|
Post by firefox178 on Apr 12, 2017 0:10:49 GMT -6
Could you state why the torpedo bombers were not favored by the US. Also could you post those tips you made about designing ships in Springsharp? I was able to download those when I saw them in one of the threads here, but forgot which one. Sadly that file was lost when my laptop went kaput on me.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Apr 10, 2017 23:14:58 GMT -6
Ah thanks for the reality check. A navy allows an invasion, but it is ultimately the army that has to do the invading or defending. Therefore, the Army must have a higher priority especially for countries facing land based opponents. Only island nation like Japan and Great Britain could get away with a higher priority to their navy. However, RTW must by its focus, give more influence and impact to the naval events than what they could do in real-life. Were playing an admiral not a general. Otherwise it would not be fun to play the game that does not reward the player for their work. My next question is how effective rockets fired from airplanes were to naval vessels. My example is this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RP-3From my very light reading, it was found to be effective to against subs. How about destroyers and even capital ships? I know that missiles are the norm now, but this rockets were mainly aimed using the "Mark 1 eyeball".
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Apr 10, 2017 7:30:48 GMT -6
Very interesting, while I can understand that the aircraft at this time was not yet a proven weapon against naval forces, the same could not be said of submarines. Surely their experience in World War 1 more than proved the power of subs. I mean, the highest scoring submarine ace operated in the Mediterranean. Why then this deficiency. They had an agreement with the British, did they not have some sort of technology sharing. Or make their own advancement in ASW. Did the damage the French suffered at World War 1 cut into research funding? While the Magino line may have given confidence to their army, it would not have helped much for their navy. I just can't see why they would allow a major deficiency against a proven threat.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Apr 5, 2017 6:14:07 GMT -6
Very interesting, their navy focused mainly on defense and army support. Offensive operations are limited to only disruptions and harassment. Then again, Russia is primarily a land power like Germany. Also thanks for the link. This is the first time I saw a site that details extensively about the Soviet Navy. Huh, boats that basically had a turret of a tank as their armaments. Riverine tanks indeed. My next question is about the French navy. What were the doctrines and tactics that they followed. And the strength and weaknesses of their ship.For example en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_destroyer_Fantasque How would one use this ship? Sorry for the late reply. Real-life commitments and activities combined with a broken laptop mean that I just now found the time to answer. Hopefully I would have more free time this coming weeks, but can't be sure.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 31, 2017 6:44:29 GMT -6
I see. While air power has brought changes, geography still plays a key role. Being forced to divide your forces in theaters that have choke points is a very hard task. Especially since each choke point is facing a major naval power at that time and even now. Talk about having to play the diplomatic game to the full. They couldn't really operate far without the tacit approval of at least some of this powers.
Also I might be late in replying. My laptop is experiencing a problem right now. I'll be busy trying to get it fixed. Don't worry I will still reply to your messages. I just can't guarantee how soon I can reply. I'll use the time to find more questions.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 30, 2017 5:53:19 GMT -6
My next question is about the Russian navy under the czar. What were its strengths and weaknesses. Why did it perform so poorly during the Russo-Japanese war. Did it improve by the time of World War 2?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 30, 2017 5:50:49 GMT -6
I see. It seems the best the Italians can hope for is to hold the Med. The other scenarios I mentioned were thought experiments. Mainly to see the limits of the Italian navy. MI don't think Mussolini could be ousted at 1940. His popularity was still strong at that time.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 28, 2017 19:56:05 GMT -6
Wow, nice. Hmm, those chokepoints are interesting. Those who have control over them control the flow of supplies and reinforcements. My next question is can the Italian navy project their power beyond the Mediterranean? And if so how. There are three scenarios for this. One is were the British support Italy. The second is where Italy has a neutral relationship with Britain. And the third is where Britain is hostile to them. The third one assumes a World War 2 scenario of alliances.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 27, 2017 21:30:24 GMT -6
Ouch, looks like they also share the resource weakness of Japan. My new question is how would the Italian Navy fight an offensive war? Securing Gibraltar and the Suez would seem logical enough, but what next?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 27, 2017 11:16:38 GMT -6
Hmm, Italy has a strong defensive position. And it is near to the Middle East. As such oil would probably not be a problem provided they could have a secure supply via trade or conquest. But what about other kinds of materials like rubber, aluminum and other essential materials for a modern war. Does Italy have relatively near sources of such materials to either acquire or trade for? Otherwise Italy's industry if not their entire economy could be undermined by a blockade.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 26, 2017 8:09:33 GMT -6
