|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 15, 2017 10:51:37 GMT -6
That was a very enlightening discussion. I did not know and realized just how flexible and useful the heavy cruisers were. Talk about a potent ship with an affordable price. And their history is quite intriguing as well.
Though a quick question for the thread. What are your opinions about the tactic of naval bombarding an airfield on an island, like what happened to Henderson field. I know that at first it was effective but eventually the risks and losses involved using such a tactic became prohibitive.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 13, 2017 7:55:23 GMT -6
I see, that is quite the build time and expense compared to the Essex class aircraft carrier. Then again, the sheer difference in technology and power more than justify the massive difference. The Forrestal was after all called a supercarrier.
My next question is more about tactical use of a ship class. Namely the heavy cruiser. The light cruisers could be used as flotilla leaders for destroyers or as anti-air cruisers. Subs are great raiders and could sink capital ships. Destroyers make excellent escorts to protect the fleet from subs and aircraft, and could threaten surface ships. Battleships and battlecruisers could fight surface ships and do bombardment missions. The aircraft carriers could threaten fleets. But the heavy cruiser seems like a poor man's battleship. Your thoughts and views on this ship type.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 12, 2017 8:33:14 GMT -6
Ah I see, that is an interesting bit of information. Though the recent discussion has inspired a new question to me. The namely, how much time and cost would it take to build a carrier with 1950's level of technology. To clarify, what would be a good estimation to build one that could represent build time and cost for all the naval powers for RTW2. The reason I am asking is that while we have discussed the tactics and technology involved in the deployment and use of carriers, we did not discuss in detail the build time or potential cost of the carriers. And since a core game play of RTW is to build a fleet with the budget one is provided with, it seems a good area of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 11, 2017 22:44:45 GMT -6
My quick research on AIP submarines was quite enlightening. From what I understand, the main advantage of AIP subs over nuclear subs lay on the ability of AIP subs to be more effective on littoral waters due to being quiter and being cheaper to boot. The main advantage of nuclear subs over AIP subs is that they have the speed and range to be able to conduct far flung operations. Put in another way AIP subs are best on defense and littoral waters, while nuclear subs are great at offense. The US preference for the nuclear subs lies on the fact that since their navy has to operate in both Atlantic and Pacific oceans as well as other commitments, meant that range and cruising speed was essential to their choice. Combined with the fact that US allies already have a substantial fleet of AIP subs. This means their is no pressing need for the US to get their own. Still, wouldn't buying a few AIP subs for the purpose of training the USN in how to fight this specific kind of threat be worth the budgetary cost of procuring them?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 9, 2017 4:16:51 GMT -6
Thanks for the link. It shows a kind of warfare that is quite different from what people are used to. Then again technology and general advances in general render older technology and operational thinking obsolete. Simply put, today's technology allows for a cheaper yet stronger attack than a solid and affordable defense. Meaning that one either has to buff ones defense at the cost of a weaker offense or use a different approach all together. And that papers point of the non-viability of commerce raiding is quite good. One would think that in a form of warfare that follows a guerrilla warfare approach, commerce raiding would be the top naval strategy. But since the world economy is so inter-connected, sinking merchant shipping would only cause economic and political problems for the sinker. That is perhaps the most effective form of defense a merchant ship has against a submarine. Not an expensive defensive system but rather the knowledge that doing so is going to cause far more damage to the attacker than the damage caused to the defender.
Are their any more topics that you could add? This is fun and interesting, and I can't think of a new topic or question right now.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 7, 2017 5:58:33 GMT -6
That is indeed quite interesting. I never thought I would see the day that aircraft would soon be pilot less. It was just one of the things that was just their you know. Guess, sci-fi would now have to take into account this future development. Also thanks for the article that talked about the strengths and weaknesses of aircraft carriers and the maritime strategy they are following. My next question is related to one of the articles you mentioned. Specifically this one: object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa134.pdf What are your thoughts on this. Namely that while powerful on force projection, aircraft carriers simply cannot replace the sortie rate that a properly made and supplied airbase could provide. Their is also the increasing sophistication of drones for ground support and ballistic missiles for precision bombing. Their is also the point that states that the sea lane protection is given lesser priority. Basically should the US acquire more carriers or should they diversify their efforts and approaches. I'll limit my questions first on this points. Feel free to add your own points.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 4, 2017 20:49:33 GMT -6
Oh aye Although at some point, I wonder if there'll be another 'aircraft' moment (ie, technology that is a game-changer for the nature of naval combat). Would be interested on your thoughts on whether this was likely any time soon and what it may be . I believe that revolution in aircraft is already upon us; pilotless aircraft. I believe that the pilotless bomber, which exchanged the complexity for systems to support a human into the use of technology means much higher G's could be tolerated, larger ordnance and longer loiter times. The birds could be smaller, which might allow for more to be stored on the carriers, and possibly other ships in the fleet, maybe allowing us to design and build smaller carriers, stealthier. I don't think this technology will lead to the demise of the carrier, but smaller, stealthier carriers are more survivable. Possibly with advances in this technology we could use ballistic missile submarines as carriers, not science fiction, its possible. We should begin to find a new replacement for airborne early warning aircraft like the E2D Hawkeye. We something fast, stealthy, with good ISR capability and a much higher loiter time. Another good choice for pilotless. I worked on the avionics in the E2C for many years, good bird, reliable but very vulnerable. Drones and satellites working together might be able to do a better job, and less vulnerable. We could improve ASW with pilotless aircraft working with attack subs and escorts. We should develop pilotless air tankers, to ensure that the barrier control aircraft can stay aloft longer and those tankers could provide better fuel resources to the attack aircraft. This new technology must be controllable from land and sea, by an advanced network centric warfare system, that is hardened against all attacks both physical and electronic. One last comment, which the Marines won't like. Eliminate Marine Air and recombine it with the Naval Air forces. They can have attack and transport helicopters, along with MV-22 and the like, but not attack aircraft. Drones would be allowed for support. That is very interesting. Though I have to wonder how the pilots of aircraft would feel of being replace by drones. Because I have read on the internet at least that their is tension between drone operators and pilots. Specifically drone operators that were not trained as pilots.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jun 2, 2017 19:25:35 GMT -6
