Jump to content


Photo

The Art of War


  • Please log in to reply
200 replies to this topic

#21 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 03 December 2009 - 06:17 PM

the condition is supremacy in the high seas. it doesn't matter from what point in the globe you start. you can assume you have access to unlimited supplies and replenishment (but not of lost ships,) whether in your base or at sea (though you run the risk of your supply ships being destroyed.) your can choose which location you can base from, at what lattitude you wish to come and challenge your opponent, whether day or night.

i always go with the battle ship and my opponent the carriers. i wonder why.

my force: 15 iowa-class battleships modified by removing B turret and replacing that with additional AA guns. the 12 5" guns will be reduced to 6 to make way for more 40MM and .50 cal guns. same engine to provide a flank speed of 30 knots and boosts to 35 knots.

my base? various supply depots within the visayan island group (Cebu, bacolod, panay, leyte, etc..) all those islands offer several points that can be modified for deep-draft capital ships.

your carriers? stick to WW2 actual deployed vessels.

Oooh, okay, I choose 15 CV-41 type vessels (USS Midway), modified by increasing the flight deck from 11,300sqm to 16,600sqm and the addition of angled flight deck as well as catapults and 3 stage arrestor wires. Also add the enclosed Hurricane Bows and the added fuel tanks.

With these things these carriers can pack in up to 270 planes each.

Since you are an all battleship force, don't really need much in terms of fighter strength, on the other hand, the Corsairs were pretty versatile beasts, so let's call it only Chance-Vought Corsairs (the ones modified to pack 4 20mm cannons instead of 6 .50 cals) and can carry up to 2 x 1,000 pound bombs in addition to the 2000 pound drop tanks (or a 2000 pound bomb) that allow it to reach up to 3200 kilometers. With wing reinforcements so that they can use the Japanese Type 93 torpedoes instead of the 2000 pound bomb in the centerline.

So that would be up to 4,050 fighters, with all the pilots of course trained to do a mass kamikaze attack on the battleships in ONE massive strike. Somehow I don't think that there are enough AA guns to stop 270 planes from crashing down on EACH battleship.

Okay, enough with the fantasy leanings, during WW2, each type of ship had its own uses. A fleet with only carriers, or only battleships, is in for a rude awakening. Even the much maligned and underappreciated destroyers and of course, my personal faves, the Cruisers, are really needed to scout for the opponents.

Edited by TheSmilingBandit, 03 December 2009 - 06:22 PM.


#22 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 06:34 PM

dude, fitting 200 airplanes on one midway-class carrier is a physical imposibility, unless you do a really far-out modifaction. i would put your air strength to 1,800 - 2,000. capital ships operating without escorts? possible. think ww1 scenario for battleships. for carriers, still possible, the way the british used them. carriers don't need scouts as much as they need escorts. no submaries to worry about. just 30-knot battleships. :D

#23 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 03 December 2009 - 06:46 PM

dude, fitting 200 airplanes on one midway-class carrier is a physical imposibility, unless you do a really far-out modifaction. i would put your air strength to 1,800 - 2,000. capital ships operating without escorts? possible. think ww1 scenario for battleships. for carriers, still possible, the way the british used them. carriers don't need scouts as much as they need escorts. no submaries to worry about. just 30-knot battleships. :D

With the original 11,300sqm flight deck, the Midway could accommodate up to 137 combat aircraft. By increasing the flight deck to 16,600sqm (which was indeed done to the Midway) and then together with the high speed catapults to launch the aircraft, you could fully load the hangers and the flight deck to fit up to 270 Corsairs (specific reason I chose them) with wings folded, draw out those needed to be launched and lower their wings (3 cats = room for 6 corsairs to unfold the wings), pretty soon the deck will be free anyway.

Come to think about it, even with just 137 aircraft going kamikaze on each battleship, carrying 4000 pounds of explosives and fuel (external), that would pretty much sink every battleship.

Yeah I know it was cheesy of me to min-max, but everything I mentioned were all technologically feasible during WW2.

