saden
New Member
Posts: 42
|
Post by saden on May 12, 2019 15:03:39 GMT -6
I have a very specific plan for my first game in RTW2.
Play as Japan and conquer most of Northeast Asia before 1915. After that, I'll hike up research focus on carriers/ carrier aviation, and start slowly phasing out surface Bs, only keeping a fleet of 4-6 fast BB or BC ships and focusing on carriers. Then I'll invade Southeast Asia in the late 1920s, and following that try to give the US a good thrashing.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on May 12, 2019 15:58:56 GMT -6
IMHO BBs are never obsolete if it is made correctly. If you make it fast enough with enough deck armour, it can just provide AA cover and eat so many hits that would sink any CV, while CVs provide air cover and offensive ops. It was obsolote. It is not about absorbing power but power projection. Battleship is limited by her own main guns. Carrier by range of her aircraft. Look at sinking of Yamato, no armour could help her. So question should be more where did it happen?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 12, 2019 17:00:40 GMT -6
The battleships heyday was during WW1, specifically, in 1918. The battleship'ss three best mission were: shore-bombardment, anti-aircraft defense and fighting other battleships. Of those three, only shore-bombardment is needed. The other two were able to be accomplished by other ships, cheaper and smaller. For shore bombardment, how many invasions have occurred since WWII in the Pacific and North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Anzio and Normandy?
Well, let's see. There was a landing operation on Hainan Island in 1950. That did not need a battleship. Suez Crisis in 1956, again no battleship was needed. Vietnam, operation Starlite used helicopters and did not need battleships.
Falklands War there were three, you might have needed one on those three. Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War and the Iraq War. That's it.
Now, if we examine each of those invasions or landings, you will see that most of those operations had no need of battleships since many were conducted by helicopters and naval air support.
The point is that the 21st century requirements for shore bombardment don't include standing off shore, firing large shells. This was unique to World War 2.
Deployment of weapons is based on cost-effectiveness of the weapon. If I can fire a cruise missile, costing $1.87 million dollars, hit the target once and destroy it, then I don't need to fire salvo after salvo, risking over 2637 men and 151. I can even drop a smart bomb, at $60,000 dollars per bomb, and be done with it only risking possibly one pilot at best. A JDAM kit costs just $21,000 dollars.
The battleship, is not a cost-effective weapon in modern war. That is simply how it is. Wars are now a matter of accounting: the double entry book keeping system for war.
|
|
|
Post by aeson on May 12, 2019 17:09:14 GMT -6
Not sure to what extent they'll be present in the game or how well they'll work, and they'll probably not be particularly efficient, but I'm looking forward to seeing some BBGs, myself.
|
|
|
Post by rob06waves2018 on May 12, 2019 17:10:40 GMT -6
The battleships heyday was during WW1, specifically, in 1918. The battleship'ss three best mission were: shore-bombardment, anti-aircraft defense and fighting other battleships. Of those three, only shore-bombardment is needed. The other two were able to be accomplished by other ships, cheaper and smaller. For shore bombardment, how many invasions have occurred since WWII in the Pacific and North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Anzio and Normandy? Well, let's see. There was a landing operation on Hainan Island in 1950. That did not need a battleship. Suez Crisis in 1956, again no battleship was needed. Vietnam, operation Starlite used helicopters and did not need battleships. Falklands War there were three, you might have needed one on those three. Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War and the Iraq War. That's it. Now, if we examine each of those invasions or landings, you will see that most of those operations had no need of battleships since many were conducted by helicopters and naval air support. The point is that the 21st century requirements for shore bombardment don't include standing off shore, firing large shells. This was unique to World War 2. Deployment of weapons is based on cost-effectiveness of the weapon. If I can fire a cruise missile, costing $1.87 million dollars, hit the target once and destroy it, then I don't need to fire salvo after salvo, risking over 2637 men and 151. I can even drop a smart bomb, at $60,000 dollars per bomb, and be done with it only risking possibly one pilot at best. A JDAM kit costs just $21,000 dollars. The battleship, is not a cost-effective weapon in modern war. That is simply how it is. Wars are now a matter of accounting: the double entry book keeping system for war. A rather depressing yet accurate summation, Oldpop! I'm still hoping rail guns may turn the tables yet though.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on May 12, 2019 17:16:06 GMT -6
