|
Post by Emma on Oct 12, 2021 14:13:56 GMT -6
This has been on my mind for quite some time now so I thought I might post all three topics at once to get it out of my head. We all know that after a certain point in time, every nation gets to have oil available to them, which makes sense, because anyone can import crude oil during peacetime and stock them up or refine it into fuel and then stock it up. But during war time when supply chains are interrupted and fuel consumption skyrockets, the fuel stockpiles of, say, Germany or Japan depletes quite easily and quite quickly. This has a tremendous effect on both naval operations, naval doctrines, or even naval strategies. For Germany, the Kriegsmarine built a lot of ships with diesel power units because they know that as an oil-poor nation, it would be a tough when war comes. But still, the Kriegsmarine was low on fuel since 1941 and it only kept on getting worse until 1945. This Naval War College Review article is excellent at discussing this issue more deeply: digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&context=nwc-reviewFor Japan, it was similar, the Yamato and Musashi use so much oil that it cuts into the operational capabilities of other surface ships. Even after capturing the East Indies, the shortage did not get better instantly, due to the lack of commercial tankers and their chances of getting to the home islands before sinking. All of this is to say that, instead of universal access to oil, could we have oil as a resource that can be built up and stored? Like how we build up dock yards to construct ships? At the moment, the AI does not back down from operations due to lack of fuel, since ships can't be "interned" in home areas, like the raiders can be. The raiders can run out of fuel and be interned at a neutral port, which is a great feature, I just wish that we could see that for all ships as well. This brings me to my second topic. Damage. In short words, ships with severe damages should not be able to repair in areas without the proper support facilities. For example, Italy shouldn't be able to repair 40,000 ton battleships in the Indian Ocean because they have Eritrea there. France shouldn't be able to repair their 50,000 fleet carriers in the Caribbean just because they have the Antilles islands there. You get what I mean. The AI can't have a BB with 7 torpedo hits make it back to port in Midway and come back fully repaired after 5 months. If an enemy capital ship is damaged, it should only be able to be repaired once it arrives at a port which has the proper facilities to repair it. And this brings me to my final topic. Can we have the ability to build up possessions in terms of dry docks, armory, and weaponry? For example, Guam was built up by the US significantly after the war to the way it is now today, being able to repair SSNs and capital ships, sometimes in floating dry docks. If a Germany BB loses 2 turrets after a violent fleet engagement and sails back to Zanzibar, it shouldn't come back alive with all of its turrets repaired and fully functional after 4 months. Unless Germany somehow shipped six 18 inch naval guns all the way from Hamburg to East Africa, but still, Zanzibar would not have the necessary facility and skilled workers to replace those guns. I know this is a rather long post but I want to thank you if you do read it till the end, please let me know what you think.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 12, 2021 14:42:07 GMT -6
This has been on my mind for quite some time now so I thought I might post all three topics at once to get it out of my head. We all know that after a certain point in time, every nation gets to have oil available to them, which makes sense, because anyone can import crude oil during peacetime and stock them up or refine it into fuel and then stock it up. But during war time when supply chains are interrupted and fuel consumption skyrockets, the fuel stockpiles of, say, Germany or Japan depletes quite easily and quite quickly. This has a tremendous effect on both naval operations, naval doctrines, or even naval strategies. For Germany, the Kriegsmarine built a lot of ships with diesel power units because they know that as an oil-poor nation, it would be a tough when war comes. But still, the Kriegsmarine was low on fuel since 1941 and it only kept on getting worse until 1945. This Naval War College Review article is excellent at discussing this issue more deeply: digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&context=nwc-reviewFor Japan, it was similar, the Yamato and Musashi use so much oil that it cuts into the operational capabilities of other surface ships. Even after capturing the East Indies, the shortage did not get better instantly, due to the lack of commercial tankers and their chances of getting to the home islands before sinking. All of this is to say that, instead of universal access to oil, could we have oil as a resource that can be built up and stored? Like how we build up dock yards to construct ships? At the moment, the AI does not back down from operations due to lack of fuel, since ships can't be "interned" in home areas, like the raiders can be. The raiders can run out of fuel and be interned at a neutral port, which is a great feature, I just wish that we could see that for all ships as well. This brings me to my second topic. Damage. In short words, ships with