|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 25, 2019 16:36:40 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. I agree and would add that France also had overseas possessions like French Indochina, French Algeria, French Guiana etc. These all had to be protected from possible opponents which includes the Italians, British and the Germans. Carriers would have been valuable to protect her trade routes around the world.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 25, 2019 17:29:30 GMT -6
jwsmith26 - widen your argument a bit - "A case could be made for relying purely on land-based air if your ambition does not extend beyond the Mediterranean Sea" - to include the Baltic and North Sea in Germany's case, and I agree.
|
|
|
Post by jwsmith26 on Jan 25, 2019 19:37:46 GMT -6
director , my argument was made more from the viewpoint of RTW2 as opposed to what happened historically. Currently in RTW2 the airbases available on the Baltic and especially the North Sea do not provide the level of coverage that exists in the Med. That may change before the game is released. There has been discussion of adding additional bases, but as it stands currently, it is difficult to cover the northern stretches of those bodies of water with land-based air. Even so, you are probably correct that a carrier would be a marginal investment if Germany had no ambitions beyond those seas.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 25, 2019 22:34:05 GMT -6
director , my argument was made more from the viewpoint of RTW2 as opposed to what happened historically. Currently in RTW2 the airbases available on the Baltic and especially the North Sea do not provide the level of coverage that exists in the Med. That may change before the game is released. There has been discussion of adding additional bases, but as it stands currently, it is difficult to cover the northern stretches of those bodies of water with land-based air. Even so, you are probably correct that a carrier would be a marginal investment if Germany had no ambitions beyond those seas. Let's not forget the value of jeep carriers in protecting trade lanes, especially in hunter-killer groups protection of convoys. I doubt the game will allow it, but it was vital. The IJN might have done better had they spent more time and money on such technology.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jan 25, 2019 23:26:58 GMT -6
jwsmith26 - point taken, I just don't know exactly how RtW2 will handle air doctrine. I do think an important decision should be who procures and controls the aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by vonfriedman on Jan 27, 2019 5:35:53 GMT -6
For Italy in particular and perhaps for a Japan on the defensive there could be two alternatives about the best doctrine concerning aircraft. A school of thought would prefer to develop a powerful land-based aviation exploiting the numerous bases near the sea or on the islands. It was for this reason that Italy did not build aircraft carriers in WW2, if not too late.
|
|