Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land Page: <<   < prev  79 80 81 [82] 83   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/8/2016 12:08:40 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The aircraft carriers available are:

• Lenin - a small aircraft carrier named after the Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Russian
Communist Party and revolutionary.
• Engine(s) output: 126,500hp
• Top Speed: 33.75 knots
• Main armament: 16 x 3.9-inch (100mm), 8 x 1.4-inch (37mm)
• Aircraft: 30
• Displacement (standard): 10,600 tons
• Armour: Unknown

• Stalin - a larger fleet carrier type vessel, named after Josef Stalin, the leader of the Soviet
Union during the Second World War.
• Engine(s) output: 154,000hp
• Top Speed: 32.3 knots
• Main armament: 16 x 5.1-inch (130mm), 32 x 1.4-inch (37mm)
• Aircraft: 70
• Displacement (standard): 24,000 tons
• Armour: unknown


To me it seems they will carry a lot of aircraft compared to their displacement. Especially since they were both ships that would have been converted to carriers. But what do I know. So therefore I ask if these figures were likely or just something they thought would look nice on paper...

And the top speeds. 32+ knots seems a bit high. Especially for a converted training ship. But as I said. I have no clue. Just guessing.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2431
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/8/2016 12:21:39 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

The aircraft carriers available are:

• Lenin - a small aircraft carrier named after the Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Russian
Communist Party and revolutionary.
• Engine(s) output: 126,500hp
• Top Speed: 33.75 knots
• Main armament: 16 x 3.9-inch (100mm), 8 x 1.4-inch (37mm)
• Aircraft: 30
• Displacement (standard): 10,600 tons
• Armour: Unknown

• Stalin - a larger fleet carrier type vessel, named after Josef Stalin, the leader of the Soviet
Union during the Second World War.
• Engine(s) output: 154,000hp
• Top Speed: 32.3 knots
• Main armament: 16 x 5.1-inch (130mm), 32 x 1.4-inch (37mm)
• Aircraft: 70
• Displacement (standard): 24,000 tons
• Armour: unknown


To me it seems they will carry a lot of aircraft compared to their displacement. Especially since they were both ships that would have been converted to carriers. But what do I know. So therefore I ask if these figures were likely or just something they thought would look nice on paper...

And the top speeds. 32+ knots seems a bit high. Especially for a converted training ship. But as I said. I have no clue. Just guessing.
warspite1

Well the source is very good - Jurgen Rohwer and Mikhail Monakov. If you look at the latter vessel and compare with say the USS Yorktown, I think it is feasible.

Taken from Wiki as I cannot be bothered to look this up at this late hour:
USS Yorktown - Standard displacement circa 20,000 tons
Aircraft 90+
HP 120,000 for a top speed of 32.5 knots

As for the re-builds, no doubt they would involve brand new machinery. a comparison is hard to find but if you look at Shoho

Standard displacement circa 11,000 tons
Aircraft 30
HP only 52,000 giving 28 knots. The Soviet carrier was proposed to have much meatier engines


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 2432
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/8/2016 12:40:57 AM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		Well. I do not doubt you. It is just that I doubt the Soviets when it comes to shipbuilding. Therefore I doubt that they could equal USS Yorktown on their first, or second, attempt on building a carrier.

Without any fact I would rather compare them with HMS Hermes and USS Langley.

But with that said I find no reason to alter your figures. Probably the best source available on these planned carriers.

_____________________________

Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2433
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/8/2016 3:56:28 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline 		The speed of the Yorktown came from the fact it was a converted Battlecruiser. As it turned out, they made better CVs than Battlecruisers, as the British proved at Jutland.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 2434
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/8/2016 6:35:46 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Well. I do not doubt you. It is just that I doubt the Soviets when it comes to shipbuilding. Therefore I doubt that they could equal USS Yorktown on their first, or second, attempt on building a carrier.

Without any fact I would rather compare them with HMS Hermes and USS Langley.

warspite1

Interesting thought. You may be right in terms of build quality of vessel, but I have absolutely no doubt that, without the war, the Soviets would have been capable of building such ships. The two-year WIF construction timetable would definitely have been a challenge

Remember at the time of the invasion the Soviets had laid down two (some sources say all three) of the 60,000 ton Sovyetskiy Soyuz-class battleships.