The battleships heyday was during WW1, specifically, in 1918. The battleship'ss three best mission were: shore-bombardment, anti-aircraft defense and fighting other battleships. Of those three, only shore-bombardment is needed. The other two were able to be accomplished by other ships, cheaper and smaller. For shore bombardment, how many invasions have occurred since WWII in the Pacific and North Africa, Sicily, Salerno, Anzio and Normandy? Well, let's see. There was a landing operation on Hainan Island in 1950. That did not need a battleship. Suez Crisis in 1956, again no battleship was needed. Vietnam, operation Starlite used helicopters and did not need battleships. Falklands War there were three, you might have needed one on those three. Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War and the Iraq War. That's it. Now, if we examine each of those invasions or landings, you will see that most of those operations had no need of battleships since many were conducted by helicopters and naval air support. The point is that the 21st century requirements for shore bombardment don't include standing off shore, firing large shells. This was unique to World War 2. Deployment of weapons is based on cost-effectiveness of the weapon. If I can fire a cruise missile, costing $1.87 million dollars, hit the target once and destroy it, then I don't need to fire salvo after salvo, risking over 2637 men and 151. I can even drop a smart bomb, at $60,000 dollars per bomb, and be done with it only risking possibly one pilot at best. A JDAM kit costs just $21,000 dollars. The battleship, is not a cost-effective weapon in modern war. That is simply how it is. Wars are now a matter of accounting: the double entry book keeping system for war. A rather depressing yet accurate summation, Oldpop! I'm still hoping rail guns may turn the tables yet though. In the interest of a balanced assessment, here is an article that doesn't disagree with me, it just provides some alternatives like converting the four ships to guided missile battleships. It's interesting, but knowing the US Navy like I do (my family has over 90 years total experience with the Navy) it ain't gonna happen. nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/iowa-class-battleship-the-warship-the-navy-wishes-it-could-24049To those of you devoted to the battleship and believe that it is almost indestructible( I hope you don't) someday research Test Baker at the Bikini Atoll Bomb Tests. Look for a picture that resembles a tree, in fact in the official pictorial book, it's titled "a tree grows in Bikini". On the right side of the tree, look for a black spot..... that is the battleship Arkansas. It was lifted out of the water and latterly slammed into the bed of the lagoon.
|
|
|
Post by wknehring on May 13, 2019 1:57:36 GMT -6
I hope that Norway and Iceland are going to be some conquerable regions. Than I am going to test some Jeune Ecole thing with Germany (biggest ship will be a Poketbattleshipish design, maybe with 12" and immunity against 8"), supported by some CVL. My working horses will be Submarines. And than let´s see what happens. Maybe it will be boring, but with some cruiser battles I am able to gain VPs quickly (similar thing you play KuK in RTW1).
Another thing will be a non-CV-fleet including fast BBs and every vessel will get DP-guns and heaviest AA-armament. Even my corvettes will get a respectable amount of AA. Every possesion will get airfields with (hopefully that is possible) long range fighter-bombers and than I try to get strategically important possessions to place my airfileds.
But first of all, I have to play some small games to understand the game and which shenanigans there are possible to do.
|
|
|
Post by Blothorn on May 15, 2019 18:00:11 GMT -6
A rather depressing yet accurate summation, Oldpop! I'm still hoping rail guns may turn the tables yet though. In the interest of a balanced assessment, here is an article that doesn't disagree with me, it just provides some alternatives like converting the four ships to guided missile battleships. It's interesting, but knowing the US Navy like I do (my family has over 90 years total experience with the Navy) it ain't gonna happen. nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/iowa-class-battleship-the-warship-the-navy-wishes-it-could-24049To those of you devoted to the battleship and believe that it is almost indestructible( I hope you don't) someday research Test Baker at the Bikini Atoll Bomb Tests. Look for a picture that resembles a tree, in fact in the official pictorial book, it's titled "a tree grows in Bikini". On the right side of the tree, look for a black spot..... that is the battleship Arkansas. It was lifted out of the water and latterly slammed into the bed of the lagoon. I think what really did in the BB was the impracticality of armoring against ASMs--ballooning BB sizes were primarily motivated by the square/cube ratio favoring larger ships for heavier armor. If we need big guns but aren't planning on devoting a large proportion of displacement to armor, we want not a battleship but a monitor--the minimum viable platform for the weapon considered. I do wonder, though, if the modern carrier has become the 21st-century's battleship: improvements in networking mean we don't need humans over hostile territory, and I don't think the lifecycle costs of planes + cheap short-range munitions vs. long-range missiles make sense. That said, I think people underestimate the role of battleships in WW2--in the naval battles of Guadalcanal and the Battle of Leyte Gulf, surface combatants were important in stopping a night-time charge toward vulnerable operations. Avoiding such an attack without BBs would take either all-weather naval attack capability or a coordination of torpedo forces at night unprecedented at the time. (Alternatively, effective aerial patrol and strike capability beyond the range a ship could travel at night should suffice aside from bad weather.)
