|
Post by admiralhood on Feb 28, 2019 16:30:44 GMT -6
Recently I started a new RTW game as the Japanese Empire. As in the real history, the IJN has way much smaller budget than its British and American counterpart. There is no way that the Japanese Empire could complete a BB-BC-balanced fleet that is able to match USN and RN. This situation make me think, why can't we concentrate all the available resources on building better and bigger BCs? With that strategy the IJN could double the size of its BC fleet. Therefore, the IJN would have a way much better chance to defeat its USN counterpart in the vanguard battle. Than the IJN BCs could choose either fight with or flee from the 21-knot USN standard battleships because of their better mobility. With the vanguard crippled, the USN will not have mobilized forces to suppress IJN cruisers, not to mention trade route blockade. What do you think of this all-BC-capital-ship naval strategy? I would like to discuss with you guys about its pros and cons. As far as what I know of, Admiral "Jacky" Fisher was the first who proposed the idea of "all-BC" fleet.
|
|
|
Post by garrisonchisholm on Feb 28, 2019 17:01:49 GMT -6
Well the first point I would argue is rather "meta", namely that the game engine generates Large cruiser missions which favor commonly 3 though sometimes 2 BC encounters. If you have 17 BCs in a region but your cruiser encounters will tend to not allow you to put your superiority of numbers into play, then you will have bought no equity for your design.
Additionally as the game ages your battle fleet would become more and more vulnerable, and a Fleet action would be a dubious enterprise.
I would have to say that this proposed strategy would make victory more difficult for the player.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 28, 2019 17:07:08 GMT -6
Recently I started a new RTW game as the Japanese Empire. As in the real history, the IJN has way much smaller budget than its British and American counterpart. There is no way that the Japanese Empire could complete a BB-BC-balanced fleet that is able to match USN and RN. This situation make me think, why can't we concentrate all the available resources on building better and bigger BCs? With that strategy the IJN could double the size of its BC fleet. Therefore, the IJN would have a way much better chance to defeat its USN counterpart in the vanguard battle. Than the IJN BCs could choose either fight with or flee from the 21-knot USN standard battleships because of their better mobility. With the vanguard crippled, the USN will not have mobilized forces to suppress IJN cruisers, not to mention trade route blockade. What do you think of this all-BC-capital-ship naval strategy? I would like to discuss with you guys about its pros and cons. As far as what I know of, Admiral "Jacky" Fisher was the first who proposed the idea of "all-BC" fleet. I play Japan a lot. You have to examine in order of probability, their most likely opponents in order of probability. That would be; Germany, Russia, France and Great Britain. Now, you have to adopt a particular operational strategy. Do I engage in fleet battles, where battleships are prominent, or do I adopt a different strategy that requires speed and firepower to hit and run, with submarines and other lighter ships like destroyers, cruisers. The latter is an "interceptive operation" where I wear down the opponents fleet, attack his trade routes and causing him political and social grief at home and maybe some economic problems as well. The two prominent nations on this list are very susceptible to this strategy. Now the other two, are a long distance away from the Far East, which gives you the advantage and the same strategy will work; Interceptive operations. I have never lost a war as the Japanese but have had some minor defeats at sea due to experimentation. Hope this helps, good luck and good sailing
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 28, 2019 17:16:07 GMT -6
In-game you can beat the AI with all BC. The scenario generator makes battlecruisers more useful than battleships in general and you can design "fast battleship"-style battlecruisers that can hang well enough with battleships that in the few fleet encounters you can hold your own and even win. That's mainly because you seldom see a nation's entire battleline used in any one scenario like what happened at Jutland.
If you were referring to actual real life, neglecting aircraft carriers and keeping it to a RTW timeline, the problem with an all BC lineup is it can't stand toe-to-toe with a line of full battleships. That means that the US can slowly but inexorably advance under the protection of its battleships and all the Japanese battlecruisers can do is steam around ahead of it retreating and burning coal. Eventually, the US will come upon a target that the Japanese feel they must defend and then they fight and, assuming the Japanese don't have some technological breakthrough that allows much more accurate long range fire than the Americans, they will lose.