The Soviets would have needed to design new carrier-borne aircraft - or as the British did - convert land-based designs (not ideal) at least as a stop-gap.

One only has to look at some of the tank and aircraft designs that followed to see that the Soviets were quick learners and getting "stuff" done in the Soviet Union was usually not an issue!

Like a lot of the WIF "what-if" ships (the Japanese carriers or Plan Z in particular!) the real life capability was either not there or at least not in the timeframe required by the game, but hey, the ability to mix things up a bit and explore new avenues is one of the great things about WIF .



< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/8/2016 6:39:21 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 2435
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/8/2016 8:45:26 AM   
Finarfïn


Posts: 145
Joined: 12/23/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The speed of the Yorktown came from the fact it was a converted Battlecruiser. As it turned out, they made better CVs than Battlecruisers, as the British proved at Jutland.



I could be wrong but i think Yorktown class was regular CV, i think you want to talk about Lexington and Saratoga?

Fin

< Message edited by Finarfïn -- 3/8/2016 8:46:06 AM >

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 2436
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/8/2016 9:25:15 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The speed of the Yorktown came from the fact it was a converted Battlecruiser. As it turned out, they made better CVs than Battlecruisers, as the British proved at Jutland.



I could be wrong but i think Yorktown class was regular CV, i think you want to talk about Lexington and Saratoga?

Fin
warspite1

You are not wrong. The Yorktowns were carriers designed and built.

Furthermore the 'problem' with the battlecruisers at Jutland was a) in their use and b) the cordite storage and magazine regulations being ignored.

The Battlecruiser concept may be criticised, or not, depending on your point of view and that is another debate, but all that was proved at Jutland was that the ships were lost because of poor decisions made by their operators, and something for which Jellicoe and Beatty can be rightly blamed.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/8/2016 9:45:18 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Finarfïn)
Post #: 2437
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/8/2016 2:44:21 PM   
Extraneous

 

Posts: 1810
Joined: 6/14/2008
Status: offline 		USS Yorktown (CV-5)

Battlecrusiers and Large Cruisers: Lexington (CC-1 then CV-2) and Saratoga (CC-3 then CV-3)

_____________________________

University of Science Music and Culture (USMC) class of 71 and 72 ~ Extraneous (AKA Mziln)

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2438
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/8/2016 4:07:21 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline 		What I want to know is why are the Independence class CVLs speed 5? They routinely sailed with the fast carrier forces without slowing them down. The had a speed of over 31 knots.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to Extraneous)
Post #: 2439
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/8/2016 10:47:28 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The speed of the Yorktown came from the fact it was a converted Battlecruiser. As it turned out, they made better CVs than Battlecruisers, as the British proved at Jutland.



I could be wrong but i think Yorktown class was regular CV, i think you want to talk about Lexington and Saratoga?

Fin

Ah yes - I always confuse those two. Thanks.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Finarfïn)
Post #: 2440
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/8/2016 10:55:40 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The speed of the Yorktown came from the fact it was a converted Battlecruiser. As it turned out, they made better CVs than Battlecruisers, as the British proved at Jutland.



I could be wrong but i think Yorktown class was regular CV, i think you want to talk about Lexington and Saratoga?

Fin
warspite1

You are not wrong. The Yorktowns were carriers designed and built.

Furthermore the 'problem' with the battlecruisers at Jutland was a) in their use and b) the cordite storage and magazine regulations being ignored.

The Battlecruiser concept may be criticised, or not, depending on your point of view and that is another debate, but all that was proved at Jutland was that the ships were lost because of poor decisions made by their operators, and something for which Jellicoe and Beatty can be rightly blamed.


They were lost because they sacrificed deck armor in order to attain higher speed. This made them exceedingly vulnerable to plunging fire. It was basically poor design.

One thing they did have going for them was they were some of the most beautiful warships ever to be seen on the high seas. Not so much under them though. I mean what was left that wasn't smithereens.

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 3/8/2016 11:05:37 PM >

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2441
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 1:12:28 AM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
quote:

warspite1 Furthermore the 'problem' with the battlecruisers at Jutland was a) in their use and b) the cordite storage and magazine regulations being ignored. The Battlecruiser concept may be criticised, or not, depending on your point of view and that is another debate, but all that was proved at Jutland was that the ships were lost because of poor decisions made by their operators, and something for which Jellicoe and Beatty can be rightly blamed. They were lost because they sacrificed deck armor in order to attain higher speed. This made them exceedingly vulnerable to plunging fire. It was basically poor design.


