Naval history and civ3 thread for NYE and korn and whoever

[vonManstein]

Originally posted by SpencerH
My few remaining grey cells kicked in and I recalled that the reason the u-boats couldnt keep up with the convoys was because of the escorts. They had to stay submerged. If they were on the surface they were faster but a target, especially once air cover was available.

Exactly.

Early in the war, subs usually attacked from the surface at night, since they were faster and more maneuverable. In addition, this was before convoys were reintroduced en-mass.

Surfaced, the sub could catch almost any merchant ship, except some fast converted liners used for troop ships. Moreover, when convoys were reintroduced, the convoys speed was determined by the slowest ship in the group, which was usually ~5-8 for the slow convoys, and ~6-12 for the fast convoys.

However, as radar technology increased throughout the war, destroyers could easily spot surfaced subs. Snorkels helped this a bit allowing subs to remain submerged while using their diesels, but they were still slower submerged using a snorkel than surfaced. And once radar technology became more advanced, they could easily spot a snorkel or periscope from a distance.

That's why the Germans focused on making a true submersible, one that would perform better submersed than surfaced. They tried a sub powered by a hydrogen peroxide reactor, but it was too unstable, and would explode at random.

They ended up making an electro-boat, which was faster submerged (22knots, iirc) than surfaced. However, it didn't see any action on its patrols before the wars end.

[KrazyHorse]

notyou

Do you have similar figures for other nations' losses, most importantly the Italians, French, Germans, Japanese and Americans?

[notyoueither]

KH. I'll see what I can find.

[nbarclay]

In the Pacific, America lost one carrier (the Wasp) and Japan lost one (the Taiho, I think) to submarine attack. Also, as I recall, it was a sub that finished off the carrier Yorktown after the battle of Midway as it was being towed home. And if I remember right, a submarine attack put Saratoga out of action for a fair while at a rather inconvenient time. Out of six carriers in America's pre-war and early-war Pacific fleet, that's one sunk, one finished off after almost being sunk by aircraft, and one put out of action temporarily by subs.

In regard to aircraft attacking ships, aircraft carriers completely dominated surface action in the Pacific campaign in World War II. The only battles where surface ships played much of a role came when the other side's full-sized carriers weren't around. (And even when Japan managed to lure America's fleet carriers away in the last big naval battle in the Pacific, their battleships were driven off by a combination of destroyers, destroyer escorts, and escort carriers that put up such a fierce fight that the Japanese overestimated what they were up against.)

Argue all you will about what constitutes "destroying" a "unit," but I don't think you'll be able to come up with any remotely plausible definition under which surface ships can destroy units but carrier-based aircraft cannot. (And I for one, as someone with a long-standing interest in carrier battles, am significantly annoyed at having carriers in Civ 3 rendered so much weaker than they should be.)

I do think that ideally, there should be a separate type of bomber unit for carrier-based and anti-ship operations. Standard land-based bombers should have a much smaller chance of hitting ships than more specialized aircraft, while carrier-based bombers (which are also the type that would be most effective for land-based anti-carrier operations) should be shorter ranged and less effective against land targets (due to their smaller bomb payloads).

By the way, has anyone else noticed how ridiculously short-ranged bombers are in Civ 3? In World War II, bombers from England flew all the way to Berlin and back, and the B-29 had an even longer range. So why can't my Civ 3 bombers strike more than one or two cities deep into enemy territory even when our borders are adjacent? As it is, my blitzkreigs are often so quick that after the first turn, bombers would be too busy rebasing to get in range to do any good.

Nathan

[notyoueither]

JPJ and Company

I'm not entirely happy with the source. It is good, however they list only the Oklahoma and Arizona as lost at Pearl Harbour. True, California and West Virginia were raised, repaired, and returned to active duty. However they were sunk, if only in a few feet of water. I am sure that some, or at least 1 Cruiser was sunk at Pearl Harbour. They (it) are not on this list. At any rate, it will have to do until I can find a better source.

The one bone of contention that I can forsee is that of Yorktown. I have put her down as lost to air attack. She was crippled by Japanese carrier aircraft at Midway. She was attempting repair and escape when she was torpedoed by a Japanese sub. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, she would not have been where she was, when she was, were it not for the mauling she suffered at the hands of Japanese naval aviators. Hence I count her lost to air action.

