SUBSIM Radio Room Forums

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)
-   SH4 ATO Mods (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=234)
-   -   [WIP] The Offical Post of The Surface Warfare Super-Mod (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=144946)

Sledgehammer427 11-29-08 05:57 PM

well, I do that with ROW/PE4, I'm sure you know it allows you to walk the decks...

tonibamestre 12-02-08 12:02 PM

Hey Ivank,a feature that would be interesting for all this mods is to implement ocean and seas realistic streams,capability to control vessel anchors(at least one),and some kind of external lighting.

ivank 12-02-08 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonibamestre
Hey Ivank,a feature that would be interesting for all this mods is to implement ocean and seas realistic streams,capability to control vessel anchors(at least one),and some kind of external lighting.

I would love to have currents but I dont know how to make them. If you know how or know someone who does please tell me.

As for anchors, we are implementing at least one bow and stern anchor, and for external lights I would like that too, but again I dont know how.

tater 12-02-08 05:14 PM

BTW, you have, "-Playable Navy's:"

The plural of Navy is Navies.

(sorry, spent to long copy editing back in the day)

Looks cool, though. ANother nit would be that I'd call the KM a "Minor Navy" like Italy and France. The two 1st tier (fully capable of all naval warfare, including replenishment at sea, etc) navies were really the RN and USN, followed by the IJN which was probably the only 2d tier navy (fully capable, as the 1st tier but lower in numbers of combatants). The 3d tier would be all the rest of the navies. Course really Italy and the MarNat were actually fully capable since they had operational CVs. That would make the KM and everyone else 4th tier ;)

ivank 12-02-08 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater
BTW, you have, "-Playable Navy's:"

The plural of Navy is Navies.

(sorry, spent to long copy editing back in the day)

Looks cool, though. ANother nit would be that I'd call the KM a "Minor Navy" like Italy and France. The two 1st tier (fully capable of all naval warfare, including replenishment at sea, etc) navies were really the RN and USN, followed by the IJN which was probably the only 2d tier navy (fully capable, as the 1st tier but lower in numbers of combatants). The 3d tier would be all the rest of the navies. Course really Italy and the MarNat were actually fully capable since they had operational CVs. That would make the KM and everyone else 4th tier ;)

lol my mistake will fix. KM is a major navy in the sense of number/size of battles and since Germany was a major part of the war

tater 12-03-08 12:02 AM

That's OK, I had too many beers to write "too" instead of "to," myself :)

Self-pwnage, gotta love it :rotfl:

tater 12-03-08 12:06 AM

Regarding major surface naval battles... still not seeing it. WThere were really not many engagements of surface forces (not counting minor combatant classes). There are single surface engagements in the PTO with more shots fired I bet than all the KM surface battles combined.

Just saying that for surface warfare, nothing beats the PTO.

tomhugill 12-03-08 11:06 AM

Well if you think early war you have all the actions of the German surface fleet commerce raiding , battle of the river plate , actions involving the bismark , sinking of the Scharn etc. PTOs ok , but regarding actual ship to ship , rather than air to ship or actions involving carriers there isnt so much

tater 12-04-08 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomhugill
Well if you think early war you have all the actions of the German surface fleet commerce raiding , battle of the river plate , actions involving the bismark , sinking of the Scharn etc. PTOs ok , but regarding actual ship to ship , rather than air to ship or actions involving carriers there isnt so much

LOL.

Commerce raiding? Yeah, a warship vs unarmed merchants, there's a major naval engagement.

The other actions are a handful of ships at best.

Your understanding of the Pacific naval war is deeply flawed. There were many surface actions between major warships. The Solomons alone exceed all the surface actions between the Germans and Allies combined. Yes, there were a number of small engagements between BB/BCs in the ATO and Med. There were fewer pure BB/BC engagements in the PTO. Once you bother to include CA actions and smaller (still DDs and larger) it skyrockets in the PTO.

Just Guadalcanal stuff (only warships listed, total numbers for both sides together):

Savo 15 Cruisers, 16 DDs.

Battle of Cape Esperance, 7 Cruisers, 13 DD, 2 AS.

Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, 1 CV, 4 BB, 13 CA/CL, 28 DD.

Battle of Tassafaronga, 5 CA/CL, 12 DD.

