|
Post by Airy W on Jul 31, 2018 23:39:03 GMT -6
Another part of it, I think, is that there were fewer neutrals around to anger by sinking a ship with their nationals aboard. Was there any neutral shipping at all in the Pacific theater? Perhaps a few shpis going between Russia and Venezuela or Chile?
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 31, 2018 9:44:31 GMT -6
There was also relentless pressure to get rid of smaller craft in favor of more cruisers and capital ships, which took longer to build and made for sexier PR. No-one saw the overrunning of the Netherlands, Belgium and France and the extension of U-boat bases from the North Sea to the Bay of Biscay. That made subs much more dangerous than when the only exits were down the Channel or around Scotland. While this certainly mattered, the difference between the English channel and North Sea routes isn't as large as you would think from looking at most map projections. It's shorter to go to North America through the North Sea then through the English Channel. While it's understandable that there is always going to be a desire for the newest and latest toys, I just find it weird how they took it to such extremes. The emotional impact of the uboat campaign being what it was, you'd think that they would have at least shown a modicum of caution and desire for redundancy.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 30, 2018 21:48:48 GMT -6
I find it strange how the British were in the position where the chief threat was submarines but they didn't build a large arsenal of sloops to protect against that threat. They didn't even keep around the sloops that they had. Look at how many of these they got rid of in the 20s for example: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchusa-class_sloopThese ships might not have been much to look at but they could make 16 knots and travel long distances which were the only two real requirements for anti-submarine warfare. They could have been retrofitted with radar and newer anti-submarine weapons. When WWII broke out the British started building new corvettes which were no doubt much more efficient but weren't any faster. The build time for escorts is always the chief problem. If they had just kept these ships around "mothballed" to be reactivated in an emergency they could have filled that gap. Heck, it wouldn't even be that hard to keep them in active service as training ships. Whalers of about that size could operate with a crew of about 30. If they had 200 such ships and only sailed them each two months a year that's fewer sailors on duty then a single capital ship on foreign station. Or imagine them as fast transports. If they could carry 100 men for an ocean crossing but only need a crew of 30 a fleet of 200 of those vessels could deliver an entire infantry division and ~10,000 tons of supplies. That strikes me as something that would have been quite useful.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 30, 2018 10:12:31 GMT -6
Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts
is the really dangerous contender to RTW2. I hear good things of Naval Action but it being multiplayer only have not tried it. I am skeptical of this after my experience with Ultimate General. It felt like the campaign was just something tacked on to the tactical battles and there were many opaque and illogical aspects to that.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 28, 2018 7:00:26 GMT -6
From a production perspective, it's worth keeping in mind that the RN commissioned more fleet carriers between 1930 and 1942 than the US did, and only one less than Japan (and the US completed one more BB than Britain did) But in the American case that's doing the minimum to address the fact that their old battleships were too slow for offensive action. The British already had their battlecruisers and battleships which could make 24 knots.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 26, 2018 11:44:38 GMT -6
Airy W , I apologize I don't understand what I'm looking at with that graph, would you mind providing some additional information on the meanings of the axis, etc. Thanks. You were looking at a math error caused by my brain being tired that late at night What I meant to make was this: So for each nation I took the treaty allotment of capital ship tonnage in the 1922 treaty. These values are: France, Italy: 235,000 tons each Japan: 396,000 tons US, UK: 660,000 tons each Then I just divided the tonnage of all ships in each year by those allotments. So it actually is just that Italy got a really disproportionate allotment. My thinking is that overall tonnage is a decent measure of the willingness to pay for a navy. Nations were free to keep building cruisers and destroyers if they wanted to do so, as long as they were under 10,000 tons. So if you take the ratio of tonnage to the treaty allotment, it's how much nations were spending on the navy compared to the treaty expectations. And with Italy they are really behind in this regard. At the time they laid down the treaty-ending Littorio class in 1934, they were the lowest among all the treaty nations. It really makes it seem foolish for them to end the treaty because they didn't have the budget to back up those big battleships.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 25, 2018 21:35:55 GMT -6
Beyond the massive US naval deployment the interwar numbers surprised me: This shows the five treaty nations total tonnage compared to their permitted tonnage on capital ships including aircraft carriers. Initially when I looked at the numbers I thought it was weird that Italy was punching so far below it's weight. But really Italy is doing what you would expect, it's just that it's closest comparison is the French fleet which is so surprisingly large compared to what the treaty would imply. Everyone but France got limited roughly in proportion to how much tonnage they had, about a third to half of their current tonnage. France on the other hand was severely limited in terms of capital ships compared to the size of their navy. It also seems that the treaties were quite good for Japan despite the complaints, they were allotted the most capital ship power compared to their actual tonnage. I wonder if the treaty might have protected Japan from itself, trying to build a fleet of battleships without the support craft to back them up.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 25, 2018 7:31:06 GMT -6
The kamikaze attacks probably would have been much more effective if they didn't come after the US developed proximity fuses. It was sort of a prelude to the electronic warfare era that would follow. One side developed a more accurate missile (by using a human as the guiding mechanism) but the other side developed a more powerful point defense mechanism.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 23, 2018 12:40:46 GMT -6
Battle of Britain seemed like a big deal because nothing that size had even happened before, but the later bombing campaigns would make that look like kids with firecrackers.