You want a studied what-if scenario? What if Hitler hadn't bungled the Polish affair and WW2 had begun 2 years later with the full Plan Z of the Kriegsmarine all launched and ready for action.

Edited by TheSmilingBandit, 03 December 2009 - 06:53 PM.


#24 WyldeChylde

WyldeChylde

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 06:56 PM

Has the Yamato at Bismark meet? I thought nasa opposite sides of the globe sila.

Also, you cannot find ganun kadaming suicide pilots.

Edited by WyldeChylde, 03 December 2009 - 06:56 PM.


#25 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 03 December 2009 - 06:59 PM

Has the Yamato at Bismark meet? I thought nasa opposite sides of the globe sila.

Also, you cannot find ganun kadaming suicide pilots.


Its called a what-if scenario, you know, like a FANTASY thing. Also, no, the Yamato and Bismark never did meet considering the Bismark sank before the Yamato was commissioned.

Edited by TheSmilingBandit, 03 December 2009 - 07:00 PM.


#26 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 07:06 PM

mybe so but i wonder, with 270 planes and all their bombs and fuel, could you even manage 30 knots, when a battleship is after your blood?

plan z, as agreed in 1939, required a balanced surface and sub-surface force. with enough resources, the germans would have completed the entire plan by 1946. but i suppose your what-if assumes this was possible by 1941 (from the non-existent polish invasion.)

alright, the british would have spotted such a large build-up and tapped its commonwealth allies to augment its already strong navy. additional lend-lease agreements with the US would further boost its surface fleet. if, in 1941, the completed german force would stream out of the north sea (not sure if you're assuming france would be overrrun as really happend. the germans would probably not have enough metal for tanks and artillery due to your plan z,) there will be a jutland-type engagement. you're back to world war 1. the french and british army will likely resist your western invasion, given your diversion of resources into your navy. and what will that navy achieve assuming it beats the british on the high seas? invade britain? how many transports and auxillaries can you build? the UK had some 16 divisions inside britain waiting for the germans to invade, whether by sea or air.

face it. germany was a land power. it cannot compete with the british at sea. and we usually see that in a long war between a continental power and a sea power, the sea power wins. TBH, i dind't really think much of plan z. resources (and time itself) was simply too big a constraint.

#27 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 03 December 2009 - 07:26 PM

mybe so but i wonder, with 270 planes and all their bombs and fuel, could you even manage 30 knots, when a battleship is after your blood?

You said the only non-renewable supply were the ships themselves right? Okay, Assuming that they can only pack 200 planes send all 3000 in one kamikaze wave at 3000 kilometers, renew supply of planes and launch another 3000 5 minutes later, recycle and repeat. :upside:

plan z, as agreed in 1939, required a balanced surface and sub-surface force. with enough resources, the germans would have completed the entire plan by 1946. but i suppose your what-if assumes this was possible by 1941 (from the non-existent polish invasion.)

alright, the british would have spotted such a large build-up and tapped its commonwealth allies to augment its already strong navy. additional lend-lease agreements with the US would further boost its surface fleet. if, in 1941, the completed german force would stream out of the north sea (not sure if you're assuming france would be overrrun as really happend. the germans would probably not have enough metal for tanks and artillery due to your plan z,) there will be a jutland-type engagement. you're back to world war 1. the french and british army will likely resist your western invasion, given your diversion of resources into your navy. and what will that navy achieve assuming it beats the british on the high seas? invade britain? how many transports and auxillaries can you build? the UK had some 16 divisions inside britain waiting for the germans to invade, whether by sea or air.

face it. germany was a land power. it cannot compete with the british at sea. and we usually see that in a long war between a continental power and a sea power, the sea power wins. TBH, i dind't really think much of plan z. resources (and time itself) was simply too big a constraint.

Sadly I tend to agree with your analysis, now if Hitler had stuck to his original plan of gobbling every little nation up before going to war with England/France while keeping the Soviets out with a peace pact, then that may be an entirely different story.

