Naval history and civ3 thread for NYE and korn and whoever

[IGD]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No plan survives first contact with the enemy. D*mn I wish I'd said that first.

Good Post. I wish I had said that too !

[TCO]

Re: Re: Re: JPJ and Company

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


It really wasn't lopsided until late 1943 and on. Yes, there was no question it would get very bad for the

IJN as time wore on, as pointed out by yourself and others here. Post Midway, there were very serious concerns in the USN at Battle of Santa Cruz, and during the Gilberts campaign. Carrier support was basically pulled out of Guadalcanal because of fear of exposing the limited carrier resouces, at one point down to just the Enterprise in action, to land based air attack.

Clearly TF58 in 1944 was one of the most formidable forces ever assembled. When in full air cover mode, the task force would be 100 miles in diameter.

My theory for small US losses are three fold:

1) The Pacific theatre, unlike the Med, and the Atlantic approches where most of the UK losses occured, was relatively wide open, and made it very difficult for the Japanese to deploy subs in an effective pattern. The US had great success at interdicting shipping due to the nature of the shipping routes from SE Asia to Japan that served to bring traffic to our subs, much like the convoys in the Atlantic.

2) By 1943 on, the US was deploying Essex class carriers which were known as "fast carriers" capable of 30kts. Making it nearly impossible for a sub to attack as long the fleet remained in open ocean. Interesting to note that is why the Iowa battleships were designed, in order to keep up in the speed department, as nearly every BB at Pearl Habor had been raised and returned to service in time for revenge in the opening round of Leyte Gulf.

3) The US placed exceptional emphasis on damage control design and preparedness. This advantage is under appreciated in the war, but played out many times, including the Yorktown's availability at Midway. The IJN much less so, and many reports say that the Shinano supercarrier was brought down by a single torpedo that started a fire. An exception to this trend was the Yamoto which took a phenominal pounding before sinking.

Bill

You're omitting the incredible performance of US submarines. incredible amounts of shipping sunk...

[Th0mas]

Re: Naval history and civ3 thread for NYE and korn and whoever

Originally posted by notyoueither
However, we should really stop spamming other threads, so here's one for you, me and whoever else cares.

Can I just say that this has been one of the most interesting General forum threads I have read in a loooong time.

....and I am no Naval Buff by anyones interpretation.


Ok, I'll shut up now
*realising he is not adding anything to the debate*

[bigvic]

Re: Re: Re: JPJ and Company

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


Interesting to note that is why the Iowa battleships were designed, in order to keep up in the speed department, as nearly every BB at Pearl Habor had been raised and returned to service in time for revenge in the opening round of Leyte Gulf.

3
Bill

Yeah, and didn't the US also buld at least one lighter, cheaper BB, the Guam or something? I remember this from my old World in Flames boardgame. This difference, in quality, with the help of a sense of the abstract, could go a long way towards explaining silly combat results, if you like. Maybe that BB that got wasted by that ironclad was a "Guam" going up against an out of date "Ise".

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: JPJ and Company

Originally posted by GP


You're omitting the incredible performance of US submarines. incredible amounts of shipping sunk...

And you're omitting any mention what a weeny the average sub-rat is.

[bigvic]

You know, despite notable exceptions, subs have historically been more strategic than tactical weapons, preying on weak, merchant ships more effectively than warships. Not only did Germany do this in 2 world wars, but the US did so vs. Japan in the South China sea. Is this portrayed in civ III?

[notyoueither]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JPJ and Company

KH.

Is this spill-over from OT?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by bigvic
You know, despite notable exceptions, subs have historically been more strategic than tactical weapons, preying on weak, merchant ships more effectively than warships. Not only did Germany do this in 2 world wars, but the US did so vs. Japan in the South China sea. Is this portrayed in civ III?

Unfortunatley bigvic, the numbers of war ships lost in WWII lead one to conclude they were very good tactical weapons.

Going towards WW III, they will be even more capable and deadly. Now they truely can be the hunters of the entire water covered surface of the earth. Not that they never are hunted themselves, but they can stand off a very long way and put CVs to the bottom. To think that they would be ineffective as tactical platforms would be to discount the possibilities.

[KrazyHorse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JPJ and Company

Originally posted by notyoueither
KH.

Is this spill-over from OT?

Don't worry about it.

GP knows how to take it...

[TCO]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JPJ and Company

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


And you're omitting any mention what a weeny the average sub-rat is.

Kiss, kiss, little kitty. (I know you miss me, big guy...)




BTW: Did you see those stats? Do you still think that there were very few capital ships sunk by subs in WW2?

[KrazyHorse]

I was quite surprised, actually. They don't get as much press as they deserve.

[TCO]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Unfortunatley bigvic, the numbers of war ships lost in WWII lead one to conclude they were very good tactical weapons.

Going towards WW III, they will be even more capable and deadly. Now they truely can be the hunters of the entire water covered surface of the earth. Not that they never are hunted themselves, but they can stand off a very long way and put CVs to the bottom. To think that they would be ineffective as tactical platforms would be to discount the possibilities.

A US 637 sub (old style) could take on an entire CVBG (including ASW escorts and aircraft) and probably put both high value units (carrier and oiler) on the bottom. (Lucky that we don't have to fight each other.)

I rode on a carrier and saw the other side of the equation. They have little insight into sub behavior. They don't realize that their best defense reamains running fast and zigging alot at all times.

[TCO]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: JPJ and Company

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Don't worry about it.

GP knows how to take it...

See...he misses me...

[KrazyHorse]

If torpedoes home well enough then what's the point of zigging?

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I was quite surprised, actually. They don't get as much press as they deserve.

I partied with some of those WWII sub guys. They are still around in SD, CA.

We also had the battle flags and a plaque with all the kills in our wardroom, for both Guitarro and Drum. (They were SSNs with same name as WWII boats.)