas of technological progress relate to one another and together inform tactical and strategic naval doctrine. In the instances in which we will fight wars during the 1914 - 18 and 39 - 45 periods, we may be able (in a game with historical settings) to 'correct' the failings in historical doctrine with the power of many decades of compounded hindsight. However, I think one of the most interesting parts of Rule the Waves 2 will be wars which are fought in the inter-war years, when it will be necessary to separate instances where the technologies of the time were not yet properly understood from those instances when theorists of the time got things right. For example, just how early could the carrier have been adopted as the fleet's primary weapon, and how early could battleship construction be stopped? How would a war fought in 1935 differ from the real war, and in what ways would it be similar? How about 1930, 1925, and so on? Beyond all of this, we must also consider how the 'natural' development of technology in the absence of any treaty restrictions might have different from history? Would the age of the carrier come sooner or later? How might cruisers have developed if they had not been so constrained? And so on. So, to be clear, this thread is not intended necessarily for discussions of historical doctrine alone - though of course that will play an important part - but for the formulation of (and hopefully debate between) our own schools of thought on how wars will be fought and won at various stages of the game. In this endeavour, I expect that it may be useful to attempt to divide the timeline of the game into distinct eras, so that it will then be possible to compare the characteristics of hypothetical wars in each of those periods. Further discussion of 'generations' of ship classes may also be fruitful. I think such a model, if it can be devised, will provide a solid theoretical foundation for further discussions. It is much more complex. It is not only time - "when", but also "where" and "why".
Look at carrier development in RN. RN continued carrier development after WW1 in same way as USN or IJN but in middle of 30s Italian threat change it and "armored carriers" were born.
Or you can think about battles in North Sea and Artics as there is much worse conditions for carrier warfare than in other seas as the Mediterranean and especially Pacific.
The reasons you mentioned are what I look forward to see. We will have a lot of "handsight" from RTW but there will be a lot of new staff, especially air.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 24, 2019 17:42:02 GMT -6
This is an interesting thread and although we have touched on strategy, tactics and doctrine, it is good to focus on doctrine. However, strategy and tactics must be included. Sorry, I am an old man and I was taught to work from the simple to complex. So, maybe with some forbearance from all of you, I could possibly offer some definitions on all these three terms.
Alright, so answering the question of “what is doctrine” let’s use Rand Corporation definition:
“Military doctrine is the fundamental set of principles that guides military forces as they pursue national security objectives.”
Now, what does the Army say “Army doctrine is defined as the fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives.
What about the US Navy? The fundamental principles by which the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives.
Now, lastly, what does the USAF say “Fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application. “
Hmm, sounds all the same doesn’t it. Doesn’t say a thing about technology, does it. So, what is a military strategy?
A set of ideas implemented by military organizations to pursue desired strategic goals. Military strategy deals with the planning and conduct of campaigns, the movement and disposition of forces, and the deception of the enemy.
Tactics are nothing more than the organizing and employing fighting forces on or near the battlefield. That is simple.
Nowhere is there anything about technology. How about that, so where is technology? Technology is the tool, not the tool box. If this thread is going to focus on doctrine, put technology aside temporarily. Strategy and tactics drive technology and doctrine is the over all guiding principle of how the two are used. It is as simple as that. I know many of you will say that the all big gun battleship drove naval strategy, tactics and doctrine, but if you read carefully all your books, that is not true. It was the strategy which drove the tactics and that provided the requirements of an all big gun dreadnought.
I am not negating the influence of the Industrial age and the advancements in weaponry and other technologies. I am saying that geography changed military strategy in the one hundred years since Trafalgar. This change in possible opponents guided the strategy due to geographic changes. The technology just followed along.
In the game, geography cannot be changed, so much of your strategy will mimic history. As Santayana said, those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
One note: The first time that carriers were put into the role of primary threats was probably the Fleet Problem of January 23-27 1929. I believe that that Fleet Problem as complex as it was, gave the carriers a chance in the center role. Just my opinion.