As for total quantities of particular classes to serve, I don't have that many fingers, even though I can factor with my toes. Suffice to say the USN had *oddles* in every category. *Oddles and oddles* when it came to CVL, CVE and Cruisers.

Source: http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq82-1.htm

USN Capital Ships: Losses by Category

BB and BC
Lost: 4
Sub;
Air; Oklahoma, Arizona, California, West Virginia
Surf;

CVAs
Lost: 4
Sub; Wasp
Air; Hornet, Lexington, Yorktown*
Surf;

CVE and CVL
Lost: 7
Sub; Block Island(eu), Liscome Bay
Air; Princeton, Bismarck Sea, Ommaney Bay, St. Lo
Surf; Gambier Bay

CRs
Lost: 10
Sub; Indianapolis, Juneau
Air; Chicago
Surf; Astoria, Houston, Northampton, Quincy, Vincennes, Atlanta, Helena


The first item of interest that I note is that USN losses were comparatively light as compared to those of the Royal Navy. This despite the fact that the United States prosecuted one of the more epic naval wars of history. The conclusion may be drawn that the battle for the Atlantic and the Med waged by the Royal Navy was no less epic.

Total losses of capital ships were 25 ships. 5 of them (20%) were to submarines. Of note is that fact that the USN lost only one CVE, Block Island, in the European Theatre. Of course she was lost to a UBoat. I hate it when that happens.

7 Cruisers and 1 CVE were lost in surface action against the Japanese, a good many of them victim of the excellent Japanese torpedoes carried on Destroyers and some Cruisers. That's 8 out of 25 for 32%.

It should come as no surprise then, that the lions share of USN capital ship losses were to air craft. 12 out of 25, nearly 50% (48% actually) were lost to air craft. This should be no surprise, especially given the large start for the naval aviators at Pearl Harbour.

There they are. Hope you enjoy them.

Anybody know a good site for Italian naval losses with lists of sunken ships? Didn't think so.

[nbarclay]

Re: JPJ and Company

Originally posted by notyoueither

The first item of interest that I note is that USN losses were comparatively light as compared to those of the Royal Navy. This despite the fact that the United States prosecuted one of the more epic naval wars of history. The conclusion may be drawn that the battle for the Atlantic and the Med waged by the Royal Navy was no less epic.

It depends on how you define "epic." In the Pacific, the reason U.S. losses were so light was that the war was so lopsided. Keep in mind that Japan lost as many big carriers at Midway alone as America did in the entire war (although numbers of ships sunk overlook many sad tales of ships that were hit badly but survived). Keep in mind that in the latter half of the war, America had significant advantages in number of carriers, number of aircraft, quality of aircraft, and quality of pilots. Keep in mind that in the last carrier action of the war, the Japanese carriers were reduced to being little more than unarmed bait used to lure our carriers out of position because Japan couldn't provide them with the aircraft they needed to be even a marginally effective fighting force.

After 1942, the Pacific war was certainly not epic in the sense of being a closely fought struggle between evenly matched forces. But it was an epic without parallel in terms of the size of the forces involved and the tonnage of capital ships destroyed. Of course to see how high those casualty figures were, you'd have to look at the Japanese losses, not the American ones.

In regard to the Atlantic, I think the true epic struggle was the one between the convoy escorts and the U-boats. Fighting involving capital ships was essentially a side show by comparison, although it certainly wasn't a side show the Allies could afford to lose. Ironically, counts of capital ship losses show very little hint of that deeper (if you'll pardon the pun) struggle.

Nathan

[notyoueither]

British capital ship losses tend to show a fairly deep struggle.

You have a point about the UBoats vs the convoy escorts and the UBoat hunters being the biggest story. However, Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gniesneau and others put in a good show for the surface forces of the Kreigsmarine.

[Chronus]

and Japan lost one (the Taiho, I think) to submarine attack

Incorrect.

In the battle of the Philiipian Sea (the "Great Mariana Turkey Shoot"), only two major Japanese ships were sunk . . . the Taiho and some other large carrier (I can't remember the name). BOTH were sunk by American subs.

