|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 10, 2017 21:48:12 GMT -6
Wow really!? Thanks, I would really appreciate those lessons. And thanks for reminding me about radar. I was so focused on getting the necessary forces in place that I completely forgot about the essential support system and networks. And also the proper doctrine and procedures. Kinda what happened to the Italians during World War 2. They had the necessary equipment, but lacked the needed operational cohesion to used them effectively. Which gave me a question to ask.
For example in a scenario where an admiral feels that the planes under his disposal is insufficient to achieve his objective, but knows that a nearby airfield has the necessary planes. How would he able to integrate or request those forces for his use. Would he need to talk to the base commander's superior or can he request support from the base commander directly. As an additional complication to the scenario stated above, what if the need for those land based planes was urgent? Say an imminent attack that he has just learned about. Or in another case, what if the admiral had the need but is not urgent. Say he plans for a future air strike but his carriers lack the forces needed. As such he wants to request that the airplanes in an airbase near the area of operation be used in said strike. How would he go about coordinatinating such a force? Who would be the commanding officer in both scenarios. Would one of them be subordinate to the other or both of them can command as they see fit?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 10, 2017 8:00:59 GMT -6
Thanks for both the historical and life lessons. It really a gives a deeper understanding to these discussions. And I completely forgot about the tactic of isolating bases. The only way I could see to prevent my bases from being isolated is to modify my plan and instead of trying to sink the carrier fleet or launch an attack, I should first prioritize air supremacy or at least air superiority in the bases I control. Maybe a fleet centered around 5-7 escort carriers or 4 light carriers, with carrier air groups composed completely of fighter planes. I would leave to the island bases to supply the torpedo and dive bombers to attack any shipping in the area. This way I could easily reinforce any bases that is about to be isolated. This carrier fleet is meant to add their carrier air groups to the defense of the island. With this carrier fleet, any air attack coming from the enemy base would be outnumbered by the defending aircraft. I am exploiting the fact that an island base could only support a limited amount of aircraft, where as my fleet would be a lot easier to reinforce. I am hoping to create a scenario which forces the enemy to come to me, rather than the other way around. The defending fleet as well as the island base will be used as a bait. Hence, why I selected to use escort and light carriers. Because should the worst happen, they would be taking the brunt of the fighting and not my harder to build and replace carriers. If/when the enemy fleet take the bait, I would counter with my carrier fleet. Taking an island base however is another matter. My plan of attack would differ slightly depending on the objectives. If I am taking the island for the airfields available to it, I would launch a series of air raids both land and carrier based to not only isolate the base, but also other areas that could launch supporting forces for the base. I would order my forces to not spare the airfields. I could repair/replace the damage I would cause. I would also use submarines to harass/scout out the area to be invaded. The subs would provide the info for important details like the landing sites and others. Of course, my air forces would contribute to the scouting as well. Once, I am sure that I have suppressed the enemy air force, then I would launch a naval invasion. My battleships would support this with a naval bombardment. Then the landings begin supported by light and escort carriers only. My main carrier force would not participate in the invasion itself, but would rather serve as a look out/security for any possible counter-attacks. Especially, if I know that enemy fleets, regardless of size, are operating near the area. Between the battleships and the assigned carriers, the invasion force should have an advantage. Should the base I am attacking also have a port that I would be using, I would do the same assault plan but, with the caveat that the port facility be spared as much damage as possible. Any ship in the port would be attacked until they are rendered inoperable.
My plans have the advantage that since it is a step-by-step rather than an all out assault from the get go, I could change them should new developments occur. For example, the enemy seeing what I am doing, decides to massively reinforce his base with more aircraft as well as a powerful fleet. If the fleet is too strong for my fleet carriers to handle, then I would abort the planned invasion. Because, even if I succeed in taking the island, with the enemy fleet presence I can't reinforce/resupply my forces on it. I would instead prioritize the enemy fleet's destruction or neutralization. How I would do this depends on the specifics of this scenario.