Battleships are the benchmark until carriers mature. If the other side has battlecruisers then you need them as well (The USN would have done quite poorly against either the High Seas Fleet or the Grand Fleet in 1916) but they can't replace battleships. When carriers come around though the battlecruiser is more useful because they, and faster battleships, have the speed to act as escorts.
|
|
|
Post by admiralhood on Feb 28, 2019 17:26:57 GMT -6
Recently I started a new RTW game as the Japanese Empire. As in the real history, the IJN has way much smaller budget than its British and American counterpart. There is no way that the Japanese Empire could complete a BB-BC-balanced fleet that is able to match USN and RN. This situation make me think, why can't we concentrate all the available resources on building better and bigger BCs? With that strategy the IJN could double the size of its BC fleet. Therefore, the IJN would have a way much better chance to defeat its USN counterpart in the vanguard battle. Than the IJN BCs could choose either fight with or flee from the 21-knot USN standard battleships because of their better mobility. With the vanguard crippled, the USN will not have mobilized forces to suppress IJN cruisers, not to mention trade route blockade. What do you think of this all-BC-capital-ship naval strategy? I would like to discuss with you guys about its pros and cons. As far as what I know of, Admiral "Jacky" Fisher was the first who proposed the idea of "all-BC" fleet. I play Japan a lot. You have to examine in order of probability, their most likely opponents in order of probability. That would be; Germany, Russia, France and Great Britain. Now, you have to adopt a particular operational strategy. Do I engage in fleet battles, where battleships are prominent, or do I adopt a different strategy that requires speed and firepower to hit and run, with submarines and other lighter ships like destroyers, cruisers. The latter is an "interceptive operation" where I wear down the opponents fleet, attack his trade routes and causing him political and social grief at home and maybe some economic problems as well. The two prominent nations on this list are very susceptible to this strategy. Now the other two, are a long distance away from the Far East, which gives you the advantage and the same strategy will work; Interceptive operations. I have never lost a war as the Japanese but have had some minor defeats at sea due to experimentation. Hope this helps, good luck and good sailing There is always an alternative battle plan on my mind as for the Battle of Jutland. What if Sheer and Hipper focused on lure, trap and than the destroy Betty's BC fleet solely? If the High Sea Fleet managed to destroy Betty's BC fleet and then fled before Jellicoe's BBs arrived on the scene with a relative low loss, would this tactical victory be helpful to breach the trade route blockade? As I mentioned before, slow BBs were not suitable for chasing cruisers and intercept merchant convoys. Will the Kaiserliche Marine, more importantly, the Deutsches Reich as a whole, manage to take back the Freedom of Navigation from the Royal Navy by destroying Betty's BC fleet alone?
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 28, 2019 17:51:29 GMT -6
Not that that kind of victory was going to happen with the presence of the 5th Battle Squadron but the short answer is no. As long as the Grand Fleet controlled the North Sea then they could blockade Germany. The German battlecruisers could run around pretty freely conducting raids and such for a couple of years until the British built their battlecruiser force back up (and realistically it would have only taken a couple of years, three at the most for the British shipbuilding industry to accomplish that.)
