Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Evaluation of strategies.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
    Might also want to know what class of DDs you gave me.
    I didn't look them up, but both sides would have the newest fully operational destroyers available in these quantities in 1932.
    sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
    If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
      If I was the young 15 yr old, my first question would be:

      Has the New Mexico received her modernization in this TDG?

      In real life, we know she was in the yards getting her cage mast replaced, torpedo blisters added and additional armor.

      Might want to know the time of day, sea conditions and a few other variables
      All the battleships would have their early 1930's mods completed with the new oil machinery, optical fire control and blisters (ahead of real world if necessary - to support this fictional scenario), the first contact would be early morning after dawn (~7:00 am), sea state would be calm, excellent visability. The Japanese cruisers will have 24" torpedoes - the USN cruisers don't have torpedoes. Destroyers all have 21" torpedoes.
      Last edited by USSWisconsin; 24 Apr 11,, 21:13.
      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

      Comment


      • #18
        Now he has most of the info to devise his plan for the meeting engagement.

        And Whisky, naval warfare isn't much different than ground warfare. Think maneuver warfare in the desert.

        Comment


        • #19
          There are some differences between naval warfare and desert maneuver warfare. Naval warfare takes place at much longer ranges (slightly irrelevant, but a difference nonetheless), and desert warfare usually has some sort of element of air support. Since there are no aircraft carriers in this scenario, air support is out of the question, but you never want to forget air support in a ground operation.

          Another thing is that ground warfare usually entails many elements working together which leads to certain confusion, something which still exists but on a smaller scale in naval warfare. In ground warfare you need to coordinate your engineers, your armor (the main maneuver force), your reconnaissance and your artillery, among others. In a blue water naval battle like the one described above there are no mines, and the artillery and the armor/maneuver force are all on the same platform, so blue-on-blue is much harder to come by. Reconnaissance still exists in eery scenario on every terrain though, and usually reconnaissance is what wins the battle before the heavy shooting even starts
          Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

          Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

          Comment


          • #20
            bigross86 Reply

            "Naval warfare takes place at much longer ranges (slightly irrelevant, but a difference nonetheless)"

            If the combatants are surface vessels from the forties or earlier then they still engage within LOS of one another.

            "...and desert warfare usually has some sort of element of air support. Since there are no aircraft carriers in this scenario, air support is out of the question, but you never want to forget air support in a ground operation."

            Air support here is comprised of aerial reconnaissance, is it not?

            "Another thing is that ground warfare usually entails many elements working together which leads to certain confusion, something which still exists but on a smaller scale in naval warfare."

            How do you define "a smaller scale"? Wasn't the combat in the Battle of Leyte Gulf both confusing and large in both vessels involved and distances with many disparate elements engaged?

            How about Jutland? Vast numbers of divisions and squadrons possessing large capitol ships appearing and disappearing at odd times to the chagrin and angst of the commanders involved.

            Gross generalities are dangerously vulnerable to gross exceptions.
            "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
            "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by S2 View Post
              "Naval warfare takes place at much longer ranges (slightly irrelevant, but a difference nonetheless)"

              If the combatants are surface vessels from the forties or earlier then they still engage within LOS of one another.
              Which is why I said it's a slightly irrelevant difference, though 20,000 feet is not 2,000 feet, hence the difference

              "...and desert warfare usually has some sort of element of air support. Since there are no aircraft carriers in this scenario, air support is out of the question, but you never want to forget air support in a ground operation."

              Air support here is comprised of aerial reconnaissance, is it not?
              In this scenario, air support is not as relevant, depending on how far out to sea they are, due to the lack of aircraft carriers. Let me specify, by air support I mean actual support of ground forces, not just reconnaissance

              "Another thing is that ground warfare usually entails many elements working together which leads to certain confusion, something which still exists but on a smaller scale in naval warfare."

              How do you define "a smaller scale"? Wasn't the combat in the Battle of Leyte Gulf both confusing and large in both vessels involved and distances with many disparate elements engaged?
              And yet, in each smaller battle, what I said holds true: The chances of blue-on-blue are smaller since the elements being used are closer together and more coherent. It's a lot easier for artillery to fire on a tank battalion by mistake than for one ship to fire on another. There is still fog of battle, and blue-on-blue does happen, but the chances are smaller.

              How about Jutland? Vast numbers of divisions and squadrons possessing large capitol ships appearing and disappearing at odd times to the chagrin and angst of the commanders involved.
              But once again, how many friendly fire incidents were there?

