Aircraft carriers for everyone!

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


its not perfect, mainly cause China cant take Moscow, while Germany did take Paris. Best I could come with at the moment. But the fact is had france engaged in a protracted war, its fleet would have been part of the blockade of Germany. Germany eliminated the French fleet as a factor by occupying its homeland and main ports. China can largely reduce the Russian Pacific fleet as a factor by taking Vladivostok? Where does the Russian Pac fleet base out of, if China does that, barring an unexpected surge of Russian diplomacy?

On the french fleet : yeah, if they had joined from the start instead of staying in harbour, they could certainly have made a difference in the mediterrainean sea - though, I think that you have missed something - the germans didn't eliminate the french fleet due to harbour control - they did it through the Vichy regime.

On the Russia/chinese - well, it is true that a carrier fleet needs a supply base, but unless I'm wrong they too can operate for a long period without support. China may take Vladivostok by surprise, but that won't prevent the fleet to operate while russia takes back the harbour.

The difference is that a russian pacific carrier fleet can do a lot of damage to homeland china while the french fleet couldn't do much more than f.ex. go against the italian fleet (wich of course would have lessened the strain on the english fleet etc).

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Ramo
Odd pattern I just realized: conscription is highly correlated with lack of British rule. Some exceptions to this trend are the Middle East, Japan, and the Netherlands...

Can you elaborate on that? I don't understand what you are saying here.

[Kuciwalker]

Countries that were ruled by the British tend not to have conscription, countries that weren't do.

The wording was a bit awkward.

[Patroklos]

I am sure it has to do with a tradition of maintaining large continental armies, something the Brits have never had to do.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by BlackCat

On the french fleet : yeah, if they had joined from the start instead of staying in harbour, they could certainly have made a difference in the mediterrainean sea - though, I think that you have missed something - the germans didn't eliminate the french fleet due to harbour control - they did it through the Vichy regime.

Mere technicalities. the Germans occupied all the atlantic ports. They controlled the Vichy controlled ports indirectly, cause they could take Vichy by land whenever they wanted.

On the Russia/chinese - well, it is true that a carrier fleet needs a supply base, but unless I'm wrong they too can operate for a long period without support. China may take Vladivostok by surprise, but that won't prevent the fleet to operate while russia takes back the harbour.

Not very long, unless they are either all nuke powered, including the escorts, or have a subtantial number of oilers accompanying them for refueling.

If youre the commander of the Russian fleet, and the Chinese can take Vladivostok quickly, you can use the Pacific fleet against the Chinese for as long as your oil lasts, and then lose the fleet, or you can run (and you have to run quite some way, to the Black sea, or to Murmansk, at least given the present Russian base network) Quite a risk eh?

And what is the fleet going to do if you DO decide to risk it, anyway? You can either support land op to recapture Vladivostok, you can try to break the transpacific lanes, or you can go for the Malacca Straits. If you use it close in youre vulnerable to land based air, shore to ship missiles, Chinese subs. If you use it more distant, youre still vulnerable to Chinese subs.

All in all, Id think for war with China youd be more interested in land forces and land based air. That they are interested in carriers is cause they have GOOD relations with China - they want it for prestige, and maybe interventions in trouble spots.

[Kataphraktoi]

Originally posted by Patroklos

It is a testemant to the overwhelming strentgh of our military that on a peace footing we can fight a 5 year war across the globe before having to think about acting like we really are at war.

When we have to ration rubber and break out the mothballed fleet, then you can talk about our plate being full.

QFT. Life goes on in the USA as if it was full peacetime





All this carrier talk overlooks the fact that anyone can make floating heaps of metal. Its the planes being launched off those heaps that really matter.

[Spec]

Originally posted by PLATO


China does. Who do you think is bankrolling the US?

Then how could it be in their interest to seek the destruction of the U.S.? It would cause a global recession and china would make so much less money. I dont know how much money per year they get from them, but the US has to be one of their best customers.

Spec.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Spec


Then how could it be in their interest to seek the destruction of the U.S.?

It isn't.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spec


Then how could it be in their interest to seek the destruction of the U.S.? It would cause a global recession and china would make so much less money. I dont know how much money per year they get from them, but the US has to be one of their best customers.

Spec.

Why would wanting carriers mean they seek the destruction of the US? Britain achieved world dominance in the mid-19th century, and did not seek the destruction of France. The US did not seek the destruction of any of our strategic adversaries not Germany and Japan. and not Russia (despite the change from the USSR)

You want to dominate the world, and engage in trade on YOUR terms, under your political dominance, not destruction.

[Spec]

I was asking because many posts stated that China was seeking the destruction of the US, LOTM.

I'm just to lazy to quote.

Spec.

[Patroklos]

Not very long, unless they are either all nuke powered, including the escorts, or have a subtantial number of oilers accompanying them for refueling.

Food. A navy sails on its stomach. And if they are anything like the American fleet as soon as they run out of soda (Mountan Dew for the young, Diet Coke for the old) muntiny ensues.

I'd imagine it is Vodka of the Russians, upon running out there will be a brief moment of competance, then muntiny.

[Saras]

Re: killing Russian PacFleet by capture of Vladivostok - it will hurt, but they can base out of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.

[Saras]

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/agency/mf-pacific.htm

And other bases as well.

[Patroklos]

Do those berths have the capacity to service three carriers. Or nuclear capable infrustructure if the carriers are nukes?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Saras
Re: killing Russian PacFleet by capture of Vladivostok - it will hurt, but they can base out of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky.

Great, base a fleet out of a city that cant be reached by road (per Wiki)

That doesnt help much with the supply problems (although they COULD have stockpiles in Petropavlovsk and the other ports)

This isnt like Pearl Harbor, which the US supplied out of San Diego, San Fran, and Seattle. These minor ports, with difficult land side access are probably supplied by sea out of Vladivostok. Which, in our scenario, has just been lost.