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 28, 2019 18:01:29 GMT -6
I play Japan a lot. You have to examine in order of probability, their most likely opponents in order of probability. That would be; Germany, Russia, France and Great Britain. Now, you have to adopt a particular operational strategy. Do I engage in fleet battles, where battleships are prominent, or do I adopt a different strategy that requires speed and firepower to hit and run, with submarines and other lighter ships like destroyers, cruisers. The latter is an "interceptive operation" where I wear down the opponents fleet, attack his trade routes and causing him political and social grief at home and maybe some economic problems as well. The two prominent nations on this list are very susceptible to this strategy. Now the other two, are a long distance away from the Far East, which gives you the advantage and the same strategy will work; Interceptive operations. I have never lost a war as the Japanese but have had some minor defeats at sea due to experimentation. Hope this helps, good luck and good sailing There is always an alternative battle plan on my mind as for the Battle of Jutland. What if Sheer and Hipper focused on lure, trap and than the destroy Betty's BC fleet solely? If the High Sea Fleet managed to destroy Betty's BC fleet and then fled before Jellicoe's BBs arrived on the scene with a relative low loss, would this tactical victory be helpful to breach the trade route blockade? As I mentioned before, slow BBs were not suitable for chasing cruisers and intercept merchant convoys. Will the Kaiserliche Marine, more importantly, the Deutsches Reich as a whole, manage to take back the Freedom of Navigation from the Royal Navy by destroying Betty's BC fleet alone? That tactical strategy is essentially interceptive operations, attack the enemy forces by hitting his weaker units that are detached from the main fleet. There is nothing wrong with that concept provided that tactical goal or goals fulfill the operational goals and those satisfy the strategic goals. Most wars are lost when that chain fails.
|
|
|
Post by rimbecano on Feb 28, 2019 18:02:53 GMT -6
Recently I started a new RTW game as the Japanese Empire. As in the real history, the IJN has way much smaller budget than its British and American counterpart. There is no way that the Japanese Empire could complete a BB-BC-balanced fleet that is able to match USN and RN. This situation make me think, why can't we concentrate all the available resources on building better and bigger BCs? With that strategy the IJN could double the size of its BC fleet. Therefore, the IJN would have a way much better chance to defeat its USN counterpart in the vanguard battle. Than the IJN BCs could choose either fight with or flee from the 21-knot USN standard battleships because of their better mobility. With the vanguard crippled, the USN will not have mobilized forces to suppress IJN cruisers, not to mention trade route blockade. What do you think of this all-BC-capital-ship naval strategy? I would like to discuss with you guys about its pros and cons. As far as what I know of, Admiral "Jacky" Fisher was the first who proposed the idea of "all-BC" fleet. Well, if you take BCs as the British designed them (sacrificing armor to gain speed), you stand to lose half your battle line to turret fires if you ever engage in a fleet battle. If you build BCs the way I do (no more than six main battery guns, but of the heaviest caliber you have available, with heavy armor), you don't actually need anything other than BCs and DDs.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 28, 2019 18:05:13 GMT -6
Not that that kind of victory was going to happen with the presence of the 5th Battle Squadron but the short answer is no. As long as the Grand Fleet controlled the North Sea then they could blockade Germany. The German battlecruisers could run around pretty freely conducting raids and such for a couple of years until the British built their battlecruiser force back up (and realistically it would have only taken a couple of years, three at the most for the British shipbuilding industry to accomplish that.) The interceptive operational plan must include all the ships including submarines, light forces, and battle cruisers. The distant blockade could be pierced if the operational plan was designed to continue to draw out the British light forces and battlecruisers and attrite them. Eventually, Jellicoe has to deploy his battleships in the role designed for the battlecruisers, or not sail. If he does the latter, the blockade is broken. Remember the time period, no long range aircraft. For the interwar and WWII period, a whole different strategy was necessary and that meant lots of long range submarines and aircraft to attack British bases on the eastern and southern English coasts. The other solution is simple: the Schlieffen Plan has to work, France falls and the French Naval Bases can be used by the High Seas Fleet along with the French railroads to bring in supplies to Germany. This is essentially what happened in WW2 except Hitler never gave his navy a chance to build the 300 submarines it needed and the fleet that they wanted.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 28, 2019 18:19:54 GMT -6
