Naval history and civ3 thread for NYE and korn and whoever

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Venger
Good post IGD. In Civ2, I gave the Aegis cruiser the ability to attack air units - so not only did it have good defensive capability, it could actually shoot down bombers that were nearby. I'd like to have seen units with different strengths vs. air, land, sea - but I doubt we'll ever see that in Civ3 just due to the nature of the changes.

However, there MUST be a risk for aircraft attacking ships. Aircraft own ships, but they also take heavy tolls at times to do it. Having aircraft able to attack shipping with impunity, as they can now, is nonsensical and pure gameplay anthrax.

We dont actually know whether who will come out on top, the air-launched anti ship missles or the anti-air ship launched missles. That war has not been fought.

Given the wildly successful air to ground missions over Iraq and Bosnia in the face of reasonable anti-aircraft defenses (at the start of the conflicts) and the effectiveness of the exocets against the Brits, I think aircraft launched anti-ship missles will have a large superiority against even the aegis cruisers.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Originally posted by SpencerH

Given the wildly successful air to ground missions over Iraq and Bosnia in the face of reasonable anti-aircraft defenses (at the start of the conflicts) and the effectiveness of the exocets against the Brits, I think aircraft launched anti-ship missles will have a large superiority against even the aegis cruisers.

Ships have one final defense in their phalanx gatling guns. Years ago I saw a show about their effectiveness, and they looked quite impressive with their obscenely high fire rate and computer controlled aiming. They simply shredded anything that got within a mile.

[Venger]

The issue re: aircraft vs. ships is one of sheer numbers - a ship has low numbers - limited offensive platforms, limited speed, limited munitions, and bad big numbers, such as size, cost, resource requirements.

Aircraft can sortie, launch ordinance, and resortie. It's simply a matter of numbers - 24 aircraft attacking a cruiser will, eventually, sink her, all else considered. No system is 100%, and 95% effectiveness means you won't get hit by 20 AS missiles, just one. Which will often do the trick...

Venger

[IGD]

Originally posted by Venger
P.S. The thing about the Belgrano was that really was the ONLY ship the Argentines had that was worth a damn and could pose a threat to the British surface fleet. I always thought it was ironic that the Belgrano was refitted with many British missile systems for use...tragic loss of life though. Still, it was one of those moments when you think Argentina realized "uh, do we know what we got ourselves into here?"

Actually the Argentine Navy had a significant surface inventory including two very modern Type 42 destroyers, sold to them by the UK ! They also had the Aircraft Carrier Venticinco De Mayo, carrying Super Etendarde with Exocet. Belgrano was attempting to conduct the southern half of a pincer movement with VDM to the North for a co-ordinated exocet attack on the British main group from VDM's aircraft and surface engagement by Belgrano. VDM however could not get her aircraft off the deck due to light winds (Super E's were heavy and even at full speed VDM needed a head wind to get em off). Belgrano was making her way to a holding area to await more favorable conditions for a second attempt when the Conqueror, who had been tailing her for the previous 48 hours was given an overdue change to her rules of engagement and sent her to the bottom. Belgrano's escorts took off immediately as did the VDM group and never ventured out again.

I agree with your estimate of their thought process !!

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64

Ships have one final defense in their phalanx gatling guns. Years ago I saw a show about their effectiveness, and they looked quite impressive with their obscenely high fire rate and computer controlled aiming. They simply shredded anything that got within a mile.

Such systems were developed in response to the unexpected effectiveness of the exocets against the British Navy during the Falklands war. Essentially three vessels were lost to single strikes by exocets. As far as I know, rapid-fire computer controlled guns remain the only defense against low flying anti-ship missles, but their effectiveness remains to be proven. My experience has been that no weapon system is as effective as its "advertisements" and that defensive systems are developed after lives are lost and the effectiveness of the new offensive systems have been proven by those losses.

[IGD]

Originally posted by Venger
The issue re: aircraft vs. ships is one of sheer numbers - a ship has low numbers - limited offensive platforms, limited speed, limited munitions, and bad big numbers, such as size, cost, resource requirements.

Aircraft can sortie, launch ordinance, and resortie. It's simply a matter of numbers - 24 aircraft attacking a cruiser will, eventually, sink her, all else considered. No system is 100%, and 95% effectiveness means you won't get hit by 20 AS missiles, just one. Which will often do the trick...

