|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 21, 2019 14:48:48 GMT -6
Look, I really don't mean this as an ad hominem, as I have zero issue with dizzy, however if someone consistently uses the "I'm absolutely right" tone, I'd take it as an end of discussion. It was not meant to be a "discussion" in the first place. [ Nah. Others have made good arguments against me. I’m only right in the sense that I believe in my opinion. It’d be nice if oldpop2000 would stop posting in this thread. He’s killed this idea better than anyone. Pouring cold water on my musings, he’s completely correct in that these ships would likely have been absolutely unaffordable in both resources and naval budget. However, my argument is more what if because in rtw2 japan could have been allied to the USA and got its oil, Pearl and midway never happened, the Germans never gotten into ww2, so from my looking glass, I see another realm entirely. Sorry, mate but the truth hurts. The only way the US and Japan could have allied would have been for the Japanese to completely... and I do mean completely, withdraw from China and Manchuria. Along with that, not sign the Tripartite Treaty with Germany. Now, if all those counterfactual decisions had been made, we and the Dutch might have continued to supply the Japanese with the 80% of their oil supply that we supplied and not freeze their gold assets in the Federal Reserve Bank. However, they still needed iron ore, copper, rubber, manganese, nickel and rice. Yes, they needed rice from China, Japan is a mountainous country and there isn't much arable land except near the coast and those areas that can be terraced. Hirohito could have taken a stronger hand in controlling the Kwantung Army.. like get the leaders and chop off their heads.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 21, 2019 15:01:13 GMT -6
The only way the US and Japan could have allied would have been for the Japanese to completely... and I do mean completely, withdraw from China and Manchuria. Along with that, not sign the Tripartite Treaty with Germany. So that can't happen in a 1900 Japan start where you play as Japan and take a slightly more cooperative and technological path than one that is militaristic? All I'm saying is that at some point, assuming ww2 doesnt happen and Pearl and Midway never materialize, these super BB's could have been constructed. We can't do that with 90k tons. Heck, using 90k tons we can barely build the Yamato and it was only 74k tons. 120k ton upper limit expansion would work wonders!
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 21, 2019 15:40:43 GMT -6
The only way the US and Japan could have allied would have been for the Japanese to completely... and I do mean completely, withdraw from China and Manchuria. Along with that, not sign the Tripartite Treaty with Germany. So that can't happen in a 1900 Japan start where you play as Japan and take a slightly more cooperative and technological path than one that is militaristic? All I'm saying is that at some point, assuming ww2 doesnt happen and Pearl and Midway never materialize, these super BB's could have been constructed. We can't do that with 90k tons. Heck, using 90k tons we can barely build the Yamato and it was only 74k tons. 120k ton upper limit expansion would work wonders! To put a time frame on all this, it was the 1931 Invasion of Manchuria that started the downhill run that led to WW2 and Pearl Harbor. Next on the hit parade was the 1937 Invasion of China which started the Second Sino-Japanese War with the Panay Incident not helping the situation. The final straw to drop was the occupation of Southern Indo-China and occupation of key airfields around Saigon. This act established the oil and gas export ban to Japan and the freezing of the gold assets in the New York Federal Reserve bank. The coup de grace was the signing of the Tripartite Pact. That's the timeline. By this time, Japan's economy was almost bankrupt and building more ships was getting almost impossible.
|
|
|
Post by felixg92 on Oct 21, 2019 16:21:46 GMT -6
Real world reasons dont apply, its not our world and its not real.
And getting all wrapped up in what was real is also moot since the weights of the armor are not real, the guns are not real models just approximationsof guns of that caliber, and the ships and planes are not the ones on our earth, i regularly get a fighter named Catalina, makes me giggle, I am imagining a PBY Catalina fighter....nope not workin.
Resources are irrelevant since they are variable in RTW, i have oil on Midway for instance in this current save. So any and all reasons that have to do with OUR EARTH'S HISTORY are a matter of preference. The whole point of this type of sim is not to follow history all that closely, so why argue to adhere to it in any way? Also why argue for limits on what a player can do or try? If your worried about the AI whipping you then you probably have bigger problems than ship size.
If you can design it, buy it and build it you should be able to have it. We should be god in our own sandbox, right? It is ours, we did buy it, correct? Heres where bombing it on the slips before the Death Star is completed becomes part of the enemies plans or ours!
Lol, I only built one ship but it weighs 275000 tons! Its huge, bright pink and smells terrible! KMS Pink Bunkerdoo! Its an AMC. I want one. All of Germanynstarved form4 years to make it happen....totally worth it right!
I strongly oppose limits on platforms in simulation, it makes games less fun AND simulations less useful.
Frankly couldnt believe there was a tonnage cap, its unneeded in a single player game. For 5$ more (will send my CC# right now), can you remove mine please? Thanks. Always willing to pay for what I value.
I dont think guns bigger than 20" are needed nor thicker armor, no one even mentioned that the stuff on H44 was not larger than whats already in game, plus the AI never builds to max limits anyway so it would probably be the player going for broke right?
Hey I adore RTW2, i use it, play it daily, but I would like to be able to do more with it. If I could get it to do what I can do on paper with Battlewagon, General Quarters II, or Command at Sea, that would be swell.