And let's not forget the famous David vs. Goliath scene where the American sub, the Archerfish, sank the mighty Shinano (sp?). As you may recall, the Shinano was a Yamamato (sp?) class battleship that was converted to a carrier . . . the largest carrier, if I remember correctly, in WW2.

The list I had mentioned earlier mentions one other major Japanese carrier sunk by an American sub . . . I just need to go and get that book.

Anyway, that's a total of four major Japanese carriers sunk by American subs.

[korn469]

here's what i found with respect to US capital ship losses in WW2

BATTLESHIPS
U.S.S. ARIZONA BB39 bombs & torpedos Pearl Harbor 12-07-1941
U.S.S. OKLAHOMA BB37 torpedo Pearl Harbor 12-07-1941

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS
U.S.S. LEXINGTON CV2 torpedo Coral Sea 05-08-1942
U.S.S. YORKTOWN CV5 torpedo Midway 06-07-1942
U.S.S. WASP CV7 torpedo Solomons 09-15-1942
U.S.S. HORNET CV8 Santa Cruz 10-26-1942

AIRCRAFT CARRIER-LIGHT
U.S.S. PRINCETON CVL23 kamikaze Leyte Gulf 10-24-1944

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS-ESCORT
U.S.S. BLOCK ISLAND CVE21 torpedo Atlantic 05-29-1944
U.S.S. LISCOMBE BAY CVE56 torpedo Tarawa 11-24-1943
U.S.S. SAINT LO CVE63 bomb Leyte Gulf 10-25-1944
U.S.S. GAMBIER BAY CVE73 gunfire Leyte Gulf 10-25-1944
U.S.S. OMMANEY BAY CVE79 kamikaze Sula Sea 01-04-1945
U.S.S. BISMARCK CVE95 bomb Iwo Jima 02-21-1945

HEAVY CRUISERS
U.S.S. NORTHAMPTON CA26 torpedo Lunga Point 11-30-1942
U.S.S. CHICAGO CA29 torpedo Rennell Island 01-30-1943
U.S.S. HOUSTON CA30 gunfire-torpedo Soenda Strait 02-28-1942
U.S.S. ASTORIA CA34 gunfire-torpedo Savo Island 08-09-1942
U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS CA35 torpedo Philippine Sea 07-30-1945
U.S.S. QUINCY CA30 gunfire-torpedo Savo Island 08-09-1942
U.S.S. VINCENNES CA44 gunfire-torpedo Savo Island 08-09-1942

LIGHT CRUISERS
U.S.S. HELENA CL50 torpedo Kula Gulf 07-06-1943
U.S.S. ATLANTA CL51 gunfire-torpedo Guadalcanal 11-13-1942
U.S.S. JUNEAU CL52 torpedo Guadalcanal 11-13-1942

source: http://www.navsource.org/Naval/losses.htm

it agrees with nye's source and not nye about how many battleships the US lost in WW2
an interesting little side note is the last US capital ship sunk in the war was by a submarine

After 1942, the Pacific war was certainly not epic in the sense of being a closely fought struggle between evenly matched forces.

agreed, look at this hypothesis at this site

In other words, even if it had lost catastrophically at the Battle of Midway, the United States Navy still would have broken even with Japan in carriers and naval air power by about September 1943. Nine months later, by the middle of 1944, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed a nearly two-to-one superiority in carrier aircraft capacity! Not only that, but with her newer, better aircraft designs, the U.S. Navy would have enjoyed not only a substantial numeric, but also a critical qualitative advantage as well, starting in late 1943.

also

In fact, by 1945 the U.S. Navy was larger than every other navy in the world, combined!