That's 4 months in the PTO.

tater

Raptor1 12-04-08 02:29 PM

The Naval Battle of Guadalcanal cannot be counted as 1 battle, it was 2 battles with different Task Forces fighting in both

Anyway, the Solomon Islands campaigns also had about a dozen engagements between the Tokyo Express and interdicting US TGs which were pure surface actions (No aircraft at night)

But...don't forget the Med battles between the Regia Marina and the Royal Navy (I would even go as far as saying the Regia Marina's surface fleet being more powerful than the Kriegsmarine's), these regularly involved several battleships on both sides

And the RM never had a CV AFAIK (Aquila was never finished)

tomhugill 12-04-08 02:34 PM

Well im happy to be wrong , this is why im not writing the campaign :yep:

tater 12-04-08 02:40 PM

Raptor, you are correct, I was generalizing the 1st/2d Naval Battles of Guadalcanal, and regarding the RM's CV. I thought she was finished. I do agree, however, that the RM was a more balanced navy than the KM, though. You're right about all the Cactus Express (aka Tokyo Express) engagements. I was just counting the major engagements.

I'm not down on surface actions anywhere, gotta love 'em, just that the PTO is often wrongly characterized as an exclusively CV show, when that is clearly not true.

W4lt3r 12-05-08 04:20 AM

At least finland is there, and im damn happy about that. I cant wait to drive around the FN Ilmarinen or Väinämöinen.. Both are so pretty ships, small yet pack hell of a punch:)

Jimbuna 12-05-08 04:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1

And the RM never had a CV AFAIK (Aquila was never finished)

That's right mate...she was never fully completed...not far from, but never fully.

http://www.comandosupremo.com/Aquila.html

Raptor1 12-05-08 05:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1

And the RM never had a CV AFAIK (Aquila was never finished)

That's right mate...she was never fully completed...not far from, but never fully.

http://www.comandosupremo.com/Aquila.html

The Graf Zeppelin was ninty-something percent completed as well IIRC

Jimbuna 12-05-08 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna
Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1

And the RM never had a CV AFAIK (Aquila was never finished)

That's right mate...she was never fully completed...not far from, but never fully.

http://www.comandosupremo.com/Aquila.html

The Graf Zeppelin was ninty-something percent completed as well IIRC

You could well be right.

This article stes 85% but either way, she was well on her way to completion.

Quote:


Graf Zeppelin was an aircraft carrier of the Kriegsmarine, named in honor of Count Ferdinand von Zeppelin. Her construction was ordered on 16 November 1935, and her keel was laid down 28 December 1936 by Deutsche Werke of Kiel. She was launched on 8 December 1938, but was never commissioned.
In 1935, Adolf Hitler announced that Germany would construct aircraft carriers to strengthen the Kriegsmarine. The keels of two were laid down the next year. Two years later, Grand Admiral Erich Raeder presented an ambitious shipbuilding program called the Z Plan, in which four carriers were to be built by 1945. In 1939, he revised the plan, reducing the number to be built to two.
The German Navy has always maintained a policy of not assigning a name to a ship until she is launched. The first German carrier, laid down as "Carrier A," was named Graf Zeppelin when launched in 1938. The second carrier bore only the title "Carrier B," since she was never launched. Various names, including Peter Strasser and Deutschland, were rumored, but no official decision was ever made.
A review of the Führer's conferences on matters dealing with the German Navy, the minutes of which were captured after the fall of the Third Reich, reveals Hitler's vacillating interest in the carriers. Marshall Hermann Göring, Commander in Chief of the Luftwaffe, was resentful of any incursion on his authority as head of the country's air power and he frustrated Raeder at every opportunity. Within his own service, Raeder found opposition in Admiral Karl Doenitz, a submarine man.
By May 1941, the strain on manpower and raw materials was being felt in Germany. Raeder was still optimistic, however, and informed Hitler that Graf Zeppelin, then about 85 per cent complete, would be completed in about a year and that another year would be required for sea trials and flight training.
Though Hitler continued to assure Raeder that the carriers would be built, the Admiral's war with Göring had no truce and became increasingly bitter. Göring showed his contempt for the naval air arm by informing Hitler and Raeder that the aircraft ordered for Graf Zeppelin could not be available until the end of 1944. Göring's delaying tactics worked.
Construction on the carriers had been fitful from the start. "Carrier B" was abandoned in 1940 and broken up. Manpower and material shortages plagued the Graf Zeppelin.
Prodded by Raeder, Hitler ordered Göring to produce aircraft for the carrier and under this pressure, the air marshall offered redesigned versions of the Junkers Ju 87B and the Messerschmitt Bf 109E-3 which were at that time being phased out of the Luftwaffe first-line squadrons. Raeder was unhappy, but he had to accept them or none at all. This forced another delay in the construction of the carrier: the flight deck installations had to be changed.
By 1943, Hitler had become disenchanted with his Navy. Raeder was relieved at his own request and Doenitz, the submarine admiral, took the top naval post. Work on Graf Zeppelin stopped completely.
As the end of World War II neared, Graf Zeppelin was scuttled in shallow water at Szczecin (known to the Germans as Stettin) on 25 April, 1945. After Germany's surrender, though, her history and fate is unclear. According to the terms of the Allied Tripartite Commission, a "Category C" ship (damaged or scuttled) should have been destroyed or sunk in deep water by 15 August 1946. However, reports were received in 1947 that she had been raised by the Soviet Union and towed to Leningrad. She probably left Seeswinoujcie (the port of Szczecin, known to the Germans as Swinemünde) on 14 August 1947.
It is very unlikely that the hulk made it to Leningrad; the arrival of such a large and unusual vessel would have been noticed by Western intelligence forces. This assumption implies that the hulk was lost at sea between Swinemünde and Leningrad.
One account concludes that she struck a mine north of Rügen on 15 August 1947, but Rügen, west of Swinemünde, is not on the sailing route to Leningrad. Further north, in the Gulf of Finland, a heavily-mined area difficult for Western observers to monitor, is more likely.
Another account specifies that the Soviets designated Graf Zeppelin "PO-101" (Floating Base Number 101), towed a short way from Swinemünde, and anchored as a training target for dive-bombers and torpedo vessels. The tests began on 16 August 1947. Allegedly, the Soviets installed aerial bombs on the flight deck, in hangars and even inside the funnels (to simulate a load of combat munitions), and then dropped bombs from aircraft, fired shells, and shot torpedoes into her. This assault would both comply with the Tripartite mandate (albeit late) and provide the Soviets with experience in sinking an aircraft carrier.
General Characteristics (design)
  • Displacement: 23,000 tons
  • Length: 920 feet
  • Beam: 88 feet
  • Power Plant: geared turbines, four screws (unusual for Germany, which preferred triple screws)
  • Speed: 33.8 knots
  • Aircraft Complement: 42 Messerschmitt ME109TT fighters and Junkers Ju 87CC dive bombers

</H1>

Raptor1 12-05-08 07:43 AM

It says that the carrier was 85% completed in May, 1941, while work on it stopped completely in 1943

Either way, she was useless without being finished, though she could probably have given some potency to the Kriegsmarine's surface fleet

tater 12-05-08 01:28 PM

1 CV is meaningless anyway. The IJN showed the world a lesson they didn't absorb themselves. Massing Carrier airpower. The Kido Butai was an unbeatable force in 1941/42 as long as all 6 CVs stayed together.

Single Axis CVs in the ATO/Med would have been wiped out in short order. The KM had zero capacity to maintain a CV Battlegroup at sea. The GZ was a waste of resources. To have a real navy, you need to at least be able to put to sea at will, LOL, not have to sneak out like thieves.

Jimbuna 12-05-08 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tater
1 CV is meaningless anyway. The IJN showed the world a lesson they didn't absorb themselves. Massing Carrier airpower. The Kido Butai was an unbeatable force in 1941/42 as long as all 6 CVs stayed together.

Single Axis CVs in the ATO/Med would have been wiped out in short order. The KM had zero capacity to maintain a CV Battlegroup at sea. The GZ was a waste of resources. To have a real navy, you need to at least be able to put to sea at will, LOL, not have to sneak out like thieves.

Good points.....I have to agree http://www.psionguild.org/forums/ima...s/thumbsup.gif

Raptor1 12-06-08 02:06 PM

I'd have to disagree, a single carrier would be useless if you're looking to create a carrier battlegroup, but as cover for a surface ship-based task force it could help a lot


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.