Thanks for letting me offer my thoughts on this interesting subject. It is appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 24, 2019 23:11:03 GMT -6
Carrier development could have been accelerated by nations that had nothing to lose by gambling on new, unproven technology.
Italy could and should have gone into land-based, naval-controlled planes rather than building battleships.
Japan could and did develop carriers, both for ground support in China and because aircraft, like Long Lance torpedoes, gave them a chance to make up for the numbers gap.
Germany absolutely could and should have developed land-based, naval-controlled planes along with carriers, but conservatism at the top and Goering's political pull stopped it.
The Soviet Union could and should have bet heavily on land-based, naval-controlled planes along with carriers, but the Navy was too starved of funds to build anything.
France had no serious need for naval aviation of any kind and was too busy changing priorities to get anything done.
Of the three carrier powers (UK, US and Japan), Japan gambled and the other two had the funds to invest in carriers as an experiment.
|
|
|
|
Post by alexbrunius on Jan 25, 2019 9:05:21 GMT -6
It would’ve been quite ridiculous to see a treaty that didn’t limit battleships at all, but stopped carrier construction even though virtually none had been built. I imagine the UK would’ve bankrupted itself trying to keep up with the US. A treaty limiting Carriers would probably be more likely in 1930s or even 40s ( as an attempt to keep Battleships viable, kind of like how the Samurai/Shoguns of Japan outlawed gunpowder and rifles after it was clear they surpassed the traditional weapons ), but keep in mind that even the original treaty from 1922 did limit Carrier construction as well. |
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Jan 25, 2019 9:22:48 GMT -6
Carrier development could have been accelerated by nations that had nothing to lose by gambling on new, unproven technology. Italy could and should have gone into land-based, naval-controlled planes rather than building battleships. Japan could and did develop carriers, both for ground support in China and because aircraft, like Long Lance torpedoes, gave them a chance to make up for the numbers gap. Germany absolutely could and should have developed land-based, naval-controlled planes along with carriers, but conservatism at the top and Goering's political pull stopped it. The Soviet Union could and should have bet heavily on land-based, naval-controlled planes along with carriers, but the Navy was too starved of funds to build anything. France had no serious need for naval aviation of any kind and was too busy changing priorities to get anything done. Of the three carrier powers (UK, US and Japan), Japan gambled and the other two had the funds to invest in carriers as an experiment. If I am right aware, Germany did that. X. Fliegerkorps was quite powerfull and much more dangerous to anything Italians posses.
I do not think that carriers were important for Germany as carriers are about power projection and Germany has not chance to contest RN.
|
|
|
|
Post by akosjaccik on Jan 25, 2019 9:41:01 GMT -6
I do not think that carriers were important for Germany as carriers are about power projection and Germany has not chance to contest RN.
I agree. This is strictly my own, not-too-valuable opinion, but carrier(s) for Germany was an utter waste of money, and considering how they intended to use them, the outlook on that particular what-if scenario is even worse. |
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 25, 2019 10:24:31 GMT -6
dorn - whatever hopes the German Navy might have had for its own aircraft were dashed when Goering won the political battle. The Luftwaffe usually refused to provide any aircraft or aircover for navy missions (with a few exceptions) and the Navy retaliated by refusing to let the Luftwaffe use torpedoes (and were later over-ruled on that). A naval air service on the USN/IJN model could, I think, have been a campaign-changing asset for Italy and Germany.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 25, 2019 12:37:41 GMT -6
I see that we are headed into the area of virtual history, which of course is based on actual history. While technology is important, military strategy and doctrine is guided by economic and political geography. Where will the nations in the game be economically and politically at any one point in the game is decided by many factors. Here are some of my questions:
Will there be a World War?
Will there be economic problems such as hyperinflation, and market crash along with world-wide economic problems. This will affect the funding of technological innovation in many nations.