As scary as it sounds, by the end of the war, the United States was really just beginning to get 'warmed up.' It is perhaps not surprising that in 1945, the U.S. accounted for over 50% of total global GNP.

source: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm

one more thing

In the pre-war years, the IJNAF had chosen to train a very small number of pilots to a very high degree. The modern air force which most closely follows this path is the Israeli Air Force. Note how seriously the Israelis were affected by the loss of about 100 aircraft and pilots in the Yom Kippur war of 1973. The Japanese were at least equally vulnerable to attrition prior to the Pacific War. How could the Japanese have compensated for the loss of 300 pilots at Midway by pre-war standards? If they had had no further losses at all, it would have taken them two or three years to train that many pilots at pre-war rates.

source: http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijnaf.htm

also besides the enormous economic advantage the Americans had, they also had an intelligence advantage

When the carrier Wasp had to be sent to the Atlantic, the
lineup of naval power in the Pacific became six Japanese carriers
to three American. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of
Pearl Harbor, was well aware that this superiority would be short
lived. He had spent several years in the United States and did
not underestimate its productive capacity.

Yamamoto knew he must strike quickly. If he could
concentrate all six of his operational carriers against the
American three, the outcome could not be doubted. Midway Island, 1,136 miles northwest of Pearl Harbor, would be the target. The attacking fleet would serve as bait to draw out the Americans, then finish off their fleet.

Yamamoto's undoubtedly brilliant mind tended toward
convoluted, overly complicated plans. At Midway, he divided his
fleet into three task forces, each powerful in itself, but too
far apart for mutual support. He moved his main carrier striking
force of four carriers into a single formation. This meant that
if one was discovered by the Americans, all were subject to
attack. If the Americans remained ignorant of his plans and
reacted as expected, his victory was assured. If, however, they
learned of his far-flung forces, they could concentrate on the
most dangerous and defeat them. This is what happened, thanks to
abundant, quickly decoded and analyzed intelligence.

At Pearl Harbor, Rochefort and his code breakers worked
around the clock attacking JN-25b. Finally in April, the pieces
came together. Although only portions of each Japanese message could be read, enough could be pieced together to give Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, the plans and objective of the Japanese effort.

With this information in hand, Nimitz could maximize the
impact of his limited forces. On June 4, 1942, the U.S. fleet
crushed the Japanese at the Battle of Midway (all four Japanese
carriers from the main striking force went down) and changed the
course of the Pacific war.

Meanwhile, both the American and Japanese high commands were
looking at the Solomon Islands, where their conflicting
objectives would meet on the island of Guadalcanal. At this
point, JN-25b was still a mystery, but direction finding, coupled
with the ability to read lower-level codes and ciphers, gave the
Navy a reasonably good picture of Japanese intentions. American
Marines landed on Guadalcanal before the Japanese could fortify
its beaches.

source: http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/...acts/magic.txt

_____________________________

ok now i have a question, what factors make naval units weak in Civ3

here's my list

*naval units are too slow
*railroads in the industrial and modern age gives land unit infinite movement and it becomes impossible to outflank a widely dispersed defense force with even a well placed amphibious assault
*trade routes are too difficult to bloackade

please if we can come of with a list of reasonable suggestions then hopefully we can get firaxis to make a few changes

[SpencerH]

*naval units are too slow
*railroads in the industrial and modern age gives land unit infinite movement and it becomes impossible to outflank a widely dispersed defense force with even a well placed amphibious assault
*trade routes are too difficult to bloackade

I agree that these are points for discussion with regard to in the role of naval forces in CIV3. A couple of questions arise from these points including how much faster should naval units be?

If infinite rail movement is removed, what will be the counter to the infinite movement of troop carrying naval vessels? After all, there is no supply in CIV3. Amphibious assault's such as are used in CIV3, that are comparable to the landings at Inchon and Normandy in scope, should be highly precarious.

We have discussed the importance of Naval power for and against trade in previous threads. In my opinion, linking overseas trade with naval power is the most important factor for reenergizing its use in CIV3.

[Venger]

Wow, so much to talk about...

1) Korn, like your mods, but you need to adjust the privateer strength in relation to Frigates and Man O'War. The privateer should take your atypical caravel, even galleon. But a Privateer should not have a better than 50% chance to attack and sink a British Frigate, much less a Man O' War or War Galleon (add a war galleon, well armed, holds 3).

2) Subs in combat - well, you gotta have some perspective, understand the theater of operations, and how that's changed now. Now - not every ship that was torpedoed was torpedoed by a sub - so when looking at historical data, remember planes and surface ships also used torpedoes.