severe damages should not be able to repair in areas without the proper support facilities. For example, Italy shouldn't be able to repair 40,000 ton battleships in the Indian Ocean because they have Eritrea there. France shouldn't be able to repair their 50,000 fleet carriers in the Caribbean just because they have the Antilles islands there. You get what I mean. The AI can't have a BB with 7 torpedo hits make it back to port in Midway and come back fully repaired after 5 months. If an enemy capital ship is damaged, it should only be able to be repaired once it arrives at a port which has the proper facilities to repair it. And this brings me to my final topic. Can we have the ability to build up possessions in terms of dry docks, armory, and weaponry? For example, Guam was built up by the US significantly after the war to the way it is now today, being able to repair SSNs and capital ships, sometimes in floating dry docks. If a Germany BB loses 2 turrets after a violent fleet engagement and sails back to Zanzibar, it shouldn't come back alive with all of its turrets repaired and fully functional after 4 months. Unless Germany somehow shipped six 18 inch naval guns all the way from Hamburg to East Africa, but still, Zanzibar would not have the necessary facility and skilled workers to replace those guns. I know this is a rather long post but I want to thank you if you do read it till the end, please let me know what you think. The German's did produce synthetic Oil or the Hydrogenation of methane as it was called. It helped their problem. For the Japanese their problem was that the oil in the East Indies was very sulferous and had to be highly refined because that kind of oil is corrosive to the engines. Unfortunately, those processing plants in Borneo and Sumatra were heavily damage. With our unrestricted submarine warfare, the Japanese had to move their fleet to Singapore and still used that oil. www.combinedfleet.com/Oil.htmen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crude_oil_products
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Oct 12, 2021 15:20:49 GMT -6
Good suggestions. I'll second the fuel and territory possession build-up; I think / hope we might see some of your suggestions with the expanded invasion code. I will agree on heavily damaged ships. I will point out that a number of nations fielded repair ships and or mobile dry docks; so some in theater repair is appropriate. I believe GB, USA and Germany were notable for the use of repair ships / mobile dry-docks (good read on USA mobile Dry-Docks can be found at: cmchant.com/us-navy-floating-dry-docks-world-war-ii/). A good number of allied ships were repaired in theater during the Guadalcanal campaign at fairly forwarded operating bases. I've always figured that for a month or two repair time that it was repaired in theater via port facilities or with the aid of a repair ship. If the repairs exceeded 2 months than the damaged ship was given temporary repairs in theater / sailed home / was properly repaired / sailed back to theater in the repair time. If my thoughts are along the Devs intentions, than I would like the ability to redeploy the ship to a different theater when it comes back to service. I will toss in a request for a mobile dry-dock tech for faster / in theater repairs, I would also request the option to do some ship upgrading during the repairs (make secondaries DP, add AAA, bulge, etc.).
If my figuring is wrong, than I would love to see a more detailed repair modeling with the ships heading back to the home territory or a sea-zone with a suitable dry-dock capacity (or maybe a port with some arbitrary capacity representing dry-dock space... Maybe 100?). Again with the ability to do some minor upgrades to AAA, add or delete above water torpedoes, etc.
I guess I'll give an example of a repair ship making temporary repairs - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Scharnhorst. As Acasta sank, one of the 4 torpedoes she had fired hit Scharnhorst at 19:39. Acasta also hit Scharnhorst's forward superfiring turret with her 4.7" QF guns, which did negligible damage. The torpedo hit caused serious damage; it tore a hole 14 by 6 m (15.3 by 6.6 yd) and allowed 2,500 t (2,500 long tons; 2,800 short tons) of water into the ship. The rear turret was disabled and 48 men were killed. The flooding caused a 5 degree list, increased the stern draft by almost a meter, and forced Scharnhorst to reduce speed to 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph). The ship's machinery was also significantly damaged by the flooding, and the starboard propeller shaft was destroyed. The damage was severe enough to force Scharnhorst to put into Trondheim for temporary repairs. She reached port on the afternoon of 9 June, where the repair ship Huaskaran was waiting... While Scharnhorst was en route under heavy escort on 21 June, the British launched two air attacks, six Swordfish torpedo bombers in the first and nine Beaufort bombers in the second. Both were driven off by anti-aircraft fire and fighters. The Germans intercepted British radio traffic that indicated the Royal Navy was at sea, which prompted Scharnhorst to make for Stavanger. British warships were within 35 nmi (65 km; 40 mi) of Scharnhorst's position when she turned to Stavanger. The next day, Scharnhorst left Stavanger for Kiel, where repairs were carried out, lasting some six months.