You beat me to it Paul. That was problem #1, the cordite storage/regulations #2, but this was exacerbated by #1. #3 would be their use/poorly operated.

_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 2442
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 2:42:54 AM   
Finarfïn


Posts: 145
Joined: 12/23/2013
Status: offline 		You can't say BC design were a failure, English's BC maybe but Germans one were not (only one lost and at the very end of the battle).

Fin

(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 2443
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 7:51:06 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

The speed of the Yorktown came from the fact it was a converted Battlecruiser. As it turned out, they made better CVs than Battlecruisers, as the British proved at Jutland.



I could be wrong but i think Yorktown class was regular CV, i think you want to talk about Lexington and Saratoga?

Fin
warspite1

You are not wrong. The Yorktowns were carriers designed and built.

Furthermore the 'problem' with the battlecruisers at Jutland was a) in their use and b) the cordite storage and magazine regulations being ignored.

The Battlecruiser concept may be criticised, or not, depending on your point of view and that is another debate, but all that was proved at Jutland was that the ships were lost because of poor decisions made by their operators, and something for which Jellicoe and Beatty can be rightly blamed.


They were lost because they sacrificed deck armor in order to attain higher speed. This made them exceedingly vulnerable to plunging fire. It was basically poor design.

One thing they did have going for them was they were some of the most beautiful warships ever to be seen on the high seas. Not so much under them though. I mean what was left that wasn't smithereens.
warspite1

quote:

They were lost because they sacrificed deck armor in order to attain higher speed. This made them exceedingly vulnerable to plunging fire.


No - this comment flies in the face of all evidence. Where have you read that deck armour was responsible for the loss of Invincible, Indefatigable and Queen Mary?

As I have said, the number one reason that the British battlecruiser failed so tragically at Jutland was because of poor cordite handling and magazine operation. That was the difference between the German ships being mauled (but not blowing up) and the British ships blowing up.

The reason for the catastrophic end to three battlecruisers was that when the relatively thin turret armour was breached, the effects of the poor cordite/magazine operation was so violently felt because it allowed fire to travel to the magazines. The problem was nothing to do with the belt, nor the deck armour.

Why were the regulations ignored? They were ignored because the Royal Navy still believed in the importance of rate of fire from the days of Nelson. Put more of our shells into the enemy quicker than they can us, and the battle will be won. This is fine of course unless you leave yourself as vulnerable as did the British battlecruisers. Earlier in the war, at Dogger Bank, one of the German battlecruisers – Seydlitz - was saved when a penetration of her after turret saw powder ignite. The ship was saved from a ‘Jutland’ type explosion thanks to flooding of the magazines. As a result the Germans ensured that appropriate measures were installed across the fleet. Derfflinger (and other German ships) were the thankful recipients of these measures at Jutland when British penetration of their turrets caused immolation and loss of the turret and crew – but not of the ship.

The second, but much lesser, reason for their failure was that the ships were not used as designed. To slug out extended battles with a similarly equipped, or even stronger enemy (the battlecruisers came under fire from Scheer's battleships for a time) was not their design purpose.

Had the 5th Battle Squadron (in support of the battlecruisers) been used effectively then the battle would have turned out somewhat differently (although even then this was not going to save any battlecruiser hit on the turret that did not take the necessary precautions – remember HMS Lion would have also been lost but for the quick thinking of a Royal Marine who ordered the flooding of a magazine after a turret hit a la Seydlitz).

I could add a third problem – this is not specific to battlecruisers - but was important in the outcome of the battle. The poor performance of Beatty (both his battlecruisers but more importantly his handling of the 5th BS) and certain of his officers but that takes us well off topic…..

