Originally posted by Gun Grape
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Evaluation of strategies.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Gun Grape View PostIf 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 variablesLast 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
-
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 startsMeddle 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
-
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
-
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.
"...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.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
-
Originally posted by bigross86 View PostLet me be more specific, I'm referring mainly to friendly fire and fratricide incidentsNo such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
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
-
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 largerMeddle 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
-
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
-
Originally posted by USSWisconsin View PostI didn't look them up, but both sides would have the newest fully operational destroyers available in these quantities in 1932.
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
-
Originally posted by zraver View Post1. 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
-
Originally posted by Clytisimo View PostFor 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
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
-
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.
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
Scenario states engagement in open Pacific East of Japan
Given in references provided, all ships are in good condition, and can make their full speed
Yes, you want to force a Japanese withdrawal from China by defeating the IJN battlefleet if possible
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
-
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
Comment