Venger

Sorry to keep using your quote venger, but seems appropriate to make my point. Spencer H is right about the missile war, it has been fought in such small numbers until now that conclusions are hard to draw, except from operational analysis, trial firings and extensive modelling -- all of which are put to very great use to ensure that US/UK weapons (both the Air to Surface missiles and on the other side of the coin the SAM systems both missiles and guns) are better and more effective than those which they may come up against. The simple truth is that the better technology will win unless swamped by sheer weight of numbers in either case. Modern Western SAM systems are pretty good and it is not a fair comparison to compare them to such systems as may have operated in IRAQ. It should also be noted that SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defence) infrastructure and Command & Control systems are one of the primary targets at the start of any campaign such as the Gulf or Serbia...often using stealth and Special Forces, usually rendering enemy integrated AD systems useless after a few hours.

Where is the SF unit in Civ3 ?

In the case of warships .. all modern warships can shoot down an aircraft with ease, even several at a time, the problem is missiles. An AEGIS (And many other modern warships), I can assure you is quite capable of dealing with all modern missiles, providing it does not become swamped (Back to the eventual overpowering of any technology by sheer weight of numbers) Warships have an integrated suite of "soft" and "Hard" kill methods of dealing with both air and ship launched ordance. The few successes of EXOCET in the Falklands conflict (Actually only 1 kill and 1 damaged ship!, the other 3 ship losses were to bombs) are remembered, the large numbers of any aircraft and missiles which were shot down or successfully decoyed are often not.

Finally I would make 1 last point....warships very rarely go around in ones. They almost always act as part of an integrated Task Group which has a layered defence concept utilising Satellites AWACS, Air defence aircraft, submarines, hard and soft kill systems and electronic warfare in all 4 environments, space, air, surface and sub surface. Hence my earlier point about the Nuclear Carrier group having all these defence capabilities inherent within its makeup.

I agree that one of the most disappointing aspects of CIV's naval side is that it gets reduced to bombarding improvements. It could be so much better. One simple idea would be to render a harbour ineffective if an enemy unit was within so many squares (Number of squares depending upon power of unit) (same with airports for AEGIS or Carriers) Modern Naval units (Destroyer, AEGIS) should be able to conduct precision attacks as well as bombardment, these should include against enemy land units as well as city improvements. (This would represent their Land attack Cruise Missile capability as well as the accuracy and range of modern naval Gun systems)


Just the thoughts of an old sailor !

[SpencerH]

I agree that we tend to forget the number of misses.

My point was simply that during times of "peace" new weapons techs are developed and lots of theories abound about how effective they are and how well defenses against them will work.

Before the Falklands the defense against exocets was to shoot down the aircraft carrying it. That wasnt an effective defense in the face of a determined enemy. HMS Sheffield and RFA Atlantic Conveyor were lost to air-launched exocets. HMS Glamorgan was damaged with 13 dead by a land-based exocet. Most ships were damaged by unexploded bombs. British losses would have much higher if the bombs had exploded. As a result better anti-missle defenses were developed but they have not been tested.

While I accept that you have experience of naval matters on your side, you say

all modern warships can shoot down an aircraft with ease, even several at a time

but where is the evidence for that statement.

There is lots of evidence of peace-time military theories that arent worth a crap when the bullets actually start flying. I'll bet the French Knights at Agincourt believed themselves virtually invulnerable too, but they learned differently.

I agree with the empowering of the carriers in CIV3. They are second only to the nuclear subs in attack and defense in my own heavily mod-ed game.

[notyoueither]

The Falklands seems to be a popular topic. Can I ask this?

How many British war ships in the Task Force? At least 10 by my recollection.

OK, how many times were they attacked by 50 or more Argentine air craft at the same time? I don't believe it ever happened. What must have been shocking (to the brain trusts both in the US and the UK) was how effective small numbers of air craft belonging to a third-rate power were in attacking one of the world's most advanced navies.

At least that's how I recollect.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I agree with the empowering of the carriers in CIV3. They are second only to the nuclear subs in attack and defense in my own heavily mod-ed game.

The real power of carriers is in their aircraft, not in the ships themselves. Carriers shouldn't have high attack or defense ratings in their own right; that's what destroyers and battleships (or, in more modern times, Aegis cruisers and similar ships) travel with carriers for.

On the other hand, it should not be possible for enemy surface ships to move within striking distance of a carrier without at least a high probability of facing attack by the carrier's aircraft first. That's one of the imbalances of having modern warships move about as fast as aircraft's range. Carrier-based aircraft (and quite possibly all air units) should have an "interdict attack" option that lets them strike at enemy units that attempt to approach their base.

In the absence of an option for a carrier to use its aircraft to defend itself against attack, a high defense value for the ship itself may be reasonable. But I see no sense in giving a carrier a high value for surface attacks.