After the war there was effectively a cover up over what caused the losses of the ships. The choice was either a) the truth or b) blame inadequate armour. Can you guess what happened? Consequently the order went out to increase the armour on battlecruisers being built.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/9/2016 9:47:03 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 2444
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 8:05:57 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

quote:

warspite1 Furthermore the 'problem' with the battlecruisers at Jutland was a) in their use and b) the cordite storage and magazine regulations being ignored. The Battlecruiser concept may be criticised, or not, depending on your point of view and that is another debate, but all that was proved at Jutland was that the ships were lost because of poor decisions made by their operators, and something for which Jellicoe and Beatty can be rightly blamed. They were lost because they sacrificed deck armor in order to attain higher speed. This made them exceedingly vulnerable to plunging fire. It was basically poor design.


You beat me to it Paul. That was problem #1, the cordite storage/regulations #2, but this was exacerbated by #1. #3 would be their use/poorly operated.
warspite1

Not true - see above answer, but would be interested to look at your source for this comment as it is not something I have seen before. Indeed according to the DNC (Director of Naval Construction) who provided evidence after the battle, it was not possible for an enemy shell to penetrate the lower protective decks of battleships or battlecruisers before they exploded, nor could they burst so far beyond the point of entry as to explode near the magazines. Apparently there was only one episode in the whole war that came anywhere near - and that was on the battleship Barham when a shell exploded and sent splinters into the crown of the 6-inch magazine - although with no effect.

Maybe there is confusion about plunging shell fire and HMS Hood. If so then you need to remember that the original comment is about what Jutland proved and also that what is fit for purpose in circa 1910-18 may not be so 30-years later when a) longer range weapons (plunging fire) and b) the coming of the aircraft age (the need to armour decks better) becomes an issue.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/9/2016 9:53:07 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Jagdtiger14)
Post #: 2445
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 8:55:37 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay

What I want to know is why are the Independence class CVLs speed 5? They routinely sailed with the fast carrier forces without slowing them down. The had a speed of over 31 knots.
warspite1

Speed, as such, I don't think is a factor in the game. The two factors are movement allowance and range. I think there was an explanation of these and how they interact in one of the annuals but I cannot recall for sure.

Looking at the range of the Essex-class and their fast battleship escorts, the Iowas, they both had a range of 15,000 miles at 15 knots. The Independence-class came in at 13,000. Maybe that is the reason for the one-notch reduction?

I am sure one of the Grognards can explain how ADG looked at these two factors. Anyone?


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/9/2016 9:14:54 AM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 2446
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 10:02:44 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

You can't say BC design were a failure, English's BC maybe but Germans one were not (only one lost and at the very end of the battle).

Fin
warspite1

I agree - if you don't use something in the way it was designed - and it all goes wrong then don't blame the manufacturer . The Germans got lucky that they found the weakness in turret penetration at the start of the war in a smaller scale engagement*. The British found out the hard way, in the heat of a massive battle, during which there is no time to correct (which they did immediately afterwards).

Similarly the battlecruisers that were lost in WWII were lost operating in situation that they were not designed to operate in (and had not been modernised to counter).

1. HMS Hood. As said above they were not designed to slug it out with battleships - that was never their purpose. But the un-modernised WWI vintage Hood was sent into battle against the new battleship Bismarck. She was desperately trying to close the range (to avoid the effects of plunging shell-fire) when....

2. HMS Repulse. The equally un-modernised WWI vintage ship, designed and built before the power of the aircraft became apparent, was lost battling torpedo bombers without air support. Ironically her loss had nothing to do with deck armour, instead she was lost for the same reason as the battleship Prince of Wales - the deadliness of the torpedo.

11/3/16
*Edit: interestingly I read recently that the British may have experienced this themselves aboard HMS Kent. The lessons were taken on board and amendments made - but then dropped in the interests of rate of fire....

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/11/2016 8:59:45 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Finarfïn)
Post #: 2447
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 2:33:58 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline 		The war at sea is a strange thing, IMHO. If you truly look at how things went, one often concludes that it is not the skill of the commanding officers which makes a difference, but pure and simple luck.

It was a lucky shot which killed of the Hood (sure, if the ship had been armoured better, this wouldn't have happened, but the granate could have missed)...
It was a lucky event, that the Bismarck was found and hit by the Swordfish planes...
It was pure luck, that at Midway, the Japanese were caught with their carriers full of planes...
It was lucky that the Japanese plane did spot the Repulse and the Prince of Wales

And on and on and on.

The war at sea depends on finding the enemy in the first place. Now, in the small North Sea, this is somewhat easy, but in the big ocean...