#28 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 03 December 2009 - 07:47 PM

one of the hardest what-if i encounter is how hitler could have finished off britain. sea lion was a no-go. even if the gemans had enough air transports, which they didn't, and the battle of britain won.

the most feasible i still see is destuction of british air power (starting 1940 and ending maybe 1942, with no russian front.) they would have to have a fleet of heavy bombers and a special long-range fighter escort developed. people will have to accept that the me-109 was a short-ranged interceptor. and then, germany should gradually build a brown water navy consisitng of frigates, destroyers, cruisers, subs and escort carriers. guadalcanal at least proved that one can grab and maintain a toehold on a beachhead while having an inferior navy. but an air invasion would have been feasible. at least, arnhem proved that one can transport several divisions under the enemy's nose, that paratroopers can hold ground much longer than expected; and seapower gradually strengthened.

but the germans will have to be even richer and more productive than the americans. at guadalcanal, things were basically hopeless for the japanese roughly 90 days after the first landing. after 90 days, there were already 20,000 marines on the island. they had a tank company, an amtrak battalion, a working harbor, 5-inch shore defense guns. henderson already had 200 planes, 90mm AA guns and two operating airfields (the seabees were then constructing 2 more.)

also, the germans should be prepared to lose as many men, planes and ships as the americans did in the solomons to even just maintain a toehold on british soil. very tall order.

Edited by macbolan00, 03 December 2009 - 07:50 PM.


#29 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 03 December 2009 - 08:11 PM

one of the hardest what-if i encounter is how hitler could have finished off britain. sea lion was a no-go. even if the gemans had enough air transports, which they didn't, and the battle of britain won.

the most feasible i still see is destuction of british air power (starting 1940 and ending maybe 1942, with no russian front.) they would have to have a fleet of heavy bombers and a special long-range fighter escort developed. people will have to accept that the me-109 was a short-ranged interceptor. and then, germany should gradually build a brown water navy consisitng of frigates, destroyers, cruisers, subs and escort carriers. guadalcanal at least proved that one can grab and maintain a toehold on a beachhead while having an inferior navy. but an air invasion would have been feasible. at least, arnhem proved that one can transport several divisions under the enemy's nose, that paratroopers can hold ground much longer than expected; and seapower gradually strengthened.

but the germans will have to be even richer and more productive than the americans. at guadalcanal, things were basically hopeless for the japanese roughly 90 days after the first landing. after 90 days, there were already 20,000 marines on the island. they had a tank company, an amtrak battalion, a working harbor, 5-inch shore defense guns. henderson already had 200 planes, 90mm AA guns and two operating airfields (the seabees were then constructing 2 more.)

also, the germans should be prepared to lose as many men, planes and ships as the americans did in the solomons to even just maintain a toehold on british soil. very tall order.

I don't see how Unternehmen Seel÷we could have been won except under extremely different circumstances.

Peace with the USSR must be kept despite Hitler's personal animosity towards communism.
Peace with the USA must be kept despite FDR's personal wish to join Churchill.

Perhaps if the Luftwaffe had continued building aircraft at the rate asked for by many of their squadron leaders, including Galland. In general, the Nazi planes were superior dogfighters specially the FW190. Just keep pounding away at the airfields rather than the cities and pretty soon the Tommies would've been knackered.

The Kriegsmarine just needed to build more transports as with a stronger Luftwaffe, the Nazis could've pounded the Royal Navy into pieces, assuming of course that the US didn't join in on the side of the Tommies. You can't compare Guadalcanal since the distance between the French ports to England is quite short, furthermore, the British didn't quite have the same Fight or Die concept as the Japanese had, not that they'd have surrendered easily still, but they wouldn't be quite as fanatical.

Harry Turtledove did a great what-if story about this entitled In The Presence Of Mine Enemies.

Edited by TheSmilingBandit, 04 December 2009 - 11:26 AM.


#30 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 04 December 2009 - 11:34 AM

Any opinions on Bernard Montgomery? I've always felt that he was overrated specially compared to Alan Cunningham. If only Claude Auchinlek wasn't a total waste of air for a human being, then Cunningham could have won at El Alemein without the losses that Monty suffered.