Nathan

[TCO]

Originally posted by SpencerH
There have been a few posts dismissing the abilities of the conventional sub in an era of nuclear powered vehicles. I just wanted to point out that conventional subs are generally more quiet than their nuclear brethren. As a result, there have been occasions where these vessels have "sunk" carriers in war games. A feat that is no small achievement.

nuclear subs are far more deadly than diesel subs. I would much rather attack a CVBG with a nuke sub.

[IGD]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by SpencerH
Before the Falklands the defense against exocets was to shoot down the aircraft carrying it. That wasnt an effective defense in the face of a determined enemy. HMS Sheffield and RFA Atlantic Conveyor were lost to air-launched exocets. HMS Glamorgan was damaged with 13 dead by a land-based exocet. Most ships were damaged by unexploded bombs. British losses would have much higher if the bombs had exploded. As a result better anti-missle defenses were developed but they have not been tested.

While I accept that you have experience of naval matters on your side, you say but where is the evidence for that statement. [END/QUOTE]

Hi Spencer, in response to the above, firstly nice to see someone so well informed. Actually I left out MV Atlantic Conveyor because she was a "civilian" casualty unable to defend herself, perhaps that was a little unfair of me since she was an exocet kill. It is interesting however to realise that she was not the target of that exocet, HMS AMBUSCADE was. 2 Missiles were fired at the same target by 2 Super Etendardes, they were locked on to AMBUSCADE for a time but she seduced them with electronic warfare. One missile flew into the sea, the other now confused flew blindly on, conducted a re-acquisition sequence and unfortunately found Atlantic Conveyor who had no such means of self defence.

I agree our losses would have been much higher if the bombs which failed had worked ! I probably wouldn't be sending this e-mail in that case ! You need to set that against, however, the very high aircraft losses of the argentine air force, many of which were shotdown by warships as well as Harriers. That is not to take away from them their undoubdted skill courage and determination, but the mounting empty seats at the dinner table in Rio Grande must have been very difficult to take.

Don't forget warships shot down Canberra's Pucaras, Pumas Mirages Daggers, and Hercules transport aircraft as well as many of the A4 Skyhawk kills.

I personaly witnessed a raid by 4 A4s on HMS BRILLIANT. She shot down 3 with her Sea Wolf system in an engagement lasting no more than 3 seconds. The 4th was so badly damaged it crashed into West Falkland on the way home.

There really haven't been many conflicts in which the warship has been tested in combat against a modern airforce since 1982, however the following incidents spring to mind.

USS Stark hit by an exocet missile in the gulf in the early 90's

2 Iraqi exocet carrying airctaft shot down by US cruiser (Can't remember which one which is rather bad of me, I am sure you will) in the Gulf war (From radar information relayed from HMS GLOUCESTER !)

IRAQI SILKWORM anti Ship Missile targetted at US Cruiser, shot down by Sea Dart missile from HMS GLOUCESTER.


As for your point about never really knowing the worth of a military idea or technology until it is tested. I agree entirely, but you still have to do the best you can. I have witnessed hundreds of Aircraft attacks against warships in exercises, where everything but the final missile leaving the launcher is accurately simulated. All I can say is I would rather be in the warship any day. Hence my view that in CIV warships should be able to shoot down aircraft.


Cheers

[IGD]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The Falklands seems to be a popular topic. Can I ask this?

How many British war ships in the Task Force? At least 10 by my recollection.

OK, how many times were they attacked by 50 or more Argentine air craft at the same time? I don't believe it ever happened. What must have been shocking (to the brain trusts both in the US and the UK) was how effective small numbers of air craft belonging to a third-rate power were in attacking one of the world's most advanced navies.

At least that's how I recollect.

Number of ships in the task force was :

37 warships
30 support ships
42 Civilain vessels taken into service


Would have been a bit difficult to have re-taken an island garrisoned by 10,000 men at the end of an 8,000 mile logistics chain with 10 ships !

I think you are right that the effectiveness of the argentine air force woke up a few people. Only lessons we already knew though but were conveniently forgotten due to cost cutting. The RN abandoned proper aircraft carriers with real air superiority fighters and organic airborne early warning in the 1960s. A mistake we lived to regret. Thank God Uncle Sam didn't forget the lessons of Pearl Harbor ! (Note I use the US spelling of Harbour, why can't you get that right -- same with colour -- only joking)

We have come a long way in the last 20 years, both in technology and in doctrine. Ships are now much more capable than they were in all warfare disciplines especially Air defence and the UK is about to embark on the building of 2 proper Aircraft Carriers. The main armament for which will be the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter.