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 15, 2019 21:06:13 GMT -6
Random thought but, huge battleship carrying destroyer into fight like how torpedo boats are being carried back in the late 19th century xD
|
|
|
Post by director on May 15, 2019 22:46:27 GMT -6
mycophobia - I believe navies experimented with ships 'tendering' fast attack boats (as other tenders serve submarines or seaplanes). I believe I remember there was some experimentation with warships carrying fast attack craft... The concept works if you have a calm, quiet place to anchor the tender. It is really not feasible to manage lowering and raising small craft in any sort of sea (ask anyone who participated in an amphibious operation), and it is impossible to do so while steaming into combat. The 'aircraft tender' (carrier) concept works because the aircraft can move quickly and in a fairly stable fashion (compared to a small boat bouncing over the waves) in a different, lighter medium; fast attack craft can't make much speed in a seaway, which renders them almost useless. I don;t think anyone ever tried to raise or lower a torpedo boat or destroyer from a battleship; I'm pretty sure you'd break the small ship in pieces if you tried.
|
|
|
Post by pirateradar on May 15, 2019 22:55:20 GMT -6
Small attack craft like PT boats did of course depend on tenders for their logistical needs but the little ships weren't carried into battle on the big ones.
|
|
|
Post by garychildress on May 15, 2019 23:06:25 GMT -6
Sharks with lasers on their heads.
|
|
|
Post by mycophobia on May 16, 2019 0:43:17 GMT -6
mycophobia - I believe navies experimented with ships 'tendering' fast attack boats (as other tenders serve submarines or seaplanes). I believe I remember there was some experimentation with warships carrying fast attack craft... The concept works if you have a calm, quiet place to anchor the tender. It is really not feasible to manage lowering and raising small craft in any sort of sea (ask anyone who participated in an amphibious operation), and it is impossible to do so while steaming into combat. The 'aircraft tender' (carrier) concept works because the aircraft can move quickly and in a fairly stable fashion (compared to a small boat bouncing over the waves) in a different, lighter medium; fast attack craft can't make much speed in a seaway, which renders them almost useless. I don;t think anyone ever tried to raise or lower a torpedo boat or destroyer from a battleship; I'm pretty sure you'd break the small ship in pieces if you tried. Some 19th century torpedo boats are indeed carried into battle by a larger ship. Notably the Chinese beiyang Navy ironclad battle ship zhenyuan and dingyuan each carried 2 15 ton torpedo boats and would deploy them prior to battle when encounter are expected. (Some Chinese cruiser seems to also carried a single torpedo boat of the same type) There is also two ship of 20 ton type that was ordered but I am not sure if these were meant to be deployed from a larger warship. Ofcourse when I speak of destroyer sized ship being deployed it’s more fantastical, and clearly a different beast all together. But having warship carrying attack crafts at least seemed fairly practical in chinese coastal waters. Though the beiyang Navy later moved on to slightly larger 58 ton ships that operates independently in coastal areas , so it may be an indicator that the ship deployed torpedo boats aren’t working out for them.
|
|
|
Post by director on May 16, 2019 9:16:16 GMT -6
About the only way I could see this working - call it a 'PT Boat Carrier' - would be if it had an open stern well like modern US assault ships, and even then I can't see carrying more than a couple. Hydrofoils might be able to move fast enough... let's do the math. Launch at, say, 30,000 yards from the target or 15 miles. Hydrofoil to do, say 60 knots or 66 mph - call it 70. Would still take 15 minutes or so to close on the target, assuming it stays still and doesn't move off at 25-30 knots. So... 15 to 45 minutes to reach the target and fire, say a total of 4 torpedoes from 2 hydrofoils. By then I'm afraid you'd have potentially lost both carrier and hydrofoils... You'd need to carry a dozen or twenty, and you'd need calm seas, to be effective. So... maybe a coast defense idea for the Scandinavian countries, but otherwise I wouldn't try it.
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on May 16, 2019 10:08:52 GMT -6
Random thought but, huge battleship carrying destroyer into fight like how torpedo boats are being carried back in the late 19th century xD Its a neat idea, but so iffy/unlikely and narrow-scope that the significant time required to add it & make sure it functions would prob best be spent on adding other items IMHO.
|
|