3) If this debate re: aircraft vs. subs is to be valid, you must take into account the actual battles in the war - submarines are a useful tool, however they do not project power. The Pacific war was a story of carrier battlegroups - all the largest battles involved major air power, and air power was how power was projected in the region.

4) The submarine is so different today - nuclear power, SLCM standoff capability, etc.

5) The airplane checkmates the submarine - every time. The submarine is an incredibly effective tool, but it has it's limitations - it's most effective against lightly armed quarry that cannot attack it back. The technology that has allowed it to advance has also allowed for improved ASW.

Aw well, just some rambling thoughts...

Venger

[korn469]

If infinite rail movement is removed, what will be the counter to the infinite movement of troop carrying naval vessels? After all, there is no supply in CIV3. Amphibious assault's such as are used in CIV3, that are comparable to the landings at Inchon and Normandy in scope, should be highly precarious.

SpencerH

railroads should still increase the movement of units, but something more reasonable like 6-12 spaces instead of infinite movement, defenders would still have the advantage but it wouldn't be so overwhelming like it is today, i mean if you don't have marines (which in normal civ3 are underpowered imo) and you land 10 tanks beside of one of their cities your attack group will lose all of its movement, and as long as they have a railroad link even if you did catch them with their forces concentrated on the other side of a huge continent they can still rush their entire army from 20 squares or more away without any problems at all, and then after sweeping the units from the beaches they can redeploy without any problems

1) Korn, like your mods, but you need to adjust the privateer strength in relation to Frigates and Man O'War. The privateer should take your atypical caravel, even galleon. But a Privateer should not have a better than 50% chance to attack and sink a British Frigate, much less a Man O' War or War Galleon (add a war galleon, well armed, holds 3)

venger i had already started tweaking the naval side more today, and since you commented on that i will change privateers so they are less powerful against frigates, feedback is always important

here is some interesting information about sailing ships

In the late 17th and early 18th centuries commercial ships were generally called "merchant ships", however mariners reserved such a term for the three masted, square rigged carrier. These ships were large and intended for passengers and cargo. The carrier was a 280 ton ship measuring 80 feet in length. While such a ship could be armed with up to 16 cannons, it is doubtful that a typical crew of about 20 could manage more than three or four such guns. This ship sports finer lines and a little more sail power than the Dutch Flute (below) and could make a trip from England to America in about 4 weeks...

Perhaps the best known ship, the Schooner is a little of all of the best features in a pyrate ship. Unique to the Schooner is a very narrow hull and shallow draft. The pyrates of the North American coast and Caribbean were partial to the Schooner because, for a 100 ton ship loaded with 8 cannons, 75 pyrates, and 4 swivel guns, it was still small enough to navigate the shoal waters and to hide in remote coves. The Schooner could also reach 11 knots in a good wind. In short, it was a small, quick, and sturdy work-horse for gentlemen of fortune...

The Frigate was the "Man-O-War" of the time weighing in at 360 tons ant 110 feet. This ship carried 195 men for a crew to man the three masts of sails and the 26 guns. The frigate was placed at the head of most major sea shipments or convoys. The sight of this heavily armed vessel often sent pyrates away without a trace of their handywork

source: http://www.piratesinfo.com/browser.p...ide_link_id=22

i'll post the changes i've made later...i also tried giving naval units treat all terrain as roads so i could lower their movement but they would still be fast, this is so they could have blitz which could really make things interesting, but it doesn't work hopefully firaxis will fix treat all terrain as roads for naval units (i emailed them about it)

one question what would the war galleon's purpose be and what role would it fill?