The overweening pride that Monty points to Patton also applies to this supercilious bastard as well I think.


#31 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 04 December 2009 - 12:09 PM

well, time magazine declared him the best ground commander of the 20th century. they stated the reasons: his undefeated record in north africa against germany's best tank commander, and because he planned and commanded the two maneuvers that represented the zenith of 20th century fighting: the normandy invasion and the arnhem attack. both attacks are unparalled to this day in terms of size of personnel and material involvement, normandy succeeded, but it was eisenhower who envisioned it. monty did the tactical preparation and was overall coordinator. arnhem failed but it was the basis for later successful large airborne assaults.

#32 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 04 December 2009 - 01:26 PM

well, time magazine declared him the best ground commander of the 20th century. they stated the reasons: his undefeated record in north africa against germany's best tank commander, and because he planned and commanded the two maneuvers that represented the zenith of 20th century fighting: the normandy invasion and the arnhem attack. both attacks are unparalled to this day in terms of size of personnel and material involvement, normandy succeeded, but it was eisenhower who envisioned it. monty did the tactical preparation and was overall coordinator. arnhem failed but it was the basis for later successful large airborne assaults.

Each and every single predecessor of Montgomery in the Western Desert was crippled by being in charge from Cyprus to Syria to the Sudan. When Monty took over, he had the same resources, but was only responsible for Egypt and Libya (less than 1/4 the territory) not to mention that Auchinleck had already built up its strength to the strongest that its ever been prior to that time.

El Alamein
Allied Forces: 195,000 soldiers; 1,029 tanks; 400+ armoured cars; 750 aircraft; 900 artillery; 1,300 anti-tank guns.
Axis Forces: 110,000 soldiers; 550 tanks; -200 armoured cars; 500 aircraft; 500 artillery, 400 anti-tank guns.
In addition, Rommel was over-extended (due to Hitler's orders) and was under supplied with exhausted troops. Whereas Monty had a fully supplied army with plenty of fresh troops. If Monty hadn't won it would have been a miracle, if he had the same meagre resources as his predecessors, I'm rather doubtful of his success.

Operation Overlord
Allied Forces: 2,000,000+ men (in Normandy alone)
Axis Forces: 1,000,000 men (thruout France)
Again, Monty won it, but by having overwhelming forces and of course with tremendous casualties (200,000+ dead, 800,000+ wounded vs Axis 300,000 dead and wounded).

Market Garden was a total failure and I don't recall there being another massed airborne assault since then. Anyways, that Monty was overrated is just my personal opinion, I feel that Alan Cunningham would have done a better job with far less casualties.


#33 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 04 December 2009 - 03:58 PM

as far as comptence in planning and actual execution is concerned, many generals in ww2 will trump monty. but the normandy and market garden operations stand out as the tactical highlights of the war, indeed of the 20th century. the amazing thing about normandy is that it was virtually unnoticed by the enemy. imagine, the biggest amphibious invasion in history going undetected. yes, it was a meat grinder for americans and monty was known to ignore large losses.

market garden is now being revised by many. people now think monty's plan was brilliant. of course there are still nay sayers. some say even if it had succeeded, the britons will still wait 3 months for all the western forces to veer north and rush through the opening. others say it should have been perceived by monty to be a clear failure even before the first plane took off. but then, where do you think the americans based their helicopter-born assaults in vietnam, lat-am and the first gulf war?

the most effective ground campaigns were france with 400,000 french and british encircled by one salient, and kiev where marshall budenny's force of 600,000 was surrounded by a pincer movement between guderian and von runstedt's forces. kursk would have been a bigger encirclement had it succeeded.