|
|
|
Post by archelaos on Oct 14, 2021 2:13:45 GMT -6
And this brings me to my final topic. Can we have the ability to build up possessions in terms of dry docks, armory, and weaponry? For example, Guam was built up by the US significantly after the war to the way it is now today, being able to repair SSNs and capital ships, sometimes in floating dry docks. If a Germany BB loses 2 turrets after a violent fleet engagement and sails back to Zanzibar, it shouldn't come back alive with all of its turrets repaired and fully functional after 4 months. Unless Germany somehow shipped six 18 inch naval guns all the way from Hamburg to East Africa, but still, Zanzibar would not have the necessary facility and skilled workers to replace those guns. One problem is that the game do not differentiate between various methods of having turret "KOd". It could be anything from permanently stuck by minor damage to the barbette up to small flash fire
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 14, 2021 9:24:48 GMT -6
I have long argued that the game should incorporate fuel and maintenance as a part of an overhaul of the mission mechanism. In brief, each mission would require the player to expend a number of fuel points based on how much tonnage you select, and each mission would add 'wear and tear' that could only be reduced in a port of, say, size 100 or more.
The Royal Navy in WW1 was constrained by having to import fuel from overseas; when the US deployed a battle squadron they sent the older coal-fired ships for that reason. The US Navy was seriously crimped in WW2 by a shortage of tankers - despite the US being one of if not the biggest oil producing nations, oil could not be provided in quantity to the SE Pacific until well after Guadalcanal was decided. Lack of fuel oil and gasoline hindered fleet operations, resupply missions and operating Henderson Field. After one bombardment, they were siphoning gas from wrecked planes just to get a few planes up... The Italian Navy was so short of fuel in WW2 that it could not make a real fight for the Mediterranean. And of course one of the key reasons for the Malta convoys was to get fuel to the airplanes. Japan became so short of fuel that the fleet had to move its base to Borneo and burn unrefined oil.
I have heard it said - and I completely agree - that WW2 was a war for oil, with the have-not powers of Italy, Germany and Japan trying to seize the oil they needed for modern manufacturing and warfare. It is true that Germany produced synthetic oil (as did other nations) but the quantity was quite small compared to the need. The vast amount of coal needed to produce synthetic oil meant that expansion of production was not possible, and despite being one of the world's greatest coal producers, Germany suffered from coal shortages throughout the war.
As a first step, I think any vessel with more than 1 damage level should be automatically transferred to the Home Area and repaired there.
But if the mission mechanic were revamped to give the player flexibility in initiating or picking a response to an enemy initiative, then I do think that fuel and readiness should be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Oct 14, 2021 11:58:04 GMT -6
I have heard it said - and I completely agree - that WW2 was a war for oil, with the have-not powers of Italy, Germany and Japan trying to seize the oil they needed for modern manufacturing and warfare. It is true that Germany produced synthetic oil (as did other nations) but the quantity was quite small compared to the need. The vast amount of coal needed to produce synthetic oil meant that expansion of production was not possible, and despite being one of the world's greatest coal producers, Germany suffered from coal shortages throughout the war. As a first step, I think any vessel with more than 1 damage level should be automatically transferred to the Home Area and repaired there. Director, I'm not sure what you mean by "1 damage level"... Is it 1 month or repair time, 1 point of structural damage, something else?
You are correct that the Germans had very significant shortages of high quality coal, that with a high amount of carbon for the making of high quality steel, armor plating, etc. Something to keep in mind on German coal is it is often of the Brown Coal / Lignite variety and thus of lower thermal and industrial value - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite.
To quote: Lignite, often referred to as brown coal, is a soft, brown, combustible, sedimentary rock formed from naturally compressed peat. It has a carbon content around 25–35%, and is considered the lowest rank of coal due to its relatively low heat content.
The combustion of lignite produces less heat for the amount of carbon dioxide and sulfur released than other ranks of coal."