The British light cruisers of the Arethusa-class and C-class were as fast or faster than the German battlecruisers. It would be difficult to pin them down. And the battlecruisers would have to retreat when the Grand Fleet arrived. So the Grand Fleet would be in a positioning disadvantage against the High Seas Fleet in another Jutland due to the German battlecruisers dominating the scouting and intelligence gathering phase of any fleet battle but the firepower advantage of the Grand Fleet is more than enough to overcome that. The British would still control the North Sea and be able to maintain their blockade. Like I stated above, I think their biggest difficulty would be preventing raiding strikes by the German battlecruisers on coastal towns and such. If it got bad enough the Grand Fleet might need to spread out and that might allow another fleet action with the Germans having the advantage but they would still need to sink a disproportionate amount of British battleships compared to their own losses to break the blockade.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 28, 2019 18:26:27 GMT -6
The British light cruisers of the Arethusa-class and C-class were as fast or faster than the German battlecruisers. It would be difficult to pin them down. And the battlecruisers would have to retreat when the Grand Fleet arrived. So the Grand Fleet would be in a positioning disadvantage against the High Seas Fleet in another Jutland due to the German battlecruisers dominating the scouting and intelligence gathering phase of any fleet battle but the firepower advantage of the Grand Fleet is more than enough to overcome that. The British would still control the North Sea and be able to maintain their blockade. Like I stated above, I think their biggest difficulty would be preventing raiding strikes by the German battlecruisers on coastal towns and such. If it got bad enough the Grand Fleet might need to spread out and that might allow another fleet action with the Germans having the advantage but they would still need to sink a disproportionate amount of British battleships compared to their own losses to break the blockade. While that is true about the Arethusa class and C class cruisers, they would be tied to the Battlecruiser force for scouting and protection, they could not just run away and hide so speed is good, but the not the total solution especially if the enemy can hit you from both flanks and have submarines waiting for your ships as they retreat. In a comparison of speeds, Arethusa could do 32.5 MPH and Derfflinger could manage 30.5 MPH. I would not want my cruisers survival to rest on a 2 MPH of speed, a long range 12 " 50 cal. gun could easily make up that difference. Also, in the heavy seas in the North Sea, a battlecruiser has a much better chance of maintaining that high speed than a cruiser.
|
|
|
Post by bcoopactual on Feb 28, 2019 18:46:35 GMT -6
In a comparison of speeds, Arethusa could do 32.5 MPH and Derfflinger could manage 30.5 MPH. I would not want my cruisers survival to rest on a 2 MPH of speed, a long range 12 " 50 cal. gun could easily make up that difference. Also, in the heavy seas in the North Sea, a battlecruiser has a much better chance of maintaining that high speed than a cruiser. Point taken. Light cruisers of the time are small, maneuverable ships and hard for capital ship main guns to hit at a distance though. If I recall, none of the British light cruisers suffered significant damage during the runs to the South and North at Jutland. Not that they were the main targets of course but they would still have been taken under fire as circumstances allowed and I don't believe that any were hit by the German battlecruisers or battleships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 28, 2019 18:52:04 GMT -6
In a comparison of speeds, Arethusa could do 32.5 MPH and Derfflinger could manage 30.5 MPH. I would not want my cruisers survival to rest on a 2 MPH of speed, a long range 12 " 50 cal. gun could easily make up that difference. Also, in the heavy seas in the North Sea, a battlecruiser has a much better chance of maintaining that high speed than a cruiser. Point taken. Light cruisers of the time are small, maneuverable ships and hard for capital ship main guns to hit at a distance though. If I recall, none of the British light cruisers suffered significant damage during the runs to the South and North at Jutland. Not that they were the main targets of course but they would still have been taken under fire as circumstances allowed and I don't believe that any were hit by the German battlecruisers or battleships. I can't argue the facts but the light forces were not the target in most of the naval battles of the First World War, the dreadnoughts and Battlecruisers were the targets. In an interceptive operation, the light forces and the Battlecruisers would be the targets, so the results from Jutland and other battles might not apply in this case. In this strategy, the conops is to attrite the light forces and battlecruisers making the main fleet more vulnerable to submarines and destroyers with torpedoes. The Interceptive Operation conops, as tested by the Naval War College in the mid-thirties was highly successful and that is what made the US Navy change its plan from through to the Philippines to a step by step across the Pacific conops. So, this type of operation can be very successful especially when implemented in an enclosed sea like the North Sea and against a nation that does rely heavily on trade.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on Feb 28, 2019 19:06:17 GMT -6