#34 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 04 December 2009 - 04:17 PM

as far as comptence in planning and actual execution is concerned, many generals in ww2 will trump monty. but the normandy and market garden operations stand out as the tactical highlights of the war, indeed of the 20th century. the amazing thing about normandy is that it was virtually unnoticed by the enemy. imagine, the biggest amphibious invasion in history going undetected. yes, it was a meat grinder for americans and monty was known to ignore large losses.

market garden is now being revised by many. people now think monty's plan was brilliant. of course there are still nay sayers. some say even if it had succeeded, the britons will still wait 3 months for all the western forces to veer north and rush through the opening. others say it should have been perceived by monty to be a clear failure even before the first plane took off. but then, where do you think the americans based their helicopter-born assaults in vietnam, lat-am and the first gulf war?

the most effective ground campaigns were france with 400,000 french and british encircled by one salient, and kiev where marshall budenny's force of 600,000 was surrounded by a pincer movement between guderian and von runstedt's forces. kursk would have been a bigger encirclement had it succeeded.

So who is the better general for you? Rommel vs. Monty vs. Patton vs. Zhukov. No I'm not talking about the press releases, if you had to have one general to command your armies, which one would you pick?

#35 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 04 December 2009 - 04:23 PM

rommel, because he has commanded during positions of both strength and weakness. also, as a junior officer, he really stood out (not to mention he was romantically linked with french fashion designer coco chanel.)

#36 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 04 December 2009 - 04:28 PM

rommel, because he has commanded during positions of both strength and weakness. also, as a junior officer, he really stood out (not to mention he was romantically linked with french fashion designer coco chanel.)


I tend to agree (though I don't really care about the romantic links), his campaigns tended to try to preserve the lives of his men and his use of maneuver to penetrate enemy lines was astounding.

Patton and Zhukov would both tie for 2nd place. Then I'll probably sneak in a few dozen other generals before going down to Monty.

Hmmm ... what about naval officers? Any candidates for the best of the best?

PM me the picture and I'll attach it to your post.

Edited by TheSmilingBandit, 04 December 2009 - 04:29 PM.


#37 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 04 December 2009 - 04:34 PM

my two best ship skippers are destroyer captain tameichi hara and light cruiser skipper gilbert hoover. hara had an incredible night during the culminating battle at guadalcanal. hoover commanded the lucky helena and was also disitnguished at the solomons. sadly, he made a tactical error, leaving a crippled ship untended and was relieved of his command of the helena.

best fighting admirals? toss off between reizo tanaka and kincaid.

Attached File  BJ.jpg   48.28KB   0 downloads
Can you identify this WW2 commander (though he looks more like a grandfather than a fighting admiral)

Edited by TheSmilingBandit, 04 December 2009 - 04:38 PM.


#38 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 04 December 2009 - 04:44 PM

my two best ship skippers are destroyer captain tameichi hara and light cruiser skipper gilbert hoover. hara had an incredible night during the culminating battle at guadalcanal. hoover commanded the lucky helena and was also disitnguished at the solomons. sadly, he made a tactical error, leaving a crippled ship untended and was relieved of his command of the helena.

best fighting admirals? toss off between reizo tanaka and kincaid.

Attached File  BJ.jpg   48.28KB   0 downloads
Can you identify this WW2 commander (though he looks more like a grandfather than a fighting admiral)

Black Jack Fletcher (that's an easy one).

Best fighting admirals? I'd say Andrew Cunningham and maybe Raymond Spruance (though technically he never commanded in a real battle).


#39 macbolan00

macbolan00

    Looker

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 172 posts

Posted 04 December 2009 - 05:01 PM

how bout this guy?

Posted Image

and this one (clue: these guys are candidates for the superior race breeding program. too bad they're both dead now)

Posted Image

Edited by macbolan00, 04 December 2009 - 05:02 PM.


#40 TheSmilingBandit

TheSmilingBandit

    The End of Innocence

  • Moderator
  • 5,290 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere & Everywhere
  • Interests:1984 is NOW
    Big Brother Is Watching

Posted 04 December 2009 - 05:38 PM

how bout this guy?

Posted Image

and this one (clue: these guys are candidates for the superior race breeding program. too bad they're both dead now)

Posted Image

Aside from the Iron Cross decorating the chest of the 2nd picture, I've got no clue. Rank tabs can't be seen clearly either.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users