Limits are not value-added. Just my position.. Dizzy i agree with you on a lot of what your saying, I will leave it at that.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Oct 21, 2019 17:04:23 GMT -6
All I'm saying is that at some point, assuming ww2 doesnt happen and Pearl and Midway never materialize, these super BB's could have been constructed. And the Battle of Taranto (that port that is NOT on the Italian west coast), don't forget about that one. Pearl Harbor gets almost mythical status as the turning point for battleships, but Taranto was a year before. After Taranto Admiral Cunningham said "Taranto, and the night of 11–12 November 1940, should be remembered forever as having shown once and for all that in the Fleet Air Arm the Navy has its most devastating weapon". The writing had been on the wall for years before that, but the old Admirals couldn't bear to let their loves be put out to pasture. Pearl Harbor was an impossible to ignore example because of the scale, but it wasn't something revolutionary.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 21, 2019 17:24:50 GMT -6
Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Rabaul, and Truk were symptoms of one problem. It was the lack of air defense systems for ports. It did not just show that battleships were vulnerable, all ships were vulnerable. The British attack on Mers-el-Kebir was another example. These attacks did not prove that battleships were obsolete, just that all naval ports have to be protected by fighters, radar, AA guns, long range reconnaissance and protection devices on the ships like nets. Now, does the game duplicate this vulnerability is a question I can't answer. It allows for surprise attacks but whether carrier aircraft can be involved, many of you probably know better than I do.
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Oct 22, 2019 0:18:48 GMT -6
Frankly couldnt believe there was a tonnage cap, its unneeded in a single player game. For 5$ more (will send my CC# right now), can you remove mine please? Thanks. Always willing to pay for what I value. Lmao! Well, my CC# is ready too. You now have $10 lined up to expand the tonnage limit. Can we get $15?
|
|
|
Post by dohboy on Oct 22, 2019 8:19:42 GMT -6
Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Rabaul, and Truk were symptoms of one problem. It was the lack of air defense systems for ports. It did not just show that battleships were vulnerable, all ships were vulnerable. The British attack on Mers-el-Kebir was another example. These attacks did not prove that battleships were obsolete, just that all naval ports have to be protected by fighters, radar, AA guns, long range reconnaissance and protection devices on the ships like nets. Now, does the game duplicate this vulnerability is a question I can't answer. It allows for surprise attacks but whether carrier aircraft can be involved, many of you probably know better than I do. It does allow for carrier surprise attacks, I have had a few Pearl Harbors in the game. The US never has significant forces in the area though, so I ended up with several carriers against a few cruisers and a handful of destroyers. The biggest lesson from Pearl Harbor was for the Japanese. Spend less time training your pilots to catch flies out of the air and more time on making sure they know what target they are supposed to attack. The results of the attack were pitiful in comparison to what the British did at Taranto with 20 obsolete aircraft... at night... against an alert enemy they were already at war with...
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 22, 2019 8:31:53 GMT -6
Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Rabaul, and Truk were symptoms of one problem. It was the lack of air defense systems for ports. It did not just show that battleships were vulnerable, all ships were vulnerable. The British attack on Mers-el-Kebir was another example. These attacks did not prove that battleships were obsolete, just that all naval ports have to be protected by fighters, radar, AA guns, long range reconnaissance and protection devices on the ships like nets. Now, does the game duplicate this vulnerability is a question I can't answer. It allows for surprise attacks but whether carrier aircraft can be involved, many of you probably know better than I do. It does allow for carrier surprise attacks, I have had a few Pearl Harbors in the game. The US never has significant forces in the area though, so I ended up with several carriers against a few cruisers and a handful of destroyers. The biggest lesson from Pearl Harbor was for the Japanese. Spend less time training your pilots to catch flies out of the air and more time on making sure they know what target they are supposed to attack. The results of the attack were pitiful in comparison to what the British did at Taranto with 20 obsolete aircraft... at night... against an alert enemy they were already at war with... Great thanks for the telling me. As to the Japanese ship identification, it was pretty bad, putting torpedoes into the Utah and claiming it was a carrier. There were so many destroyers in the harbor that could have been sunk and those would have really hurt our fleet movement capacity. The real issue was the fact that they knew there were no carriers in the harbor almost 24 hours earlier. Why waste the effort?
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 22, 2019 9:39:48 GMT -6
In line with this discussion, here are some books in my ebook collection that might be of interest:
Bankrupting the Enemy by Edward Miller
The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze
Warships After Washington by John Jordan
The Economics of World War II by Mark Harrison
|
|
imryn
Full Member
Posts: 156
|
Post by imryn on Nov 13, 2019 5:24:16 GMT -6
I'll have to say no to a 180Kton limit, if for no other reason than scaling & a myriad of related issues - not just ship size scaling, but in guns and many other systems...what are realistic stats/performance figures for a 24"/L50 gun, as just one example? Also, that means new aircraft designs would need to be developed carrying super-heavy weapons to counter them, etc...etc...its a morass we frankly don't want to sink into. I too would like to be able to build some of the monster BB's that were proposed but never got off the drawing board, but you are right. Just looking at the things we already have in game at the moment the problems are huge. If tonnage doubles why not armour? why be limited to 20" belt, why not 40"? Historically I don't think anyone manufactured 20" belt armour; in fact I don't think anyone could manufacture 20" belt armour as a single plate. It is possible that some nations could overcome the challenge, but would they? Or would they come up with an alternative - sloped armour, spaced armour, composite armour, active armour? And that's just thinking about one factor amongst many. Still, it would be nice...
|
|
|
Post by dizzy on Nov 13, 2019 5:48:40 GMT -6
Japan's A-150 was an example of belt armor that their steel industry couldn't produce. They planned on building it anyway...