And as for the game, I haven't played it. I'll try to get it if I can. Based on the reviews I have read, it is quite good.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 9, 2017 12:02:37 GMT -6
My idea has at its premise that the enemy fleet has more carriers than me. My idea is to use mainly island air bases as a trap for a carrier force. The idea being that I would create a defensive line using mutually supporting air bases that would have heavily protected convoys to supply them. Their air forces would be mainly fighters to create air superiority on the island, with limited torpedo and dive bombers to attack any SMALL fleets and convoys in the area. I would supplement these bases with some destroyers and light cruisers. They would also help in harassing any fleets that come to close. This would create a fortified position that enemy must take if they want to attack my convoy routes or advance into my territory. If need be I would shorten my security area to only protect convoy routes or areas of truly strategic importance. And not what the Japanese did of overextending themselves. And once a carrier strike force comes to take these islands, I will wait for some time and let the defending air force bleed the carrier air groups. Then I will strike with my own fleets. Said fleets would be composed of two main groups. A fleet centered around carriers and a fast strike force composed of my fastest battleships and their escorts. My fleets would exploit the fact that they could approach by using the protective umbrella that the island bases provide. And since the enemy has been sortieing their aircraft for some time, I would already have a general idea of where their carriers are. Between the losses already incurred as well as the exhaustion from the operation, my own carrier air groups would have an edge when they attack. Bonus points if I hit them while their bombers are refueling or that they have already taken off to commence their next bombing run. Their is also the fact that the surface ships would have used their ammunition as well as being tired from doing shore bombardments. And while my carriers have launched their attack, I would order my battleships with their escorts to close with the enemy to try to trap or at the very least inflict further damage to the carrier fleet. They would also give me more options. The enemy could stand and fight to allow the transports as well as their supply train the chance to escape. Or the fleet could leg it, abandoning any ship that is too slow to escape. This would of course mean the loss of the transport fleet and their supply ships, as well as any ship too damaged during my air strike.
The beauty of my idea is that while I based it on island bases would be the best to use, the strategy could easily be modified to be used on coasts. My fleets would have a harder time in positioning themselves for an ambush since I would be hindered by being only able to safely approach from the sides hugging the coasts. Attacking from the rear invites too much risk of being spotted, as well as being removed from the protective umbrella of the land based aircraft. On the other hand I would be able to have a more secure supply line since I would not need to use convoys to ferry supplies. Not to mention, to no longer being limited by the size or geography of the island to expand my airfields and hence the number of planes I could station.
The flaws that I could see in my strategy are as follows. First, is that I would need to heavily reinforce said island bases. I may even be limited by the number of aircraft I could station on the island, due to the geographic constraints impose by said islands. And said reinforcing and construction rely on time and resources that I may not have. Granted, I could start the build up during peace time. But it also could be disrupted should a new area be made a strategically important one. Second, I would be heavily constricted since my strategy relies on being on the defensive. It would also tie up important resources that I cannot use for other operations. And finally, on a strategic sense enemy could simply refuse to attack until they have such an overwhelming advantage that I could not possibly beat them even if my ambush was successful.
While typing this strategy, I remembered something mentioned in another forum. Mainly that land-based aircraft are more powerful than carrier-based ones. By this I mean that carrier based fighters and bombers were limited in their capacity in comparison to their land-based counter parts. Said limitations were the result of compromises resulting from the limitations imposed by the aircraft carriers. Was their any bases for this claim?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 9, 2017 0:19:12 GMT -6
Thanks for the additional input. That information about enclosed seas really works only for Austria-Hungary and Italy in-game. For every body else, well they are out of luck. As for targeting the aircraft carriers supply line, the best ships for the job would be submarines using wolf pack tactics. And to support them maybe a fast acting force composed mainly of destroyers and cruisers operating at night, with maybe a fast battleship thrown in for good measure. This force main job is to be the distraction or scare away the escorts guarding the tankers, while the u-boats go in for the kill. Kinda like what happened to Convoy PQ 17. The main caveats for these tactics is that there is the risk from the carrier fleet that these ships are supporting, as well as how well protected the convoy is in general. The tankers and repair ships could be protected by obsolete or slow battleships, as well as a reinforced number of escorts. And finally, their is the fact that the enemy could simply position the ships to be nearer the main fleet at night for mutual protection and better security. They would then separate near dawn to avoid the risk of the tankers and repair ships being damaged while in combat. This simple procedure wouldn't affect the main fleet much after all, since the carriers aren't going to be operating much at night anyway
Thanks for taking the time and effort to give me answers as well as insights into this topic.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 8, 2017 12:45:37 GMT -6
Thanks for the excellent explanation. That estimated ten hour advantage really does render any surprise attack by a surface fleet practically impossible. The only way I could see to somewhat counter these procedures involves a series of highly situational requirements. First, have a strong enough air force to launch attacks with the goal of constant harassment of the scouting aircraft. This should at the very least, lessen the coverage and hopefully decrease the amount of time of warning. Second, the area of operations is somewhat congested. By this I mean that there are landmasses near the area that will block or at the very least hinder the movement of ships. The idea being to herd the enemy to the landmass and thus prevent their escape. Third, have a powerful enough fleet that whatever resistance the enemy has could simply be overwhelmed. Fourth, have some very secure communications.