              Gross generalities are dangerously vulnerable to gross exceptions.
              Let me be more specific, I'm referring mainly to friendly fire and fratricide incidents
              Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

              Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by bigross86 View Post
                Let me be more specific, I'm referring mainly to friendly fire and fratricide incidents
                Tell me when ground forces fvcked up so seriously that led to loosing ~400 lives at once, from negligence, more over during peace-time ;). Hint: HMS Victoria, Admiral Tyron.
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • #23
                  USS Atlanta was hit during the night battle Of Guadalcanal. Took 19 8" hits from San Francisco. HMAS Canberra may have been torpedoed by the Bagley. USS Patterson and USS Chicago had a short duel.

                  Grant was hit by friendly fire during the Surigao Straits.

                  US Missouri was hit by R2D2 rounds fired by the USS Jarrett.

                  Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I'm sure there were others.
                  Last edited by Gun Grape; 25 Apr 11,, 04:04.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I'm not saying they don't happen, all I'm saying is that the potential for friendly fire is easier on land, since there are more elements that need coordination and therefore the chance for screw ups is larger
                    Meddle not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

                    Abusing Yellow is meant to be a labor of love, not something you sell to the highest bidder.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Amazon.com: The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Navy in the Baltic 1921-1941 (Cass Series: Naval Policy and History) (9780714655406): Gunnar Åselius: Books

                      Link to the first chapter of a book on Soviet Naval Strategy during this period (1921-41) - note all the references to great contemporary strategic works, like those of Julian Corbett - the basic principles during each historic period are applicable to other regions. Corbett stresses concentration of forces, though improved intelligence later made this concentration of force secondary to having good information - this scenario is on the cusp of this change and both approaches are relevant. This scenario occurs during the period where battleships were still dominant, but aerial recon had begun to influence strategy.

                      I would question the effectiveness of dividing the USN forces too much - though three or four different squadrons might be reformed to an advantage. Remember the Japanese ships are faster. The American ships have their edge when they concentrate their gunnery - if they allow the Japanese to close to torpedo range - the Japanese commander has a serious edge (the Japanese cruisers are deadly with their 24" torpedoes). The Japanese are also totally committed here - while the USN has a significant reserve left elsewhere - a draw or mutual annihilation would leave the Americans with the upper hand.

                      While divide and conquer sounds like a good approach, I would personally consider taking some destroyers (3-4 from each one) from the two battleship divisions and building a large destroyer formation based around the cruisers - planning to use it from a flank while battleships engage head on. A night action could be very interesting, provided one of the combatants delays engagement until dark (the Japanese might try this).
                      Last edited by USSWisconsin; 30 Apr 11,, 19:50.
                      sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                      If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
                        I didn't look them up, but both sides would have the newest fully operational destroyers available in these quantities in 1932.
                        1. Why would I send an equal force with the Japanese so close to home ports and repair. They can sortie at will without having to detail forces off to cover the replenishment vessels. They can also retreat to repair and rearm while I can't.

                        2. Under the Washington treaty i have more BB's as an American so I want to send more. After all if I lose, I lose my fleet in being and leave a lot of real estate exposed and leave my nations ability to act on the international stage as a leader severly compromised.

                        3. I want to approach from the Phillipines to maximize my ability to stay on station.

                        4. Where possible I want to keep my fleet between the Japanese and Hong Kong which provides a nice refuge if needed.

                        5. I want my ships together so I can maximize a throw weight advantage against each Japanese element in turn.

                        6. except for an anti-torpedo screen I want my destroyers detached to act as a flanking force ready to launch torpedo attacks in the Japanese present the oppurtunity. I also want to use them to act as a blocking force to keep the Japanese from beign able to cross my T, and as eyes.

                        7. How robust is my communication? Do I have universal wireless communication- Do the japanese?

                        8. whats the speed of the slowest BB on each side?

                        9. What range is the base line for each sides big gun gunnery training? If the ranges are not the same, I want to engage at ranges that give and preserve an advantage for me.

                        10. Can my cruisers make smoke?

                        11. where are the shoals and reefs?

                        12. How well do I know my division leaders and captains?

                        13. do I know any of the Japanese leadership- if yes what do I think I know about them?