We keep looking for reasons why things happened at sea the way they did. Which to me, is complete BS. It all comes back to a simple thing: there are no good admirals or bad admirals. Only lucky and unlucky ones...






_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2448
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 3:17:54 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

The war at sea is a strange thing, IMHO. If you truly look at how things went, one often concludes that it is not the skill of the commanding officers which makes a difference, but pure and simple luck.

It was a lucky shot which killed of the Hood (sure, if the ship had been armoured better, this wouldn't have happened, but the granate could have missed)...
It was a lucky event, that the Bismarck was found and hit by the Swordfish planes...
It was pure luck, that at Midway, the Japanese were caught with their carriers full of planes...
It was lucky that the Japanese plane did spot the Repulse and the Prince of Wales

And on and on and on.

The war at sea depends on finding the enemy in the first place. Now, in the small North Sea, this is somewhat easy, but in the big ocean...

We keep looking for reasons why things happened at sea the way they did. Which to me, is complete BS. It all comes back to a simple thing: there are no good admirals or bad admirals. Only lucky and unlucky ones...
I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this assessment, especially where the Battle of Midway is concerned and here's why.

(1) In typical Japanese fashion their plan for the capture of Midway was overly complicated. Specifically, they conducted a diversionary attack on and invasion of Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians. Though the diversion was successful, i.e., the Japanese captured Dutch Harbor, it took away two aircraft carriers (Ryujo and Junyo) and over 40 carrier based planes that I'm sure the Japanese could have used for their main objective, with was the capture of Midway island.

(2) Nagumo used only half his planes flown by inexperience pilots on his initial, and only attack, to destroy Midway's defenses, including their airfields, which was necessary prior to landing their invasion forces. He kept the other half of his planes and experienced pilots in reserve and load with torpedoes as a precaution against USN carriers, none of which had been spotted at the time.

(3) As we know, Nagumo's initial (and only) attempt to destroy Midway's defenses failed. He then order the planes he had in reserve to be rearmed with bombs to finish off Midway's defenses.

(4) Nimitz on the other had knew that the attack on Dutch Harbor was a feint. He also knew that the Japanese real objective was the capture of Midway. Of course, he knew this because we had broken the Japanese naval code. So he order Spruance to take the Enterprise and Hornet to a position north of Midway, surprise and destroy the Japanese carriers. Also, Nimitz order Fletcher to take the Yorktown, which damaged in Coral Sea and only got 48-hours or repairs in Pearl, to meet up with Spruance's forces. These three carriers represent the entire carrier strength of the USN in the Pacific. The Saratago had been damaged by a Japanese sub, had to be repaired and was in transient to the Pacific from the US west coast when the battle occurred. The Lexington, her sister ship, of course had been sunk at the Battle of the Coral Sea.

(5) So, was it luck that Nimitz made the decision to send all his available carrier strength into battle against a superior Japanese naval force with the hope that the element of surprise would even the odds? Personally, I don't think so. I believe in the axiom that luck belongs to the bold.

(6) Even though the USN carriers were at the extreme range of their planes when the USA found the Japanese carriers, Spruance gave the order to attack. A decision that resulted in many planes having to ditch in the drink on the way back because they ran out of fuel. But a decision that caught the four Japanese carriers with planes, bombs and fuel on their flight deck. A decision that left three carriers, Akagi, Kaga and Soryu ablaze and worthless.

(7) Then having destroyed three of their carriers with losing any of his own, Nimitz make the decision to stay in order to get the forth carrier. And get it, he did. The Hiryu soon met the same fate as the other three Japanese carriers.

(8) Was all this luck? I would call it boldness and bravery. Boldness by the admirals and bravery (and boldness) by the men who fought, and many of which died, to win this critical battle. I would he say the admirals were both bold and brave. Though Nimitz's life wasn't on the line, the fate of the USA position in the Pacific rested on this battle. If all three US carriers had been lost then the war in the Pacific may have gone on for one or even two more years.

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 2449
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 6:15:37 PM   
Courtenay


Posts: 4003
Joined: 11/12/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


(1) In typical Japanese fashion their plan for the capture of Midway was overly complicated. Specifically, they conducted a diversionary attack on and invasion of Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians. Though the diversion was successful, i.e., the Japanese captured Dutch Harbor, it took away two aircraft carriers (Ryujo and Junyo) and over 40 carrier based planes that I'm sure the Japanese could have used for their main objective, with was the capture of Midway island.