Will there be political upheaval which will cause the same problems as the above?
In the area of technology, some other questions:
Will the above problems of economics and politics as well as social upheaval restrict the growth of vital technological innovations such as Duraluminum, cockpit instrumentation, control surfaces, advanced engine designs, improved armaments and controls for those armaments? Improved landing gears along with pneumatics and hydraulics. We will need better bombsights and gunsights. We will need better communications between aircraft and their carriers.
Those are just some of my questions.
Now, for carriers, if we move towards Duraluminum, we will need bigger more powerful engines, like inline and radials. We will need much heavier undercarriages as we improve ordnance capability. The decks will need to be heavier along with bigger carriers. This will require bigger berths to build the ships and this will all cost more money. Do the nations in the game have that capability or will it have to be funded?
If we go back to history, the post World War era, which is the era that we are involved in with RTW2, will their be nations like Russia, Italy, AH, Germany with both economic privations along with political and social upheaval.
Just some of my thoughts
|
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jan 25, 2019 12:58:08 GMT -6
I do not think that carriers were important for Germany as carriers are about power projection and Germany has not chance to contest RN.
I agree. This is strictly my own, not-too-valuable opinion, but carrier(s) for Germany was an utter waste of money, and considering how they intended to use them, the outlook on that particular what-if scenario is even worse. That may have been the case in real life, but RTW2 is different. In RTW2, there is little that prevents Germany (or France or Italy or even Austria-Hungary) from pursuing a course to gain naval and territorial dominance outside of Europe. In RTW2, carriers are every bit as useful to Germany as they were to the United States or Britain. A case could be made for relying purely on land-based air if your ambition does not extend beyond the Mediterranean Sea, which can indeed be dominated by land-based air (once air ranges grow far enough). If your ambition extends beyond that puddle you are well advised to include carriers in your fleet. |
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jan 25, 2019 13:34:53 GMT -6
A lot of doctrine is tied directly to your current level of technology. Should your carriers target enemy battleships or remain on the defensive to protect your battle line from enemy air attacks. Are your planes even capable of seriously damaging a battleship? Are your fighters capable of blunting or defeating incoming airstrikes? Do you have radar allowing you to restrict pickets or launch fighters soon enough to reach altitude. Are your operating procedures and elevators good enough to launch planes fast enough to meet incoming airstrikes. Is your AA capable of disrupting or destroying the enemy air? Do you have the right communications technology to allow your ships to maneuver en masse while under attack, or do they need miles of space so they can safely maneuver on their own? Is your search and strike range superior or inferior to the enemy's? Can you put enough bombers in the air to do sufficient damage. Are the bombs they carry good enough to penetrate the deck armor of a battleship or an armored carrier. All of these technology questions and dozens more influence the doctrine you will use, the kinds of task forces you put together, how you approach or avoid enemy forces, whether you operate your ships together or separately, how you equip your carriers.
Planned doctrine, in turn, can dictate the design of your ships and the technology you demand or utilize. It can influence what types of planes your carriers carry, what types of main guns to equip, how much armor to carry, the size of the air complement, the minimum acceptable speed. It's a two-way street - technology both dictates and is dictated by doctrine.
Note that I said "planned" doctrine. If the navy is good it will recognize when its doctrine doesn't meet the reality it is facing and will adjust its doctrine very quickly, as well as the technology it uses (as fast as possible), to meet the surprises that come with actual battle. If it's rigid that doesn't happen or doesn't happen fast enough.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Jan 25, 2019 16:26:25 GMT -6
France had no serious need for naval aviation of any kind and was too busy changing priorities to get anything done. France couldn't depend on British support in the even of a conflict with Japan or Italy and there were parts of the interwar period where it seemed Britain might abandon them to their own devices when it came to Germany. In any conflict without British support, naval aviation would have been quite useful for them indeed. |
|