Very interesting, hmm how about Italy. Compared to the Germany or Japan, it seems have a good thing going for it especially in defense. Any land invasion has to pass through mountain terrain, perfect for a defense. While any naval invasion is going to have problems unless the invaders secure a nearby launching point say Malta. In a way, Italy has the defensive naval protection of Japan. Several islands have to be secured before a naval invasion on the Italian mainland can safely proceed. I wonder of the implications if Operation Herakles was initiated. That operation would have the advantage of having learned from the invasion of Crete as well as a better planned and coordinated support of the Regia Marina. This factors point to a high chance of success, hence my question.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 24, 2017 20:44:38 GMT -6
Huh interesting, so that is how search patterns are done to counter subs. That must take coordination and communication to pull off. Each ship must follow its assigned job perfectly, otherwise the sub could just slip through.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 23, 2017 21:31:02 GMT -6
Nice. Thanks for the link. It is amazingly well detailed.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 22, 2017 23:24:47 GMT -6
Ah the weather, completely forgot about that. That would pretty much put my plans to a stand still. And with Operation Barbarossa being guaranteed to proceed, there was simply no way for my build up and other requirements to happen. Though I am not really familiar as to the reasons why it had to occur. Was Hitler afraid that the Soviets would back-stab him while he focuses on England?
And I can see your point about the game not really focusing on cooperation between the nations. Right now there is simply no options to coordinate fully with your ally. Though I have to wonder how this would be implemented. What if your country's navy is vastly smaller and weaker compared to your ally. It would be weird for you to have a massive influence on the planning stages. On the other hand, it would be less fun to be bossed around by the A.I.
Also thanks for that link. I was curious where to find a site about the u-boats and the measures used to counter them.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 22, 2017 12:31:40 GMT -6
Hmm, that comment about the Ju 88 got me thinking. What if that maritime reconnaissance craft was made a priority and made available around earlier, say around 1939? How damaging would the aircraft have been to convoys. Would the escort carriers be rushed to counter them as well. Would CAM ships be deployed in greater numbers than what was used in the war? Would the RN be so desperate as to use one of their carriers to counter the operations of this aircraft?
And as for the invasion of England, the only way I could see an invasion is through a series of steps that occur simultaneously. One, expand the aircraft manufacture immensely with also the expansion of pilot training. The goal for this one is not simply to replace losses but also build up a massive air force. Two, don't waste resources trying to bomb cities, focus instead on airfields and radio stations near the coast to hinder air operations. The purpose of this is not to gain air superiority over England, but AIR SUPREMACY over the English Channel. Said air supremacy is to be maintained at the time before, during and after Operation Sea lion. Third launch attacks against convoys using aircraft and u-boats only. The goal here is not to sink as much as possible, but to force the British to allocate resources to protect their shipping. The assets allocated to ships protection means those assets and resources could not be used to secure the English Coast. While this is happening the navy is to build up the necessary number transports, plus a few more to replace casualties, to be used in Operation Sea Lion. Incorporate as many lessons from the Norwegian Campaign as possible. Then launch Operation Sea lion.
One will note however that I did not mention anything about the RN at this point. The reason for that is I know that the Kriegsmarine cannot stand up to the RN in a strait up fight. Instead I will use the tactic the Japanese used to sink Force Z. Overwhelming air attacks. Hence, it is crucial that Air Supremacy be maintained over the channel. And why it needs to be maintained long before the invasion can begin. The air force must make sure that the ship build up is not attacked by both surface ships and air attacks. The Kriegsmarine shall provide the escorts for asw. Once the British aircraft launched from both ground and carriers are repulsed, the RN either has the choice of sending in their surface ships at the start of the invasion or let the invasion happen. If they choose the former, then their ships would be sitting ducks in the confines of the Channel. If need be, the transports are ordered to halt while the aircraft deal with the ships. England ins't going anywhere after all. Besides, even if the British used the time gained to reinforce the coast line, the surface ships of the KM would initiate shore bombardment. Hence why I only ordered that long- range aircraft and subs do the convoy attacks. Should the RN decline, then the army will proceed as schedule and land. It should be pointed out that for this to happen, Operation Barbarossa must be suspended until success of the invasion is confirmed. Feel free to point out flaws in my plans.
|
|