You mean Attu and Kiska. Dutch Harbor was the only place in the Aleutians worth anything. (Not much, but something.) The US held it throughout the war.

Aside from that, I agree that it was skill, not luck. Otherwise one has to conclude that Fletcher was consistently unlucky, and Spruance was consistently lucky. Tanaka was skilled, not lucky. Callaghan froze in his one battle. While luck was important in WW II naval battles, many battles were won by skilled actions, and more were lost by lack of skill.

_____________________________

I thought I knew how to play this game....

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2450
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 6:29:27 PM   
Centuur


Posts: 8802
Joined: 6/3/2011
From: Hoorn (NED).
Status: offline 		Let me say this: if the planes which attacked the Japanese carriers at Midway would have arrived 10 minutes later, Nagumo would have had aircraft in the sky again, protecting the carriers. 10 minutes! That looks like luck to me and that has nothing to do with an battle plan.

Skill has nothing to do with it, IMHO. The fact that the US cracked the Japanese code is a whole different thing all together. It makes things easier to know what to send where. But that's not skill at all. That's using the information a commander has at that moment and nothing more.


_____________________________

Peter

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 2451
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 7:59:10 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Let me say this: if the planes which attacked the Japanese carriers at Midway would have arrived 10 minutes later, Nagumo would have had aircraft in the sky again, protecting the carriers. 10 minutes! That looks like luck to me and that has nothing to do with an battle plan.

Skill has nothing to do with it, IMHO. The fact that the US cracked the Japanese code is a whole different thing all together. It makes things easier to know what to send where. But that's not skill at all. That's using the information a commander has at that moment and nothing more.


Actually another skill that the US had cultivated and the Japanese had ignored was damage control. The US had trained specialists, the Japanese had "whoever was handy". There were also design differences in the handling of aviation fuel that allowed for superior resilience in the US CVs.

Neither of the above has anything to do with luck.

Have a read of Shattered Sword http://www.shatteredswordbook.com/ and you will see much that is untrue has been made of the planes on the decks of the Japanese CVs, and has essentially become urban legend.



_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 2452
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 9:29:01 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

The war at sea is a strange thing, IMHO. If you truly look at how things went, one often concludes that it is not the skill of the commanding officers which makes a difference, but pure and simple luck.

It was a lucky shot which killed of the Hood (sure, if the ship had been armoured better, this wouldn't have happened, but the granate could have missed)...
It was a lucky event, that the Bismarck was found and hit by the Swordfish planes...
It was pure luck, that at Midway, the Japanese were caught with their carriers full of planes...
It was lucky that the Japanese plane did spot the Repulse and the Prince of Wales

And on and on and on.

The war at sea depends on finding the enemy in the first place. Now, in the small North Sea, this is somewhat easy, but in the big ocean...

We keep looking for reasons why things happened at sea the way they did. Which to me, is complete BS. It all comes back to a simple thing: there are no good admirals or bad admirals. Only lucky and unlucky ones...

warspite1

quote:

We keep looking for reasons why things happened at sea the way they did. Which to me, is complete BS


quote:

It all comes back to a simple thing: there are no good admirals or bad admirals. Only lucky and unlucky ones...


Well that is a pretty bizarre viewpoint – to dismiss a thousand plus years of naval warfare as BS is pretty extreme, not to mention unfair and plain wrong.

Not sure why naval warfare is singled out either?? Furthemore, what level of command are you referring to? Just Admirals?

There are so many levels on which this judgement is wrong that it is difficult to know where to begin.

Of course luck – good and bad is present everywhere in life. If it wasn’t then Holland would have won the World Cup in 1974 and Hungary in 1954…. Battles – a great many battles – have been won and lost because of critical luck at one point or other, but why do you say this only applies to sea battles? You must have heard Napoleon’s response to the possible promotion of a subordinate general – “Yes, but is he lucky?”

Why can an Admiral not be praised for a success, while an Army general can? You have mentioned Midway specifically, but what is different about that battle as opposed to say Case Yellow?