However, even with these requirements, it is not a guarantee that the attack could succeed. There are very possible counters to my requirements. For my first requirement, my air force fails to stop the scouting force from spotting and warning the fleet. Or that the admiral orders the fleet to stop and do a temporary retreat on the grounds of strong enemy aircraft presence. Either scenario automatically renders my planned sneak attack useless. For the second requirement, this relies pretty much on the area involved and the ability of my ships to catch up to the carriers. Meaning my fleet needs fast battleships capable of at least 30 knots to be able to trap the carriers. Of course, this relies on me being able to somehow out position my enemy into being trapped. And for the third requirement, being able to amass a strong enough force to overwhelm the other warships involved is a tall proposition. If I can't have such a strategic advantage of outnumbering or outclassing the ships protecting the carriers, then I would have to heavily rely on some very good tactics. And even in this scenario, it would still favor the carrier fleet since it is me who has to race against the clock, otherwise my fleet is dead come morning. There is also the fact that nothing is really stopping the carriers from fleeing while the battleships, cruisers and destroyers from doing a fighting retreat or holding a rear guard action. If this happens, it would put more strain on me to somehow sink the the guarding ships while making sure of having a fresh force quick enough to go after the carriers. And finally for the fourth requirement, the enemy code breakers crack my code. And there are plenty of historical examples to support this happening.
I just now realized how much initiative the carrier fleet has over my hypothetical fleet. It is almost insurmountable really since my tactics really on EVERYTHING working PERFECTLY. Murphy is going to have a field day with me. Maybe I should be less ambitious and just target weaker targets like convoys. Less protection and easier target to overwhelm quickly. Thanks again for giving me very detailed information on this. It helps me theory craft better.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 8, 2017 8:35:45 GMT -6
I have another question. What were the necessary tactics and technology to counter an enemy fleet, that decided to use either the cover of night or poor weather to close the range on an aircraft carrier? As shown in the sinking of HMS Glorious, if a battleship or battle-cruiser can somehow sneak up and get close, the carrier is pretty much screwed.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 7, 2017 10:38:10 GMT -6
Thanks for the link. And yeah I can definitely see your point. An increase in some aspect of performance is not worth the risk of mechanical failure and rendering inoperable something as expensive and limited in numbers as warships.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 6, 2017 11:01:44 GMT -6
I see, better control is certainly a plus. If it weren't for the fact that jet planes were already being developed the use of the contra-rotating prop would have seen more use. Thanks for the link by the way.
Though that got me thinking, from what I have read about the contra-rotating prop, it was mainly used for torpedoes. Was it possible to use this kind of prop for warships?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Mar 6, 2017 7:04:45 GMT -6
Just read about contra-rotating propeller, my question is what advantages did it offer compared to other kinds of propellers. From what I read like the Boeing XF8B, it was not used because jet planes became the new standard. Assuming that research was done earlier, and the kinks worked out, how effective would it have been?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Feb 28, 2017 12:28:59 GMT -6
Ouch, no wonder the autgyro was seldom used. It's advantages were not unique enough or great enough to justify their use. Also thank you for telling me about the existence of JATO tubes and similar devices. I just learned about them just now.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Feb 28, 2017 10:45:02 GMT -6
That is indeed interesting. Thanks for the input. By the way, how expensive was it to manufacture and maintain the autogyro? If it was cheaper then that could be a serious advantage over the floatplane. The numbers that could be produced could lessen the disadvantages the autogyro has over the floatplane.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Feb 27, 2017 11:58:35 GMT -6
Interesting. Still that role could be covered by floatplanes, and from what I understand floatplanes simply offer a better job at it. Maybe the autogyro could be used by transports and merchant ships? Those are what submarines prefer to target.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Feb 27, 2017 10:29:56 GMT -6
I see. Thank you for the input. Yeah I can see why even with the size of Shinano, it was still impossible to utilize medium bombers. I guess island airfields really were the only viable means to utilize them safely and effectively. Anything else would cause too much casualties from accidents.
Also what would be the best use of the autogyro? It seems to compete with the float plane for function and purpose.
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Feb 27, 2017 8:06:33 GMT -6
Was it possible to operate medium range bombers from aircraft carriers? By this I mean that the bombers can both take off and land on the carrier. Say by using something with the size of the Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano?
|
|
|
Post by firefox178 on Jan 26, 2017 4:47:38 GMT -6
Thanks for the information. I hope they implement something similar in the game. It would add variety and extend the value of obsolete ships.
|
|