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Nov 13, 2019 14:27:03 GMT -6
Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Rabaul, and Truk were symptoms of one problem. It was the lack of air defense systems for ports. It did not just show that battleships were vulnerable, all ships were vulnerable. The British attack on Mers-el-Kebir was another example. These attacks did not prove that battleships were obsolete, just that all naval ports have to be protected by fighters, radar, AA guns, long range reconnaissance and protection devices on the ships like nets. Now, does the game duplicate this vulnerability is a question I can't answer. It allows for surprise attacks but whether carrier aircraft can be involved, many of you probably know better than I do. The destruction of Yamamoto, Bismarck, Prince of Wales and Repulse were the proof of the vulnerability of the Battleship to air attack. Granted, there were some slight mitigating circumstances - Bismarck's AA was designed to engage aircraft faster than the Stringbag, Repulse hadn't been refitted to match Renown (swapping out the rubbish triple 4" open mounts for 4.5" DP turrets either side of the superstructure) and the PoW's radar was out of order. Yamamoto, as far as I know, had none of these excuses.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Nov 13, 2019 15:07:09 GMT -6
Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Rabaul, and Truk were symptoms of one problem. It was the lack of air defense systems for ports. It did not just show that battleships were vulnerable, all ships were vulnerable. The British attack on Mers-el-Kebir was another example. These attacks did not prove that battleships were obsolete, just that all naval ports have to be protected by fighters, radar, AA guns, long range reconnaissance and protection devices on the ships like nets. Now, does the game duplicate this vulnerability is a question I can't answer. It allows for surprise attacks but whether carrier aircraft can be involved, many of you probably know better than I do. The destruction of Yamamoto, Bismarck, Prince of Wales and Repulse were the proof of the vulnerability of the Battleship to air attack. Granted, there were some slight mitigating circumstances - Bismarck's AA was designed to engage aircraft faster than the Stringbag, Repulse hadn't been refitted to match Renown (swapping out the rubbish triple 4" open mounts for 4.5" DP turrets either side of the superstructure) and the PoW's radar was out of order. Yamamoto, as far as I know, had none of these excuses. I think we can all agree that naval ships at sea are vulnerable to air attacks without adequate combat air patrols including inner patrols, AAA and advanced warning systems which includes scouting and radar. Yamato, Bismarck, Prince of Wales and Repulse were all sunk because of a lack of air cover. At Pearl Harbor we had not completed the air defense network of radars, fighter direction centers and the deployment around the clock of AA guns. Some of this was due to a mistaken concern over sabotage efforts that might occur. We also did not deploy torpedo nets, another valuable defense. At Taranto, the Italians made the same mistake and decided against the deployment of anti-torpedo netting. They and us paid the price for this. Yamato was on a one way trip and attacked by over 300 fighters, dive bombers and torpedo bombers, she had no chance. There are many reasons, but even with a properly deployed AA system, without air cover, the ships are just targets.
|
|
|
Post by cabalamat on Nov 25, 2019 14:01:11 GMT -6
Pearl Harbor, Taranto, Rabaul, and Truk were symptoms of one problem. It was the lack of air defense systems for ports. It did not just show that battleships were vulnerable, all ships were vulnerable. The British attack on Mers-el-Kebir was another example. These attacks did not prove that battleships were obsolete, just that all naval ports have to be protected by fighters, radar, AA guns, long range reconnaissance and protection devices on the ships like nets. Now, does the game duplicate this vulnerability is a question I can't answer. It allows for surprise attacks but whether carrier aircraft can be involved, many of you probably know better than I do. The destruction of Yamamoto, Bismarck, Prince of Wales and Repulse were the proof of the vulnerability of the Battleship to air attack. Granted, there were some slight mitigating circumstances - Bismarck's AA was designed to engage aircraft faster than the Stringbag, Repulse hadn't been refitted to match Renown (swapping out the rubbish triple 4" open mounts for 4.5" DP turrets either side of the superstructure) and the PoW's radar was out of order. Yamamoto, as far as I know, had none of these excuses. The problem with Bismarck was its AA consisted of single-shot 37 mm SKC/30 guns, and 20 mm FlaK 30 (which had a low cyclic rate of fire and also used a small 20-round magazine).
What the Germans should have used is an automatic 37mm or 40mm gun (such as the Bofors) and for lighter guns the 4x20mm FlaK 38 Flakvierling mount. And also increase the number of guns (US battleships had >100 AA barrels by 1945).
|
|