                        14. Since the IJN is modeled on the RN, what does RN doctrine say the IJN will do?

                        15. Do I want to annihlate them, or simply cripple a major vessel or two and then force the rest to retreat in order to preserve the IJN as a headge against other regional powers like the USSR and the UK (what does the politcal leadership want me to accomplish)?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by zraver View Post
                          1. Why would I send an equal force with the Japanese so close to home ports and repair. They can sortie at will without having to detail forces off to cover the replenishment vessels. They can also retreat to repair and rearm while I can't.
                          It is a wargame schenario -the Phillipines are available as a US base. The US is interested in forcing Japan out of China so they need to bring the fight there.
                          2. Under the Washington treaty i have more BB's as an American so I want to send more. After all if I lose, I lose my fleet in being and leave a lot of real estate exposed and leave my nations ability to act on the international stage as a leader severly compromised.
                          The forces sent are equal (superior in US thinking - as they out gun the IJN) to the entire IJN fleet - USN has other commitments to defend and ships being refitted

                          3. I want to approach from the Phillipines to maximize my ability to stay on station.

                          4. Where possible I want to keep my fleet between the Japanese and Hong Kong which provides a nice refuge if needed.
                          Scenario states engagement in open Pacific East of Japan
                          5. I want my ships together so I can maximize a throw weight advantage against each Japanese element in turn.

                          6. except for an anti-torpedo screen I want my destroyers detached to act as a flanking force ready to launch torpedo attacks in the Japanese present the oppurtunity. I also want to use them to act as a blocking force to keep the Japanese from beign able to cross my T, and as eyes.

                          7. How robust is my communication? Do I have universal wireless communication- Do the japanese?
                          Yes both sides have wireless comm - State of the art 1932
                          8. whats the speed of the slowest BB on each side?
                          Given in references provided, all ships are in good condition, and can make their full speed
                          http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/gro...tml#post803646

                          9. What range is the base line for each sides big gun gunnery training? If the ranges are not the same, I want to engage at ranges that give and preserve an advantage for me.
                          US practice at very long range, Japanese practice at somewhat shorter max ranges and at more at close range

                          10. Can my cruisers make smoke?
                          yes, and the destoyers - both sides
                          11. where are the shoals and reefs?
                          none in engagement area
                          12. How well do I know my division leaders and captains?
                          You have complete control of your forces, all senior officers are hand picked by you
                          13. do I know any of the Japanese leadership- if yes what do I think I know about them?
                          No - both sides have general info about the other - both sides feel superior
                          14. Since the IJN is modeled on the RN, what does RN doctrine say the IJN will do?
                          The IJN will employ RN methods when appropriate - but have already develped their own variations at this point
                          15. Do I want to annihlate them, or simply cripple a major vessel or two and then force the rest to retreat in order to preserve the IJN as a headge against other regional powers like the USSR and the UK (what does the politcal leadership want me to accomplish)?
                          Yes, you want to force a Japanese withdrawal from China by defeating the IJN battlefleet if possible

                          My answers in blue
                          This is a wargame exercise - at the the request of Cly. Historical accuracy of the scenario was not the objective - a strategic and tactical solution to the problem as defined is the objective of the exercise. I made a disclaimer that balanced scenarios like this are not likely to occur in real life. They are still useful excercises in wargaming. The points with no comments - I agree with your approach.
                          Last edited by USSWisconsin; 01 May 11,, 18:43.
                          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Clytisimo View Post
                            For those who have seen my All about Me thread Found here: http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/mem...ytisimo-v.html
                            You will see I said I wanted to test my strategic skills. Now I promise I won't do: Oh Johnny here went Rambo and owned you all! Lolololol xD No. Give me a realistic scenario and don't skimp on details. And please don't do an impossible situation. I said I was a NOVICE. So start off easy, please. =3
                            Clytisimo,

                            Once the 1932 naval scenario has played out, let's do November 2002 in Qatar. You're GEN Tommy Franks. What's your strategy?
                            Last edited by Shek; 02 May 11,, 00:04.
                            "So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post

                              My answers in blue
                              This is a wargame exercise - at the the request of Cly. Historical accuracy of the scenario was not the objective - a strategic and tactical solution to the problem as defined is the objective of the exercise. I made a disclaimer that balanced scenarios like this are not likely to occur in real life. They are still useful excercises in wargaming. The points with no comments - I agree with your approach.
                              It is a wargame schenario -the Phillipines are available as a US base. The US is interested in forcing Japan out of China so they need to bring the fight there.
                              So why am I sailing straight from either Pearl or Seattle burning up my fuel reserves before going into battle?