From the WWII synthetic fuel standpoint, German synthetic fuels were pretty sulfuric - and were thus more corrosive and lower octane compared to most refined oils. Quick quote: from military.wikia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Leuna_works_in_World_War_II with bolding by me - In 1920, the Leuna plant was commissioned for the commercial hydrogenation of lignite, and production began on April 1, 1927. The site (property of IG Farben after 1926) was rapidly expanded in the 1920s and 1930s, with plants producing methanol, synthetic petrol derived from the hydrogenation of lignite, amines and detergents.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 14, 2021 12:47:49 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Oct 14, 2021 23:59:18 GMT -6
This seems like a good idea, and one that could build off the existing fuel shortage mechanic, since that already somewhat does what you're suggesting. "Oil points" should be passively consumed by oil and diesel-powered surface ships performing trade protection, colonial duties, and so on, active submarines, and active aircraft. Active fleet ships also could consume oil at all times, or just when they engage in combat - I'm not sure what would be the best choice. Meanwhile, oil would be passively generated by having oil in your home areas. As well, controlling posessions with oil and trading for overseas oil can passively increase your oil reserves, although this would be reduced by blockades and trade warfare. If you do start to run low on oil, bad things happen. Beyond the current penalty to strategic moves and rare chance to not have a ship show up, your units suffer from reduced readiness. At a strategic level, this would mean that your ships generate less blockade points, your raiders sink fewer ships, your trade protection is less effective, etc. Additionally, there could be penalties to aircrew training, since they don't have fuel for practice flights. Tactically, the number of ships and aircraft in a battle would be noticeably reduced, beyond the seemingly minor current effect. Since oil isn't needed for procurement, it should be an easier resource to manage than the budget, and more comparable to, say, aircrew training. IMO this wouldn't be a huge change but would add a lot of depth to the strategic layer during war beyond just "raider spam until they collapse". I agree, although I'm going to take a slightly different approach. With ship histories being added, why not eventually also add in more detailed out-of-battle damage tracking? Right now, strategic damage is just a number between 0 (or no damage) and 4 (you just exited a battle with heavy damage). Instead, what if ships retained the damage stats like structural damage, flotation damage, number of torpedo hits, and damaged turrets outside of a battle? Then, a small repair facility (e.g., Zanzibar with no investment) could do limited repairs, which would very slowly reduce the structural and flotation damage points. If the player has built up enough naval bases in an area, then repairs go faster, and more severe critical hits can be repaired such as fixing torpedo hits. The worst stuff (e.g., turret flash fires) require returning to a home area and a more extended wait. Importantly, this would mean ships could start scenarios with pre-existing damage, which is important because IMO you shouldn't be able to bypass the enemy for free repairs. If you've been cruising around off West Africa and ate a torp, but Northern Europe is blockaded, you're going to have to try and run the blockade with a damaged ship (and thus, likely fight an unavoidable battle) or have it sit out the rest of the war. If we're getting really fancy, this could also extend to having a new mission type similar to surprise attacks where the enemy is trying to sink an already damaged ship located in port. This is where I disagree. Right now, we can 1) build coastal artillery, airbases, etc. and 2) improve local docks. Modern-day Guam would basically be if the player had invested a lot into building docks in their possession and also built some coastal guns, an airfield, etc. Additional stuff like fuel stockpiles can be assumed to be proportional to the docks already built. What else would you want to see?
|
|
|
Post by nimrod on Oct 15, 2021 10:18:25 GMT -6
This seems like a good idea, and one that could build off the existing fuel shortage mechanic, since that already somewhat does what you're suggesting. "Oil points" should be passively consumed by oil and diesel-powered surface ships performing trade protection, colonial duties, and so on, active submarines, and active aircraft. Active fleet ships also could consume oil at all times, or just when they engage in combat - I'm not sure what would be the best choice. Meanwhile, oil would be passively generated by having oil in your home areas. As well, controlling posessions with oil and trading for overseas oil can passively increase your oil reserves, although this would be reduced by blockades and trade warfare. If you do start to run low on oil, bad things happen. Beyond the current penalty to strategic moves and rare chance to not have a ship show up, your units suffer from reduced readiness. At a strategic level, this would mean that your ships generate less blockade points, your raiders sink fewer ships, your trade protection is less effective, etc. Additionally, there could be penalties to aircrew training, since they don't have fuel for practice flights. Tactically, the number of ships and aircraft in a battle would be noticeably reduced, beyond the seemingly minor current effect. Since oil isn't needed for procurement, it should be an easier resource to manage than the budget, and more comparable to, say, aircrew training. IMO this wouldn't be a huge change but would add a lot of depth to the strategic layer during war beyond just "raider spam until they collapse". This is where I disagree. Right now, we can 1) build coastal artillery, airbases, etc. and 2) improve local docks. Modern-day Guam would basically be if the player had invested a lot into building docks in their possession and also built some coastal guns, an airfield, etc. Additional stuff like fuel stockpiles can be assumed to be proportional to the docks already built. What else would you want to see? I'll answer the question, "What else would you want to see?" in two words - Fleet Train.