3) If this debate re: aircraft vs. subs is to be valid, you must take into account the actual battles in the war - submarines are a useful tool, however they do not project power. The Pacific war was a story of carrier battlegroups - all the largest battles involved major air power, and air power was how power was projected in the region.

how about the war in the atlantic where u-boats were kinda important?

that is why civ3 won't ever be entirely realistic, no game could perfectly simulate every single instance of armed conflict from 4000bc to 2050ad even if it tried

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by korn469

railroads should still increase the movement of units, but something more reasonable like 6-12 spaces instead of infinite movement, defenders would still have the advantage but it wouldn't be so overwhelming like it is today, i mean if you don't have marines (which in normal civ3 are underpowered imo) and you land 10 tanks beside of one of their cities your attack group will lose all of its movement, and as long as they have a railroad link even if you did catch them with their forces concentrated on the other side of a huge continent they can still rush their entire army from 20 squares or more away without any problems at all, and then after sweeping the units from the beaches they can redeploy without any problems

I agree that unlimited railroads give an unreasonable defensive capability (thats why we use it), but its the only counter to the equally unreasonable offensive capability of conducting amphibious landings pretty much at will. Its not as if the D-day invasions could have been mounted at Hamburg (even without interference from the German navy). It was impossible from a supply perspective. In the case of Inchon, the landings were smaller and were therefore able to be supplied from the beach until overland routes were available.

A possible solution might be if amphibious landings could only occur at a terrain called "beaches".

how about the war in the atlantic where u-boats were kinda important?

Although caravans were a micromanagement pain in CIV2 they were A raison d'etre for navies. We need overseas trade that can be interupted or affected by naval power (without the caravans).

[Venger]

Originally posted by korn469

one question what would the war galleon's purpose be and what role would it fill?

Your war galleon was simply a large galleon with many cannon - it basically allows you to send a transport ship out that has a chance to defend itself. It was used by the Spanish to haul treasure - when you care enough to send the very best. Not quite as good as a British Frigate or Man O' War (hard to maneuver, but gunned to the hilt). But a privateer would be unlikely to tackle one with only a pinnace or sloop...

And yes, privateers loved shallow drafts in their boats...argh.

how about the war in the atlantic where u-boats were kinda important?

Yes, BUT - the Germans didn't deploy the U-Boats in order to attack Allied sea power, but rather merchant shipping. Despite the raid on Scapa Floe, it was simple predation on allied merchant shipping.

that is why civ3 won't ever be entirely realistic, no game could perfectly simulate every single instance of armed conflict from 4000bc to 2050ad even if it tried

No, but we can sure try! I like the way you've enriched the navies - navies are so very important in history for many nations (nearly ALL great powers), adding units helps give a richness that is so sorely missing from Civ3.

Consider adding (if possible) an amphibious carrier - can carry few air units and a couple land units. Something akin to the Tarawa class carrier. Can hold harriers and choppers, and a Marine Expeditionary Force. I tried to do one in Civ2, but never was able to get it to work. Also tried a chopper that could carry light infantry - that didn't work either.

Don't model those crappy French carriers, those suck...

Venger

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by notyoueither
British capital ship losses tend to show a fairly deep struggle.

You have a point about the UBoats vs the convoy escorts and the UBoat hunters being the biggest story. However, Bismark, Tirpitz, Scharnhorst, Gniesneau and others put in a good show for the surface forces of the Kreigsmarine.

As I recall, Tirpitz never engaged in combat at all, although rumors that she was out and about caused significant damage in at least one case where a convoy was scared into scattering. The most famous of the Atlantic surface battles, the hunt for the Bismarck, only sunk a total of two capital ships - minor by Pacific standards although certainly important in terms of what Bismarck could have done to convoys had she gotten away.

Unfortunately, as others have noted, Civ 3 denies warships their proper target of either destroying merchant shipping or cutting it off with blockades. That leads to ridiculous situations where warships often have nothing better to do than bombarding railroads, roads, mines, and irrigation projects along the coast. Worse, there is simply no way ironclads or frigates, and probably not even destroyers, could fire far enough inland to have much of an impact on a tile's infrastructure.

Back to WWII, I might also note that of the five battleships and battlecruisers England lost, two, the Prince of Wales and Repulse, were lost to the Japanese in the Pacific shortly after Pearl Harbor. So using British losses as a means of estimating the ferocity of surface warfare in the Atlantic is fallacious.

By the way, most of my reading about World War II was back around the time I was in junior high, about 20 years ago. That's why my list of carriers lost to submarines in the Pacific was incomplete; not every such case stood out in my memory after so long. I was just trying to list the examples I knew about offhand to make the point that subs played a fairly significant role, not to give a reliably complete listing. Sorry if anyone interpreted it otherwise.

Nathan