Sure Erich von Manstein wins the plaudits for the plan to defeat France. But you have also surely heard the maxim no plan survives contact with the enemy? How much different history may have been had this bold and exciting plan gone pear shaped (as it so easily could have). Yes Manstein is rightly praised; the plan caught the Allies off guard by doing the unexpected, yes the German knew (and sought to exploit) the fact that the Ardennes was lightly defended. But he could not know, he did not know, to what extent the French left the river crossings unguarded, and the snails place in which Gamelin, still fighting WWI, could react. With just a few things panning out differently that plan could have been an utter failure.

The position of an Admiral is no different. In battle, reacting to events, guessing the intentions of the enemy, making use of the weather conditions where appropriate, making best use of one’s own equipment and exploiting the weaknesses of the enemy is all part and parcel of the job. A good Admiral will promote the right men, fire the bad ones, and act with energy. To simply say a monkey could do the job and that its all down to luck beggar belief.

Mention has already been made of the Battle of Midway. So if you were to write a book on the battle it would consist of:

Midway – by Centuur

Chapter 1
Nimitz was lucky

Chapter 2
Yamamoto was unlucky

Conclusion
Its all BS.

Okay…...
So was Nimitz lucky and Yamamoto unlucky? Well, as said above, luck played its part but it does not take much research to realise that there was far more to it than that. Ever heard of making your own luck? For example was Nimitz lucky that he ordered Yorktown (which apparently could not be repaired for months) to be ready in days? No, that is not luck that is recognising the threat and doing all you can to meet it.

Was Yamamoto unlucky that he did not have enough carriers concentrated for the operation? Well in total contrast to the US and Yorktown, what was the Japanese response to Coral Sea? Japanese carrier aircraft were closely linked to their parent carrier. So when Shokaku was badly damaged, but had planes, and Zuikaku was undamaged, but had no aircraft, how did Yamamoto react? Well he could have joined the two together and at least gone to Midway with one more fleet carrier - but we know how he reacted don't we?

You airily dismiss the intelligence as nothing. That is incredible. The US had the intelligence – they knew through a clever ruse that Midway was the target. Nimitz also knew he was out-numbered. What did he do? Toss a coin – because it’s all luck right? No, he picked his best men for the job, he got his outnumbered ships together (including Yorktown) and formed a plan of action.

With many of the aces up his sleeve, what did Yamamoto do? Well he ignored the very possibility that the US would see them coming (much less have any intelligence on the Japanese plan) and – as was the Japanese way – simply decided that the enemy would act as they wanted them to act. There was no Plan B, there was no allowance made for other possibilities. Is that simply bad luck or shoddy Admiralship (if there is such a word)?

These are just two examples. There are many more. Despite everything, could Nimitz’s plan have gone wrong? Yes of course, just as von Manstein’s plan could have blown up in his face. But the two are rightly praised for what they did, that there was some luck along the way, yes of course, but that’s life. The fact there was luck involved does not make everything BS.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 2453
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 10:32:54 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Courtenay


quote:

ORIGINAL: rkr1958


(1) In typical Japanese fashion their plan for the capture of Midway was overly complicated. Specifically, they conducted a diversionary attack on and invasion of Dutch Harbor in the Aleutians. Though the diversion was successful, i.e., the Japanese captured Dutch Harbor, it took away two aircraft carriers (Ryujo and Junyo) and over 40 carrier based planes that I'm sure the Japanese could have used for their main objective, with was the capture of Midway island.


You mean Attu and Kiska. Dutch Harbor was the only place in the Aleutians worth anything. (Not much, but something.) The US held it throughout the war.

Aside from that, I agree that it was skill, not luck. Otherwise one has to conclude that Fletcher was consistently unlucky, and Spruance was consistently lucky. Tanaka was skilled, not lucky. Callaghan froze in his one battle. While luck was important in WW II naval battles, many battles were won by skilled actions, and more were lost by lack of skill.
Yes I do. Thank you. I should have said that the Japanese bombed Dutch Harbor but invaded elsewhere in the Aleutians. Sorry for being so sloppy.


_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to Courtenay)
Post #: 2454
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 10:36:12 PM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline
quote:

The reason for the catastrophic end to three battlecruisers was that when the relatively thin turret armour was breached, the effects of the poor cordite/magazine operation was so violently felt because it allowed fire to travel to the magazines.