Oh, thanks for the info and the update. Sorry I couldn't reply as early as I could. I was sick for a few days, and even now. I was just well enough now to read and reply to your answer. Anyway, as you have said topography plays a major role in defensive placements as well as strategic consideration. My next question is about the new us carrier. Your thoughts and opinions on it. Also that is one expensive ship. Then again it is the first ship of it's kind and caliber, so the research as well as production cost would be higher compared to building it's sister ships.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 31, 2017 4:23:33 GMT -6
Hi, I'm back from the exams. My new question is about aa defense on land. Meaning were the procedures and assets needed to protect your coastlines from an air raid launched from carriers. More specifically your harbors, shipyards and other naval assets on the coastline. Aside from having nearby air bases to launch fighters and having radar to spot the attack from as far range as possible, how were the aa guns positioned and utilized? Where the principles used on warships aa guns also used on ground installations?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 21, 2017 9:37:29 GMT -6
Thanks for the answers. I guess if their was to be a country with the high possibility of being to build the H-44 it would either the US or the UK. And that is if we completely ignore the political will necessary to have such a very expensive shipbuilding program plus the supporting logistics and infrastructure carried out. My next question is about the Douglas TB2D Skypirate. From what I read on this it could have a payload of 4 torpedos. Yet I have read on a forum that in order to be able to carry such a load, it would have only a short range to do so. Is this true? The concept of the torpedo carrying aircraft sounds interesting but has some inherent weaknesses. In order to drop the aerial torpedo effectively, you have to be below 150 feet on the deck flying at a speed of less than 125 knots. This makes the plane an easy target for light, medium and heavy AA guns along with combat air patrols. The only way to defeat these problems is to A. fly suppression of enemy air defenses which simply means you fly fighters across the target, firing its machine guns and cannons to get the light AA gunners to duck and/or drop 500 lbs. bombs to destroy light and medium AA guns. B. Coordinate the torpedo bombers attacks with dive bombers and fighter escorts. The dive bombers will draw the CAP aircraft up to them, and then the torpedo bombers can sneak in below. If this does not work, then the result is what happened at Midway with VT-3, VT-6 and VT-8. They were destroyed due to lack of coordination. No matter how fast the torpedo bomber flies or how high, it always has to drop to the deck and slow down, making it vulnerable. This is why the US Navy used dive bombers more, they were inherently safer. I see, while the torpedo bomber is quite powerful if properly used, the main problem in its deployment was the very high risk that it carried. That does not mean it was not used, mainly that their usage required considerable resources as well as advanced tactics. Also I have to be absent again for a while. New exams are coming so I have to focus on them.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 19, 2017 9:55:05 GMT -6
Thanks for the answers. I guess if their was to be a country with the high possibility of being to build the H-44 it would either the US or the UK. And that is if we completely ignore the political will necessary to have such a very expensive shipbuilding program plus the supporting logistics and infrastructure carried out.
My next question is about the Douglas TB2D Skypirate. From what I read on this it could have a payload of 4 torpedos. Yet I have read on a forum that in order to be able to carry such a load, it would have only a short range to do so. Is this true?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 17, 2017 21:46:58 GMT -6
Thanks for the very interesting and informative tidbits you guys. This kind of first hand information is not something you can find easily. One either has to have served in the Italian navy to experienced the insight first hand or has connections and contacts who can explain both the information and context.
My next question for the thread is whether the H-class battleship proposals specifically the H-44 was possible to be built at that time period. I mean the biggest warship today is the Nimitz class which weighs 100,000 tons. Heck even it's eventual replacement the Gerald Ford also weighs around 100,000 tons. Assuming that we ignore the massive cost for building the thing, did the technological and industrial capacity exist in Germany then to build the H-44?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 17, 2017 6:19:16 GMT -6
Ouch, so what they said was true. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the guns, it was mainly due to poor quality control. And I can't really blame the admirals on this one. The problem was deeper and so few that only combat would reveal the flaws. Any test done would just check out. Any ideas or recommendations on how this particular problem could have been addressed?
I just pity the gunnery officer, captain and crew of the ship that was given bad shells. The officer must have been panicking wondering why his shots are off, while the captain and crew must be panicking as well seeing that the ships guns have been rendered ineffective due to the atrocious accuracy of its guns. Especially when they see that their allies are doing just fine. And the sheer rage and paranoia they would later feel when they found out the cause of their poor gunnery. After all how can you properly plan and prepare when their is a chance that your weapons would fail on you through no fault of your own?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 16, 2017 10:23:12 GMT -6
I see, while it was certainly doable and that it could be terrifyingly effective, it must have other advance systems to teach its destructive potential. If the ship is lacking in said systems then the potential power of the gun is wasted.
My next question is based on something I read on an Internet forum I visited. Mainly that the 15 inch naval guns used by the Italians was of varying quality due to poor construction methods. Like say using cigarettes or other burning objects as timers or throwing trash on furnaces. Was this events true? Was the quality control for the production of naval guns that poor?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on May 15, 2017 9:28:08 GMT -6
I am back from my exams. Found some spare time so here goes my next question. Was it possible to make 20" inch naval guns? And if so how effective could it be?
|
|