Besides, if you take away the dive bombers, the Germans dont have a way to attack at Sedan. Dive bombers might not be able to knock out tanks very effectively but were plenty of targets at Sedan where there were vital. No attack at Sedan means no French retreat from Hannut means Germany probably exhausts it's ammo and armor while still fighting near Belgium and not even Turtledove is talking about a world where France collapses in six weeks. The German plans indicate that they would still attack Britain from airfields in Belgium (bit of an obsession with that Hitler fellow) but it greatly simplifies the British defenses (attacks from only one direction) and having the French still in the war and the Italians not in the war means Britain isn't stretched thin by u-boats and the Mediterranean Theater.
In the Pacific this might avert the events leading up to Pearl Harbor. Then we'd be on these forums discussing whether battleships or aircraft carriers would be more important in a hypothetical Anglo-Soviet conflict in the east. (My view is that it's all about whether the Soviets are smart enough to bypass Korea and invade Japan first. Then Japan is all the aircraft carrier they need). On the other hand it might lead to that Japanese-Soviet-German agreement that some of the Japanese wanted. Stalin did want to play the fascists and capitalists off against each other after all. If Japan is able to buy all the steel and aluminium they need from the Soviets (who would have these things without the German invasion) we might be discussing if Japan should have built a successor class to the A-150 battleships. After all, with radar and proximity fuses regulating carrier strikes to a purely supporting role, heavier and heavier battleships were the only way forward. Or maybe the US should have kept building Midway class carriers? Surely enough dive bombers would be able to penetrate those decks.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 22, 2018 10:48:58 GMT -6
Well then, them frenchies skimped on turret armour as usual. Or it's a 1910 ship getting attacked with 1920 shells...
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 22, 2018 6:49:20 GMT -6
I would have bet on the significantly more modern and larger ship. It's sort of a replay of the Denmark Strait.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 20, 2018 18:49:22 GMT -6
The Zero is a bit like the Jeune Ecole. If your rival has better resources, you get creative to try to find a low cost strategy. For the French, torpedoes offered a chance for small ships to negate british battleships and fast ships to negate British numbers. For the Zero, light planes offered a chance to negate American engines just like how oxygen torpedoes offered a chance to negate American numbers. I dont think it's the victory disease that results in the end of these strategies but simply a reversion to the mean. If torpedoes are a threat, the British can just throw money at the problem by building destroyers in large numbers. If lightweight aircraft are a threat, the Americans can just throw money at the problem and build fighters twice the size of the Zero.
I've never been too successful at punching above my weightclass in RTW. I wonder if it will be more possible in RTW 2.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 20, 2018 11:56:15 GMT -6
Is there still the problem where Italy's resources grow too slowly?
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 20, 2018 11:47:38 GMT -6
I realize now was mixing up the F6F and the F4F. Between the F4F and the Zero it's more of a toss up. I'm maybe learning towards the F4F for two reasons.
The first is that I think the most important thing with fighters is whether they are there to make the interception or not. I dont want them getting in duels, I want them going in guns blazing and disengaging while still alive to fight another day. Shooting down the enemy is nice but less important. The good climb speed of the Zero should help with the intercepting part but it doesn't appear they were any better at it the Wildcats. However it has been noted
The second thing is that I think the Zero is a bit of a dead end. Good in 1942 but in 1943 you need a muscle plane and that's harder if you are building lightweight planes.
|
|
|
Post by Airy W on Jul 20, 2018 8:45:39 GMT -6
Biggest airplane is best airplane. F4F.
|
|