There is always an alternative battle plan on my mind as for the Battle of Jutland. What if Sheer and Hipper focused on lure, trap and than the destroy Betty's BC fleet solely? If the High Sea Fleet managed to destroy Betty's BC fleet and then fled before Jellicoe's BBs arrived on the scene with a relative low loss, would this tactical victory be helpful to breach the trade route blockade? As I mentioned before, slow BBs were not suitable for chasing cruisers and intercept merchant convoys. Will the Kaiserliche Marine, more importantly, the Deutsches Reich as a whole, manage to take back the Freedom of Navigation from the Royal Navy by destroying Betty's BC fleet alone? What do you think Hipper and Scheer were trying to do in the opening stages of the battle? The Run to the South is exactly an attempt to lure Beatty's battlecruisers into a trap to be closed by the main body of the High Seas Fleet, and while it may perhaps have been possible to draw Beatty into a worse position than occurred historically, it's not particularly likely that it could have been done intentionally using the technology of the time outside of a war game. Beyond that, even had the High Seas Fleet managed to attain a better position to entrap Beatty's ships, there is still the issue that not one of the battleships of the High Seas Fleet can keep up with any of Beatty's ships - even the battleships of the Fifth Battle Squadron - unless Beatty's squadron is compelled to reduce speed by battle damage, and whatever else you may think of Beatty he wasn't fool enough to stand and fight sixteen dreadnought battleships and five battlecruisers with six battlecruisers and four battleships when he didn't have to. From the time that Beatty became aware of Scheer's battleships to the end of the battle, there's really not much that the German fleet could have done differently to focus more on cutting off and destroying the British Battle Cruiser Fleet.
As to whether or not the total destruction of the Battle Cruiser Fleet would have allowed Germany to wrest control of the seas away from Britain, that's more difficult to say. Battlecruisers and battleships for the most part do not engage in the day-to-day work of enforcing the blockade; rather, they are the lurking threat which prevents the other side's battleships and battlecruisers from coming out to destroy the old warships, light warships, and auxiliary cruisers that do most of the actual blockade work. Unfortunately for Germany, Britain didn't actually need control of the North Sea to enforce its blockade - Germany was already trading with the Scandinavian states and Britain was already starting to restrict the flow of war materials to neutral states because they were well aware that the neutral states represented a potential hole in the blockade - and I doubt if the Kaiserliche Marine could have opened either the Denmark Strait or the English Channel to German merchant shipping on anything like a regular basis unless it first managed to utterly defeat the Royal Navy. With the ships that they had, the German bases were simply too far away to allow for sustained patrols to protect merchant ships sailing independently, and without the destruction of a considerable part of the Grand Fleet's battleships it'd be mad to try to escort convoys into the open Atlantic, or force a way through the blockade for a convoy coming into the North Sea. Beyond that, most merchant ships of the time were far slower than the battleships, and even the fast trans-Atlantic liners of the time were only about as fast as the Queen Elizabeth-class battleships.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 28, 2019 19:44:02 GMT -6
Without straying too far from the original thread question, the “run to the south” was simply a meeting engagement and neither side knew the other sides location, they were within fifty miles of each other at right angles and entirely ignorant of each other. All the actions after that were fleet actions, with Beatty finally executing his instructions to draw the enemy fleet toward the Jellicoe and the Grand Fleet. This is not how interceptive operations are conducted. In an interceptive operation, Scheer would not have followed Beatty but retired. He would then have waited until the situation arose again where he could find Beatty’s force and attack it, reducing its strength over time. Interceptive operation is not a quick and dirty type of action, it takes time to implement. The Battle of Jutland was not an example of interceptive operations. For the Japanese after its implementation, the Jutland style battle would have occurred, not before.
In the context of the original question, if you are a nation of limited resources and bordering on narrow or enclosed seas, battlecruisers and the interceptive operation conops can be successful against larger nations. It maybe the only strategy that can be afforded and succeed. In my games, as Japan, Italy, and other limited nations, I use this strategy to success.
|
|