|
Post by rob06waves2018 on Jun 26, 2019 17:57:33 GMT -6
My point is not that the number of aircraft is wrong but that naval services would not have control of those forces, as they would be needed for ground operations. If a naval service could afford that number of aircraft it would be in serious funding trouble as the argument would be made that the purpose of a navy is to operate ships. Even at the height of the Pacific War the US Navy did not operate thousands of land-based aircraft - the Army Air Corps did that. The Japanese Navy did have a good-sized land-based air service - but who else? The UK did in WW1. The Royal Naval Air Service was, for a while, the most effective allied air force. Having not worked out carriers yet, they operated from land bases. However, this only occurred because of inter-service rivalry with the Army's Royal Flying Corps. This was eventually fixed with the formation of the RAF. That's really the last time an allied navy operated large numbers of land-based aeroplanes.
|
|
|
Post by zedfifty on Jun 27, 2019 3:09:30 GMT -6
My point is not that the number of aircraft is wrong but that naval services would not have control of those forces, as they would be needed for ground operations. If a naval service could afford that number of aircraft it would be in serious funding trouble as the argument would be made that the purpose of a navy is to operate ships. Even at the height of the Pacific War the US Navy did not operate thousands of land-based aircraft - the Army Air Corps did that. The Japanese Navy did have a good-sized land-based air service - but who else? Does US Marine Air count? Also, Admiral Mitscher commanded land-based air in the Solomons prior to Task Force 58. As for controversy arising from too few ships, that could be a Washington Monument gambit. The USN recently tried that by proposing to retire CVN-75 early.
|
|
|
Post by director on Jun 27, 2019 6:15:39 GMT -6
rob06waves2018 and zedfifty - No, no - please let me correct your misapprehension. I am NOT saying that navies did not operate land-based air; Guadalcanal alone shows that. I AM saying that navies did not deploy thousands of land-based planes, with the possible exception of the Japanese Navy. Powers that operated large numbers of land-based planes tended to use them to support ground operations, as every Continental power did, with support of naval operations restricted to a few aircraft or (as with Pedestal) for a short period of time and a specific operation. Your listing the example of the UK in WW1 is revealing. Those aircraft were not deployed against the High Seas Fleet, the Austrian or the Turkish Navies. They were put in support of ground operations and not available for Navy use. That is exactly my point. Permitting (as an example) the Austrian Navy to devote a large portion or a majority of its funding to land-based naval aircraft is, I believe, simply a non-starter. When war with a continental neighbor happened, those aircraft would be redeployed in support of ground operations. That's just military politics and national survival and the game should take account of that. Even during the Cold War, when Gorshkov's buildup of the Russian Navy included missile-armed heavy bombers, those planes were not numerous compared to air assets tasked to land operations. This is why I say the game should permit either: 1) A small number of land-based aircraft and bases, tied perhaps to budget 2) A large number of land-based aircraft and bases that the Navy does not have to pay for and can only get the use of for short periods of time (such as an invasion) by expending money, prestige or through an event In the case of #2, aircraft quality should be reduced since the aircraft are not specialized for naval warfare and the pilots are not experienced in naval operations. I realize how difficult it would be for the game to make large numbers of aircraft and bases come and go, or fund and control them when not under player control. I still think it is a good idea.
|
|