I think that's what Paul meant...that's what I was thinking when I read his comment. I can see why you reacted to the comment though.

_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2455
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 10:44:46 PM   
rkr1958


Posts: 23483
Joined: 5/21/2009
Status: offline 		Japanese Story of the Battle of Midway
(A Translation)
OPNAV P32-1002
Office of Naval Intelligence, United States Navy
June 1947

http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/j/japanese-story-of-the-battle-of-midway.html

An interesting read.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by rkr1958 -- 3/9/2016 10:46:45 PM >

_____________________________

Ronnie

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2456
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 10:52:04 PM   
Jagdtiger14


Posts: 1686
Joined: 1/22/2008
From: Miami Beach
Status: offline 		Wow Ronnie that's really awesome! Thanks for the link!

_____________________________

Conflict with the unexpected: two qualities are indispensable; first, an intellect which, even in the midst of this obscurity, is not without some traces of inner light which lead to the truth; second, the courage to follow this faint light. KvC

(in reply to rkr1958)
Post #: 2457
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/9/2016 11:41:45 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Centuur

Skill has nothing to do with it, IMHO. The fact that the US cracked the Japanese code is a whole different thing all together. It makes things easier to know what to send where. But that's not skill at all. That's using the information a commander has at that moment and nothing more.

warspite1

This over simplifies to a ridiculous degree.

So when a commander gets a piece of intelligence you are saying there is only one way to react to that information? And that its then simply a case of "knowing what to send where"? What? Really?

So sticking with Midway. Nimitz knows that the plan is to attack Midway. But he also knows that the Japanese out-number him in carriers, in aircraft (although the island itself and land based aircraft their helps to off-set that to a degree), and if it comes to a surface action at night, then he is really in trouble.

But you seem to think because he had intelligence that Midway was the target, the solutions are obvious and that he just has to "use that information"? No, the options open to Nimitz (and for him to evaluate and discuss with his staff and ultimately make a pretty huge decision) are numerous - and without hindsight, not at all obvious.

He could have chosen not to fight, he could have chosen a different, less successful plan, he could have chosen different commanders (one of Nimitz's strengths was placing faith in his subordinates - Spruance, a cruiser commander, was by no means the obvious choice for TF16, but Nimitz trusted the judgement of Halsey) he could have simply accepted that Yorktown would not be ready and refuse to risk going into battle with two carriers only - or indeed gone with just two - in short, there was plenty for him to exercise his skill and his experience on.






< Message edited by warspite1 -- 3/9/2016 11:52:57 PM >

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Centuur)
Post #: 2458
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/10/2016 7:08:03 AM   
Finarfïn


Posts: 145
Joined: 12/23/2013
Status: offline 		You can call me captain obvious, but i trust reality stand somewhere between luck and skill.

Forex Midway US were lucky to find Nagumo's CV deck full off fuel tanks ready to burn ... errrr someone tell me that's not jerrycans but air plane ready to be launched ;).

But sending several waves of bombers prove Fltecher and Spruance knew their job.

Fin

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 2459
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 3/10/2016 9:05:04 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Finarfïn

You can call me captain obvious, but i trust reality stand somewhere between luck and skill.

Forex Midway US were lucky to find Nagumo's CV deck full off fuel tanks ready to burn ... errrr someone tell me that's not jerrycans but air plane ready to be launched ;).

But sending several waves of bombers prove Fltecher and Spruance knew their job.

Fin

warspite1

This has been dismissed as urban myth by historians such as Parschall and Tully. Yes there would have been a few aircraft on deck - essentially Zeros waiting to take off for CAP duty - but the picture of each carrier jam packed with aircraft about to take off is incorrect.

What caused the bombs to turn into conflagrations that killed the ships included:

1. Poor design features of the ships themselves (they seemed to incorporate the worst features of the RN and USN designs) with minimal armour over the magazines and an enclosed hangar.
2. Poor fire control techniques was also a feature and accompanied by a lack of flashtight doors in the hoists leading from the bomb rooms.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Finarfïn)
Post #: 2460
Page:   <<   < prev  79 80 81 [82] 83   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land Page: <<   < prev  79 80 81 [82] 83   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.906