                              The forces sent are equal (superior in US thinking - as they out gun the IJN) to the entire IJN fleet - USN has other commitments to defend and ships being refitted
                              Those other commitments can't be covered if I lose. There is a serious handicap on the US side I will illustrate in a minute.

                              Scenario states engagement in open Pacific East of Japan
                              Why? If I come from the South and out my ships between Japan and her trade with the rest of Asia I will be effective even without fighting.

                              Given in references provided, all ships are in good condition, and can make their full speed
                              The slowest Japanese BB division has a 2 knot advantage over both US divisions and their fastest has a 6 knot advantage. If I come out of the east I am low on fuel and do not have natural barriers to counter the Japanese speed advantage. This means I cannot keep the Japanese away from their preferred ranges, and cannot keep them from crossing my T over time since they have a speed and range advantage.

                              Yes, you want to force a Japanese withdrawal from China by defeating the IJN battlefleet if possible
                              Then coming out of the south angled to interpose US steel between Japan and China both to demonstrate American commitment and minimize the Japanese speed advantage makes so much more sense. Plus like I said it creates a safe zone in Hong Kong that should be close enough to give my forces a refuge if things go wrong. In the open ocean, if things go wrong- they go all the way wrong and there is not way to preserve a fleet in being.


                              overall the US has more throw weight, but seems to have squandered it in extreme range gunnery training which makes me wonder how accurate they will be at closer ranges which the American fleet lacks the speed to prevent. At 23,000yds the difference between a 16" or 14"/50 and a 14"/45 might be more stark than at 16,000 yards or closer where penetrating hits are a given.

                              Some US ships like the New Mexico has serious design flaws that as commander I think I should be aware of. To protect the New Mexico and use her guns I need to keep her in the center of my battle line so that she can't be raked with massed fire.

                              The US destroyers are Clemson class vessels 1215t, with 4x4" 1x 3" and 12x 21" tops with a top speed of 35 knots and carry 122 men. However after the 3300 mile trip the scenarios engagement area the vessels have only 1/4 of the fuel they started with and cannot make it home without replenishment.

                              The Japanese are using shier post WWI Mutsuki class destroyer- 1315t, 37 knot speed, 4x 4.7" guns, 9x 24" torps, 16x naval mines. They have shorter legs than the Clemson but are closer to home for a net range advantage of +1100 miles for the Japanese ships over the Americans.

                              The Japanese cruiser Myoko (13,300t) has 10x 8" guns, 6x 4.7" guns, 2 sea planes and 12x 24" torps on a platform that can do 36 knots with a 3.9" thick main belt.

                              The USS Chester (9,200t) is a 32knot platform, mounts 9x 8" guns, 8x 5", 2 sea planes and has armor that is a maximum 3" thick.

                              its a similar story with the battleships

                              Kongo- 36,600t, 30 knots, 8x 14' guns, 16x 6" guns, 8x 3' guns, 8x 21" torps, main belt max 11" and a range of 9500 miles in the engagement zone 4500 miles.

                              Compared to the USS Colorado- 32,600t, 8x 16" guns, 12x 5" guns, 8x 3" guns, 31 knots, 2x 21" tops, main belt max 12.6", and a range in the engagement zone of 9500 miles.
                              Last edited by zraver; 01 May 11,, 23:28.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                You can stop order your fleet to stop in the Philippines first to refuel and restock - that is part of your strategy.

                                The USN can enter the battle with the same fuel reserves as the IJN, in the way you suggested - good move. :)

                                The wargame scenario is designed to be an exercise, don't worry about the outside factors, it wasn't thought out in a world wide context.

                                My original "USN heading east" condition is an error in the scenario - please disregard, no USN heading is specified by the scenario.

                                Maryland and Colorado are your 16" gun battleships. New Mexico and the others are 12x14", New Mexico and Idaho have longer L50 guns - which give a bit more range than the L45's on Pennsylvania and Arizona.
                                I would plan to use my battleships in converging groups to bring the enemy under the full weight of my long range fire, but keep the 16" gun ships back a bit, to play out their longer range advantage.

                                A successful pre-battlefleet engagement torpedo attack by my strengthened cruiser division with a dozen destroyers doing the dirty work would hopefully slow the fast IJN division by a few knots and/or take out one of their 16" gun ships.
                                Last edited by USSWisconsin; 01 May 11,, 23:41.
                                sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                                If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X