The longer response on my end is that I think the game currently looks at a fuel shortage as effecting the whole fleet. I really would like to see fuel on the theater level (with a secondary desire for shortages of shells and torpedoes if your transports are being sunk / you are blockaded in theater).
I don't see why we couldn't have theater level fuel levels if we have expanded fuel mechanics in play as Emma and you suggested; at that point stockpiling and increased costs would make sense to me (could be applied to additional mechanics like the number of "resupply" torpedoes (like we currently have on the carriers), but theater fuel levels is the big one in my book). Historically, a number of ship deployments were made based on what type of fuel they used and how much and at what price different fuels were locally available - don't send the oil fired ships to northern China, we can get coal a whole lot cheaper locally and we have no oil stockpiled there.
The DLC looks like it might be tending towards a Fleet Train or a new invasion mechanic with transports being listed for each theater.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Oct 17, 2021 0:25:13 GMT -6
This seems like a good idea, and one that could build off the existing fuel shortage mechanic, since that already somewhat does what you're suggesting. "Oil points" should be passively consumed by oil and diesel-powered surface ships performing trade protection, colonial duties, and so on, active submarines, and active aircraft. Active fleet ships also could consume oil at all times, or just when they engage in combat - I'm not sure what would be the best choice. Meanwhile, oil would be passively generated by having oil in your home areas. As well, controlling posessions with oil and trading for overseas oil can passively increase your oil reserves, although this would be reduced by blockades and trade warfare. If you do start to run low on oil, bad things happen. Beyond the current penalty to strategic moves and rare chance to not have a ship show up, your units suffer from reduced readiness. At a strategic level, this would mean that your ships generate less blockade points, your raiders sink fewer ships, your trade protection is less effective, etc. Additionally, there could be penalties to aircrew training, since they don't have fuel for practice flights. Tactically, the number of ships and aircraft in a battle would be noticeably reduced, beyond the seemingly minor current effect. Since oil isn't needed for procurement, it should be an easier resource to manage than the budget, and more comparable to, say, aircrew training. IMO this wouldn't be a huge change but would add a lot of depth to the strategic layer during war beyond just "raider spam until they collapse". This is where I disagree. Right now, we can 1) build coastal artillery, airbases, etc. and 2) improve local docks. Modern-day Guam would basically be if the player had invested a lot into building docks in their possession and also built some coastal guns, an airfield, etc. Additional stuff like fuel stockpiles can be assumed to be proportional to the docks already built. What else would you want to see? I'll answer the question, "What else would you want to see?" in two words - Fleet Train.
The longer response on my end is that I think the game currently looks at a fuel shortage as effecting the whole fleet. I really would like to see fuel on the theater level (with a secondary desire for shortages of shells and torpedoes if your transports are being sunk / you are blockaded in theater).
I don't see why we couldn't have theater level fuel levels if we have expanded fuel mechanics in play as Emma and you suggested; at that point stockpiling and increased costs would make sense to me (could be applied to additional mechanics like the number of "resupply" torpedoes (like we currently have on the carriers), but theater fuel levels is the big one in my book). Historically, a number of ship deployments were made based on what type of fuel they used and how much and at what price different fuels were locally available - don't send the oil fired ships to northern China, we can get coal a whole lot cheaper locally and we have no oil stockpiled there.
The DLC looks like it might be tending towards a Fleet Train or a new invasion mechanic with transports being listed for each theater. Ironically, as I was writing, I was thinking of theatre-level fuel reserves, but didn't want to comment on it to avoid scope creep of this thread. I didn't think of differentiating max fuel reserves from base capacity though, since I generally make the switch from coal to oil and don't look back, and thus directly linking base capacity with fuel capacity at a sea zone level seemed reasonable to me. If you're going to northern China, you'll want to build docks there, and if you do that, you improve the local fuel stockpile at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by director on Oct 17, 2021 23:37:14 GMT -6
If we were given the ability to buy fuel on the open market and stockpile it, then that opens up other possibilities: oil should be expensive and storage should be very expensive, oil sales should be cut off as relations worsen, and there should be real operational value to moving to turbo-electric and/or diesel propulsion.