[notyoueither]

Colour is my favorite colour. One Flag, One Fleet, One Empire. If you need to ask.

I am pretty sure there were 10+ war ships involved on the side of right in the Falklands. I was drawing from memory, and when I do so I do so conservatively.

My main point was about how a peace time force of any type will be surprised by their enemies under almost all circumstances. The severity of that surprise will vary from war to war, but can be quite severe. Ask Cornwallis.

The fact is (I will say it is a fact) that the capabilities of the USN and RN are completely untested as far as the Russian Navy and Air Force are concerned. While we sit here comfortably by our hearths, Boris may very well have the weapons and doctrines in place to rake large holes in the rosters of the RN and the USN. For all we know, had the USSR not crumbled, they may have had the combination of weapons, doctrine and production to win a conventional war on the seas vs the West. G*d forbid.

At any rate, as someone more imminently qualified than me once said: No plan survives first contact with the enemy. D*mn I wish I'd said that first.

What I can say first is that the conclusion of an unfought war cannot be known before the last shot is fired.

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by nbarclay
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.

It really wasn't lopsided until late 1943 and on. Yes, there was no question it would get very bad for the

IJN as time wore on, as pointed out by yourself and others here. Post Midway, there were very serious concerns in the USN at Battle of Santa Cruz, and during the Gilberts campaign. Carrier support was basically pulled out of Guadalcanal because of fear of exposing the limited carrier resouces, at one point down to just the Enterprise in action, to land based air attack.

Clearly TF58 in 1944 was one of the most formidable forces ever assembled. When in full air cover mode, the task force would be 100 miles in diameter.

My theory for small US losses are three fold:

1) The Pacific theatre, unlike the Med, and the Atlantic approches where most of the UK losses occured, was relatively wide open, and made it very difficult for the Japanese to deploy subs in an effective pattern. The US had great success at interdicting shipping due to the nature of the shipping routes from SE Asia to Japan that served to bring traffic to our subs, much like the convoys in the Atlantic.

2) By 1943 on, the US was deploying Essex class carriers which were known as "fast carriers" capable of 30kts. Making it nearly impossible for a sub to attack as long the fleet remained in open ocean. Interesting to note that is why the Iowa battleships were designed, in order to keep up in the speed department, as nearly every BB at Pearl Habor had been raised and returned to service in time for revenge in the opening round of Leyte Gulf.

3) The US placed exceptional emphasis on damage control design and preparedness. This advantage is under appreciated in the war, but played out many times, including the Yorktown's availability at Midway. The IJN much less so, and many reports say that the Shinano supercarrier was brought down by a single torpedo that started a fire. An exception to this trend was the Yamoto which took a phenominal pounding before sinking.

Bill

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


It really wasn't lopsided until late 1943 and on. Yes, there was no question it would get very bad for the IJN as time wore on, as pointed out by yourself and others here. Post Midway, there were very serious concerns in the USN at Battle of Santa Cruz, and during the Gilberts campaign. Carrier support was basically pulled out of Guadalcanal because of fear of exposing the limited carrier resouces, at one point down to just the Enterprise in action, to land based air attack.

Bill

True, Japan and America fought pretty evenly through the end of 1942 with the HUGE exception of Midway. As a side note, not only was Enterprise our only operational carrier for a while, but there was a period where they didn't dare use her forward elevator because of battle damage that might cause it to jam somewhere other than the up position and put her out of action as well. I wasn't trying to say that America had its way with Japan throughout the war, just that the overall balance of losses was extremely lopsided.

Nathan

[IGD]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No plan survives first contact with the enemy. D*mn I wish I'd said that first.

Good Post. I wish I had said that too !

[TCO]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


It really wasn't lopsided until late 1943 and on. Yes, there was no question it would get very bad for the

IJN as time wore on, as pointed out by yourself and others here. Post Midway, there were very serious concerns in the USN at Battle of Santa Cruz, and during the Gilberts campaign. Carrier support was basically pulled out of Guadalcanal because of fear of exposing the limited carrier resouces, at one point down to just the Enterprise in action, to land based air attack.

Clearly TF58 in 1944 was one of the most formidable forces ever assembled. When in full air cover mode, the task force would be 100 miles in diameter.

My theory for small US losses are three fold:

1) The Pacific theatre, unlike the Med, and the Atlantic approches where most of the UK losses occured, was relatively wide open, and made it very difficult for the Japanese to deploy subs in an effective pattern. The US had great success at interdicting shipping due to the nature of the shipping routes from SE Asia to Japan that served to bring traffic to our subs, much like the convoys in the Atlantic.

2) By 1943 on, the US was deploying Essex class carriers which were known as "fast carriers" capable of 30kts. Making it nearly impossible for a sub to attack as long the fleet remained in open ocean. Interesting to note that is why the Iowa battleships were designed, in order to keep up in the speed department, as nearly every BB at Pearl Habor had been raised and returned to service in time for revenge in the opening round of Leyte Gulf.

3) The US placed exceptional emphasis on damage control design and preparedness. This advantage is under appreciated in the war, but played out many times, including the Yorktown's availability at Midway. The IJN much less so, and many reports say that the Shinano supercarrier was brought down by a single torpedo that started a fire. An exception to this trend was the Yamoto which took a phenominal pounding before sinking.

Bill

You're omitting the incredible performance of US submarines. incredible amounts of shipping sunk...

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by notyoueither
However, we should really stop spamming other threads, so here's one for you, me and whoever else cares.

Can I just say that this has been one of the most interesting General forum threads I have read in a loooong time.

....and I am no Naval Buff by anyones interpretation.


Ok, I'll shut up now
*realising he is not adding anything to the debate*

[bigvic]

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


Interesting to note that is why the Iowa battleships were designed, in order to keep up in the speed department, as nearly every BB at Pearl Habor had been raised and returned to service in time for revenge in the opening round of Leyte Gulf.

3
Bill

Yeah, and didn't the US also buld at least one lighter, cheaper BB, the Guam or something? I remember this from my old World in Flames boardgame. This difference, in quality, with the help of a sense of the abstract, could go a long way towards explaining silly combat results, if you like. Maybe that BB that got wasted by that ironclad was a "Guam" going up against an out of date "Ise".

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by GP


You're omitting the incredible performance of US submarines. incredible amounts of shipping sunk...

And you're omitting any mention what a weeny the average sub-rat is.

[bigvic]

You know, despite notable exceptions, subs have historically been more strategic than tactical weapons, preying on weak, merchant ships more effectively than warships. Not only did Germany do this in 2 world wars, but the US did so vs. Japan in the South China sea. Is this portrayed in civ III?

[notyoueither]

KH.

Is this spill-over from OT?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by bigvic
You know, despite notable exceptions, subs have historically been more strategic than tactical weapons, preying on weak, merchant ships more effectively than warships. Not only did Germany do this in 2 world wars, but the US did so vs. Japan in the South China sea. Is this portrayed in civ III?

Unfortunatley bigvic, the numbers of war ships lost in WWII lead one to conclude they were very good tactical weapons.

Going towards WW III, they will be even more capable and deadly. Now they truely can be the hunters of the entire water covered surface of the earth. Not that they never are hunted themselves, but they can stand off a very long way and put CVs to the bottom. To think that they would be ineffective as tactical platforms would be to discount the possibilities.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
KH.

Is this spill-over from OT?

Don't worry about it.

GP knows how to take it...

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


And you're omitting any mention what a weeny the average sub-rat is.

Kiss, kiss, little kitty. (I know you miss me, big guy...)




BTW: Did you see those stats? Do you still think that there were very few capital ships sunk by subs in WW2?

[KrazyHorse]

I was quite surprised, actually. They don't get as much press as they deserve.

[TCO]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Unfortunatley bigvic, the numbers of war ships lost in WWII lead one to conclude they were very good tactical weapons.

Going towards WW III, they will be even more capable and deadly. Now they truely can be the hunters of the entire water covered surface of the earth. Not that they never are hunted themselves, but they can stand off a very long way and put CVs to the bottom. To think that they would be ineffective as tactical platforms would be to discount the possibilities.

A US 637 sub (old style) could take on an entire CVBG (including ASW escorts and aircraft) and probably put both high value units (carrier and oiler) on the bottom. (Lucky that we don't have to fight each other.)

I rode on a carrier and saw the other side of the equation. They have little insight into sub behavior. They don't realize that their best defense reamains running fast and zigging alot at all times.

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Don't worry about it.

GP knows how to take it...

See...he misses me...

[KrazyHorse]

If torpedoes home well enough then what's the point of zigging?

[TCO]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I was quite surprised, actually. They don't get as much press as they deserve.

I partied with some of those WWII sub guys. They are still around in SD, CA.

We also had the battle flags and a plaque with all the kills in our wardroom, for both Guitarro and Drum. (They were SSNs with same name as WWII boats.)