But in the final analysis, I'm against patching oil onto the existing game. Unless you revamp the mission mechanics, players will hate, revile, abhor and excoriate anything that keeps them from using their ships.
|
|
|
Post by charliezulu on Oct 19, 2021 16:12:15 GMT -6
If we were given the ability to buy fuel on the open market and stockpile it, then that opens up other possibilities: oil should be expensive and storage should be very expensive, oil sales should be cut off as relations worsen, and there should be real operational value to moving to turbo-electric and/or diesel propulsion. But in the final analysis, I'm against patching oil onto the existing game. Unless you revamp the mission mechanics, players will hate, revile, abhor and excoriate anything that keeps them from using their ships. I think, in the end, this just comes down to how people want to play the game. Some like the strategic ship/fleet-building spreadsheet simulator, and find battles that cannot be auto-resolved to be an interruption of the "fun" of the strategic game. Others don't care for the long-term fleet-building element, and instead want to play Steam and Iron II. Most players probably fall somewhere in the middle, or change their stance fairly often. IMO, the first group is likely fine with a mechanic where, if you don't plan for it, your ships won't show up in a battle provided there are ways to manage and avoid it. After all, running out of money and having to place ships in reserve mid-war to avoid dipping too far into the red is functionally quite similar to having to put ships in reserve because there isn't enough fuel to run them. I imagine, in that case, having a game difficulty option of "play with oil scarcity" would satisfy most people?
|
|
|
Post by Emma on Oct 19, 2021 16:24:21 GMT -6
Having the “Enable Oil Management" option would be so perfect. It is the best of both worlds. Everyone gets what they are after.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 22, 2021 17:20:28 GMT -6
One aspect of this fuel situation in the game that might or might not be worth looking at, is the consumption of oil and ammunition during training exercises. Training exercise will consume lots of oil and plenty of ammunition especially in fleet exercises. This is an important factor for Germany, Italy, Spain, and Japan.
"Battle Fleet Organizational Order 1923, in commander-in-chief, in-chief, U.S. fleet, report to secretary of the 1923, 'Annual Report of the Commander in Chief, U.S. Fleet I,July 1922 to 30,June 1923," Annual Reports, roll 4; The navy spent most of the interwar period in port. The prohibitive cost of fuel and ammunition limited major training opportunities to annual periods of "fleet concentration." " In 1923, for example, the fleet concentration period lasted from February 10 to March 30. Fleet Problem One took place in the Caribbean February leaving the remainder of the period to tactical exercises, overhaul, fleet athletic activities, and fort visits. Outside of the fleet concentration period, sailors, for the most part, enjoyed a five-day workweek.
Craig C. Felker. Testing American Sea Power: U.S. Navy Strategic Exercises, 1923-1940 (Kindle Locations 1898-1903). Kindle Edition.
|
|
stww2
New Member
Posts: 39
|
Post by stww2 on Oct 23, 2021 16:00:08 GMT -6
That's interesting! It makes sense too; this is not far off from the time period where the Navy barely did any tests of the new Mk14 torpedo in large part to save money. If couldn't find the money to do a couple of live-fire torpedo tests, steaming around all of those battleships for exercises would have been ever worse for the budget!
To add another anecdote to consider as far as theatre-level fuel reserves are concerned, over the summer I read the book Neptune's Inferno about US naval operations during the Guadalcanal campaign, which US fuel reserves had a significant impact on. Or more specifically, the logistical systems in place to distribute fuel. Due to the requirements for tanker assets in other theaters, the Navy was limited in how much fuel it could transport to the Guadalcanal theater, and thus could only provide enough fuel for its carriers or its old battleships, but not both. Obviously, given how the war had progressed to that point, which to prioritize wasn't a particularly difficult choice to make.
The newer US fast battleships (such as the Washington and the South Dakota) were significantly more fuel efficient than their predecessors, and those saw action, originally as carrier escorts and later in an anti-surface role in the Second Battle of Guadalcanal after many of the US cruisers were damaged in other surface engagements. But the Pacific Fleet's old battleships sat out the campaign, not because they were obsolete, but because of limited US fuel supplies in theatre.
|
|